Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Why not close bases overseas?
If you need extra income, do you cut expenses, or raise income?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
\\\fail///
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Between 1947 and 1980, overall federal spending averaged 18.3 percent and spending levels remained relatively stable during these years, especially after 1951, as you can see:
Federal spending as a percent of GDP, 1947-1980.
Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The Reagan Binge
After Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, federal spending began drifting up, averaging 21.9 percent of GDP during the Reagan-Bush-41 years.
Most of that growth went to a mushrooming Defense budget as President Reagan issued warnings about a supposedly expanding Soviet Empire.
In 1979, military spending represented 5.6 percent of U.S. GDP.
Seven years later, that had increased to 7 percent, a 25 percent increase relative to GDP.
At the same time, federal spending on education was slashed from 1.2 percent of GDP in 1978 to 0.5 percent of GDP by 1988.
Other domestic programs were held flat or were cut during this period.
Starting in the late 1980s, as Defense spending started to come down after the collapse of the Soviet Union – declining from 7 percent of GDP in 1986 to 5.35 percent by 1991 – health care spending picked up much of the slack.
Federal spending on health care had steadily increased from relatively trivial amounts in the 1940s to about 2.4 percent of GDP in 1989.
However, starting in that year, health care spending increased by an average annual rate of more than six percent and today accounts for 5.9 percent of GDP, which is still less than the Defense budget, which accounts for 6.4 percent of GDP.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
After Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, federal spending began drifting up, averaging 21.9 percent of GDP during the Reagan-Bush-41 years.
Most of that growth went to a mushrooming Defense budget as President Reagan issued warnings about a supposedly expanding Soviet Empire.
In 1979, military spending represented 5.6 percent of U.S. GDP.
Seven years later, that had increased to 7 percent, a 25 percent increase relative to GDP.
At the same time, federal spending on education was slashed from 1.2 percent of GDP in 1978 to 0.5 percent of GDP by 1988.
Other domestic programs were held flat or were cut during this period.
Starting in the late 1980s, as Defense spending started to come down after the collapse of the Soviet Union – declining from 7 percent of GDP in 1986 to 5.35 percent by 1991 – health care spending picked up much of the slack.
Federal spending on health care had steadily increased from relatively trivial amounts in the 1940s to about 2.4 percent of GDP in 1989.
However, starting in that year, health care spending increased by an average annual rate of more than six percent and today accounts for 5.9 percent of GDP, which is still less than the Defense budget, which accounts for 6.4 percent of GDP.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Clinton, Bush II, and Obama
The Reagan-Bush-I spending binge left the Clinton Administration with difficult choices on how to reduce the then-record budget deficit.
Despite pressure from liberals who favored a more aggressive strategy for addressing the nation’s needs, the Clinton team reduced federal spending as a percentage of GDP every year, getting it down to 18 percent by 2000, the lowest level of federal spending relative to GDP since 1974.
You can see how significant these cuts were here:
Federal spending as percent of GDP, 1993-2000. Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Then came the Bush-II administration, which completely reversed this trend with major spending increases for the military and intelligence services to conduct the post-9/11 “war on terror” and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
George W. Bush also pushed through a new prescription drug bill.
Increases in health care and defense spending accounted for nearly all of the spending increases during the Bush-II administration.
Health spending grew from 3.8 percent of GDP in 2001 to 4.7 percent in 2008 and defense spending increased from 3.6 percent of GDP in 2001 to 5.1 percent of GDP in 2008.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
The Reagan-Bush-I spending binge left the Clinton Administration with difficult choices on how to reduce the then-record budget deficit.
Despite pressure from liberals who favored a more aggressive strategy for addressing the nation’s needs, the Clinton team reduced federal spending as a percentage of GDP every year, getting it down to 18 percent by 2000, the lowest level of federal spending relative to GDP since 1974.
You can see how significant these cuts were here:
Federal spending as percent of GDP, 1993-2000. Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Then came the Bush-II administration, which completely reversed this trend with major spending increases for the military and intelligence services to conduct the post-9/11 “war on terror” and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
George W. Bush also pushed through a new prescription drug bill.
Increases in health care and defense spending accounted for nearly all of the spending increases during the Bush-II administration.
Health spending grew from 3.8 percent of GDP in 2001 to 4.7 percent in 2008 and defense spending increased from 3.6 percent of GDP in 2001 to 5.1 percent of GDP in 2008.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Two unfunded wars and an unfunded prescription drug bill will do that to you, as you can see here:
Still, George W. Bush left office with the federal government spending less as a percentage of GDP – 20.76 percent – than the average during the Reagan-Bush-41 years.
Which brings us to today.
Over the last couple of years, federal spending as a percentage of GDP has indeed surged topping out at 25.3 percent this year.
But that has little to do with so-called “reckless spending” in Washington and has even less to do with Obama specifically.
First, an obvious point: The recession reduced America’s GDP from $14.44 trillion in 2008 to $14.12 trillion in 2009.
This automatically increased spending as a percent of GDP by lowering the denominator.
More importantly, the recession has led to hundreds of billions of dollars in temporary spending to stabilize the economy, bail out the financial markets, and provide support for the U.S. auto industry.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
Federal spending as percent of GDP, 2001-2008. Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
Still, George W. Bush left office with the federal government spending less as a percentage of GDP – 20.76 percent – than the average during the Reagan-Bush-41 years.
Which brings us to today.
Over the last couple of years, federal spending as a percentage of GDP has indeed surged topping out at 25.3 percent this year.
But that has little to do with so-called “reckless spending” in Washington and has even less to do with Obama specifically.
First, an obvious point: The recession reduced America’s GDP from $14.44 trillion in 2008 to $14.12 trillion in 2009.
This automatically increased spending as a percent of GDP by lowering the denominator.
More importantly, the recession has led to hundreds of billions of dollars in temporary spending to stabilize the economy, bail out the financial markets, and provide support for the U.S. auto industry.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
GOP talking heads like to complain about many of these programs.
But several points must be clarified:
In the next couple of years, assuming the economy recovers and stimulus funds and other economic stabilizers can be withdrawn, federal spending as a percent of GDP is forecast to decline to 23.6 percent next year and to 22.3 percent by 2015.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
But several points must be clarified:
- These emergency measures are short-term stimulus spending and don’t have a meaningful impact on spending in the coming years.
- Most of the money used to bail out the banking and auto industries has already been paid back to the Treasury.
- The bank bailout occurred on George W. Bush’s watch and it took bipartisan support in Congress to pass that bill.
- Even accounting for all of these factors, which don’t even include the multiple wars that the United States continues to fight, federal spending as a percent of GDP is only a little more than half the emergency spending levels of the mid-1940s during WWII, a surge in federal spending that is classically viewed as ending the Great Depression.
In the next couple of years, assuming the economy recovers and stimulus funds and other economic stabilizers can be withdrawn, federal spending as a percent of GDP is forecast to decline to 23.6 percent next year and to 22.3 percent by 2015.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Yes, Obama and the Democrats – with only a handful of GOP votes – pushed through a $787 billion stimulus bill in early 2009.
What GOP talking heads never mention, however, is that more than a third of the package wasn’t spending at all.
To secure those few Republican votes, a total of $288 billion – or more than one-third of the package – was dedicated to short-term tax breaks.
That left $499 billion in actual spending, but much of that went directly to the states to help rescue depleted state budgets and to avert large-scale layoffs of public employees.
Indeed, only about $85 billion of the stimulus package actually went to things like infrastructure, new energy programs and transportation projects.
Given the economic crisis the country was facing – and continues to face – an allotment of $85 billion for capital projects and other infrastructure investments seems like chump change.
And, given the weakness of the recovery, it appears that it was woefully insufficient to get the economy back on its feet.
But, even if you ignore these finer points and look at the $499 billion in actual stimulus spending, this is a tiny fraction (about 1.7 percent) of the $29 trillion, two-year GDP of the U.S.
And the money has just about run out, which means that long-term it will have a negligible impact on the overall deficit and will have no impact on long-term federal spending levels.
When it comes to spending under President Obama, only two other areas are even worth mentioning:
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
What GOP talking heads never mention, however, is that more than a third of the package wasn’t spending at all.
To secure those few Republican votes, a total of $288 billion – or more than one-third of the package – was dedicated to short-term tax breaks.
That left $499 billion in actual spending, but much of that went directly to the states to help rescue depleted state budgets and to avert large-scale layoffs of public employees.
Indeed, only about $85 billion of the stimulus package actually went to things like infrastructure, new energy programs and transportation projects.
Given the economic crisis the country was facing – and continues to face – an allotment of $85 billion for capital projects and other infrastructure investments seems like chump change.
And, given the weakness of the recovery, it appears that it was woefully insufficient to get the economy back on its feet.
But, even if you ignore these finer points and look at the $499 billion in actual stimulus spending, this is a tiny fraction (about 1.7 percent) of the $29 trillion, two-year GDP of the U.S.
And the money has just about run out, which means that long-term it will have a negligible impact on the overall deficit and will have no impact on long-term federal spending levels.
When it comes to spending under President Obama, only two other areas are even worth mentioning:
- Defense has grown from 5.62 percent of GDP in 2009 to 6.4 percent this year, and
- Health care has risen from 5.4 percent to 5.9 percent.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Don’t expect the Republicans to be at all honest about this.
It’s much easier to repeat the comfortable “It’s a spending crisis” mantra, no matter how inaccurate it is.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
It’s much easier to repeat the comfortable “It’s a spending crisis” mantra, no matter how inaccurate it is.
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/
If you need extra income, do you cut expenses, or raise income?
Pinheads are amazing.....
How does spending less increase your income ?......Explain that concept......
If I make $10,000 a year and don't spend a nickle....does my income increase.....and by how much...do I magically make $12,000 a year by not spending ?
The utter stupidity of left wing pinheads is mind blowing.....
Pinheads are amazing.....
How does spending less increase your income ?......Explain that concept......
If I make $10,000 a year and don't spend a nickle....does my income increase.....and by how much...do I magically make $12,000 a year by not spending ?
The utter stupidity of left wing pinheads is mind blowing.....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The pledge commits an elected official to oppose and vote against any effort to raise the federal income tax on individuals or corporations. The pledge does not stand in the way of any tax decreases or revenue neutral changes to the income tax.
What if I wanted to trade one tax deduction or credit for another of equal value?
Signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge commits signers to oppose changes in tax deductions or credits that increase the net tax burden on Americans. For example, a Pledge signer could endorse and sign legislation eliminating a particular tax credit or deduction as long as the same piece of legislation contained a reduction in taxes by the same amount or more.
The offsetting reduction could be expanding another deduction or credit and/or reducing marginal tax rates.
What about a tax cut that may increase revenue solely due to economic growth, such as a cut in the capital gains rate?
A cut in tax rates is always allowed under the Pledge. Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports reducing the capital gains tax rate. All tax rate reductions that increase revenue solely due to economic growth are allowable under the Pledge and are greatly desired.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
U.S. unemployment rates under President Bush
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2008/11/post.html
http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2008/11/post.html
Yes...it was hillarious in retrospect and seeing what the rates are today and how high they went under Pres. Obama......with nary a peep from left wing media....
Nation's Unemployment At 14-Year High
November 7, 2008...2 months before the end of President Bush's second term....
Pinheads and left wing media ranting and raving about horrendous unemployment rates under Bush......................................6.5 %.........
Unemployment raging
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Poor Blabo.
When Obama took office, the GOP announced their only mission was to oppose and ultimately defeat him.
Why are you surprised that the Tea-rorist campaign has resulted in record profits for corporations and record misery for ordinary Americans?
When Obama took office, the GOP announced their only mission was to oppose and ultimately defeat him.
Why are you surprised that the Tea-rorist campaign has resulted in record profits for corporations and record misery for ordinary Americans?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you do realize troll those are profits from BEFORE the tea party backed reps took office
idiot
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Yurtroll's idiotic lie debunked:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/chevron-latest-oil-company-big-profits_n_855404.html
Now, back to Tea-rorist pwnge.
Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.
This is economic madness.
It is policy divorced from empirical evidence.
It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional.
The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals.
So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes?
The Republican leadership is like the doctors who believed bleeding cured the sick.
When physicians bled George Washington, he got worse, so they increased the treatment until they bled him to death.
Our government is spewing red ink, and the Republican solution is to spill ever more.
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/chevron-latest-oil-company-big-profits_n_855404.html
Now, back to Tea-rorist pwnge.
Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable.
This is economic madness.
It is policy divorced from empirical evidence.
It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional.
The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals.
So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes?
The Republican leadership is like the doctors who believed bleeding cured the sick.
When physicians bled George Washington, he got worse, so they increased the treatment until they bled him to death.
Our government is spewing red ink, and the Republican solution is to spill ever more.
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9