Watch Federal spending grow faster than a Chia Pet – no water necessary!!!

[FreeRangeAuthor]

Just How Much Does the Federal Government Spend?

Since 2000, federal spending has grown across the board. Entitlement spending has reached a record 14 percent of GDP. Discretionary spending has expanded 79 percent faster than inflation. Under the president’s budget, spending growth will only continue to outpace revenues. In 2010, Washington will spend more than $30,000 per household — or $5,000 per household more than two years ago. Spending has undoubtedly spiraled out of control. But, it doesn’t have to be this way. In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. The numbers associated with national spending are so large as to seem almost abstract. But, they need to be digested — and discussed.

— from askheritage.org, detailed report here …

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/Federal-Spending-by-the-Numbers-2010

###

Share This

[Carson]

Tough to control when you throw Trillions of dollars and thousands of young lives into a war we didn’t need and one we can never win. Discuss that money pit we will be paying for the next 75 years…..

Share This

[JoB]

FreeRangeAuthor..

You are aware of the irony of this article appearing on the heritage foundation website aren’t you?

The last time federal spending was contained was when those entitlement program loving democrats were in the White House. George junior spent like a drunken sailor and turned over a house about to collapse financially… all following the guidance of the Heritage Foundation.

That 14% entitlement spending number.. unless i am mistaken that’s a budget related number. In the recent Bush administration funding for the war and for contractors supporting the war wasn’t included in the federal budget. If you add the actual cost of the war into those numbers that percentage shrinks pretty fast.

What percentage of the US budget was spent on corporate entitlement programs.. otherwise known under euphemisms such as business incentives?

I didn’t bother reading far enough into that article to find that information…. though i would be surprised if it is there.

You will get no disagreement with me that we need to contain federal government expenditures.. but perhaps we should concentrate on some of those high ticket items like our unacknowledged military expenditures or the corporate hog trough that is sucking us dry.

Share This

[dawsonct]

Here’s the problem freeperanger, the Republicans follow what they call the “two Santa Claus” theory. It was created by the inventor of supply-side economics, Jude Wanniski:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski

—-

The idea is, when Republicans are in control, they give highly publicized, but really quite minor, tax cuts to most Americans, all while driving up spending using borrowed money in order to provide a false image of a healthy economy:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

—

To Wanniski’s credit, he was one of the early ultra-conservatives to call out the Cheney/bush (mis)administration for their imperialist ways.

I’ll give him credit for his consistency, he and Aurthur Laffer were simply wrong, and thirty+ years of supply-side economics in America have proven that.

Share This

[miws]

I think i’ll get me one of those Obama Head Chia Pets, and track how fast it grows in comparison to Fed spending. ;-)

Mike

Share This

[mpento]

The real problem is that too many people try to be “sensible” What’s the point in going against the tide. I mean do you think saving a bucket of water in the desert is going to save your life. It just makes you a target for all the other poor suckers out there. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Death and taxes!

Share This

[JoB]

mpento..

i am all for eating, drinking and being merry

in moderation…

it’s always good to save something for tomorrow’s party:)

Share This

[JanS]

there’s a party? where?

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Back to point. The Federal Government is spending too much. It was never formed to pay for everything.

Republicans and the last administration spent too much. Mr. Obama and the Democratically controlled House and Senate have put the pedal to metal. Both are guilty.

Time for some fiscal responsibility from all sides.

That is why the Republican party is starting to really push the conservatives versus Rockefeller Republicans. Which scares the hell out of the progressives.

The two parties were too much alike in spending but the gap is widening between the two in spending vs not spending.

The Republicans were spanked in the last two election cycles. Now the Democrats will be spanked.

Time to stop out of control government spending.

Time to grow up people. Quit blaming each other and fix it.

Unfortunately, the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico shows (again) how inept government and Private Enterprise can be.

Share This

[JanS]

now see…just the opposite scare the hell out of me…so who is right? I am terribly frightened of the Republicans that are starting to really “push the Rockefeller Repubs”.

I’m also tired of people ragging on Pres. Obama, blaming him for the oil spill. He had nothing to do with it. The coziness between the oil companies and the MMS, the deals, the ways of overlooking things, the trusting too much, believing the oil companies when they say that this can never happen. Right now BP execs and engineers look like a bunch of inept fools. But it could be Chevron, or Shell, or whoever. They all do it.

Am I impressed with the way Mr. Obama is personally handling this? I don’t know what goes on in the White House behind closed doors, anymore than the rest of us on here. The Federal Gov’t. is gonna have to spend a ton of money on the Gulf Coast, even though BP says they have it covered. So far they’re not cutting any checks. Do we wanna save some money? Look overseas – two wars that are drowning us in debt. That alone would be a good head start to turn things around.

But none of us are naive enough to think that we can just turn our backs..there’s too much at stake for us now. We are not the perfect country. We overlook the opium in Afghanistan because we “need” that part of the world. And as DP said in another thread, they’d kick us out in an instant if we clamped down on the opium industry in that country – so…we overlook, and keep on spending. So much for the “war on drugs”.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for it all…even for you and me. I sit here looking at my desk right now. The plastic in my computer, keyboard, mouse..the everyday things that we use that we rely on to make life just that much easier, that we would never, ever give up. And then we spit on “big oil”. We have met the enemy and he is us. Now, if only the politicians would stop politicking and just do their jobs like us regular folk, work together, instead of using their “brand” to disagree. Stop calling each other Libtards, Repugs. We’re gonna get nowhere fast. And we’re surprised at the intolerance that exists in the world? Geesh…look at our examples!

OK..it’s been a week, for sure. I’m rambling on and on…read between the lines, I suppose. HMC Rich, we can agree on more things than you think we can, I bet.

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRich…

We all agree federal spending is out of control. The difference is that I can see that the spending spree at the start of this administration was created by the ineptness of the last.

can you tell me how putting them back in control is going to solve anything?

Share This

[dhg]

The liberals ARE NOT running scared of the Republicans. They are laughing at them. Budget problems could be solved by rolling back the tax cuts for the ultra rich that took place during Reagan’s administration. Taxing corporations would also go a long way to solving the problem. You think it’s fine that BP pays no taxes when they pull in billions in profits each quarter?

Share This

[JanS]

JoB…always my thought…what’s the difference really gonna be?

Share This

[dawsonct]

It’s a shame I have to reiterate the points I made in the post only 5 before yours Rich, but profligate spending during Republican administrations and constant bleating ABOUT spending during Democratic administrations is really the ONLY republican strategy for the last thirty+ years. Have you ever heard the term “…shrink government until it’s small enough to drown in a bathtub?”

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Grover_Norquist

When Norquist coined the phrase, he wasn’t talking about shrinking the government where it syphons the most money to the ultra-super-duper-wealthy, he was talking about cutting and gutting domestic programs. Domestic programs help AMERICAN CITIZENS. It is WHY we created a government of, by, and for THE PEOPLE.

If OUR government doesn’t respond to OUR needs, then we ended up with the same system of governance that our Founders fought a revolution against. OUR government providing for her people is what they fought and died for.

—

AGAIN, can you Republicans (I won’t let you duck the label) respond as to WHY, when a Republican administration is in the White House, none of the crazy crap you CLAIM to be worried about NOW raised even a moment of concern.

When the Obama administration took control, they stopped trying to fool us with special accounting tricks and labeling expenditures as “emergency” funds. They try to treat us like adults, instead of little children who need to be protected from all the details of the tough decisions the “adults” are making.

So the Democrats didn’t take office and SUDDENLY increase spending, they just told us how much we ACTUALLY ARE spending.

You reichwingers constantly howl about personal responsibility (only during Democratic administrations, of course), yet you NEVER hold the leadership in your own party to the standards they INSIST others maintain.

—

Must suck to have an atrophied thought-process.

As John Wooden, the great Hoosier and Boilermaker, is noted for saying:

“Enjoy every day like it is your masterpiece, have some variety and try to learn something new every day.”

“When I am through learning, then I am through.”

Share This

[Smitty]

I think Bush took a ton of crap from Republicans for his spending, especially his deal with Teddy (god rest his soul) that doubled the amount we spend on education – that worked out well<sarcasm>.

Now, if you layer in who is running CONGRESS, not just who is in the White House that really shows the spending swings.

Interestingly enough, a Democrat President/Republican congress has the been the best combination of late. When either party gets both the Presidency and Congress they get drunk with power and spend, spend, spend.

Share This

[JoB]

What can i say?

drunk with power is not exactly how i would characterize this administration… they are too darn busy bailing us out of the mess made in the last 8 years by the past administration who never saw a corporate handout they didn’t like but couldn’t even get behind a scientific basis for science…

when you gut government services.. this is what you get…

big surprise that it is going to take some cash to put back together agencies like FEMA… not to mention all those regulatory agencies that just didn’t seem to be so important until the banks robbed America and BP spilled all that oil into the gulf.

as for that deal with teddy.. too bad most of the money in that deal didn’t actually go to public schools…

anyone who wanted to know how no child left behind was going to turn out only had to look at Texas where Governor Bush decimated the public school system and handed their funds to private schools.

That isn’t something you can blame on Ted…

Though i am sure it makes you feel a lot better to do so.

Share This

[dawsonct]

NCLB was a real boon to the makers of standardized tests, who, SURPRISE, had spent a lot of money funding Gee Whiz.

So the money our school districts once spent to teach children to be thinkers instead went into rote test-preparation, so they could get a high test score and continue to get funding.

—

Future investment strategy:

observe closely who the primary sources of money are for the Republican candidate, invest heavily in those industries.

Bath regularly in rubbing alcohol to remove the stench of corruption.

Invest afterwards in philanthropy, so I can sleep at night.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Reichwingers. Well, so much for thoughtful debate. Can’t help it can you? Who is the open minded person now? Hmmm?

I read the article about two Santa Clauses and partially agreed with it. The only problem was that the Congress under Reagan never quit spending. In fact, most congresses never have. Remember when they just wanted to not raise the budget by 2.4% or so. Your parties representatives said the Republicans were starving children. Although there weren’t any cuts, just not an expansion, that didn’t stop the PR campaign did it?

Back to Reagan, the hangover from the war in Vietnam left the military in a less than ready state. He was bound by the Constitution to protect us. So yes, he put a lot of our money into the defense industry. Remember, the Soviet Union outnumbered us on most levels except technology. I remember all those Anti-nuke anti Reagan marches. He didn’t get us blown up, did he? Why is the sky always falling with some of you? Sometimes I can say that about the Republicans too.

Now, I have to agree with part of the article because the Republicans have spent too much.

Dawsonct, Yes, the amount of money that the oil industries has given to the Republicans is more than the democrats. But there best friend lately was the Commander In Chief. If oil goes up to $4.00 a barrel, will you be screaming that he is a pawn of the oil industry just like many did with Bush and Cheney?

Read your history. Deep water drilling was pushed by the Clinton White House. The surtax that is normally charged was not part of the plan. The current and previous administrations have followed suit. Some of you scream like hell when ANWAR is brought up, but there would not be a problem there like in the Gulf. I have seen the land where they want to drill. It is NOT the pristine pictures the anti drilling crowd show.

Regardless, there needs to be more proper regulation. Duh.

Why do you look at only one side like you have a patch over one eye. Both parties have a stench around them at times. That is why we hold our nose when we vote quite often.

Wake up. Your liberty is being taken from you not only from the Right (who are not currently in power by the way) and from the current REGIME(thank you Rush). I will happily share some soap with you.

This is why the Goldwater slash Neo – Neo conservatives are pushing against the Rockefeller Progressive Republicans.

There are two sides to every coin. The radicals are now unhappy that Obama is not spending more! They are turning against him.

He and this congress have tripled what the previous administration has spent. They are taking over private sector industries. If Bush had done that, the word FASCISM would be in every other sentence.

If McCarthy was around now he would find plenty of Communists surrounding the President.

Good Night Neighbor (or comrade). Either way we have to live next to each other. I still like you anyway.

Share This

[Ken]

If you think Goldwater was a neoconservative, you don’t understand the history of your party at all.

It has moved so far to the right that even the actions of Regan must be sanitized to keep him in the canon.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the (Republican) party, and they are sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they cannot and will not compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” — Barry Goldwater

---

“I am a conservative Republican,” Barry Goldwater wrote in a 1994 Washington Post essay, “but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state.”

When Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1981, some Religious Right leaders suspected she might be too moderate on abortion and other social concerns. Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell told the news media that “every good Christian should be concerned.” Replied Goldwater, “Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell’s ass.”

The five-term U.S. senator from Arizona was equally unimpressed with TV preacher Pat Robertson. When Robertson sought the GOP nomination for president in 1988, Goldwater wasn’t about to say amen. “I believe in separation of church and state,” observed Goldwater. “Now, he doesn’t believe that . . . I just don’t think he should be running.”

A few years later he told The Advocate, “I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.”

While some Americans might find Goldwater’s stand against all interaction between religion and politics too sweeping, many would agree with his strong commitment to individual freedom of conscience on issues as diverse as religion in schools, gay rights or abortion. In 1994 he told The Los Angeles Times, “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.”

Goldwater, an Episcopalian, had theological differences with greedy TV preachers. “I look at these religious television shows,” he said, “and they are raising big money on God. One million, three million, five million – they brag about it. I don’t believe in that. It’s not a very religious thing to do.”

But Goldwater was also deeply worried about the Religious Right’s long-term impact on his beloved GOP. “If they succeed in establishing religion as a basic Republican Party tenet,” he told U.S. News & World Report in 1994, “they could do us in.” In an interview with The Post that same year, Goldwater observed, “When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”

But most importantly, Goldwater was deeply concerned about the Religious Right’s relentless war on the Constitution and basic American freedoms. In a Sept. 15, 1981 senate speech, Goldwater noted that Falwell’s Moral Majority, anti-abortion groups and other Religious Right outfits were sometimes referred to in the press as the “New Right” and the “New Conservatism.” Responded Goldwater, “Well, I’ve spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ‘Old Conservatism.’ And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.” Insisted Goldwater, “Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects. . . “By maintaining the separation of church and state,” he explained, “the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars . . . Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?”

Goldwater concluded with a waming to the American people. “The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,” { he said,} “unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives. . . We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now” { he insisted}. “To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”

---

Share This

[JoB]

HMCRich…

funny thing about what you call slogans…

Reagan did starve children.

he ended the nutrition program for pregnant mothers.

By saving all that money on “free milk and cheese” for pregnant women he increased the public cost of underweight babies, pregnancy complications and lifetime public health costs.

but hey.. those dems sure were alarmist.

Too bad some of the money that Reagan spent re-arming our depleted military didn’t go to health care for the vets of that generation.

We are still paying the tab in public health care and social services for that one… and are likely to continue for at least another couple of decades…

but hey.. he sure had his priorities straight in real republican tradition.. shortchanging vets and passing the bill on for someone else to deal with.

funny how you gloss over all that with a one liner.

you have been listening to too much Rush… a steady diet of his drivel and a drink or two and you think McCarthy was a hero instead of a self serving attention grabbing vindictive politician.

Oh.. for the good old days… as sanitized by the neo-con PR machine:(

Limbaugh dismisses his lack of veracity by labeling himself an entertainer…

really dude.. Jon Stewart is so much more entertaining even if he does confine himself to facts as a basis for entertainment.

You should try him sometime.

He is so much more than the kinder gentler Limbaugh.

Share This

[Author]

Posts