Here's a story on duplicative programs we pay for.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...399165436.html
Printable View
Here's a story on duplicative programs we pay for.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...399165436.html
"Department of Redundancy Department. How may I assist in helping you?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...399165436.html
In February, the US brought in 110billion, we spent 330billion so we borowed 220billion dollars for February alone.
^ iirc.
220 billion dollars in one month!
Mxy, how much did Bush add to the national debt every year while he was in office? I can't remember. At least the years that Pewowsi wasn't in charge.
I don't know. There were some significant changes in how the deficit was counted when Obama came in, to account for the true costs of Medicare, for having disaster relief actually part of the budget, etc. that jacked up things by (I _think_) 20% or so. I don't have a good apples-to-apples comparison.
The gorillas in the room are Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, and interest on current debt, and the first two are growing the fastest. Those 4 things account for 80-85% of the budget. Assume that interest payments on the debt must happen or else the U.S. goes into foreclosure, so really there's only 3 areas to cut. I believe the consensus plan amongst the political class is "wait until after the 2012 elections". For people who think there should be spending cuts, what do you suggest we cut from those 3 things? I'd argue that focusing on the 15-20% of other discretionary spending is relative noise.
As far as what to do to jack up inbound revenue, Obama caved on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That's 30-35% of that deficit right there. Much like the Bush tax cuts, it's unclear to what extent the tax cuts (that were a nod to the Republicans) in the stimulus really stimulated anything, or are even appreciated. Pretty-much everyone has gotten a tax break under Obama, but a bunch of folks think their taxes are higher despite the math, because the economy is still shitty.
I'm going from memory here too, weren't there some existing war costs that were brought onto the books as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
But the national debt is what it is. Whether the spending is in the budget or not, it will added to the national debt, no?
Yeah, during his "transparency" phase they made a big deal about putting war costs in the budget rather than keeping it in off-budget funding (or not funding as it were) pile.
Quote:
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTopQuote:
We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?