Until you're capable and willing to debate this issue in a rational and logical manner, your arguments are convoluted at best. I've qualified the parameters of my argument based on the facts of the issue. We are debating the proposals of PresBush's 2006 budget. In that context, his proposals to reduce non-military discreationary spending are the issue. Mandatory spending on entitlement programs and social spending consume roughly 66% of the entire budget. Looking for 50% reductions in discreationary spending is irrational.
BTW. By taking exception to the increases in defense spending, you show a serious misunderstanding of the Constitutional requirements of the US government. Defending the US people is the #1 priority of the federal government. You may not have meant to come across that way, but nonetheless, thats the impression you gave.
I said I will not debate about defense because that is something we can all agree we need. The mandatory part of the discretionary spending is still small compared to the total budget for those agencies. Refer to my previous post where I list them. My biggest beef is with homeland security which has become a welfare program for states and cities. Why not look at the total picture from 2001? Wasn't Bush in power since 2001? I will claim he is a fiscal conservative when he returns spending to at least the Bill Clinton's level.