We have reached $1T

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

We have reached $1T

Postby platypusman » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:27 pm

The Democrats in Concord were to be out done. In Washington, the Democrats have beat them, $1.013 trillion in discretionary spending for FY09.

Senate Approves $3.1T FY 2009 Budget Resolution Without Proposed Reductions In Medicare, Medicaid Spending
06 Jun 2008

The Senate on Wednesday voted 48-45 to approve a $3.1 trillion fiscal year 2009 budget resolution (S Con Res 70), which includes large increases in funds for domestic programs and excludes reductions in funds for Medicare and Medicaid proposed by President Bush, the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

The resolution would increase funds for domestic federal agencies by almost 5%, or $24 billion (Taylor, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/5). The resolution includes $1.013 trillion in discretionary spending (Sanchez, CongressDaily, 6/4). The resolution would provide about $21 billion more in discretionary spending than Bush requested. According to the New York Times, Bush has threatened to veto appropriations bills that exceed his request, and Democrats might "try to avoid an election-year fight with the White House by holding back major appropriations bills until his successor takes office" (Pear, New York Times, 6/5).

Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said, "We have passed a fiscally responsible budget, and that is a major accomplishment." He added that the resolution would "expand health coverage for kids" (New York Times, 6/5). White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle criticized the resolution as a "missed opportunity" to address long-term financial problems in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. He added, "They deferred on the decision on entitlements, but they didn't on taxes" (Clarke [1], CQ Today, 6/4).
User avatar
platypusman
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:27 pm

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby Norman Phillips » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:06 pm

The graph on the following site will show how Republican presidents have created large increases in the federal debt whereas Democratic presidents have decreased the debt.


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby guesswho » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:09 pm

It seems to me that we're always talking about how bad and dangerous the incredible federal debt is but at the same time we're never actually willing to support reduced spending in any category other than military spending.

Norman, where would you like to see the spending reductions come from?

Or...

Is it that we should be taxed more to pay for the increases in spending that occur at every level of government - every single year?

P.S. Since we're comparing debt to GDP lets compare Military spending to GDP

http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... fense.html

P.P.S. If we keep electing fools and supporting fools from either party the spending keeps going up. Look at this 'Linear' chart:

http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... eased.html
guesswho
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby platypusman » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:09 pm

Here is the results of the rabid growth of government spending. We are destroying our economy by taking capital from the productive private sector and moving it to the less productive public sector. It has been like a slow growing cancer.

Before FDR's New Deal

Image


After FDR, LBJ's Great Society and the Democrats uncontrolled entitlements

Image
User avatar
platypusman
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:27 pm

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby RD » Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:12 pm

platypusman wrote:Here is the results

I'm sure platypus, Jeannine, et al, would say, never trust someone who can't speak English. They must be the enemy! A platypus I understand, but I'm still waiting to see how long it takes MP to learn the difference between there's and there're. Here's to homeschooling!
"If you think teachers are your enemy, you should probably reassess who you think your friends are." - Chris Larson
RD
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 3:49 pm

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby Tom Williams » Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:17 am

Norman Phillips wrote:The graph on the following site will show how Republican presidents have created large increases in the federal debt whereas Democratic presidents have decreased the debt.


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Hmmmm...

And all this time I thought it was the congress that determined spending and tax levels, and hence changes in debt. I suppose my copy of the constitution must be in error :)

Anyway, take another look at the posted chart, and mentally picture the periods of Democrat and Republican control of congress instead of the presidency. Recall that the Democrats controlled the congress until 1994, and retook it in 2006.

As an aside, I believe that the inflection in the graph in 2002 under Republican rule is the main reason that the Democrats regained control of the congress.
Tom Williams
"Treating businesses and affluent people as prey, rather than assets, often pays off politically in the short run-- and elections are held in the short run." -- Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Tom Williams
 
Posts: 1031
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:42 pm
Location: Merrimack, NH & Dunwoody, GA

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby Norman Phillips » Sun Jun 08, 2008 8:43 am

Tom Williams wrote:
Norman Phillips wrote:The graph on the following site will show how Republican presidents have created large increases in the federal debt whereas Democratic presidents have decreased the debt.


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Hmmmm...

And all this time I thought it was the congress that determined spending and tax levels, and hence changes in debt. I suppose my copy of the constitution must be in error :)


Not quite so, Tom!.
    * 1. The very popular Reagan got his tax cut, but the expected supply-side increase in revenue never materialized, leaving his expanded military expenditures to create debt.
  • *2. Clinton reduced the number of government employees allowing a budgetary decrease.
  • As another example of presidential control, consider the current blocking by vetos and Republican opposition of the Democrats attempts at reducing expenses in Iraq. The Democrats control the House, with its budgetary initiatives, but the president has been able to stymy them.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby platypusman » Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:48 am

Mr. Norman I am very puzzled by your statement regarding Reagan. Data from OMB shows:

- Receipts from individual income taxes rose to $446 billion in fiscal 1989 -- President Reagan's last budget -- from $286 billion in fiscal 1981, the year Reagan began to slash personal tax rates -- a 56 percent increase.

- Annualized, tax receipts grew faster than that period's 4 percent inflation.

- During the same period, federal spending rose from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion -- a 69 percent increase.

The last point was because the big spenders in Congress would not cut spending. The point is that government spending is way too high.
User avatar
platypusman
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:27 pm

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:52 am

RD

I'm sure platypus, Jeannine, et al, would say, never trust someone who can't speak English. They must be the enemy! A platypus I understand, but I'm still waiting to see how long it takes MP to learn the difference between there's and there're.


I resent the fact that you think you know how we think. I think you've got the biggest racial problem of us all. Right up there with Michelle Obama. I hope you grow up some day and rid yourself of that massive racial/racist chip on your shoulder.
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Re: We have reached $1T

Postby platypusman » Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:02 pm

If the repubs were willing to cut military spending, and as such have more $$$$ in the coffers for other things, we wouldn't have the situation we're in now with the gov'd needing more revenues.

Two way street, folks.

Andy Schneider


Andy the percentage of GDP military spending is consuming is low and has been falling since WWII. Please see:

Image

[1] "Table 3.1: outlays by superfunction and function: 1940--2009," in Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (2004), Washington, pp. 45--52


We need to protect our country and our interests so I would be hesitant to reduce in this area. I would rather we reduce the growth of the entitlements and the $1T of discretionary spending targeted for FY09.
User avatar
platypusman
 
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:27 pm


Return to National Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron