So What Do Conservatives Actually Want to Conserve?

[Alaric I]

Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

Yes they have some issues in that regard, but for someone who served 22+ years in USMC you seem to not really know the constitution.  Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.

The Supreme Court says otherwisewhere?.  It finds that there is an implied right to privacy over the medical decisions taken by a person, and I think they're right -- not that they care about my opinion, but you know what I'm saying.

Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:
Guess again, it leaves it to the state to deny anything it doesn't deem a right and allows the people to enact the change.

AMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in it does it guarantee gays rights.

You'd better read your Constitution again, then.  The 14th Amendment explicitily requires that all Americans be [s:3ms7k0bl]treated[/s:3ms7k0bl]protected equally under the law:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is why I say they need to amend the constitution to do so.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In other words, the government, while handing out marriage licenses, cannot discriminate.

The settled law is in the process of being overturned, and this clause of the Constitution is gaining its rightful primacy of place.  In other words, it isn't that the Consitution doesn't guarantee the right, it's that it has not been placed into practice because of the bigotry of dickweeds.

 

Should this be updated to include that? Yes, but as it stands now they are not guarenteed those rights.

Those rights are in there.  It's just a matter of the system applying them.  It's a fine, but important, distinction.

[SvZurich]

I think his point was that the values espoused by liberals nowadays are at variance with the values espoused by the revolutionaries in this country.

Those who seek to change society are liberals.  The Republican Party was once very liberal.  They sought to end, and did, slavery.

The founding fathers gave us a nation where white males with property owners were the only ones who could vote.  Liberals like the original Republican party changed that.  It's when you fight change that you become a Conservative.

[commonsense822]

I think the political right is slowly splitting, this is my own little theory.  I give it 30-40 years, and then you will see the Republican party split into one religious fundamentalist group and one libertarian group.

The religious conservatives aren't really helping to move the country, I'll admit that.  But you have your more secular conservatives that aren't completely bought into the Fox News propaganda that are still looking to progress the country, from another point of view.

[mykcob4]

Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

Thanks for your service.  I too served, four years in the Air Force, and I agree that conservatives do many things that are fucking infuriating.  It's especially so, for me, because I'm a centrist with conservative leanings -- that means that I get slapped with the fallout from their stupidity simply because I don't always agree with liberals, in a form of guilt by association.

The Patriot Act is bullshit, the erosion of rights is bullshit, but it didn't happen with only conservative votes.  Both parties in America don't give two shits rubbed together about the rights ensconced in the BoR, and I regard both of them as inimical to the interests of the country.

Unless and until we make all of the assholes in DC understand that their jobs can and will be vacated if they don't straighten up and fly right, we're screwed.

And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Supreme Court says otherwise

where?.  

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Guess again, it leaves it to the state to deny anything it doesn't deem a right and allows the people to enact the change.

Nonsense.  Reread those amendments, this time with my emphasis added:

AMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, there are rights we have that aren't listed.  Those implied rights can, and have, been argued successfully in the court, most famously in Roe v Wade, but in others as well.

This is why I say they need to amend the constitution to do so.

That's not necessary.  In the legal context of the document, "equal protection of the law" means "equal treatment".

What is needed is for the government to actually abide the law, as it is written.  The fact that they refuse to do so -- and often pass countervaililng laws -- is the reason why laws explicitly permitting gay marriage are felt necessary.  It is not because those rights have no protection.

[commonsense822]

Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

Thanks for your service.  I too served, four years in the Air Force, and I agree that conservatives do many things that are fucking infuriating.  It's especially so, for me, because I'm a centrist with conservative leanings -- that means that I get slapped with the fallout from their stupidity simply because I don't always agree with liberals, in a form of guilt by association.

The Patriot Act is bullshit, the erosion of rights is bullshit, but it didn't happen with only conservative votes.  Both parties in America don't give two shits rubbed together about the rights ensconced in the BoR, and I regard both of them as inimical to the interests of the country.

Unless and until we make all of the assholes in DC understand that their jobs can and will be vacated if they don't straighten up and fly right, we're screwed.

And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

They are both completely corrupt.  The entire political system is just a big game of good cop, bad cop.  You might disagree with conservatives that we should continue using oil, and agree with liberals that we need renewable energy.  The fact of the matter is that they are both receiving money from their corporate sponsors so those corporations can profit.  Both sides have been completely bought out.  There is no ideology driving either side.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

We'll agree to disagree on some matters.  I think both parties are equally corrupt, and both have an equal investment in the politics of theater which tends to evacuate the center of any discussion or issue, because the further apart they can keep people, the more the people caro at each other rather than focusing on the crux of the problem, which is the purchase of power by the monied classes here in America.

Also, comparing the Democrats to the Tea Party is not really balanced.  You're assiduously avoiding any mention of the Green party, although they do exist, and unlike the Tea Party, they've actually mounted a nation-wide Presidential candidacy.  In other words, you're definitely comparing the more moderate of the left to the more extreme of the right, and I think that that is an inapt comparison, myself.

About the AF chow -- my brother-in-law put it best:  "The Navy bombards it, the Marines assault it, the Army secures it, and the Air Force builds the clubs." :)

They are both completely corrupt.  The entire political system is just a big game of good cop, bad cop.  You might disagree with conservatives that we should continue using oil, and agree with liberals that we need renewable energy.  The fact of the matter is that they are both receiving money from their corporate sponsors so those corporations can profit.  Both sides have been completely bought out.  There is no ideology driving either side.

There it is, in a nutshell.

[Alaric I]

The Supreme Court says otherwise

where?.  

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Guess again, it leaves it to the state to deny anything it doesn't deem a right and allows the people to enact the change.

Nonsense.  Reread those amendments, this time with my emphasis added:

AMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, there are rights we have that aren't listed.  Those implied rights can, and have, been argued successfully in the court, most famously in Roe v Wade, but in others as well.

This is why I say they need to amend the constitution to do so.

That's not necessary.  In the legal context of the document, "equal protection of the law" means "equal treatment".

What is needed is for the government to actually abide the law, as it is written.  The fact that they refuse to do so -- and often pass countervaililng laws -- is the reason why laws explicitly permitting gay marriage are felt necessary.  It is not because those rights have no protection.

I think you are reading this with rose colored glasses.  I hold the rights to many things, yet they are still restricted because the Constitution doesn't protect that right.  Let's take doing things to ones own body for instatnce.  The argument for abortion is that a woman has domain to her body, which she in fact does.  To expressly give everyone domain over their own bodies you would have to open the door to many things, this would mean that I should have the right to shoot up my arm with heroine as well as I am doing it to my body, yet we don't fight for that.  This should mean I should be able to smoke pot, however only two states legalized it completely and other only allow medicinal use.  Also, you are cherry picking your argument on the Roe v Wade decision.  Yes it was ruled that the 14th amendment protected the right to medical privacy in abortion, but it also left leway as this protection is only granted for a certain period of time.  So yes, the BoR needs to be amnded to fix this.
 Also, you need to take a look at your underlined sections again in the tenth amendment.  This is saying nothing more than anything not protected or denied is left up to the states to deny.  IF the states don't expressly protect or deny these, the people maintain the power until it is taken away from them.  Good example, hemp was not denied in the early years of the country and was used for multiple purposes.  It has since been regulated and denied for use, therefore we don't hold the power or right to grow or use hemp.

[mykcob4]

And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

We'll agree to disagree on some matters.  I think both parties are equally corrupt, and both have an equal investment in the politics of theater which tends to evacuate the center of any discussion or issue, because the further apart they can keep people, the more the people caro at each other rather than focusing on the crux of the problem, which is the purchase of power by the monied classes here in America.

Also, comparing the Democrats to the Tea Party is not really balanced.  You're assiduously avoiding any mention of the Green party, although they do exist, and unlike the Tea Party, they've actually mounted a nation-wide Presidential candidacy.  In other words, you're definitely comparing the more moderate of the left to the more extreme of the right, and I think that that is an inapt comparison, myself.

About the AF chow -- my brother-in-law put it best:  "The Navy bombards it, the Marines assault it, the Army secures it, and the Air Force builds the clubs." :)
There it is, in a nutshell.

I purposely left out the Green party because they have yet to be a factor. The Tea party has more sway over conservatives than the Green party has over anything.
I don't agree that both parties are equally corrupt. Although money is a factor, the money from the left comes from wealth and power, but those who wield such power are the Warren Buffets and NOT the Koch brothers. There is a difference. So it doesn't quite fit the "nutshell." You might argue Unions but Unions have always been politically aligned with the worker, even though some Unions have been operated by the Mafia.
Take the issue of entitlements. They are entitlements because people paid in and are OWED that money.
What conservtives confuse is discretionary spending and entitlements. They are two very different things.
Should I cut my retirement check to pay for discresionary spending.....NO WAY!
Should oil companies get tax breaks and subsudies at the cost of MY Social Security....NO
Should defense contractors get more money at the cost of Medicare....NO WAY!

[Alaric I]

Take the issue of entitlements. They are entitlements because people paid in and are OWED that money.
What conservtives confuse is discretionary spending and entitlements. They are two very different things.
Should I cut my retirement check to pay for discresionary spending.....NO WAY!
Should oil companies get tax breaks and subsudies at the cost of MY Social Security....NO
Should defense contractors get more money at the cost of Medicare....NO WAY!

I don't think it's so much conservatives that confuse it so much as it is the people that abuse it.  Too many people that receive these benefits believe them to be entitlements because they are alive.  I have absolutely no sympathy for people that feel this way.  I understand people need help and am willing to help them. I however don't feel that I should take care of you because you are too lazy to get a job.

[Plu]

I however don't feel that I should take care of you because you are too lazy to get a job.

It's very telling when someone says "you're on social security, therefore you are too lazy to get a job"

[Alaric I]

I however don't feel that I should take care of you because you are too lazy to get a job.

It's very telling when someone says "you're on social security, therefore you are too lazy to get a job"

Did I say that?  Hmm, I don't see that anywhere in my statement.

[Plu]

Hm, maybe I was reading it wrong then. I am pretty tired, sorry.

[Alaric I]

Hm, maybe I was reading it wrong then. I am pretty tired, sorry.

It's ok. I was trying to refer to things such as welfare and other discretionary spending that some people abuse. Social Security is something you pay into and therefore is your money as far as I'm concerned.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Then you've been defrauded.  The money you "invested" in Social Security was immediately spent on those receiving it at the time, and the money being received now is being "invested" by people still working.  There is no trust fund.

When the actual budget fixes start, Social Security will be impacted - not because of an effort to give an oil company a tax break but because the money just isn't there!

According to Wikipedia for the 2012 Federal budget, the combined federal outlays were $3.795 Trillion and the combined federal revenues were $2.469 Trillion, leaving a deficit total federal deficit of $1.327 Trillion. There appears to include off budget spending. That means that tax revenue accounted for 65% of the total spending.

If the goal is to balance he budget, which is what is being claimed, then there are three options. Using the figures from 2012, analysis of these three options reveals the lies coming from both sides of the debate.

The first option is to raise taxes sufficiently to balance the budget. This means raising taxes by a significant amount on everyone, not just a few percentage points on the rich. Anyone who proposes merely raising taxes on the rich as a solution is lying. Anyone who proposes raising those taxes just a few percentage points as a solution is lying. President Obama is telling the truth about his desire to raise taxes on the top two percent, but lying when he claims that this will have any impact on the budget deficit. The total tax burden would have to be increased by 54% to cover spending. There is no way to increase tax revenue by that amount by increasing taxes only on the rich, even if there is a top rate of 100% on income over $250,000. All taxes would have to go up, which means personal and corporate income taxes and tariffs and excise taxes, and the personal taxes would have to be raised on all brackets. There is some room to try to juggle the burden away from lower incomes and towards higher incomes, but not much, meaning that even lower income earners will feel the effect.

The second option is to cut spending sufficiently to balance the budget. Spending will have to be cut by 35%. This means real cuts, not "Washington cuts." This is where the Republicans are shown to be lying to the American public. Every cut proposed is a reduction in the rate of increase, a "Washington cut". Moreover, these cuts are delayed in implementation, a second lie by the Republicans. It has often happened in the past that a budget deal would be made with front loaded tax increases and several years later there would be accompanying spending cuts. Every time that deal was allegedly made the spending cuts did not happen. Only one person in the Senate proposed a budget with real cuts, and his cuts only came to $500 billion, and he admitted that his cuts did not go far enough. The rest of the political class thought he was crazy and instead looked at the Ryan budget, with no actual cuts, and talked about what a fiscal hawk Representative Paul Ryan was.

The third option is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Meeting half-way this means increasing tax revenue to 82% of 2012 expenditures and reducing spending to 82% of 2012 expenditures. This would require a total revenue increase of 26%. It will be easier for those who favor taxing the rich for the crime of being rich to be able to adjust the burden away from the lower incomes, but it will still be necessary to increase taxes on the middle class as well as excise taxes and tariffs. Spending cuts also have some interesting implications as this will require a total spending cut of 18%.

Social Security, unemployment, and labor are 34% of the budget. Medicare and health are 24% of the budget. The military is 18% of the budget. Debt financing are 7% of the budget. Food and Agriculture, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, Education, Housing and Community, International Affairs, Energy and Environment, Science, and Government (everything else) are 18%. If a policy of peace were to be adopted, the military budget can be cut in half easily, saving 9% and leaving another 9% to cut. Perhaps a percentage point can be cut from "everything else." That leaves 8% remaining to cut, which means that either Social Security or Medicare will have to be cut, perhaps both. Any plan which doesn't include cutting Social Security or Medicare is not an honest plan.

This post does assume that we have to balance the budget now, which is a chief criticism of Keynesians and Monetarists (but I repeat myself).  The reason is that any plan that includes "and it will be balanced 5 years from now" is a plan that will never happen.