Meathead
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 474
- Location
- Prague, Czech Rep.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Because its working out so swimmingly in Greece!!!
No, but it is a known future cost, that was completely unnecessary.
CNS??? I'll go with the treasury that has stated SS has a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus, enough to fully fund SS until 2036. Raising the FICA cap from the current $106,000 to $180,000 makes it solvent for the long term.
The only way to effectively address health care costs for people is to upgrade to UHC as the all other industrialized nations have done.
The GOP's proposal to simply shift costs to those least able to afford it is no solution.
We currently spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.
And we have a choice between a candidate that wants to increase that excessive spending and the president who wants to cut wasteful spending.
And we have a choice between a candidate that wants to increase that excessive spending and the president who wants to cut wasteful spending.
Easy choice for me.
Even if counting from fiscal years beginning prior to a presidents' inauguration, that is not true. Whether looking at nominal figures or real figures ...Weird, and here's a US News & World Report Headline:
President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents
President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
Nominal | 2005 dollars | |
Carter | 2334.73 | 5656.48 |
Reagan | 7680.25 | 12960.36 |
Bush | 6166.91 | 8546.12 |
Clinton | 14073.26 | 16979.49 |
Bush | 20953.67 | 21262.24 |
Obama | 10576.95 | 9498.17 |
Then send Obama to be president of Greece.
Sent from my blasted phone.
See above. US News and World Report is definitely not Fox or msnbc.Weird, and here's a US News & World Report Headline:
President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents
President Obama Has Outspent Last Five Presidents - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
We have a candidate that wants to cut wasteful spending?!? ****ing hell sign me up, who is this guy?
It's a future estimated cost. Lots of those vets are still in the service, and we don't know what their impact is going to be on the VA when they leave, or even when they will leave - if DOD cuts continue as they are, and the personnel draw down goes into full effect, that will push more vets out quicker, and the VA's load will become heavier faster.
:roll: we've been over this about a gajillion times. SS is running a deficit since last year. The Trust Fund calling in IOU's to the General Fund is about as much of a "surplus" as you have a "surplus" when you draw money out on a credit card and spend it from your wallet. Your ad-sourcinem continues to be a failure as they were quoting the Social Security Board of Trustees :lamo
That is incorrect - there are several good ways. Then, yes, there is also the bad way - switch to government provision and government rationing. However, that's not going to effect Medicare's future unfunded liability either, unless you intend to extend severe rationing to that program, as well.
The GOP makes no such proposal - in fact, it is the Obama administration that is proposing a "flat" cut in benefits via the IPAB. The GOP is proposing a Progressive cut in benefits, with our wealthy having more benefits cut in order to ensure that we can continue to protect our low-income seniors.
However, that is neither here nor there - the point remains that if you want to count future estimated liabilities, SS and Medicare/Medicaid continue to dwarf military spending in general and on the wars in particular. Everyone from Barack Obama to Bill Clinton to Paul Ryan to the CBO, the IMF, and the World Bank have stated that our current entitlements are unsustainable, and that it is impossible to tax enough to pay for them.
the US military has a global role that is matched by no other nation, and furthermore, US military spending is currently near historical lows, while Medicare is skyrocketing.
Defense isn't driving us off a fiscal cliff - the entitlements are. Furthermore, our economy is utterly dependent upon free global trade, which in turn is dependent upon the security guarantee provided by a forward-deployed US military in particular the US Navy. You slash defense, you pull the military back. You pull the military back, the world regionalizes into blocs. The world regionalizes into blocs, the US economy crashes and revenues sink far below the "savings" generated by the defense cuts. It's a penny wise and pound foolish way of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
This would be the President who gave us Solyndra and studies on robot bees, yes? Whose allies in the Senate defended the Cowboy Poetry Contests?
Even if counting from fiscal years beginning prior to a presidents' inauguration, that is not true. Whether looking at nominal figures or real figures ...
Nominal
2005 dollars
Carter
2334.73
5656.48
Reagan
7680.25
12960.36
Bush
6166.91
8546.12
Clinton
14073.26
16979.49
Bush
20953.67
21262.24
Obama
10576.95
9498.17
Government Spending Chart: United States 1970-2017 - Federal State Local Data
Seriously?? I attributed all of FY2009 to Obama even though, as you point out, we were still operating under Bush's budget for the first half of that fiscal year. How on Earth did you miss that?I see you guys are STILL peddling all the 2009 spending as belonging to Bush when Obama signed the budget agreement in March of 2009 and tossing the stimulus into Bush's budget numbers for 2009 as well. How partisan of you.
Each # should be divided by the # of years in office.Even if counting from fiscal years beginning prior to a presidents' inauguration, that is not true. Whether looking at nominal figures or real figures ...
Nominal
2005 dollars
Carter
2334.73
5656.48
Reagan
7680.25
12960.36
Bush
6166.91
8546.12
Clinton
14073.26
16979.49
Bush
20953.67
21262.24
Obama
10576.95
9498.17
Government Spending Chart: United States 1970-2017 - Federal State Local Data
Seriously?? I attributed all of FY2009 to Obama even though, as you point out, we were still operating under Bush's budget for the first half of that fiscal year. How on Earth did you miss that?
My mistake, you are correct...Each # should be divided by the # of years in office.
Nominal | 2005 dollars | |
Carter | 584 | 1,414 |
Reagan | 960 | 1,620 |
Bush | 1,542 | 2,137 |
Clinton | 1,759 | 2,122 |
Bush | 2,619 | 2,658 |
Obama | 3,022 | 2,714 |
You really should take the time to learn how our government works ... with the exception of veto overrides (click here to learn what that is) no bill becomes law without the president's signature or tacit approval. And since there were no overrides, Bush approved every bill that became law.Pelosi Reid.. you really are out to lunch..
My mistake, you are correct...
Nominal 2005 dollars Carter 584 1,414 Reagan 960 1,620 Bush 1,542 2,137 Clinton 1,759 2,122 Bush 2,619 2,658 Obama 3,254 2,922
I divided by 3.5. And also, that's counting from October 1st, 2008; so not only is that counting 3 years and 8 months, but it's also applying nearly 4 months of spending to Obama which actually occurred while Bush was still president. But as I pointed out initially, I was going by fiscal years.I'm glad you could admit the mistake... (Although, do you also realize you divided Obama's by 4, when it's only been 3.25?)
Seriously?? I attributed all of FY2009 to Obama even though, as you point out, we were still operating under Bush's budget for the first half of that fiscal year. How on Earth did you miss that?
Cut the bull**** -- yes, you did. You wrongly accused me of attributing FY2009 to Bush when in fact, I attributed it to Obama. Just admit you screwed up and move on.I didnt.
Yet more bull****. The CBO estimated Bush's Budget at 500 billion around April of 2008. After the economy collapsed later that same year, the CBO recalculated their estimate to factor in Bush's failed economy and released a new estimated deficit of 1.2 trillion. That was before Obama evenbecame president. Bush owns that and you can't pass that ****hole onto Obama.OpportunityCost said:All they passed were appropriations to continue government operation at baseline. The increases all occurred after Bush left office. His proposed budget would have raised the deficit by 1/2 a trillion. Obama and the dem congress added .4trillion of pork to the budget AND passed the stimulus for another 800billion. Bush owns that 500billion, Obama owns the other 1.2 billion and subsequent years.
I divided by 3.5. And also, that's counting from October 1st, 2008; so not only is that counting 3 years and 8 months, but it's also applying nearly 4 months of spending to Obama which actually occurred while Bush was still president. But as I pointed out initially, I was going by fiscal years.
I was only counting dollars actually spent, not estimates. 2012 isn't on the books yet.I call shenanigans then... since if you look at the chart, between the years of 2009 and 2012 every single budget is above $3T in spending, yet youve somehow managed to have his spending average $2.6T/yr...
3205.79 - 2009
-----------------
3113.96 - 2010
3178.42 - 2011
3277.12 - 2012
I dont count the 2009 budget to either of Obama or Bush completely, since they both contributed significantly to it... so let's go with the 3 budgets of Obama's, if you want to go with fiscal years alone...
3189.83... That number is just "slightly" higher than the one presented earlier...
That's also because the Congress did not pass the budgets that Obama sumbitted, for spending much higher than that... the budgets he submitted were $3.6T, $3.8T, $3.7T, and $3.8T... but didn't pass congress...
You can only blame Bush for what Bush spent... even if you want to blame Bush for all of the increase in 2009 (which ignores Obama's overuse of TARP funds and the addition of ARRA)... Obama's budgets in subsequent years were submitted with higher spending than that... without anything left on the books from Bush... that's Obama's spending, he owns that... and he's done it with a persistend deficit of $1.4T...
I was only counting dollars actually spent, not estimates. 2012 isn't on the books yet.
Okay. We need a 600 ship Navy, A Special Operations Command of 150,000 troops, and a substantially upgunned, larger Marine Corps. Let's professionalize the US Intelligence community, increase our HUMINT capability by at least one order of magnitude, and do what it takes to win in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should provide one hundred medium-sized state-of-the-art nuclear power plants.. . .
the need for demand - where the government primes the pump with its own spending - is absolutely essential and appropriate given this circumstance it is that sign of expansion looming which will result in the money on the sidelines being used to prepare to satisfy such increasing demand
Perhaps it is time for a reconsideration. I believe his policies prolonged the depression. If he was not the worst president we have ever had, saved only by winning WWII, he was a close second.That is your opinion, and one not shared by the majority of scholars who consider FDR our greatest president, nor was your opinion shared by the majority of voters that were living then, as they reelected FDR two more times.
No. Not really. He was there though.Does Carter count as a President?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?