bush sets another record

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't know the exact figures but I bet the bush tax cuts would account for a significant portion of the remaining 2/3.

They would represent a pretty big chunk - probably another 1/3 as a conservative estimate.

However, this is something that Congress cannot disclaim responsibility for. Not the current Pelosi lead Congress, but Congress all the same. To their benefit, they did have sunset clauses, usually 2010, for most of the cuts.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Actually, take a look at government spending versus government tax revenues. Revenues keep increasing. Spening keeps increasing at a greater rate.

That has always happened, inflation, population growth, economic growth, but if you cut taxes without cutting spending then you end up in the situation we are in now.

[nerdgirl 0]

Interesting, im-ever-ho, case … which illustrates just how many stakeholders are in play & exert power:

Anyone else following the decision of the Navy to procure only 2 Zumwalt-class DDG-1000 ships?

At one point the Navy was asking for 32, more recently 7, and just recently announced a reprogramming in the FY09 PBR to procure only the 2 currently contracted (~$3.3B each, although widely assumed will be much higher, estimates range from $7.2B to >$11B each (per OSD Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG), GAO, & CRS), upon delivery).

Instead the Navy has indicated that they will procure up to 11 additional (cheaper and demonstrated) Arleigh Burke-class DDG-51 destroyers.

That decision was approved by NavSec Donald Winter, CNO ADM Gary Roughead, DepSecDef Gordon England, and DUSD(AT&L) John Young.

(Btw: Historically the parallel to the decision in the early 1990s to end the super-sophisticated Seawolf attack submarine in favor of the cheaper, more flexible Virginia-class has been noted.)

This decision is a big deal for the Navy, of course.

And it’s also a big deal for General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (Maine) and Northrop Grumman's Ingalls Yard (Pascagoula, MS), who have been each contracted to build one DDG 1000.

Another large defense contractor, Raytheon (Massachusetts), is contracted to build the DDG-1000's electronic systems.

That last one brings in Sen Ted Kennedy, along with other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and House Armed Services Committee (HASC):

“Led by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the dozen senators from Massachusetts, Maine, and elsewhere threatened to hold up other shipbuilding funds if the Navy doesn't provide more explanation for why it won't buy more of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class of ships after the first two are finished around 2014.”

The interest of the Senators Susan Collins (R) and Olympia Snowe (R) from Maine was also piqued [to put it diplomatically]:

“Collins, a supporter of the Zumwalt, has said repeatedly that the third Zumwalt is necessary to avoid a drastic workload gap at Bath Iron Works.

“Collins questions whether there would be enough work to keep shipbuilders busy if they reverted to the existing model.”

So the Navy’s trying to cut expenses and give more capabilities (more ships), and Congress is pushing back – because of the constituents they represent. And it’s not a knock on business … cause the people who work at those businesses are constituents. At the same time to pretend that the incentives to business to make A LOT of money off the program doesn’t exist (i.e., profiteering) would be naïve.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't know the exact figures but I bet the bush tax cuts would account for a significant portion of the remaining 2/3.

They would represent a pretty big chunk - probably another 1/3 as a conservative estimate.

However, this is something that Congress cannot disclaim responsibility for. Not the current Pelosi lead Congress, but Congress all the same. To their benefit, they did have sunset clauses, usually 2010, for most of the cuts.

True, bush had help from congress, thankfully the current congress will not renew the tax breaks (successfully standing up to bush for once) and we will get closer to spending what we earn.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

I think that represents roughly 1 week of our Gross National Output

It's also about $5,000 per US household. So it would need only about four reverse-stimulus initiatives.

Happy anti-stimulation, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[warpedskydiver 0]

This is much like the politicians currently pushing for the adoption of the 6.8SPC as a replacement for the 5.56NATO cartridge.

The Politicians are trying to force it down the throats of the Military, who have already, repeatedly, rejected it.

The military knows far more about small arms than the politicians will ever learn, but like that matters?

In the end if the 5.56mm is replaced by the 6.8SPC, billions will be wasted, along with the lives of servicemen.

if we need a replacement for the 5.56mm, we already have one it is called 7.62NATO and it does more than the 6.6 can ever do, and everything it can do, better.

the 6.5 Grendel is not being pushed as a replacement cartridge, because one is not NEEDED.

why on earth would we ever want to match capabilities with our enemy, when we can surpass it.

We should never bring our enemy on par with our own effective range.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Congress GAVE the POTUS the authority to do it in October, 2002.

Yes they did, based on the faulty intelligence of Iraq posing an imminent threat. The fact of he matter is, the President had access to intelligence reports that the Congress did not. You always seem to forget to mention the last two bits of information, as important and relevant as they are.

Quote

I saw an earlier post about a "budget surplus." Check a look at the Clinton years and find a year when the national debt did not increase. You can't find it. BEcause Congress and the POTUS balanced the budget by borrowing money from technically "off-budget" programs - namely, Social Security payroll taxes.

Really? That assertion would be incorrect according to the Office of Management and Budget. Perhaps you should check out Table 1.1(Link downloads Excel spreadsheet, attached in PDF format below). You may want to pay particularly close attention to fiscal years 1999 and 2000. While the federal debt did increase during 1999 and 2000, the cash held in federal accounts increased by greater amounts. (see Table 7.1 (Link downloads Excel spreadsheet, attached in PDF format below))

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Actually, take a look at government spending versus government tax revenues. Revenues keep increasing. Spening keeps increasing at a greater rate.

It's funny how that has not been true under any of the last three Democrat Presidents.

It seems clear that our best chance of fiscal responsibility at the federal level lies in having a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yes they did, based on the faulty intelligence of Iraq posing an imminent threat. The fact of he matter is, the President had access to intelligence reports that the Congress did not. You always seem to forget to mention the last two bits of information, as important and relevant as they are.

I don't omit that. Apparently, I also had access to intelligence that Congress did not, as well.

Quote

You may want to pay particularly close attention to fiscal years 1999 and 2000. While the federal debt did increase during 1999 and 2000, the cash held in federal accounts increased by greater amounts.

I can increase cash on han by taking my creit card to an ATM. Also, if I transfer money from my business to myself I also will show a surplus. My business may, in fact, still turn a profit or break even.

You can't increase debt and have a surplus unless you borrowed money for the surplus. That's how raiding off-budget cash for on-buget receipts works.

It was a "budget surplus." Just not a "surplus."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Social Security - $608
Medicare - $386
Medicaid - $209
Unemployment - $324
INterest on National Debt - $261

How about, say, a 10% cut across the board, except for the Interest?

The primary purpose of government taxes is to provide common services to the citizens of this country. Social programs are the biggest expense in every first-world country, and that is the way it should be. Despite all the problems with Social Security, it is by far the most efficient government expenditure - all of the administration costs of SS make up less that 1% of the gross - no other government program comes close to that.

It's improper to compare an illegal war that does not contribute to our safety to a program that is designed to help our citizens. No, we should not cut SS by 10%, or even 1%. Instead we should ask why we are fighting three-trillion dollar a war halfway around the world, when congress never passed a formal declaration of war?

You can point the finger on spending at congress if you are a Republican, but congress is the only entity that should decide on wars, and they didn't decide on this one.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

You may want to pay particularly close attention to fiscal years 1999 and 2000. While the federal debt did increase during 1999 and 2000, the cash held in federal accounts increased by greater amounts.

I can increase cash on han by taking my creit card to an ATM. Also, if I transfer money from my business to myself I also will show a surplus. My business may, in fact, still turn a profit or break even.

You can't increase debt and have a surplus unless you borrowed money for the surplus. That's how raiding off-budget cash for on-buget receipts works.

It was a "budget surplus." Just not a "surplus."

Do you really lack the ability to read a simple spreadsheet?

In 1999, there was an on-budget surplus and an off budget surplus. Cash on hand increased by more than the debt increased.

You were just claiming to make intellectually honest arguments regarding the war in Iraq. Try making one regarding the economy under Clinton. The man kept outlays less than receipts on and off budget for 25% of his tenure, and total outlays under total receipts much longer. It's been a long time since we've had a president as fiscally responsible as he was.

Some historical perspective: Before Clinton oversaw it, the last time the US has seen budget surpluses both on and off budget were 1956 and 1957. The last four years that on budget and off budget outlays combined were less than total receipts were 1956, 1957, 1960 and 1969. The last time the US has had four consecutive years of total budget surplus was 1927-1930. The last President to oversee four years of budget surplus from budgets he signed into office was Harry Truman. The last President to see three years of total budget surplus while in office was Dwight Eisenhower.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

A quick perusal of historical debt data collected by the government entity that tracks such things shows the public debt did not decrease at all during EJC's tenure - and certainly not under GWB or GHWB or the Great Ronald Reagan.

A nice GAO report on the FY 99 debt and its structure should infuriate everyone:

Clicky

EJC's budget surpluses - and there were BUDGET surpluses - were used to reduce the debt held by the public. There's a LOT of debt held by the government right now from several presidents and congresses - Republican and Democrat. Medicare alone has over $30 trillion from what I've read.

Lawrocket is correct - the debt did NOT decrease and the BUDGET surplus was and only a budget and not an execution surplus. Debt did not decrease.

Debt will not decrease until all entitlement programs are put upon the table and re-examined for fiscal feasibility. All of them. But that is unlikely to happen. The mere mention of opposition to an entitlement not even passed is enough to turn sane and passionate people into absolute fucktards incapable of fundamental logic. The mention of repealing entitlements already in place would send many over the edge. That's EXACTLY what needs to occur, however - among other things; cuts to discretionary spending being first and foremost among them.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,127]

Quote

Actually, take a look at government spending versus government tax revenues. Revenues keep increasing. Spening keeps increasing at a greater rate.

Revenues don't look so good when corrected for inflation and population growth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

A quick perusal of historical debt data collected by the government entity that tracks such things shows the public debt did not decrease at all during EJC's tenure - and certainly not under GWB or GHWB or the Great Ronald Reagan.

Nice strawman. I challenge you to find in this thread any post in which I claimed that the national debt decreased. You'd better work on that reading comprehension, Vinny.

A nice GAO report on the FY 99 debt and its structure should infuriate everyone:

Quote

Lawrocket is correct - the debt did NOT decrease and the BUDGET surplus was and only a budget and not an execution surplus. Debt did not decrease.

Yes, he was correct about the debt not decreasing. That, however, is not the point in contention, which you would know had you read the relevant posts.

During fiscal years 1999 and 2000, receipts for each on budget and off budget expenditures exceeded the outlays for each. That is the fact that lawrocket was unable to acknowledge.

And yes, there was an execution surplus during those two years. The cash on hand by the federal government increased by an amount greater than the debt increased. That cannot happen unless the government takes in more revenue than it sends out in expenditures.

Feel free to read the data from the Whitehouse's Office of Budget and Management to which I previously linked. It actually breaks the data down in the same manner in which it is being discussed here (i.e. on budget, off budget and total surplus/deficit).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

I read it. The data I saw previously and posted (in a thread that is now deleted) provided the evidence that the budget was balanced because of the raiding of off-budget sources of revenue, chiefly SS payroll taxes.

I see your point about cash on hand. Thus creating a curiosity about why on earth they would raid the off-budget items. Again, if a budget is really "balanced" then why did the debt increase?

By the way, I am NOT arguing that Clinton and Congress did not do a good job working together after about 1995. Congress passed, and Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. And Congress managed to create a budget, through the positive leadership of Clinton, that was as close to balanced as we have come in decades.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

True, bush had help from congress, thankfully the current congress will not renew the tax breaks (successfully standing up to bush for once) and we will get closer to spending what we earn.

*snerk*

Keep dreaming, bud.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Try making one regarding the economy under Clinton. The man kept outlays less than receipts on and off budget for 25% of his tenure, and total outlays under total receipts much longer. It's been a long time since we've had a president as fiscally responsible as he was.

Yes, let's make some HONEST statements - perhaps you should do some research on WHO forced that budget from 95 on.

Here's a hint - it wasn't POTUS.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes, he was correct about the debt not decreasing. That, however, is not the point in contention, which you would know had you read the relevant posts.

hey, you stole that trick from Kallend.

And that's the only impressive part about the post.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I read it. The data I saw previously and posted (in a thread that is now deleted) provided the evidence that the budget was balanced because of the raiding of off-budget sources of revenue, chiefly SS payroll taxes.

In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the off budget sources of revenue were not raided. In 1998 and 2001, yes, on budget deficits were covered by off budget surpluses, but that was not true of 1999 or 2000. I think you'll find the sources I posted with this information to be quite credible, coming from the Office of Management and Budget.

Quote

I see your point about cash on hand. Thus creating a curiosity about why on earth they would raid the off-budget items. Again, if a budget is really "balanced" then why did the debt increase?

Well, they didn't raid the off budget items. However, they also borrowed cash that they didn't need to borrow. I'm not sure what the reasoning for that was. I could speculate, but that's all it would be.

I will say that there are a few scenarios in which it is wise for an individual or a business to borrow money even when they have the equivalent cash on hand. It's not unreasonable to consider that the government faced such a situation. Note that I'm not saying that was what happened, just that there is no absolute rule that pay as you go is always better.

Quote

By the way, I am NOT arguing that Clinton and Congress did not do a good job working together after about 1995. Congress passed, and Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. And Congress managed to create a budget, through the positive leadership of Clinton, that was as close to balanced as we have come in decades.

Agreed. In fact, for two years it was so close to a balanced budget that it was a balanced budget.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes, let's make some HONEST statements - perhaps you should do some research on WHO forced that budget from 95 on.

Here's a hint - it wasn't POTUS.

If Congress deserves the credit instead of the POTUS, why is it they could not pass a balanced budget after Clinton left office? The Republicans had control of the legislative and the executive branches. There were no evil liberals to stop them from being fiscally responsible if they wanted to be. Yet, they chose to be fiscally irresponsible. Why?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

hey, you stole that trick from Kallend.

And that's the only impressive part about the post.

Which trick? The intellectually honest argument or recognizing the strawman?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Both sides share responsibility, as shown by lawrocket above - Congress and POTUS can play hot potato with the budget until public pressure makes them act - but it takes both.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TheAnvil 0]

I think you should work on reading comprehension yourself. If the government had really taken in more $$ than it expended then the debt would have decreased. It did not, due to the government incurring obligations to itself - as it has done in several administrations. The debt held by the public was decreased with the so-called surplus.

There was no cash on hand as the debt did not decrease - its structure was merely change by the amount of the BUDGET surplus. This report does a pretty good job of explaining that, had you bothered to read it from my last post. A nice graph on page 17 will show you how the debt has increased all throughout EJC's tenure - though its rate did slow towards the end, increase the debt in fact did.

Dodge it as often as you like, facts are stubborn things and dodge or not - remain facts. EJC's surplus was not in fact a surplus. Were that the case, the debt would have decreased. It was a budget and not execution surplus, as if an execution surplus had occurred the debt would have decreased - it did not. Deal with it however you like. A fact it does remain.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think you should work on reading comprehension yourself. If the government had really taken in more $$ than it expended then the debt would have decreased. It did not, due to the government incurring obligations to itself - as it has done in several administrations. The debt held by the public was decreased with the so-called surplus.

For the arithmetic challenged:

receipts - outlays - new_debt + change_in_cash _in_gov't_accounts > 0 for fiscal years 1998 - 2001. Source

Quote

There was no cash on hand as the debt did not decrease - its structure was merely change by the amount of the BUDGET surplus.

That's some interesting logic you're using there, Vinny. Did the worm tell that to you? It's wrong. It is indeed possible to take on debt that one can afford to pay off immediately without using the funds received from taking that debt on.

Quote

Dodge it as often as you like, facts are stubborn things and dodge or not - remain facts. EJC's surplus was not in fact a surplus. Were that the case, the debt would have decreased. It was a budget and not execution surplus, as if an execution surplus had occurred the debt would have decreased - it did not. Deal with it however you like. A fat it doth remain.

Yes, the budget surpluses were, in fact, surpluses, according the the Office of Management and budget, as well as the Congressional Budget Office. But I'm sure you know more than those actuaries, right Vinny?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

Nope. Read.

I'll help direct you a bit. In addition to page 17, the following excerpt is a nice little summary that should serve to enlighten you:

"Intragovernmental holdings represent balances of Treasury securities held by individual funds, primarily trust funds, that typically have an obligation to invest their excess annual receipts over disbursements in federal securities. Most federal trust funds invest in special U.S. Treasury securities that are guaranteed for principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. These securities are nonmarketable, however, they represent a priority call on future budgetary resources. Certain of these trust funds such as the Social Security and federal civilian employee and military retirement trust funds, have been running annual surpluses, which are loaned to the Treasury and reduce the current need for the government to borrow from the public. Primarily as a result of such trust fund surpluses, intragovernmental holdings have increased by approximately $637 billion since September 30, 1997, with about $247 billion of this increase occurring in fiscal year 2000.

The transactions relating to the use of the funds’ surpluses net out on the government’s consolidated financial statements because, in effect, they represent loans from one part of the government to another. Importantly, these intragovernmental holdings also constitute future obligations of the Treasury since the Treasury must provide cash to redeem these securities in order for the funds to pay their benefits or other obligations as they come due. When this occurs, the government must fund these redemptions through some combination of reduced future surpluses, if available; lower relative spending for federal programs; higher relative taxes; and/or greater relative borrowing from the public."

Apparently you think you know more than the Comptroller of the United States. Who, by the way, agrees that there was a BUDGET surplus. As do I.

You might start by taking baby steps ala Bill Murray (fantastic flick). Start looking in the mirror and say "The debt did not decrease under Clinton's tenure as President" a few times. Then work you way up to "SS and military retirement trust funds were raided during Clinton's tenure as President and that money must be paid back someday"...then once you've practiced by yourself for a bit, come and see us and admit the same thing.

Admit it...or not...facts they are and forever will be.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!