Originally Posted by old300D
Didn't you read it? What should I expect from someone who thinks there never was a budget surplus, therefore it's ok for Bush to have disposed of it.
So, you admit you don't know the ifs, ands or buts. Even with my little salary, it would be difficult for me to assume a surplus or deficit in 5 years. Hell, I don't even know if I'll be able to pay my house payment in 5 years. BUT, if I assume the same increases in salary, tax cuts, etc., then I could say I will. But the Federal Government is BILLIONS of times larger than my household budget. So how can ANYONE responsibly say there will be a deficit/surplus in 5, 10 or 15 years based on assumptive, bullshit numbers that everybody knows doesn't mean anything nor has ever in the history of the U.S. budgets meant anything? They can only say 'Based on the previous revenues, present numbers and the assumption that revenues will increase xxx amount of dollars every year as they have the last 3, 4 or 5 years, then there will be a budget surplus'. Everyone with half the economic sense of a third grader knows that we can't possibly factor in every single event that will impact a budget in the future. There could be another terrorist attack, a couple of category 5 hurricanes or a major earthquake that would eat up any so called surpluses.
Congressional spending isn't a party problem. It's a cultural problem. So long as congress spends like privelaged children, there will never be a balanced budget. It's impossible to balance a budget when more is spent than is taken in, no matter how you monkey with the figures.