Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/3/2004 3:51:10 AM EST
I know Bush has been spending like he just got in a port full of hookers and beer.

Does anyone know how much of the spending increase is actually related to the war on terror??

In other words, waht is the non-defense related spending increase??

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 3:56:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 4:01:04 AM EST by StariVojnik]
when GWB entered office our debt was: $5,807,463,412,200.06



currently our debt is: $7,350,950,234,630.15

accumulated: $1,543,486,822,430.09


Link Posted: 9/3/2004 3:59:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
when GWB entered office our debt was: $5,807,463,412,200.06



currently our debt is: $7,350,950,234,630.15






A difference of $1.5 billion.

Great.

But my question is how much of that is dfense realted, and how much non-defense / social engineering??

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:01:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By StariVojnik:
when GWB entered office our debt was: $5,807,463,412,200.06



currently our debt is: $7,350,950,234,630.15






A difference of $1.5 billion.

Great.

But my question is how much of that is dfense realted, and how much non-defense / social engineering??




Closer to 1.5 Trillion. Damn pesky decimal points!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:03:49 AM EST
The bill reported by the Defense Appropriations Conference provides a total of $355.1 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Defense Department for FY 2003, a reduction of $1.6 billion to the budget request (not including the $10 billion reserve). It is also an increase of $37.5 billion over FY 2002 levels (not including supplementals).

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:04:35 AM EST
Not positive about Defense Related spending. But Rush said on Tuesday that discretionary spending, which is non-budgeted, as needed spending, has actually decreased by something like 3% under Bush.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:05:41 AM EST
The national debt is an interesting topic.

When you or I owe money it is to someone, when the government owes money on the national debt, they simply make more money. Typically, interest rates and the cost of living (inflation) raises during high national debt but interest rates remain very low and the cost of living has not gone up much. Taxes have not gone up and yet the governement still is "spending money like
drunk sailor."

I just don't understand it anymore.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:06:26 AM EST
I wish Bush would discover his veto power.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 4:07:34 AM EST
As long as the AWB expires, who cares?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 5:03:53 AM EST
Hey, give a little credit to the drunken sailor. At least he is spending his own money.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:40:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
I wish Bush would discover his veto power.



And do what? He's shown no inclination toward fiscal responsibility.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:45:08 AM EST
How much of that increase is from pre-existing entitlements?

How much of it is increased defense spending?

Without a detailed breakdown, this thread is useless.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:45:19 AM EST
lots of spending going on, no doubt
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:47:42 AM EST
I was a little concerned over that very thing in his speech last night. He really made no MENTION whatsoever, about funding all the good stuff he's going to do. Where is the money going to come from for an indefinite occupation of Iraq, for increase educational programs, for maintaining tax cuts, and for fixing social security?

I think he's going to win the election, but I think we're going to see a lot of deficit spending in the next four years.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:51:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 10:52:49 AM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
I wish Bush would discover his veto power.



And do what? He's shown no inclination toward fiscal responsibility.



I had rather have a fiscal liberal/social conservative like Bush, than a fiscal conservative/social liberal like Schwartzenager (sp??), Guiliani or McCain!

ETA - And I sure as hell don't want a Socialist like Kerry! Hell, the freakin' Commies are ENDORSING Kerry!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:57:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mahatma8Rice:
How much of that increase is from pre-existing entitlements?

How much of it is increased defense spending?

Without a detailed breakdown, this thread is useless.



That's EXACTLY what I'm asking for.

I suspect a MAJORITY of teh spending is defense related.

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:57:50 AM EST
Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, over $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone.

So domestic spending is growing even faster than defense spending!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:02:53 AM EST
Here is a CATO article about GWB's spending priorities during his first three years in office, compared to RWR.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:14:55 AM EST
You have to do some research on your own.
You can say that the entire Department of Homeland Defense budget is a direct result of the war on terrorism.

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html

Actual numbers total budget (billions):
2002 = 691.0
2003 = 758.5

Subtract the military spending:
2002 - 327.8 = 363.2
2003 - 365.3 = 393.2

Difference $27.9 billion

Don't forget to add the emergency suplemental spending....
2002 = 43.8
2003 = 90.9

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:20:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By POWER03:
Not positive about Defense Related spending. But Rush said on Tuesday that discretionary spending, which is non-budgeted, as needed spending, has actually decreased by something like 3% under Bush.



Non-budgeted? Where *Exactly* does the money come from if not the taxpayers? Budget/non-budget is just a shell game that hides uncomfortable facts.

War-related spending is still spending. Iraq was a completely optional war, it has not made Americans safer. If it was a play for oil it may yet have some future big positive impact on the economy, but look, with the overall debt something like $44TRILLION, I don't see how cheap oil is going to help us. When social security starts imploding, we are going to be in a world of hurt. Funny thing is, I don't see anyone addressing this. The gravy train in research continues unabated, military spending is higher than "average" Cold War levels; they just don't get it! Everyone is addicted to federal funds that soon are not going to be available. It will be a mess.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:26:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 11:26:43 AM EST by imposter]

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
military spending is higher than "average" Cold War levels


Actually, not.

US military spending as a percentage of GDP, 1940--2003
Top Top