C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
We’re still waiting for your answer to estesbob.
- Status
We’re still waiting for your answer to estesbob.
A
Arkadin
Guest
businessinsider.com/us-budget-deficit-2011-7
This is a very good article.
It also links to show that under President Bush, federal spending increased far more than it has with Obama.
businessinsider.com/government-spending-2011-7
The articles are not bias and provides a truthful and realistic look at what has happened.
This is a very good article.
It also links to show that under President Bush, federal spending increased far more than it has with Obama.
businessinsider.com/government-spending-2011-7
The articles are not bias and provides a truthful and realistic look at what has happened.
S
sub_rosa
Guest
Keep waiting. i unnderstand an exercize in futility when i see it.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives [according to the Constitution] to prepare a budget and to approve it and to submit it to the Senate and to the President for approval.
The last budget was supposed to be prepared and approved by the House of Representatives when it was controlled by the Democrats.
THEY FAILED TO PREPARE AND APPROVE A BUDGET.
So, the President has just been spending money like the faucet was turned full on.
President Clinton saved all that money because he cut the U.S. military by around 50% in its operational units. Perhaps tomorrow I will post an essay here recounting the dozens of abdications of his responsibilities as Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. military.
As a result, the United States was unable to respond to enemy al Qaeda ] attacks and they blew up our embassies, barracks, and a warship. We did nothing to prevent the attacks or to hunt down the perpetrators.
There have been numerous accounts of how Mr. Clinton was offered Osama bin Ladin in handcuffs … but Mr. Clinton just outright refused.
Numerous books and memoirs have been written by frustrated law enforcement officials who were repeatedly refused permission to arrest al Qaeda operatives and their financial backers.
Senator Karl Levin (D - Michigan) personally held up the confirmation of President Bush’s intelligence advisors for many months. You can put a lot of the blame directly on Senator Levin, personally.
As a result of our shortage of resources and of our internal bungling … look up the “Gorelick Wall” which prevented sharing of intelligence information among U.S. agencies and the politically correctness that was enforced,… the U.S. was perceived as weak and ineffectual … and our enemies attacked again on September 11, 2001.
In Fiscal Year 2003, President George W. Bush ran a deficit of $377 billion. Roughly one billion per day. This was right after the 9/11 attacks, which occurred right at the end of FY 2001. The fiscal year begins October 1st.
In Fiscal Year 2004, President Bush ran a deficit of $412 Billion
In Fiscal Year 2005, President Bush ran a deficit of $318 Billion. [the deficit … shortfall between Federal government revenues and expenses … started to go down]
In Fiscal Year 2006, President Bush ran a deficit of $248 Billion. [continuing to go down]
By this time Congress was in the hands of the Democrats.
In Fiscal Year 2007, President Bush ran a deficit of $160 Billion.
In Fiscal Year 2008, President Bush ran a deficit of $458 … that was the year we had the financial melt down … Fannie & Freddie … everybody panicked. In hindsight, it looks more and more as if the “crisis” was cooked up … the “October Surprise” that delivered the election to Mr. Obama … although Senator McCain was an ineffectual candidate.
In Fiscal Year 2009, President Obama ran a deficit of $1,412 Billion. With a Democrat President, Senate and House.
In Fiscal Year 2010, President Obama ran a deficit of $1,293.
In the current Fiscal Year 2011, President Obama is running a deficit of $1,645. Which is just under $5 Billion per day. The Federal government takes in $5 Billion per day in taxes, on a normal basis. Social Security and Medicare are around $2 Billion together. Interest is around $1 Billion per day. So there should be PLENTY of money for all operations. Instead Mr. Obama currently, without all the hits from Obamacare, is spending about $10 Billion per day, versus a government tax revenue of $5 Billion which is what the system collects and has been collecting.
Obamacare is going to cost around $3 Billion per day above what is being spent now.
So, Mr. Obama is going to be spending $13 Billion per day and the tax system can only collect $5 Billion per day.
Take the deficit numbers and divide by 365 and see what the shortfall per day is.
During President Bush’s administration, unemployment was around 5%. The media said that meant the economy was in a free-fall depression. The worst. You can look it up. In fact, 5% unemployment is virtually full employment; very difficult to get the numbers lower than that owing to normal turnover.
During President Obama’s administration, unemployment has been over 9%. Using U6, that would be a real unemployment rate of close to 18% according to one of President Obama’s advisors (Zuckberberg). Which puts unemployment at chronic European levels … close to the Great Depression level.
Source is the Bipartisan Policy Center … which includes Alice Rivlin, so it may be more of a left of center policy center.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Actually, a voice of reality for me, would be a workable budget from this administration.
Has anyone actually seen one, please?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Some hands-on assistance from someone with better computer skills than me, would be appreciated.
You really need to look at the trends in Government spending … and you can tell that a lot of places that post numbers don’t really want you to know what the trend line really is on military spending of the United States.
Go to this Web page. It is by the Government Printing Office:
gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
Visit Table 3.1
Just scroll down.
It shows from 1940 to 2014 spending … And at the BOTTOM, is National Defense spending as a percent of total Federal Government outlays.
Unfortunately, until someone here can find a graph that shows all that data in one graph, you [or someone here who has a better computer than I have] would need to manually write the data down and graph it and post the graph here.
But the current military spending as a percent of total U.S. outlays is about as low as it has ever been … except for Bill Clinton’s spending just before 9/11.
That’s the actual Federal government data.
Interesting stuff.
Could someone take the time to plot the data on their computer and post it here?
I can’t find that data plotted onto a graph by year anywhere and if someone would do it, they would be making an actual contribution to the world of research.
Thanks.
You really need to look at the trends in Government spending … and you can tell that a lot of places that post numbers don’t really want you to know what the trend line really is on military spending of the United States.
Go to this Web page. It is by the Government Printing Office:
gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf
Visit Table 3.1
Just scroll down.
It shows from 1940 to 2014 spending … And at the BOTTOM, is National Defense spending as a percent of total Federal Government outlays.
Unfortunately, until someone here can find a graph that shows all that data in one graph, you [or someone here who has a better computer than I have] would need to manually write the data down and graph it and post the graph here.
But the current military spending as a percent of total U.S. outlays is about as low as it has ever been … except for Bill Clinton’s spending just before 9/11.
That’s the actual Federal government data.
Interesting stuff.
Could someone take the time to plot the data on their computer and post it here?
I can’t find that data plotted onto a graph by year anywhere and if someone would do it, they would be making an actual contribution to the world of research.
Thanks.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
For example, in a few places they publish the trend line of U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP … but not as a percent of the Federal budget … “Total government outlays” …
U.S. military spending is 4.4% of GDP which is nearly the lowest in our history.
Go here and scroll down:
airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2011/April%202011/0411chart.pdf
It’s not that our government is spending too much on defense, but too little.
When we spend too little, our enemies have no respect for us and figure we are easy targets.
THE lowest was just before 9/11 … when under President Bill Clinton, military spending was only 2.8% of GDP … we were at our weakest, both in perception and in reality. We no longer had the capability to deter those 9/11 attacks. Our enemies perceived that and attacked us successfully.
We were in a similar situation just prior to the Korean War. We had demobilized and disarmed until we were so weak, that we were a pushover. The North Koreans were able to push the United States Army almost to extinction on the Korean peninsula. Our soldiers weren’t even given marksmanship training. Basic stuff.
Someone asked me how could our military fall so far so fast. The answer is that because enlistments are only two years … at the time, they were pretty short … may be longer now … you have to rebuild it constantly … and if you don’t put that money out constantly, then the military will fall apart within months.
If you cut the military budget, then there are consequences … YOUR ability to defend yourself will go away. And quickly.
U.S. military spending is 4.4% of GDP which is nearly the lowest in our history.
Go here and scroll down:
airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2011/April%202011/0411chart.pdf
It’s not that our government is spending too much on defense, but too little.
When we spend too little, our enemies have no respect for us and figure we are easy targets.
THE lowest was just before 9/11 … when under President Bill Clinton, military spending was only 2.8% of GDP … we were at our weakest, both in perception and in reality. We no longer had the capability to deter those 9/11 attacks. Our enemies perceived that and attacked us successfully.
We were in a similar situation just prior to the Korean War. We had demobilized and disarmed until we were so weak, that we were a pushover. The North Koreans were able to push the United States Army almost to extinction on the Korean peninsula. Our soldiers weren’t even given marksmanship training. Basic stuff.
Someone asked me how could our military fall so far so fast. The answer is that because enlistments are only two years … at the time, they were pretty short … may be longer now … you have to rebuild it constantly … and if you don’t put that money out constantly, then the military will fall apart within months.
If you cut the military budget, then there are consequences … YOUR ability to defend yourself will go away. And quickly.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The use of trend lines is important … and, in my opinion, the Chart Page doesn’t go back far enough. It starts in 1950 which is when the Korean War started. But it should go back further.
I did some internet research and found other charts of U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP that do go back further.
I apologize if this is boring. I know it is more interesting to just say “the United States spends too much on military stuff” … but when you look at the actual data and the actual trend lines, then it’s not so absolute and crisp and clear and black & white.
I normally don’t like to use Wikipedia, but they have this chart on the growing risks … not risks … certainties … of growing entitlement spending:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png
Charts on growth of government spending … some since 1980 and some since 1930.
coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/07/worst-chart-of-the-day.html
In general, you see very few charts showing historical progression of non-military government spending … because it makes the advocates for MORE non-defense government spending look bad and unprepared.
But here are some more charts.
americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_budget_how_we_got_here.html
The advantage of long term charts is that they give you context.
The graphical context will show you if things are increasing or decreasing, getting better or worse.
Is the trend of military spending and of government non-defense spending increasing or decreasing.
Well, the trend for non-defense government spending is increasing, but the trend for military spending is decreasing.
Defense and Non-defense spending since 1947 … scroll down:
mhodges701.home.comcast.net/~mhodges701/fed_budget-a.htm
If you look at the long-term charts and graphs, then you find that when the U.S. starts disarming, then shortly thereafter, we get attacked.
Happened in World War II, and in Korea, and on 9/11. All of those enemy attacks were preceded by severe cuts in U.S. military capability.
That is more than just a coincidence.
And the government’s first responsibility to its citizens is protection from outside attack … which is why people band together in the first place. To provide for the common defense.
I did some internet research and found other charts of U.S. military spending as a percent of GDP that do go back further.
I apologize if this is boring. I know it is more interesting to just say “the United States spends too much on military stuff” … but when you look at the actual data and the actual trend lines, then it’s not so absolute and crisp and clear and black & white.
I normally don’t like to use Wikipedia, but they have this chart on the growing risks … not risks … certainties … of growing entitlement spending:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png
Charts on growth of government spending … some since 1980 and some since 1930.
coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/07/worst-chart-of-the-day.html
In general, you see very few charts showing historical progression of non-military government spending … because it makes the advocates for MORE non-defense government spending look bad and unprepared.
But here are some more charts.
americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_budget_how_we_got_here.html
The advantage of long term charts is that they give you context.
The graphical context will show you if things are increasing or decreasing, getting better or worse.
Is the trend of military spending and of government non-defense spending increasing or decreasing.
Well, the trend for non-defense government spending is increasing, but the trend for military spending is decreasing.
Defense and Non-defense spending since 1947 … scroll down:
mhodges701.home.comcast.net/~mhodges701/fed_budget-a.htm
If you look at the long-term charts and graphs, then you find that when the U.S. starts disarming, then shortly thereafter, we get attacked.
Happened in World War II, and in Korea, and on 9/11. All of those enemy attacks were preceded by severe cuts in U.S. military capability.
That is more than just a coincidence.
And the government’s first responsibility to its citizens is protection from outside attack … which is why people band together in the first place. To provide for the common defense.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Really Monte, do you mind?
Please don’t post factual and relevant information directly from the government.
It makes liberals look they are being dishonest.
Let them have their little slogans like “Bush lied, people died”. Let them bury their heads in the sand. Otherwise, they will be faced with fact that they support the culture of death and the murder of 4,000 children a day. To say nothing about the future they steal from the children who escape the abortion mills.
Please don’t post factual and relevant information directly from the government.
It makes liberals look they are being dishonest.
Let them have their little slogans like “Bush lied, people died”. Let them bury their heads in the sand. Otherwise, they will be faced with fact that they support the culture of death and the murder of 4,000 children a day. To say nothing about the future they steal from the children who escape the abortion mills.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Mea culpa … a little Latin lingo.Really Monte, do you mind?
Please don’t post factual and relevant information directly from the government.
It makes liberals look they are being dishonest.
Let them have their little slogans like “Bush lied, people died”. Let them bury their heads in the sand. Otherwise, they will be faced with fact that they support the culture of death and the murder of 4,000 children a day. To say nothing about the future they steal from the children who escape the abortion mills.
I WAS able to fit all of it onto a bumper sticker … but the print size was really small.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
I see some folk on here don’t want to have an honest debate.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Some interesting words from Harry Ried in 2006. No different than Obama when they both attacked Bush.
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it."
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it."
S
stevegravy
Guest
As someone mentioned the Demopublicans and the Republocrats are two wings of the same corporate party. The gamesmanship and public posturing is this brinkmanship is geared to win temporary poll ratings as if it was some high school debate.
Reality check is this mess is both Bush and Obama administrations plus Republican and Democratic congresses are to blame. Causes range from failure to buck a Democrat controlled congress and senate who stonewalled audits of Fanny May and Freddie Mac, paying for endless war off budget, failure to reign in growth in entitlements, using the commerce clause to grossly expand government control over consumer and business decisions adding billions in unnecessary cost. Market manipulation picking corporate winners and losers based on political influence. In fact his mess may actually be the failure of a democratic controlled congress failure to put forward a balanced budget amendment during Reagans term in the 80’s.
What is being postured in the public media is nothing but a show for points. There is a hidden agenda, which is what we ought to be following but no one will talk about it, which is why it is hidden. It is only a guess but I believe it is a debate over the future of the country. One side wants to continue to grow the government until it is so large it will consume 19% of the world’s GDP the other side wants a limited government more in line with the historical norms of this country. One side wants us to be European nanny state weak and supine the other wants us to remain independent ready to take care of our national interest. Well like what I think really matters so having shot my mouth off I will sit back and enjoy the show.
ocregister.com/opinion/government-308436-debt-year.html
Reality check is this mess is both Bush and Obama administrations plus Republican and Democratic congresses are to blame. Causes range from failure to buck a Democrat controlled congress and senate who stonewalled audits of Fanny May and Freddie Mac, paying for endless war off budget, failure to reign in growth in entitlements, using the commerce clause to grossly expand government control over consumer and business decisions adding billions in unnecessary cost. Market manipulation picking corporate winners and losers based on political influence. In fact his mess may actually be the failure of a democratic controlled congress failure to put forward a balanced budget amendment during Reagans term in the 80’s.
What is being postured in the public media is nothing but a show for points. There is a hidden agenda, which is what we ought to be following but no one will talk about it, which is why it is hidden. It is only a guess but I believe it is a debate over the future of the country. One side wants to continue to grow the government until it is so large it will consume 19% of the world’s GDP the other side wants a limited government more in line with the historical norms of this country. One side wants us to be European nanny state weak and supine the other wants us to remain independent ready to take care of our national interest. Well like what I think really matters so having shot my mouth off I will sit back and enjoy the show.
ocregister.com/opinion/government-308436-debt-year.html
S
stevegravy
Guest
Not exactly true, the congress authorizes all expenditures and Clintons budgets had to be authorized by… wait for it……a republican congress. You may want to research it but the republicans took a brow beating in the press for the government shutdown in the 90’s. It was after that budget battle we got a balanced budget. What price did we pay? In my opinion which aint worth anything, a huge reduction in defense outlays and a retreat from engaging international terrorism along with kicking entitlement programs madifications down the road.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Wow, that is actually pretty gruesome. We are borrowing money from the children who survive the abortion mills to kill the ones who don’t. How do you explain THAT to your kids?Really Monte, do you mind?
Please don’t post factual and relevant information directly from the government.
It makes liberals look they are being dishonest.
Let them have their little slogans like “Bush lied, people died”. Let them bury their heads in the sand. Otherwise, they will be faced with fact that they support the culture of death and the murder of 4,000 children a day. To say nothing about the future they steal from the children who escape the abortion mills.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
That was me.
S
stevegravy
Guest
I should have been more explicit in my two party opinion. The one party is the corporate party who don’t really care much about the US or its future as long as they get their slice of the political spoils. The other is the minority who has the party bosses all in a huff. They may be derisively referred to as the tea party but the price of supporting republocrats they now seem to be holding corporate leadership hostage. It will be interesting to see if they can be bought off and cave.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Don’t you know this was an attempt to blame Bush and the Republicans, when the Democrats are at fault just as much. But you’d never hear them admit it.
S
stevegravy
Guest
Thank You for the prescient observation.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
They can’t!!!
- Status