General discussion

Locked

A nearly 3 TRILLION dollar federal budget has been submitted

By maxwell edison ·
Anyone who believes President Bush is a fiscal conservative, send me an email and I'll give you a great deal on some ocean front property in Kansas.

And if you think President Bush is bad, this won't be enough for the Democrat-controlled Congress. If they had their way, they'd spend even MORE. (And the frightening thing is, they just might get their way.)

Do you realize how much THREE TRILLION DOLLARS really is? It's $10,000 for each and every one of the 300 million people in the USA.

Our current debt is around 12 trillion dollars. That's $40,000 for each and every one of the 300 million people in the USA. We're not paying-off that debt, however, but adding to it -- AND paying interest. The interest on that debt accounts for about 15 percent of all federal spending, or about a half trillion dollars each and every year.

Think it's gonna' get better? Think again.

LONG-RANGE FISCAL POLICY BRIEF

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0

Those numbers are absolutely frightening, and it clearly shows what kind of society we're leaving for our kids and grandkids.

There's only ONE WAY to stop the madness; and that's to STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY.

For those who think the military is to blame for the increased spending, think again. In 1960, military spending accounted for 65 percent of the federal budget, while "entitlement programs" accounted for 15 percent. Today, however, those numbers are reversed, with military spending accounting for 15 percent of the federal budget, while "entitlement programs" account for 65 percent.

Go ahead and blame the Democrats, or the Republicans, or President Bush, or whomever is the next person sitting in whatever hot-seat you deem worthy of "blame". Personally speaking, I blame YOU. I blame all of YOU who are duped and bribed into thinking the government is there to take care of any and all problems that ail you. After all, if someone wants to "take away YOUR Social Security", will you vote for that person? (Even though that is a person who really wants to fix the long-term problem.)

Let me ask you this. If a politician (of either party) proposed the following:

1. A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.

2. A 2.5 percent REDUCTION in total government spending (not just a reduction in the growth of spending) per year, for the next 20 years.

Would you vote for that person and/or vote against anyone who opposed it?

And to think, there are people more concerned about the false, or misleading, or unproven theory of man-caused global warming than they are the are about the looming financial disaster warning that's written on every wall they choose to read. In fact, their "global warming solutions" will cause MORE of what's the REAL problem!

Here's a real warning you would do well to heed: Any government big enough to provide for all of your needs is big enough to take away everything you have.

By the way,

The aforementioned numbers do not take into account government spending on the state level, taken in the form of state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, et al.

Moreover, considering that not all people are net tax payers, but rather net tax receivers, the $10,000 per person I mentioned was only an average. In 2000, the "work force" in the USA was about 130 million, so it's close to about half the population. And half the "work force" pays little or NO taxes. Since some people not only pay zero, but rather actually receive some amount, the "average" paid (or owed for the debt) is well over $10,000 (or $40,000) per "paying" person.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

14 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

$10,000 per U.S. citizen

by stress junkie In reply to A nearly 3 TRILLION dolla ...

That's a lot of money. Considering that only about half of the U.S. citizens are tax paying workers it creates quite a load per person. (The other half of the population do not pay taxes because they are too young, too old, too sick, or whatever to work.)

Federal money is being wasted all over the place. Agencies whose managers spend any money that is left over at the end of the fiscal year in order to be granted the same amount of money in the next fiscal year is part of the problem. Federal entitlement programs are a big problem too.

The thing that really bugs me, though, is that much of the Federal tax code is made up of tax exceptions for specific corporations. I am not the first to say this but if everybody paid their fair share then at least we could stomach the spending. The idea that my income taxes are higher so that some huge corporation can get a tax break really bugs me. I know that this is really off topic. We're talking about the amount of money being spent, not how it is being collected. Nevertheless the tax code bothers me more than the spending.

Collapse -

Thanks for pointing out my "typo"

by maxwell edison In reply to $10,000 per U.S. citizen

I fixed it.

Collapse -

Taxes & Spending

by maxwell edison In reply to $10,000 per U.S. citizen

A big problem people have with getting a grasp on the scope of the problem and/or deciding what to do and/or how to do it, is that they confuse revenue and spending.

You can't talk about "spending" when you focus on taxes. Taxes are to revenue as debt/deficits are to spending. If your household budget is out of control, the first thing you do is focus on where it goes, not where it comes from. And you can't "cut spending" by deciding to work a little overtime. People might get sidetracked talking about who pays taxes, gets tax breaks, and so on, but the REVENUE collected by government is ALSO increasing at about the same pace as spending.

Spending is increasing AND collected revenue is increasing. If we have budget deficits, it means that the growth in spending is outpacing the growth in revenues. We're collecting more money every year, but spending more plus. If spending goes down, but revenues even remain constant, not only could the deficit be eliminated in about one year, but the national debt could actually be reduced. Even then, it would take 24 years of 500 billion dollar budget SURPLUSES to pay off the debt!

These huge numbers are actually mind-boggling (thus my previous "typo") ! Another reason to get them down to a more manageable size. And it's only getting worse. Why do people want more of the same?

Collapse -

Many people

by TonytheTiger In reply to Taxes & Spending

when listing the differences between the Democrats and the Replublicans, include as one difference the way in which the people are or should be taxed to provide the money the government needs to operate. This one wants to tax the rich, that one wants to give the rich tax breaks. And both of them shout out the advantages of their system and the pitfalls of the other system, and shout so loudly that the premise they are both operating under is all but drowned out, and thus almost totally unchallenged. That premise being that the government needs large sums of our money to operate.

There is absolutely nothing that the government can do for us, our families, or our neighbors that we cannot do for our own selves, families, and neighbors better, faster, and cheaper. Yet both parties, by "shouting over" any meaningful challenge to their premise, are perpetuating this as fact, and that is why I am no longer associated with either one.

(I also find myself becoming quite impatient with those who don't know this because of their ignorance, and quite hateful toward those few who I've identified as knowing full well what is going on but refusing to do anything about it.)

Collapse -

It's not even close to half.

by TonytheTiger In reply to $10,000 per U.S. citizen

It's probably between 25 and 30%.

because they are too young, too old, too sick, or whatever to work

"whatever"???

What is this country coming to when we cannot speak the truth for fear of being ostracized?

I'll say it... LAZY!

But I can get by with it because I'm old, and being ostracized by "those people" doesn't seem like it's a bad thing. :)

Collapse -

America is aging?

by Oz_Media In reply to A nearly 3 TRILLION dolla ...

I agree with most of your comment, it is those who abuse programs that create the financial mess America AND Canada are in. I know teh Canadian deficit is but a portion of the US, but then again so is our population.

What I see is North America becoming a lot more inline with Europe. In Europe it's not a common occurance to just trip over a few million dollars with a good idea that takes off. It happens but it is not something people bank on from an early age. It is known that if you want to stay afloat, formally learn a trade or skill, not an IT cert or something that is here otday and gone tomorrow but something with stability and a strong foundation. People then expect to work their a$$es off for years just to make ends meet and live a comfortable, not luxurious lifestyle.

Canada and America are still seen as these golden lands of opportunity, and while we still have a lot of opporunity (oil and gas, e-services etc that make instant millionaires) they are fewer and farther between.

It's class separation time, just as any other older country experiences. If you are middle class, you will always be middle class, unless you bust your butt and work hard for more.

So with the decline of our countries riches and easy wealth, and the onset of incredible debts we will soon see the separateion of classes. Which can be a good thing, fewer unskilled idiots will be taking the jobs too.

Hopefully, this will result in a more concious society, one that saves, conserves and doesn't fruitlessly waste resources as it does now. Maybe tightening the purse strings is a good thing.

Unfortunately I am sure we will continue to see exorbitant spending from our governments, no matter who is in power, until another recession hits and the PEOPLE force change by taking more personal responsibility themselves.

I honestly don't think a choice of elected leader will make the difference needed.

Does the military budget spending no longer have a negative impact because the proportions are smaller? No, and yes half a billion dollars spent overseas probably woul dhave SOME impact on your budget.

Now to catch you avoiding your own game:

you poke at people and say they can blame it on who they want but personally place blame on teh people themselves, which may well be true in some cases.

But you also make a clear exmaple of how GWB's government is not really resopnsible (as they are better than what teh democrats would do) and that the Democrats are worse, or speculatively WILL be worse.

but how can you so easily dismiss all other replies that dont echo your preconceived conclusion? People can't blame the war, they can't blame Republicans and can't blame Bush, you dont' want to hea it.

So unless someone agrees with you, their reply is wrong?

Collapse -

If you mean my post regarding agree or wrong...

by stress junkie In reply to America is aging?

... I said myself that my post was off topic. Max agreed.

As for Max's other posts in other threads you may have a good point, but I have found that Max always asks for someone to support their claims before he dismisses them. That's fair, kind of.

I have found at least for the last year that Max plays pretty fair with people who disagree with him. Some of Max's fans are not as willing to talk about different opinions but Max does pretty well I think. Just be prepared to provide some evidence and Max will listen to you.

Collapse -

A few points

by JamesRL In reply to America is aging?

Oz, Canada does not have a deficit. The deficit is the annual shortfall in your budget. The national debt is the money you owe long term. Having an annual deficit increases your debt, having a surplus may allow you to decrease your debt(if you chose to pay down the debt).

Canada has not had a deficit for the past 9 years. We do have a debt, of 500 billion in 2005. We are paying it down, and are already saving billions a year in interest savings.

Alberta paid off its debt. The other provinces have debt of varying sizes.

Canadian income taxes have been reduced as a result. Though some consumption taxes, like those on gasoline, have risen. Not all of our surpluses have gone to the debt, some have gone to healthcare, and military spending has dramatically increased, both for the mission costs in Afghanistan, and for much needed new equipment.

Japan, by the way, has a higher deficit to GDP ratio than the US. France, Germany and UK are slightly better than the US, but still running deficits.

James

Collapse -

That's better

by Oz_Media In reply to A few points

That's whqat I was getting at, sorry for not recognizing the difference.

"We do have a debt, of 500 billion in 2005."

I know we've had a surplus, and AB is running like a rich kid in a shopping mall.

Collapse -

It's more than that

by maxwell edison In reply to America is aging?

Our problem is not just with those who abuse the system, but rather because it's been redesigned for everybody to use the system. For example, it's one thing to make food available for those who might otherwise starve to death; it's another matter entirely to "feed" everybody just so no one goes hungry (school lunches, for example, paid for by the state). I don't use this analogy to be specifically discussed and debated, but rather as an illustration to show how absolutely EVERYTHING is becoming geared towards providing for EVERYBODY. Our Social Security system was never intended to be a national retirement system; but today, there are millionaires drawing from it. One problem being is that they are actually justified in drawing from it because they are only receiving a promise made to them in return for paying into it.

You and I disagree the notion of government's role as being a nanny to the population, ensuring that all its needs are met from womb to tomb. That's not the role of government, at least not in the United States. Politicians, however, advance such a notion, and the voters buy into it. As such, the politician are offering what's tantamount to a bribe, and the voters are willing to be bought. To make matters worse, they're instilling a sense of fear and disappear into people to "convince" them to be bribed. We don't have a hunger problem in America, but to listen to some of these demagogues, you'd think people are starving in the streets like some third-world nation. Our "poverty" class has two cars in the garage, a color television set -- with cable, a cell phone or two, beers in the fridge, and an obese problem because they eat too damn much! But yet, people buy into the notion that people are "hungry". It's a crock of crap!

We have people making $40,000 a year paying taxes to pay for school lunches for the kids of parents who are making $100,000 a year. Why?

We have people paying 7 percent tax on an income of up to ~$85,000 for their entire lives, to fund a system paying what's probably a very handsome return to other people who paid only 2 or 3 percent with a lower income limit. Why? The latter are seeing a windfall on their "investment"; the former will be lucky to see a return that's even equal to their "investment". And for the bad icing on the cake, the former are ALSO paying for the medical care to keep those old geezers alive so they can collect even longer! (I know, that sounded like it wasn't very "compassionate", but it's an accurate assessment of what's going on.)

People are living longer AND not having as many kids. The problem is getting exponentially worse year after year, and it's headed for a disaster. Politicians don't dare suggest reducing any benefits, lest they get soundly criticized and demonized in the press; and the stupid and gullible public is buying into it lock, stock, and barrel.

Yes, I "blame" the Democrats more than the Republicans, but only because they espouse more of the same (can you say national health care?) and they demonize any political opponent who dares suggest a cut in any program. And I blame the voting public for letting themselves be duped and bribed into not only giving away their own liberty, but that of their kids and grandkids as well, not to mention putting our nation on the road to imminent financial disaster. Nikita Kruschev was right -- we ARE destroying ourselves from within; and it upsets me to no end that those who realize it are content in letting it happen, and those who don't are too stupid and/or greedy and/or cowardly to even begin to try to understand.

The solution damn sure isn't to take more money from more people to pay for more services. And the solution is not to "fix the system", but rather to dismantle it. It's NOT the role of government to provide all the things our government provides. It's contrary to the intent of our government, it's bad financial policy, it's bad to structure a society to become dependent -- and beholden -- to a government, and it's a policy that's doomed to implode under the weight of its own obligations.

Back to Software Forum
14 total posts (Page 1 of 2)   01 | 02   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums