• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Budget graph

It is not as bad as it looks. Adjust those numbers to GDP/Inflation and you will realize we have had much worse budgets. ONce the economy picks back up that defecit will shink.
Click to expand...
Lets hope it is going to happen soon, very soon
 
Doesn't matter how you look at it. Both as a monetary figure (400bil) and percentage of GDP (4%), its a huge ass deficit.

AFAIK EU nations aren't permitted to pass budgets with more than 3% deficit.
 
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
wow. bush really needs to step aside
Click to expand...

How can you stimulate the economy without a tax cut or increased government spending?
Click to expand...

I remember some conservatives last week crediting George I with turning around the early 90's recession by increasing taxes.
 
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Doesn't matter how you look at it. Both as a monetary figure (400bil) and percentage of GDP (4%), its a huge ass deficit.

AFAIK EU nations aren't permitted to pass budgets with more than 3% deficit.
Click to expand...

I beleive Germany is currently breaking the 3% mark. And we have still had larger defecits in relation to gdp in the past. That being said, spending needs to be cut.


 
what do you expect the graph to show when we had to increase the budget for security and bush cut taxes? Now, as charrison said, when bush starts cutting needless fat from the government's wasteline, it'll become more streamline. In fact, this is as good a time as any to start slashing services.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
what do you expect the graph to show when we had to increase the budget for security and bush cut taxes? Now, as charrison said, when bush starts cutting needless fat from the government's wasteline, it'll become more streamline. In fact, this is as good a time as any to start slashing services.
Click to expand...

Well they could start by cutting military expenditures in Iraq.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: Dari
what do you expect the graph to show when we had to increase the budget for security and bush cut taxes? Now, as charrison said, when bush starts cutting needless fat from the government's wasteline, it'll become more streamline. In fact, this is as good a time as any to start slashing services.
Click to expand...

Well they could start by cutting military expenditures in Iraq.
Click to expand...

HAHA 😀
 
the state government of Cali's gonna be $34 billion short this year cuz gray davis' tax and spend policies were dependant on the silicon valley bubble growing forever....

highest state sales tax, highest gas tax, and the dems still cant make ends meet
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
the state government of Cali's gonna be $34 billion short this year cuz gray davis' tax and spend policies were dependant on the silicon valley bubble growing forever....

highest state sales tax, highest gas tax, and the dems still cant make ends meet
Click to expand...


Yea, Cali is still trying to dig out from under the debt of buying artifically high electricity emposed by a zelous republican adminstration using the Enron's of the nation to bust its balls for not voting for Bush in the last election. You have to pay someway or another, because as of yet, this administration has not reigned in that corruption yet. so the debt goes on.
😉
 
Originally posted by: Dari
what do you expect the graph to show when we had to increase the budget for security and bush cut taxes? Now, as charrison said, when bush starts cutting needless fat from the government's wasteline, it'll become more streamline. In fact, this is as good a time as any to start slashing services.
Click to expand...

How about we start with the Department of Homeland Defense ? As Pat.B once said " I thought that was why we have the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc...for ! How about we tell these guys to work together or else. ! Yeah and I am not talking about the low-level grunts here." Face it the GOP controlled Congress has pork barreled in a lot of projects while it has been in charge of Congress recently and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
the state government of Cali's gonna be $34 billion short this year cuz gray davis' tax and spend policies were dependant on the silicon valley bubble growing forever....

highest state sales tax, highest gas tax, and the dems still cant make ends meet
Click to expand...


Yea, Cali is still trying to dig out from under the debt of buying artifically high electricity emposed by a zelous republican adminstration using the Enron's of the nation to bust its balls for not voting for Bush in the last election. You have to pay someway or another, because as of yet, this administration has not reigned in that corruption yet. so the debt goes on.
😉
Click to expand...

I have to agree here. Were going to be paying for Enron and other power companies rip-off scam for a long ways to come. California is caught in the crosshairs of GOP retaliation because it does not vote Republican and IMHO that is just plain wrong !
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Dari
what do you expect the graph to show when we had to increase the budget for security and bush cut taxes? Now, as charrison said, when bush starts cutting needless fat from the government's wasteline, it'll become more streamline. In fact, this is as good a time as any to start slashing services.
Click to expand...

How about we start with the Department of Homeland Defense ? As Pat.B once said " I thought that was why we have the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc...for ! How about we tell these guys to work together or else. ! Yeah and I am not talking about the low-level grunts here." Face it the GOP controlled Congress has pork barreled in a lot of projects while it has been in charge of Congress recently and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about homeland security. Turf wars keep these agencies from working together. It's a damn shame that they can't bury their pride and do the right thing for the american public. But I think the money allocated to the military should stay there because we have some serious fighting to do within the next 5 to 15 years.

As for the pork comment, I wish McCain would come up with a bill to take care of that. He seems to have the midas touch on these (contraversal) subjects.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Dari
what do you expect the graph to show when we had to increase the budget for security and bush cut taxes? Now, as charrison said, when bush starts cutting needless fat from the government's wasteline, it'll become more streamline. In fact, this is as good a time as any to start slashing services.
Click to expand...

How about we start with the Department of Homeland Defense ? As Pat.B once said " I thought that was why we have the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc...for ! How about we tell these guys to work together or else. ! Yeah and I am not talking about the low-level grunts here." Face it the GOP controlled Congress has pork barreled in a lot of projects while it has been in charge of Congress recently and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...



Defense budget flap delays funds for war
Nov. 24, 2001

WASHINGTON -- Bickering over the Defense Department's budget and money for homeland security has stalled congressional action on a spending bill the Pentagon needs to continue paying for the war against terrorism.

The delay is caused, in part, by a partisan battle over how much extra money the military and other agencies need in the 2002 budget year, which began Oct. 1.

Democrats want to boost many agencies' budgets, including the Pentagon's. And they intend to use the Defense Department's $318 billion spending bill as a vehicle for the new allocations
...Democrats hope to pressure Republicans into supporting their plan, on the threat that a vote against money for homeland security would look as though they are voting against public safety.
...
But Republicans appear ready to stick with the White House and not support new spending.
..."


...

 
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Dari
what do you expect the graph to show when we had to increase the budget for security and bush cut taxes? Now, as charrison said, when bush starts cutting needless fat from the government's wasteline, it'll become more streamline. In fact, this is as good a time as any to start slashing services.
Click to expand...

How about we start with the Department of Homeland Defense ? As Pat.B once said " I thought that was why we have the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc...for ! How about we tell these guys to work together or else. ! Yeah and I am not talking about the low-level grunts here." Face it the GOP controlled Congress has pork barreled in a lot of projects while it has been in charge of Congress recently and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...



Defense budget flap delays funds for war
Nov. 24, 2001

WASHINGTON -- Bickering over the Defense Department's budget and money for homeland security has stalled congressional action on a spending bill the Pentagon needs to continue paying for the war against terrorism.

The delay is caused, in part, by a partisan battle over how much extra money the military and other agencies need in the 2002 budget year, which began Oct. 1.

Democrats want to boost many agencies' budgets, including the Pentagon's. And they intend to use the Defense Department's $318 billion spending bill as a vehicle for the new allocations
...Democrats hope to pressure Republicans into supporting their plan, on the threat that a vote against money for homeland security would look as though they are voting against public safety.
...
But Republicans appear ready to stick with the White House and not support new spending.
..."


...
Click to expand...


Still does not show me why we need a DoHD ? In fact all it shows me is that we need to open up the political process up to allow for more then just the two old crusty parties. Both of which are 2 sides of the same old worthless up coin.
 
Drift3r
Still does not show me why we need a DoHD ? In fact all it shows me is that we need to open up the political process up to allow for more then just the two old crusty parties. Both of which are 2 sides of the same old worthless up coin.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the the DoHD is just a consolidation of many different agencies that already existed. The coordination and cooperation between them was not the best or efficient. The DoHD just brings them all under one agency to try and improve on that situation.

I do not disagree that a viable third party would help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top