Financial Problem?

In 2010 the US government spent
3.5 Trillion dollars.
2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.

Here is the breakdown of the budget.

Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
(of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)

Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
(54.1 Million receive checks)

Medicare, Medicaid and
Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion

Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion

Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion

Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion

That's 88% of the budget.

So were do we cut?

Mikek

Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

On 6/30/2011 2:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In 2010 the US government spent
>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
>>
>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
>>
>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
>>
>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
>>
>> Medicare, Medicaid and
>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
>>
>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
>>
>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
>>
>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
>>
>> That's 88% of the budget.
>>
>> So were do we cut?
>>
>> Mikek
>>
>> Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
>>
>>
>>

> That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
> public policy to create jobs and wealth?
>
> John
>
I don't think it's the wrong question!
What you ask is a good question, just a different one.
We need to end the entitlement mentality, 54.2 million get a SS check,
then add Medicaid and Childrens Health Ins. Program, the Safety Net
programs,and Federal Retires and Vets and I'll bet you near 80 million
out of the 300 million people getting government checks.
Someone will say but the Federal retires earned it, they don't deserve
anymore than someone working in the private sector. Vets, I have some
sympathy there, but I know several that retired from the military
and then went back to the same job as a civilian. Somethings not right
with that.
Mikek

On 6/30/2011 5:02 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:50:19 -0500, amdx<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2011 2:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In 2010 the US government spent
>>>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
>>>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
>>>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
>>>>
>>>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
>>>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
>>>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
>>>>
>>>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
>>>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
>>>>
>>>> Medicare, Medicaid and
>>>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
>>>>
>>>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
>>>>
>>>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
>>>>
>>>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
>>>>
>>>> That's 88% of the budget.
>>>>
>>>> So were do we cut?
>>>>
>>>> Mikek
>>>>
>>>> Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
>>> public policy to create jobs and wealth?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>> I don't think it's the wrong question!
>> What you ask is a good question, just a different one.
>> We need to end the entitlement mentality, 54.2 million get a SS check,
>> then add Medicaid and Childrens Health Ins. Program, the Safety Net
>> programs,and Federal Retires and Vets and I'll bet you near 80 million
>> out of the 300 million people getting government checks.
>> Someone will say but the Federal retires earned it, they don't deserve
>> anymore than someone working in the private sector. Vets, I have some
>> sympathy there, but I know several that retired from the military
>> and then went back to the same job as a civilian. Somethings not right
>> with that.
>> Mikek
>
> If we killed all Democrats we'd have a budget surplus ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Does that lead cup have any influence on the taste of your wine?
Mikek

On 6/30/2011 8:42 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:38:19 -0500, amdx<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2011 5:02 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:50:19 -0500, amdx<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/30/2011 2:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In 2010 the US government spent
>>>>>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
>>>>>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
>>>>>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
>>>>>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
>>>>>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
>>>>>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Medicare, Medicaid and
>>>>>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's 88% of the budget.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So were do we cut?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mikek
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
>>>>> public policy to create jobs and wealth?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's the wrong question!
>>>> What you ask is a good question, just a different one.
>>>> We need to end the entitlement mentality, 54.2 million get a SS check,
>>>> then add Medicaid and Childrens Health Ins. Program, the Safety Net
>>>> programs,and Federal Retires and Vets and I'll bet you near 80 million
>>>> out of the 300 million people getting government checks.
>>>> Someone will say but the Federal retires earned it, they don't deserve
>>>> anymore than someone working in the private sector. Vets, I have some
>>>> sympathy there, but I know several that retired from the military
>>>> and then went back to the same job as a civilian. Somethings not right
>>>> with that.
>>>> Mikek
>>>
>>> If we killed all Democrats we'd have a budget surplus ;-)
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>> Does that lead cup have any influence on the taste of your wine?
>> Mikek
>
> I only drink from the finest crystal ;-) Do you disagree with my
> premise? It certainly would do exactly as I say, would it not ?:-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
You lost the social graces that you had just a few years ago.
Mikek

On 7/1/2011 5:55 AM, brent wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:16 pm, amdx<a...@knology.net> wrote:
>> In 2010 the US government spent
>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
>>
>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
>>
>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
>>
>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
>>
>> Medicare, Medicaid and
>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
>>
>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
>>
>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
>>
>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
>>
>> That's 88% of the budget.
>>
>> So were do we cut?
>>
>> Mikek
>>
>> Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
>
> When the private sector refuses to buy government debt the govt. will
> either become totalitarian by increasing taxes to the breaking point
> or they will figure out what to cut.
>
> Some day the youngsters (under age 30) are going to figure out how
> incredibly rigged the system is against them and tell all the older
> people with the excessive benefits to go starve themselves.

I'm telling every youngster (even over 30 :-) the government
is spending money for old people that they will have to take from
their families to pay back. How long can the government spend 37% more
than they take in tax revenue.
I heard a scary scenerio, if interest rates double, (which some are
predicting) 14% of every tax dollar collected will go to service
the debt.
Mikek

On 7/1/2011 10:16 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:16 pm, amdx<a...@knology.net> wrote:
>> In 2010 the US government spent
>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
>>
>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
>>
>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
>>
>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
>>
>> Medicare, Medicaid and
>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
>>
>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
>>
>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
>>
>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
>>
>> That's 88% of the budget.
>>
>> So were do we cut?
>>
>> Mikek
>>
>> Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
>
> If you stupidly look at those spending categories as indivisible
> entities then of course there's nothing that can be done. Examine the
> details and you'll find more than a trillion that can be eliminated.

Yep, and eliminate all foreign aid, subsidies to business (oil and
agriculture), programs that the military doesn't even want (but some in
congress do want as pork...) and you'll do a lot to balance things.

Then starting GE and other large corporations at a flat rate on all
earnings (US and overseas) and things start balancing better.

Finally, implement proper import duties to prevent predatory (and
subsidized) imports from damaging our economy, and guess what... Things
improve again.

BTW, Social Security was PRE-PAID by those who receive it, and cannot be
considered an expense. Just because we allowed congress and the
president to steal the money in the SS trust (TRUST!) funds doesn't make
it right.

--
I'm never going to grow up.

wrote in message
news:75165017-1623-4761-94be-(E-Mail Removed)...

On Jun 30, 12:16 pm, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:
> In 2010 the US government spent
> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
>
> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
>
> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
>
> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
> (54.1 Million receive checks)
>
> Medicare, Medicaid and
> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
>
> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
>
> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
>
> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
>
> That's 88% of the budget.
>
> So were do we cut?
>
> Mikek
>
> Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Social Security and Medicare have their own revenue streams. They are
self supporting. Should the social security fall short, it holds
government bonds. Surely the US government will honor the bonds
purchased by social security. Or was Ronald Reagan a ****ing lying
piece of ****ing **** that sold this country a worthless IOU?

About all you can cut is the military. Everything else is essential.
-------

WTF? Everything else is essential but the military? Are you on crack? If we
eliminated the military would that solve our problem? I think the military
is much more essential than paying fat ass niggers to sit on their ass all
day smoking weed and pumping out babies that will grow up to be just like
them.

We could streamline the military a bit but only a kook would think that the
*our* welfare system is more important. 99% of the people on welfare have
the capability to be off. Most are single black women that seem to only be
good at getting pregnant... probably because their sugar daddy, uncle sam,
will take care of them.

BTW, we didn't have any problems 70 years ago when the military

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pe...seSpending.PNG

It really hasn't changed that much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Di...pt_-_2010E.png

What are the top 4 which account for more than 50% of total? Stupid liberal
programs? Again, we had better education and health services 70% years
ago(adjusted for technological improvements).

You simply are against war and hence against the military. Maybe if you
would get over that little fact you could see that all the social programs
are just as inflated as the military. We need a cut across the board. We
need to reduce the military size(no more wars and no more foreign bases), no
more welfare(people survived just fine 100 years ago with SS, welfare, wic,
medicare, etc..), no more foreign aid, etc...

But as long as partisans like yourself run things we will never do what it
takes.

The only thing the government should be involved in is basic infrastructure,
defense, and national disasters. Everything else should be left up to the
local and state governments.

If people like you wouldn't tie our military's balls in a knot we wouldn't
require such a large military... Probably just a few hundred or whatever was
required to maintain and deploy nukes.

Of course there are some who would like the USA not to have any military...
obviously because they want it defenseless. Some people are just jealous...

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Jul 1, 11:13 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."<p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>> dcas...@krl.org wrote:
>>> On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."<p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Problem is, there are quite a few sectors that HAVE TO buy government
>>>> debt. The Social Security fund, for one.
>>>> Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> As of last year , Social Security no longer takes in more than it pays
>>> out. So it can no longer buy government debt.
>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> But that may change. And even in the interim, the SS fund holds quite a bit
>> of gov't paper. All of which matures and needs to be rolled over.*
>>
>> *Until such time as the fund needs to be drawn down to pay SS recipients.
>> Then, the SS admin will come to the Treasurey with t-bills and begin to
>> cash them in. That cash will have to come from someplace. Either a budget
>> surplus (more revenue than expenditures) or the printing presses. We might
>> be able to ignore the Chinese when they come to cash in the t-bills. But
>> not the retirees (who vote).
>
> It's really pretty simple.
>
> 1) The gov't is in debt. It doesn't have a giant mattress full of
> money it saved for you. Not for SS, not for anything else.
> 2) OTOH, it is not obliged to pay anyone any particular sum of SS or
> Medicare, etc. Benefits are arbitrary, decided by the government each
> year. There is no guarantee.


Perhaps not:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_887925.html

Money shot ( Geithner reading the 14th amendment ):
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties
for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion' -- this is the
important thing -- 'shall not be questioned," Geithner read.

> 3) Future payments will come directly from future revenue (taxes),
> just as today.

Not necessarily. *Present* payments do not all come from present
revenue - that's what's bothering people.

> 4) Future benefits will be whatever the taxpayers can provide, plus
> what the politicians can borrow.


That's simply not been shown.

> 5) If there's less money (or less available to borrow), benefits will
> be decreased.
>

The real problem here is that people appear to be *imagining* scenarios
in which the ability to borrow is constrained.

> --
> Cheers,
> James Arthur

--
Les Cargill

amdx wrote:
>
> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
>
How are they rationalize calling the attacks on the Middle East "defense?"

Am I really safer while the administration does its damnedest to **** off
the whole rest of the world?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT), (E-Mail Removed)
wrote:
<snip>
>
>It's also not true that the Treasury must default on its debt
>payments. They've got $2.2T in revenue pouring in, more than 5x what
>they need to make the payments on our debt and prevent default
>indefinitely. Geithner knows that.
>
>(for example, 3% of 14.4T is $400B)
>
>
<snip>

The real problem is not that they would default on their payments, it
is that they would default on their PAYCHECKS! They basically have a
budget that says that they will spend half again as much as their
income, and if they can't continuously borrow money, they can't spend
that much. If they can't spend that much, SOMEONE will have to not
get their paychecks. They can't cut out the paychecks to themselves,
of course, so they have to decide whom to stiff. It makes better
political theatre to cut something important, like interest payments
on the debt, SS, or the military, instead of cutting unnecessary
beauracracies that no one has ever heard of, so that is where they
will cut. Same as the states always cut police and teachers (not
administrators!) as no one would complain otherwise...

Charlie