aREDSKIN Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 You thought you'd had enough of depressing numbers after the stimulus package passed in February. But a reporter from the Heritage Foundation, out this week, shows that those numbers were just a fraction -- about one-fifth, to be precise -- of what the federal government will spend in 2009. This year's $4 trillion total -- a record, even accounting for inflation -- may look like a sudden blip on Heritage's graphs, but research shows the spike is here to stay. Three years from now, when stimulus spending has slowed to a dribble, new programs and strained entitlements will bring federal expenses right back to today's "emergency spending" levels. By 2019, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid caseloads will have hit record heights, and the national debt will be nearly double what it is now. In the haze of zeros, it's hard to really grasp what this means. It isn't helped by the fact that the Office of Management and Budget has some 2,200 pages of documents explaining the budget. But with the help of Heritage, we broke down exactly what $4 trillion means -- both for spending and for each of us. http://www.nypost.com/seven/08022009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_4_trillion_splurge_182650.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 :puke::mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Awesome, great news. :party: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 I can barely imagine spending everybody else's money without shame until the credit cards max out and then continue spending past the limit then complain to everyone that some people are not giving up their fair share so I can continue charging more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Our gov't is in need of a CTRL+ALT+DEL. I refuse to vote for any Dem's or Republicans ever again. These parties are out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Well, they couldn't have spent too much of the $20 million on "Success parties" in Iraq and Afghanistan, could they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BKSkinsFan Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I say we take that money, go to Vegas, and bet it all on black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I say we take that money, go to Vegas, and bet it all on black. If we win though, we have to let it ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I can barely imagine spending everybody else's money without shame until the credit cards max out and then continue spending past the limit then complain to everyone that some people are not giving up their fair share so I can continue charging more money. No doubt that 500 billion "partial list" is probably a conservative number yet those of us who are opposed to tax increases are called heartless and greedy. If the government would clean up its act and take better care of our money I would be more than happy to contribute more knowing it wasn't being pissed down a rat hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 no doubt that 500 billion "partial list" is probably a conservative number yet those of us who are opposed to tax increases are called heartless and greedy. If the government would clean up its act and take better care of our money i would be more than happy to contribute more knowing it wasn't being pissed down a rat hole. amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 You know in 2009, Bush's last budget he had about a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit spending if you added in all the off budget spending. Obama's proposed spending for his first budget is about 1.5 trillion dollar deficit spending. The only difference is (1) Obama's putting all the spending on budget. (2) Folks are scared to death Obama might actually try to pay for some of his deficit spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 No doubt that 500 billion "partial list" is probably a conservative number yet those of us who are opposed to tax increases are called heartless and greedy. If the government would clean up its act and take better care of our money I would be more than happy to contribute more knowing it wasn't being pissed down a rat hole. Those most vocally "opposed to tax increases", were totally silent when Bush dramatically increased spending and cut revenues while conductiong two wars! We don't call those folks conservatives. We call them idiots, least we always did when they represented a minority rather than a majority opinion in this country. Any tax cut which occurs during deficit spending is actually a tax increase earmarked for a future date. This new breed of "Conservative" are just complaining cause they wanted the future date to occur sometime further off in the future? The old breed of "Conservative", we're just vomiting in our shoes looking for a new label to differenciate ourselves from the new doctrine of "conservatism". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 You know in 2009, Bush's last budget he had about a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit spending if you added in all the off budget spending. Obama's proposed spending for his first budget is about 1.5 trillion dollar deficit spending.The only difference is (1) Obama's putting all the spending on budget. (2) Folks are scared to death Obama might actually try to pay for some of his deficit spending. So we're only slightly worse off under Obama than we were under Bush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 So we're only slightly worse off under Obama than we were under Bush? If you think a heroine addict is slightly "worse off" in a methadone clinic. Priorities. First we had to get the economy out of free fall. Next we have to get the 18% of the workforce which is idleing back into the economy ( 18% unadjusted unemployment rate, 9.5% addjusted). Then we have to deal with some of the systemic problems which are about to bite us in the buttocks... like healthcare.. All of these concerns are more important than the deficites or the inflation which the deficites will surely bring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 If you think a heroine addict is slightly "worse off" in a methadone clinic. Priorities. First we had to get the economy out of free fall. Next we have to get the 18% of the workforce which is idleing back into the economy ( 18% unadjusted unemployment rate, 9.5% addjusted). Then we have to deal with some of the systemic problems which are about to bite us in the buttocks... like healthcare.. All of these concerns are more important than the deficites or the inflation which the deficites will surely bring... Looks more like it's a case of more Heroine than methadone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'm all for a 2 yr payroll tax holiday. That would fix a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I say we take that money, go to Vegas, and bet it all on black. Didn't we do that in November and end up bankrupt because of it? (Sorry low hanging fruit:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 The only difference is... By my count, and assuming your numbers are right, there's also a tiny difference of 100 BILLION dollars. I realize government is completely out of control these days, and has been for decades now, really, but that's not the kind of number you should hide with a decimal point by making the set big enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 By my count, and assuming your numbers are right, there's also a tiny difference of 100 BILLION dollars.I realize government is completely out of control these days, and has been for decades now, really, but that's not the kind of number you should hide with a decimal point by making the set big enough. I didn't choose the set. Fact is 100 billion increase is only 3% increase in the budget over what Obama inherited in one of the worst economic recessions in 70 years. I agree with you it's something. I'm just much easier on Obama who inherited the mess, and who is trying to deal with it responsible ( 3% increase in spending) than I am on Bush who created the mess. Bush who was growing government spending by 5-7% when the economy was great by comparison and all the "conservatives" were silent; cause they didn't have to pay for it.... Remember Bush manufactured the entire 1.4 trillion dollar deficit himself, he inherited a few hundred billion dollar surplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Looks more like it's a case of more Heroine than methadone. I guess you don't read Newsweek, The recession is over, and the GDP contracted at a slower percentage than most experts had predicted. It's definitely methadone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I didn't choose the set. Fact is 100 billion increase is only 3% increase in the budget over what Obama inherited in one of the worst economic recessions in 70 years.. What percentage is it that of discretionary spending?:halo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I guess you don't read Newsweek, The recession is over, and the GDP contracted at a slower percentage than most experts had predicted. It's definitely methadone. Yes, because "lower than predicted" means its getting better? Definitely couldnt just be a problem with the predictions themselves. I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Fact is 100 billion increase is only 3% increase in the budget over what Obama inherited in one of the worst economic recessions in 70 years. "Fact is" that you use that phrase more often than I quote William Lane Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 In the late 30's we had a convenient and politically safe motive for massive government spending to get us out of the financial hell. This time around we weren't as lucky(?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 What percentage is it that of discretionary spending?:halo: Nice try. Bush increased spending pretty much across the board both defense and domestic discresionary spending. Bush increased military defense spending by more than 200%, knowing he inherited a defense in which we were already outspending the next greatest 16 countries combined. All of those 16 countries being strong US allies or countries which enjoy permanent most favored trade status with us. Bush also increased domestic spending substantially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.