$2.6 Trillion Budget

[NightCrawler]

The debt has surpassed 7.6 Trillion and the National debt is increasing at a rate of 1.88 billion per day. When Bush leaves office in 2008 he will leave behind a 9 trillion+ debt that will need to be dealt with by future President's.

The new budget of 2.6 Trillion doesn't include the Iraq war or the war on Terror or Social Security reform.

Solutions:

1. Cut spending

2. Tax the Rich ( maybe 36% is not enough ).

3. Cut Spending

4. Cut Spending


http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

 

[Stumps]

all part of bush's master plan!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The best solution would be to enact policies that would encourage economic growth, providing for more tax revenue without an increase in rates. At the same time, spending cuts would help along with the elilmination of wasteful laws and programs (like the expensive "war" on drugs and its associated costs of incarcerating consentual "criminals"). I do favor increasing taxes on the wealthy and the upper middle class. These people didn't really suffer during the recession and they aren't really suffering from the forces of labor wage arbitrage that are eating away at the middle class. Actually, they are benefitting from it in the form of higher profits and lower prices for goods and services.

 

[Queasy]

It doesn't matter who is in the White House, the budget will increase every year. Why? Because just about every program has arbitrary increases built-in so that it will receive additional funding each year.

Anytime someone tries to reduce the arbitrary increase in any program it gets called a drastic cut that will harm the poor, the children, etc.

Anytime someone tries to end a program that is no longer useful or not performing up to expectations it gets called a draconian cut that will result in the death of the poor, the children, ect.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
The best solution would be to enact policies that would encourage economic growth, providing for more tax revenue without an increase in rates. At the same time, spending cuts would help along with the elilmination of wasteful laws and programs (like the expensive "war" on drugs and its associated costs of incarcerating consentual "criminals"). I do favor increasing taxes on the wealthy and the upper middle class. These people didn't really suffer during the recession and they aren't really suffering from the forces of labor wage arbitrage that are eating away at the middle class. Actually, they are benefitting from it in the form of higher profits and lower prices for goods and services.

I always hear people talking about how economic growth will save us from increasing taxes but the reality is that economies are finite and the American economy can only grow so fast.

Eventually you have to increase taxes or cut spending.

 

[ReiAyanami]

With this, HE HAS SET the BUDGET DEFICIT RECORD 3 YEARS in a row.

and this is with a 'booming' economy!

fortunately military spending now tops HALF A TRILLION, and that's before JSF/NMD (another half trillion)

 

[dannybin1742]

fortunately military spending now tops HALF A TRILLION, and that's before JSF/NMD (another half trillion)

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

fortunately military spending now tops HALF A TRILLION, and that's before JSF/NMD (another half trillion)

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

I think so...

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

fortunately military spending now tops HALF A TRILLION, and that's before JSF/NMD (another half trillion)

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

I think so...

That it is bullsh!t? :laugh:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
With this, HE HAS SET the BUDGET DEFICIT RECORD 3 YEARS in a row.

and this is with a 'booming' economy!

fortunately military spending now tops HALF A TRILLION, and that's before JSF/NMD (another half trillion)

Making up numbers?

 

[Starbuck1975]

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

Yes...this is what happens after you neglect the military for over a decade while spreading them on numerous missions across various theatres.

Our nation has a history of not maintaining a large standing army...if you look at every major war in American history, parallel to it is incredible military spending to compensate for a small standing army during peacetime.

Regardless of what you think about the war in Iraq, our soldiers deserve the best treatment, equipment and support available now that they are committed to war.

 

[Cerb]

1. Increase spending

2. Tax the Poor (screw cars and houses, they need to save up for plain old food!).

3. Increase Spending

4. Increase Spending

 

[Engineer]

Clearchannel news reported this morning that the Medicare prescription drug bill, originally passed with the idea of spending only ( :roll: ) $400 Billion over 10 year (and suddenly was $550 Billion over 10 years right after passage) is now slated at $720 Billion over 10 years!

Again, :roll:

Seems the Republicans in DC really are turning into Democrats after all.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Clearchannel news reported this morning that the Medicare prescription drug bill, originally passed with the idea of spending only ( :roll: ) $400 Billion over 10 year (and suddenly was $550 Billion over 10 years right after passage) is now slated at $780 Billion over 10 years!

Again, :roll:

Seems the Republicans in DC really are turning into Democrats after all.

for 780 billion dollars ...that alot of Viagra

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

Yes...this is what happens after you neglect the military for over a decade while spreading them on numerous missions across various theatres.

Oh yes, THAT is why we have spent as much as we have and continue to spend on the Iraq 'war'. Gotta indirectly place the blame on Clinton for neglecting the military, too. Nice job.

 

[Genx87]

Eventually you have to increase taxes or cut spending.

Or the third option of stopping spending increases. If you didnt grow the budge the economy would simply erase the deficits provided it was growing every year. Something our economy has been doing since 2002 to the tune of 4%.

 

[Genx87]

HE HAS SET the BUDGET DEFICIT RECORD 3 YEARS in a row.

In raw dollars yes. As a % of GDP it isnt terribly out of line with past presidents.

I agree however they need to cut more until we run no deficits.

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

Our military costs as a % of gdp is very low. Even during a time of war we are looking at under 4% of the gdp spent on military costs. Look in the past during the time of other wars and you will see this is a very low for a war requiring 170,000 boots on the ground in two theaters.

 

[judasmachine]

Hehe, money who needs it.....

 

[PatboyX]

itll be fine. by the time we get to worry about the debt, a democrat will be on office and will take the blame.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

HE HAS SET the BUDGET DEFICIT RECORD 3 YEARS in a row.

In raw dollars yes. As a % of GDP it isnt terribly out of line with past presidents.

I agree however they need to cut more until we run no deficits.

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

Our military costs as a % of gdp is very low. Even during a time of war we are looking at under 4% of the gdp spent on military costs. Look in the past during the time of other wars and you will see this is a very low for a war requiring 170,000 boots on the ground in two theaters.

The former is untrue. As a % of GDP, Bush43's deficits are indeed comparable to Reagan red ink. The difference is that Bush43 has the SS surplus to cover his arse.

For the latter, it's ridiculous to constantly compare expenditures to GDP anyway. I'm sure the % of GDP that is spent on pornographic magazines is very low. Maybe we should boost domestic spending on print porn . . . in order to keep the smut publishing industry afloat?

It's Bush's FAULT that 130k US troops are toiling in Iraq. It's not the "War on Terror" it's a BS geopolitical agenda with minimal chance of success. 9/11 was real. WMD in Iraq was a mirage. We will run out of soldiers, currency, (and international help) WELL before any "victory" can be claimed over terrorism.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: Genx87

HE HAS SET the BUDGET DEFICIT RECORD 3 YEARS in a row.

In raw dollars yes. As a % of GDP it isnt terribly out of line with past presidents.

I agree however they need to cut more until we run no deficits.

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

Our military costs as a % of gdp is very low. Even during a time of war we are looking at under 4% of the gdp spent on military costs. Look in the past during the time of other wars and you will see this is a very low for a war requiring 170,000 boots on the ground in two theaters.

Where does the definition of a military "theater" come from? Since the same general staff planned and executed the Afghanistan war and the invasion of Iraq, I would conject that this is one theatre in two different but nearby countries.

Several hundred million dollars slated for Afghanistan suddenly got redirected for bases that would be far better suited for invading Iraq.

And yes, it was Halliburton that got to build those bases in Qatar and Kuwait without the pesky bid process.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT

Originally posted by: Genx87

HE HAS SET the BUDGET DEFICIT RECORD 3 YEARS in a row.

In raw dollars yes. As a % of GDP it isnt terribly out of line with past presidents.

I agree however they need to cut more until we run no deficits.

do we really need to spend this much on the military? i think its bullsh!t

Our military costs as a % of gdp is very low. Even during a time of war we are looking at under 4% of the gdp spent on military costs. Look in the past during the time of other wars and you will see this is a very low for a war requiring 170,000 boots on the ground in two theaters.

Where does the definition of a military "theater" come from? Since the same general staff planned and executed the Afghanistan war and the invasion of Iraq, I would conject that this is one theatre in two different but nearby countries.

Several hundred million dollars slated for Afghanistan suddenly got redirected for bases that would be far better suited for invading Iraq.

And yes, it was Halliburton that got to build those bases in Qatar and Kuwait without the pesky bid process.

People talk about a "war for oil" but really this was a "war for no bid contracts".