PDA

View Full Version : Visualizing Uncle Sam's Debt


flourbug
10-24-2008, 07:14 PM
http://blog.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mintforeigncredittotal21.jpg

Most Americans have debt. Mortgages aside, 43% of US households spend more than they earn in a year. It is no wonder that the median household has a balance of over $2,000 on their credit cards. The average balance is over $8,000, but that is skewed by a small number of less-than-thrifty individuals.

The US government also spends more than it earns. Whether this is an extension of its electorate or the setting of a bad example, the country as a whole is in worse shape than the sum of its parts.

We could go on about the trillions of dollars in debt, but numbers that large can feel really abstract. So, let’s take the nation’s spending down to the household scale. The median household pulls in $50,233 per year, the federal government around $3 trillion. Some basic arithmetic will put them in scale.

Now let’s look at our lenders. The majority of the Uncle Sam household debt is owed to the people of the United States. We can let this slide for now and focus on the foreign lenders, who represent one quarter of the total debt.

Below are the top seven foreign lenders, visualized as credit cards, while the image at the top shows the total of foreign lending. All numbers have been brought down to the U.S. median household scale. Just imagine your household with these balances and you will have a better perspective on just how large these debts really are.

Click on the link to see the rest:

http://blog.mint.com/blog/finance-core/visualizing-uncle-sams-debt/

Sonny
10-24-2008, 07:28 PM
http://www.wallstats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/WallStatsDATlarge.jpg

Ought Six
10-24-2008, 07:55 PM
What that chart make it difficult to see is that around 60% of the budget goes to social programs. This is up from 17% right after WWII. The bloating of the welfare state is rising on an exponential curve now.

Conversely, during the Cold War, our military budget hovered at right around a third of the federal buget (except during the Carter years). Now, it is less than a fifth of the budget.

spinnerholic
10-24-2008, 08:03 PM
What that chart make it difficult to see is that around 60% of the budget goes to social programs.

I find that percentage very, very hard to believe. Can you point me to a reference, please?

jason
10-25-2008, 09:12 AM
From a trusted anonymous source on wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/Us_gov_spending_histry_by_function_1902_2010.png

Ought Six
10-25-2008, 10:10 AM
sh:

Federa budget figures are pretty easy to find if you bother to look. Here is a list of how much money went to each agency (FY 2007), in billions of dollars.


Military Spending

Defense $429.6
Veterans Affairs $33.2

TOTAL: $462.8


Security

Homeland Security $32
Department of Justice $19.4

TOTAL: $51.4


Infrastructure

Department of Transportation $10.7
Department of Energy $22.8
Corps of Engineers $4.7

TOTAL: $38.2


Administration of federal lands

Department of the Interior $10.3
Environmental Protection Agency $7.5

TOTAL: $17.8


Government operations

Executive Office of the President $0.3
Legislative Branch $3.7
Judicial Branch $5.3
Other agencies $6.5
Department of State and other international programs $28.7

TOTAL: $44.5


Business and labor

Department of Commerce $5.6
Department of Labor $11.7
Department of Agriculture $19.6
Small Business Administration $0.4

TOTAL: $37.3


Science

National Aeronautics and Space Administration $16.2
National Science Foundation $5.6

TOTAL: $21.8


Social Programs

Department of Education $56
Department of Health and Human Services $69.1
Department of Housing and Urban Development $37.4
Social Security Administration $7.6
Social Security Fund $582
Medicare $367
Medicaid and SCHIP $198

TOTAL: $1,317.1


Interest on the national debt

TOTAL: $261


Other manditory spending

Includes some social programs, foreign aid, and infrastructure projects (pork)

TOTAL: $324


Source: Office of Management and Budget

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/tables.pdf


So about $1.4 trillion dollars went to social programs, and about $1.2 trillion dollars go to everything else. With the new Medicare prescription drug benefit coming on line, Medicare spending jumped this year. Look for that trend to get much worse. Other social programs have bloated significantly this year as well, eating up an even higher percentage. The increase in soical spending is no longer linear, but instead in becoming exponential.

Obviously, social spending is what is bankrupting us. Right after WWII, we spent 17% of the budget on social programs, and 30-34% on the military. In FY 2007, we spent around 54% of the budget on social spending and around 18% on the military. Projections for FY 2008 show social spending approaching 60% of the budget. Think about that change in percentage distribution in a single year.

Baby boomers are retiring in droves, many if not most of them with totally inadequate nest eggs. Seniors are already the most powerful voting bloc in the nation. They are organized and always have a high turnout. This is only going to get worse as our population ages, as more retire with not enough money, and as they demand more and more freebees from Uncle Sugar. Look for the percentage of social spending to skyrocket right along with tax rates on the fewer and fewer remaining workers in the future. If nothing changes, we will soon be like European nations; a stagnant welfare state with chronic high unemployment, crushing taxes and a disappearing military capability.

Michael
10-25-2008, 10:30 AM
Spending is spending, it is all the same whether or not it is for benefits, social programs, bail outs to billionaires, subsidies for ExxonMobile, pork projects or typically wasteful and bloated Department of Defense and Pentagon budgets. The Government Accountability Office needs to assess the recent damage. The last estimates of our longterm, unfunded fiscal commitments was over $60 trillion. The national debt was recently bumped up to $10.5 trillion.

Ought Six
10-25-2008, 11:28 AM
The government getting their affairs in order would be very nice, but I am not holding my breath on that one. The real problem is the people. We do not rise up against the two major parties that have created this mess and throw them out of office. Instead, we continue to vote in Republicrats to do more of the same. As a result, we get more cronyism, corporatism and socialism. The American people continue to want more handouts from Uncle Sugar, and continue to want the other guy to pay for it. That is what is behind this 'eat the rich' philosophy; simple greed. The people on Main Street are generally no better than the people on Wall Street.

flourbug
10-25-2008, 01:48 PM
06, I agree 100%. My short residence in the welfare state of NY taught me some big lessons about our new society. Past generations crossed oceans and worked hard labor for YEARS. Their lazy descendants don't want to farm - hard work and not enough money. They don't like to learn. School is boring. They don't want to work. They just don't like to. They CAN'T move away from their family and friends. So even if there's no work to be had for uneducated, skill-less people in their rural communities, there they sit, with their hand out to Uncle Sam. Because they DO like to ride around on four wheelers all day, drink, do drugs, shoot off guns, and make babies with young teenage girls. They claim a disability, ANY disability, and they are set. They know where and how to get everything they need without paying, and they always want MORE. Ask them, and they will blame the state of the country on the "rich politicians in Washington". But all they really need to do is look in the mirror.

This is why Obama will win. He won't tell the people we've got to suck it up and pay the piper. He'll tell them how he's going to make their lives better. How much MORE they will get if he is elected. Bad news doesn't win elections. Greasing palms does.

preppiechick
10-25-2008, 02:09 PM
OS-

David Walker has been warning about this, for quite a while. So did Ross Perot, who I vote for...where is he now??!! Also, I don't usually see the demographic angle mentioned often enough, in this crisis...the baby boomers are just starting to retire and pull out their stocks, which can only exasperate the problem.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
Print ThisGo BackGo to CBSNews.com Home
U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?
July 8, 2007(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 4, 2007. It was updated on July 8, 2007.

When the stock market soars or plunges, everyone pays attention. But short term results aren't that important to the man you're about to meet. David Walker thinks the biggest economic peril facing the nation is being ignored, and for nearly two years now he has been traveling the country like an Old Testament prophet, urging people to wake up before its too late. Who is David Walker and why should we care?

As correspondent Steve Kroft first reported earlier this year, he is the nation's top accountant, the comptroller general of the United States. He's totaled up our government's income, liabilities, and future obligations and concluded that our current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken. And he's not alone. It's been called the "dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows" – a set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don't even want to talk about them, which is exactly why David Walker does.


"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility," Walker tells Kroft.

David Walker is a prudent man and a highly respected public official. As comptroller general of the United States he runs he Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which audits the government's books and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. He has more than 3,000 employees, a budget of a half a billion dollars, and a message he considers urgent.

"I'm going to show you some numbers…they’re all big and they’re all bad," he says.

So bad, that Walker has given up on elected officials and taken his message directly to taxpayers and opinion makers, hoping to shape the debate in the next presidential election.

"You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership," Walker says.

He calls it a fiscal wake up tour, and he is telling civic groups, university forums and newspaper editorial boards that the U.S. has spent, promised, and borrowed itself into such a deep hole it will be unable to climb out if it doesn’t act now. As Walker sees it, the survival of the republic is at stake.

"What’s going on right now is we’re spending more money than we make…we’re charging it to credit card…and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it. And that’s absolutely outrageous," he told the editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

You have heard this before, from Ross Perot 15 years ago. You might have even thought the problem had been solved, when President Clinton announced, "Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit … will be simply zero."

"Well, those days are gone. We've gone from surpluses to huge deficits and our long range situation is much worse," Walker says.

"President Bush would argue that the economy is in pretty good shape, unemployment is down, the deficit is actually less than expected," Kroft remarks.

"The fact is, is that we don't face an immediate crisis. And, so people say, 'What's the problem?' The answer is, we suffer from a fiscal cancer. It is growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country," Walker replies.

The cancer, Walker says, are massive entitlement programs we can no longer afford, exacerbated by a demographic glitch that began more than 60 years ago, a dramatic spike in the fertility rate called the "baby boom."


Beginning next year, and for 20 years thereafter, 78 million Americans will become pensioners and medical dependents of the U.S. taxpayer.

"The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security January 1, 2008. They'll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious," Walker explains.

To illustrate their impact, he uses a power point presentation to show what would happen in 30 years if the U.S. maintains its current course and fulfills all of the promises politicians have made to the public on things like Social Security and Medicare.

What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes?

"If nothing changes, the federal government's not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else – national defense, homeland security, education, you name it," Walker warns.

Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn't go away, in what's shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.

Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won't be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. "But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security," he says.

Asked what he means by that, Walker tells Kroft, "By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem."

The problem with Medicare, Walker says, is people keep living longer, and medical costs keep rising at twice the rate of inflation. But instead of dealing with the problem, he says, the president and the Congress made things much worse in Dec. 2003, when they expanded the Medicare program to include prescription drug coverage.

"The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," Walker argues.

Asked why, Walker says, "Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We're not being realistic. We can't afford the promises we've already made, much less to be able, piling on top of 'em."

With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years.

"We’d have to have eight trillion dollars today, invested in treasury rates, to deliver on that promise," Walker explains.

Asked how much we actually have, Walker says, "Zip."

So where's that money going to come from?

"Well it's gonna come from additional taxes, or it's gonna come from restructuring these promises, or it's gonna come from cutting other spending," Walker says.

He is not suggesting that the nation do away with Medicare or prescription drug benefits. He does believe the current health care system is way too expensive, and overrated.

"On cost we're number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth," he says.

"We have the largest uninsured population of any major industrialized nation. We have above average infant mortality, below average life expectancy, and much higher than average medical error rates for an industrialized nation," Walker points out.

Walker says we have promised almost unlimited healthcare to senior citizens who never see the bills, and the government already is borrowing money to pay them. He says the system is unsustainable.

"It's the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it's the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it's the number one competitive challenge for American business. We're gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years," Walker tells Kroft.

And if we don't?

"And if we don't, it could bankrupt America," Walker argues.

You’re probably expecting to hear from someone who disagrees with the comptroller general’s numbers, projections, and analysis. But hardly anyone does. He is accompanied on the wake-up tour by economists from the conservative Heritage Foundation, the left-leaning Brookings Institution, and the non-partisan Concord Coalition. The only dissenters seem to be a small minority of economists who believe either that the U.S. can grow its way out of the problem, or that Walker is over-stating it.

"The Wall Street Journal for example calls you 'Chicken Little,' running around saying that the 'sky is falling, the sky is falling,'" Kroft remarks.

"Unfortunately they don't get it. I don't know anybody who has done their homework, has researched history, and who's good at math who would tell you that we can grow our way out of this problem," Walker replies.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke validated much of Walker's take on the situation at congressional hearings this year, and so did ranking Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the chairman.

Sen. Conrad thinks David Walker is "providing an enormous public service."

Asked if he agrees with Walker’s figures and his projections, Sen. Conrad says, "I do. You know, I mean we could always question the precise nature of this projection or that projection. But, that misses the point. The larger story that he is telling is exactly correct."

Conrad acknowledges that most people in Washington are aware how bad the situation is. "They know in large measure here, Republicans and Democrats, that we are on a course that doesn't add up," the senator tells Kroft.

"Why doesn't somebody do something about it?" Kroft asks.

"Because it's always easier not to. 'Cause it's always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices," Sen. Conrad says.

Asked if he thinks taxes should be raised, the senator says, "I believe first of all, we need more revenue. We need to be tough on spending. And we need to reform the entitlement programs … we need to do all of it."

But he admits he doesn't think there's a consensus for raising taxes.

"Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth," Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.

Over the next year, the nation’s top accountant will be traveling to the early primary states, telling voters that we need to begin raising taxes or government revenues and put a cap on federal spending if we want to maintain our economic security and standard of living.

"If you tell them the truth, if you give them the facts, if you explain this in terms of not just numbers but values and people, they will get it and empower their elected officials to make tough choices," Walker argues.

Asked if he knows any politicians willing to raise taxes or cut back benefits, Walker says, "I don't know politicians that like to raise taxes. I don't know politicians that like to cut spending, but I think what we have to recognize is this is not just about numbers. We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it's an issue of immorality."


Produced by Andy Court
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Statement

flourbug
10-25-2008, 03:02 PM
We don't need to raise taxes. We need to lower the cost of medicine and pharmaceuticals.

preppiechick
10-25-2008, 03:15 PM
FB-

Don't get me wrong...I DEFINITELY don't want to see higher taxes!!! The pertinent fact was unsustainable spending and entitlements. Gov't should be more like the founding fathers envisioned, SMALL and state oriented. That was my point (reiterating OS) -we are going broke, and the last thing we need to do is spend more money, that we don't have! How can anyone actually believe that MORE spending or more programs will help? It wouldn't work with my creditors!!

flourbug
10-25-2008, 03:26 PM
preppiechick, I hear you. Sadly, the Great Experiment is over. The people WANT a socialist state. WE - you, and I, and the people on this board who keep trying to get back the vision the Founding Fathers put to paper - cannot do anything about the direction the tide is taking us.

jason
10-25-2008, 03:34 PM
The problem is our culture.

The United States is centralized around ME. I want, I need, I deserve.

There's always going to be more people at the bottom than at the top. It's a pyramid. This is true within companies and true of our workforce. You will never need 8 managers for one worker. It's the other way around. As such when we're talking about freebies given to the lower class, they'll vote for whatever gets them more, and they have greater numbers than those paying the high taxes. This is especially true if the rich are demonized and we're helping them be patriotic by taxing their socks off. This didn't use to be a big deal since everyone aspired to be greater than they are. So even if you weren't at the top, the fact is, you MIGHT get there. These days I hire people and they don't do jack squat in the office. They barely show up, fall asleep in their cubes, and basically sit around waiting for paychecks. I HATE firing people, but I've literally had a success rate of about 20% of new hires that can hack it. And we're not talking about rocket science work either.

Anyway, long story short, I lived in Singapore for many years - a country that was ridiculed in the united states for wanting to whip an American (several decades ago) for stealing stop signs (which putg lives at risk) and vandalizing vehicles. Their society is centralized on the general good of all, rather than the individual. They are a democracy - they elect their leaders just as we do, but their mindset is completely different. Sure the punishment is harsh, but that kid didn't do it again.

I don't know if what America has become is what all great societies will eventually deteriorate into, or if we're just failing because we're a bunch of lazy asshats who think we're awesome and deserve everything handed to us on a silver platter.

preppiechick
10-25-2008, 03:54 PM
FB-

That was one of the most depressing posts I've read (though true, but harsh to see written out!). I guess i'm still idealistic enough to believe that americans will rise to the top and do the right thing, but sadly, you are probably right. I don't know what to do. I have NEVER seen that mentality, out here in the burbs, before, but it has crept into the mindset, now. My great grandkids ( if I ever have any) couldn't pay off the debt before...now it will only get worse. I have to go do something uplifting, today :)

Ought Six
10-26-2008, 01:06 AM
From the CBS News article above posted by pc:
"You know the American people, I tell you, they are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership," Walker says.Bullsh*t. The American people will and pretty much always have crucified any politician with the huevos to tell them the truth. Real leadership means, when necessary, doing the right thing; the tough thing; the painful thing. Run for office, stand up on the stump, and tell Americans they are mainly to blame for their own problems. Tell them the welfare state is unsustainable in the long run, and Social Security is going bankrupt. Tell them you must drastically cut their government handouts, and use the savings to pay down the national debt. See what it gets you.

Americans want the exact opposite of the truth. We reward politicans who lie to us and make promises they cannot possibly keep (as Obama is doing right now). Then we cry out in surprise and outrage that 'we were hoodwinked!' when reality sets in. We are a nation of self-deceiving nitwits.

Arubi
10-26-2008, 01:52 AM
Bullsh*t. The American people will and pretty much always have crucified any politician with the huevos to tell them the truth. Real leadership means, when necessary, doing the right thing; the tough thing; the painful thing. Run for office, stand up on the stump, and tell Americans they are mainly to blame for their own problems. Tell them the welfare state is unsustainable in the long run, and Social Security is going bankrupt. Tell them you must drastically cut their government handouts, and use the savings to pay down the national debt. See what it gets you.

Americans want the exact opposite of the truth. We reward politicans who lie to us and make promises they cannot possibly keep (as Obama is doing right now). Then we cry out in surprise and outrage that 'we were hoodwinked!' when reality sets in. We are a nation of self-deceiving nitwits.

The problem is there are so few that can see it.

Arubi
10-26-2008, 02:39 AM
06, I agree 100%. My short residence in the ome big lessons about our new society. Pawelfare state of NY taught me sst generations crossed oceans and worked hard labor for YEARS. Their lazy descendants don't want to farm - hard work and not enough money. They don't like to learn. School is boring. They don't want to work. They just don't like to. They CAN'T move away from their family and friends. So even if there's no work to be had for uneducated, skill-less people in their rural communities, there they sit, with their hand out to Uncle Sam. Because they DO like to ride around on four wheelers all day, drink, do drugs, shoot off guns, and make babies with young teenage girls. They claim a disability, ANY disability, and they are set. They know where and how to get everything they need without paying, and they always want MORE. Ask them, and they will blame the state of the country on the "rich politicians in Washington". But all they really need to do is look in the mirror.

This is why Obama will win. He won't tell the people we've got to suck it up and pay the piper. He'll tell them how he's going to make their lives better. How much MORE they will get if he is elected. Bad news doesn't win elections. Greasing palms does.

Excuse me FB, have to call you on that, seems you are centering on just a few local communities in what you call the "welfare state of NY " . Don't stereotype all like you have in your statement. That is not in the least fair for the State of NY or any State for that matter. You could find what you judge in any State in the Union.

It seems your view of communities is nothing to worry about....because
So even if there's no work to be had for uneducated, skill-less people in their rural communities, there they sit, with their hand out to Uncle Sam. Because they DO like to ride around on four wheelers all day, drink, do drugs, shoot off guns, and make babies with young teenage girls. They claim a disability, ANY disability, and they are set. They know where and how to get everything they need without paying, and they always want MORE.

These persons that "DO like to ride around on four wheelers all day, drink, do drugs, shoot off guns, and make babies with young teenage girls" ......they don't even bother to vote or take part in in community forums.;)
So FB, you have nothing to worry about:) I do find your personal view somewhat perplexing.:confused1:

Michael
10-26-2008, 06:53 AM
This is the article I posted on David Walker: http://curevents.org/showthread.php?t=678&highlight=David+Walker

He is the former head of the non partisan Government Accountability Office.

He is the one directly responsible for coming up with the longterm unfunded fiscal commitments. When the Medicare Drug Benefits passed after an intensive lobbyist campaign from the pharmaceutical corporations and HMOs, he was the one to blow the whistle and estimate the increase longterm debt as an extra $13 trillion. Not long after that, he came up with the staggering estimate of $53 trillion for our total unfunded longterm commitment. That was in 2004. This figure has increased since then, especially with the rebates and bail outs.

He has been lecturing constantly throughout the US with one simply loud and clear message, we must stop our current reckless out of control spending.

nmp
10-26-2008, 12:03 PM
Americans want the exact opposite of the truth. We reward politicans who lie to us and make promises they cannot possibly keep (as both major party candidates are doing right now). Then we cry out in surprise and outrage that 'we were hoodwinked!' when reality sets in. We are a nation of self-deceiving nitwits.

I fixed it so I could completely agree with you :)

Michael
10-26-2008, 12:20 PM
One reason many people simply can't relate to a $10.5 trillion national debt is that that amount of money is way beyond their own personal experience. I have known math teachers that have assigned their classes the question - if you were putting dollar bills end to end and could continue doing this around the entire world, how many times would you need to go around the world to equal the amount of the national debt.

Key
10-26-2008, 02:44 PM
When the point is reached that a debt can never be repaid, then how large that number is becomes completely irrevelvant.

flourbug
10-26-2008, 09:51 PM
seems you are centering on just a few local communities in what you call the "welfare state of NY " . Don't stereotype all like you have in your statement. That is not in the least fair for the State of NY or any State for that matter. You could find what you judge in any State in the Union.

Arubi, you are right. You can find what I saw in NY in any State in the Union. When I have described my experience on other forums, some people say I'm exaggerating and then others speak up to say they have the SAME situation where they live. Having grown up in the shadow of NYC I'm very familiar with the area and no stranger to poverty. But what I saw in upstate NY was a real eye opener.

I've since moved on but still follow the newspapers from the Great Lakes to the Hudson, from the Pennsy border to the Canadian border... and the circumstances I described are pervasive throughout the area. While technically "NY State", NYC and its boroughs and Long Island, are very different.

The people there have computers and internet connections. AOL was very popular when we lived there six years ago. They definitely vote. When we were there it was an overwhelmingly Democrat area which voted in the most liberal socialistic entitlement programs east of California, and part of that is building housing projects and filling them with section 8 residents ( an example is: http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/COMMUN02/809130362 ). Unfortunately, most of the homeowners in the area could not afford the resulting double digit property tax increases that occurred year after year, and property values have been driven down sharply. More recently Republicans have been replacing incumbent Democrats, and property tax rises have abated somewhat - down to 2 to 8% rather than 10 - 19% per year - but they still have BIG problems up there.

Dreamweaver
10-26-2008, 10:29 PM
Spending is spending, it is all the same whether or not it is for benefits, social programs, bail outs to billionaires, subsidies for ExxonMobile, pork projects or typically wasteful and bloated Department of Defense and Pentagon budgets.

If you want to get spending under control you not looking at the right department. Human resource spending is where the big money is.
http://www.claremont.org/repository/imgLib/20081010_VoegeliChartA.jpg

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1570/article_detail.asp

Michael
10-26-2008, 10:38 PM
The war in Iraq is spending $10 to $15 billion a month while the Iraqis have been collecting oil field revenues and putting it in the bank. That is now in the range of $90 billion . So you are saying that is OK with you??? And in 2001 Donald Rumsfeld was confronted on the fact that the BLOATED Pentagon budget could not account for $1.3 trillion. It is because of Republicans like you that people like Ruumy are not fired on the spot for mismanagement. Do you know of any CEO in the private market that could say he couldn't account for that amount of money and not get fired? N oooooooooop! Partisan cover up is truly disgusting!!!

Dreamweaver
10-26-2008, 11:01 PM
Ok, for those who have a dyslexia problem let me just state I only posted a graph that shows spending over the past 60 some years, of National Defense compared to everything else. Interpret the graph how you want. Nothing else was said.