Budget graph

adlep

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2001
5,287
6
81
:Q
Bill Clinton!
Pleaze come back...
<puts on the azbestos suite>
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
wow. bush really needs to step aside

How can you stimulate the economy without a tax cut or increased government spending?
 

adlep

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2001
5,287
6
81
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.
Lets hope it is going to happen soon, very soon
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
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.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
wow. bush really needs to step aside

How can you stimulate the economy without a tax cut or increased government spending?

I remember some conservatives last week crediting George I with turning around the early 90's recession by increasing taxes.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
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.

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.


 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
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.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
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.

Well they could start by cutting military expenditures in Iraq.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
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.

Well they could start by cutting military expenditures in Iraq.

HAHA :D
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
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
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
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


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.
;)
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
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.

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.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
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


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.
;)

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 !
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
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.

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.

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.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
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.

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.



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.
..."


...

 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
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.

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.



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.
..."


...


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.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
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.

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.