Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[Derideo_Te]

Why not tax war into extinction in the same way chattel slavery could have been exterminated during the decades between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor?

It is the failure to increase taxes to pay for the past decade of wars that is putting the American way of life on the endangered species list.

Do you know that the total tab for fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years is less money than was allocated for TARP followed by Obama's stimulus package? Neither of which any provision was made for repaying?

Please provide links, Foxy, because from what I can find 95% of TARP funding has been repaid to date and the cost of the wars is said to be between $4 and $6 Trillion.

About TARP

TARP is winding down. As of March 31, 2013, Treasury has recovered more than 94 percent - or $395 billion of the $419 billion TARP funds disbursed to date.

TARP is currently projected to cost approximately $47.57 billion - significantly less than the $700 billion originally authorized by Congress.

Overall, the government is now expected to at least break even on its financial stability programs overall and may realize a positive return.

Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill


Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion
By Jeremy Herb - 03/29/13 11:50 AM ET


The final cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be between $4 and $6 trillion — and most of those costs have yet to be paid, according to a new study out of Harvard University.
The report from Harvard Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together will be the most expensive in U.S. history when long-term medical and disability costs for service members are factored in.
“The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come,” Bilmes wrote.

The study says that the United States has already spent nearly $2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that bill is only “a fraction” of the total war costs, Bilmes wrote.
“The single largest accrued liability of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to war veterans,” she said. “Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later.”
The report noted that the peak year in compensation for World War I veterans was 1969, and World War II veterans saw the largest payments from the government in the late 1980s.
Payments to veterans of Vietnam and the first Gulf War are still rising, Bilmes wrote.
A key factor in the cost growth for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is the expansion in quantity, quality and availability of medical benefits for U.S. troops since 9/11, according to the report.


Read more: Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

 

[Foxfyre]

It is the failure to increase taxes to pay for the past decade of wars that is putting the American way of life on the endangered species list.

Do you know that the total tab for fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years is less money than was allocated for TARP followed by Obama's stimulus package? Neither of which any provision was made for repaying?

Please provide links, Foxy, because from what I can find 95% of TARP funding has been repaid to date and the cost of the wars is said to be between $4 and $6 Trillion.

About TARP

TARP is winding down. As of March 31, 2013, Treasury has recovered more than 94 percent - or $395 billion of the $419 billion TARP funds disbursed to date.

TARP is currently projected to cost approximately $47.57 billion - significantly less than the $700 billion originally authorized by Congress.

Overall, the government is now expected to at least break even on its financial stability programs overall and may realize a positive return.

Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill


Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion
By Jeremy Herb - 03/29/13 11:50 AM ET


The final cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be between $4 and $6 trillion — and most of those costs have yet to be paid, according to a new study out of Harvard University.
The report from Harvard Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together will be the most expensive in U.S. history when long-term medical and disability costs for service members are factored in.
“The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come,” Bilmes wrote.

The study says that the United States has already spent nearly $2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that bill is only “a fraction” of the total war costs, Bilmes wrote.
“The single largest accrued liability of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to war veterans,” she said. “Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later.”
The report noted that the peak year in compensation for World War I veterans was 1969, and World War II veterans saw the largest payments from the government in the late 1980s.
Payments to veterans of Vietnam and the first Gulf War are still rising, Bilmes wrote.
A key factor in the cost growth for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is the expansion in quantity, quality and availability of medical benefits for U.S. troops since 9/11, according to the report.


Read more: Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I didn't comment on what the cost of TARP would ultimately be calculated to be, etc. My comment was based strictly on the fact that repayment of TARP monies has NOT resulted in any reduction whatsoever in what Congress spends. Once they spend the money they keep right on spending the same amount year after year long after the initial purpose has ended. Can you get that? They can claim until the cows come home that TARP has been mostly repaid, but if they then keep spending the money for something else--money they don't have in the bank to spend--it still keeps adding up on that debt clock.

Same with the stimulus monies. Obama boasts that he has increased spending less than any president in recent history. But he always leaves the 2009 increase out of the pretty charts and graphs he has them make to show that. But the fact is, he increased spending over and above the budget by roughly a trillion in 2009, but then didn't drop the budget back down to its previous levels but has kept it at that highly inflated number. So they essentially have continued to spend the equivalent of a stimulus package, in addition to the regular budget, every year since. And because the unbridled spending, among other things, has created such a tremendous drain on the economy, tax revenues have not even begun to keep up and the debt is sky rocketing.

I don't excuse the spending excesses of the Bush administration either, but at least in spite of 9/11 and Katrina and the war costs, treasury revenues were healthy and the deficits were coming down. At the rate they were coming down, if the housing bubble collapse had not happened in 2008, I believe we could have had a more or less balanced budget again by 2009. (The 2008 deficit included the $400 billion of unbudgeted TARP monies spent after Obama was elected but before he took office. President Bush left the remainder of the TARP monies for Obama to allocate. But if TARP had not been passed, the 2008 deficit would have been less than the 2007 deficit.)

As for the war costs, I took my numbers from here:
About These Counters | COSTOFWAR.COM

It is anybody's guess whether these numbers are more accurate than a Harvard study prepared by people who were anti-war from the beginning and continue to be anti-war while hating and accusing George Bush for lying us into illegal wars, etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you know that the total tab for fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years is less money than was allocated for TARP followed by Obama's stimulus package? Neither of which any provision was made for repaying?

Please provide links, Foxy, because from what I can find 95% of TARP funding has been repaid to date and the cost of the wars is said to be between $4 and $6 Trillion.

Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill


Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion
By Jeremy Herb - 03/29/13 11:50 AM ET


The final cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be between $4 and $6 trillion — and most of those costs have yet to be paid, according to a new study out of Harvard University.
The report from Harvard Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together will be the most expensive in U.S. history when long-term medical and disability costs for service members are factored in.
“The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come,” Bilmes wrote.

The study says that the United States has already spent nearly $2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that bill is only “a fraction” of the total war costs, Bilmes wrote.
“The single largest accrued liability of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to war veterans,” she said. “Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later.”
The report noted that the peak year in compensation for World War I veterans was 1969, and World War II veterans saw the largest payments from the government in the late 1980s.
Payments to veterans of Vietnam and the first Gulf War are still rising, Bilmes wrote.
A key factor in the cost growth for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is the expansion in quantity, quality and availability of medical benefits for U.S. troops since 9/11, according to the report.


Read more: Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I didn't comment on what the cost of TARP would ultimately be calculated to be, etc. My comment was based strictly on the fact that repayment of TARP monies has NOT resulted in any reduction whatsoever in what Congress spends. Once they spend the money they keep right on spending the same amount year after year long after the initial purpose has ended. Can you get that? They can claim until the cows come home that TARP has been mostly repaid, but if they then keep spending the money for something else--money they don't have in the bank to spend--it still keeps adding up on that debt clock.

As for the war costs, I took my numbers from here:
About These Counters | COSTOFWAR.COM

It is anybody's guess whether these numbers are more accurate than a Harvard study prepared by people who were anti-war from the beginning and continue to be anti-war while hating and accusing George Bush for lying us into illegal wars, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The study projection is based on post war Veterans costs for medical care and replacement of personal and equipment. They are in line with the costs incurred from prior wars and with other similar studies conducted by groups who don't have any anti-war agenda.

You initially claimed that the cost of the wars was less than the cost of TARP but your own link demonstrates that war funding to date is $1.48 Trillion while total TARP was only allocated at just under $800 Billion. I am curious as to your claiming that the TARP money is being re-spent over and over again. What is your source for that because I can't find any myself?

 

[paulitician]

Will the NWO/MIC ever run out of Boogeymen to scare the People with?

 

[Foxfyre]

Please provide links, Foxy, because from what I can find 95% of TARP funding has been repaid to date and the cost of the wars is said to be between $4 and $6 Trillion.

I didn't comment on what the cost of TARP would ultimately be calculated to be, etc. My comment was based strictly on the fact that repayment of TARP monies has NOT resulted in any reduction whatsoever in what Congress spends. Once they spend the money they keep right on spending the same amount year after year long after the initial purpose has ended. Can you get that? They can claim until the cows come home that TARP has been mostly repaid, but if they then keep spending the money for something else--money they don't have in the bank to spend--it still keeps adding up on that debt clock.

As for the war costs, I took my numbers from here:
About These Counters | COSTOFWAR.COM

It is anybody's guess whether these numbers are more accurate than a Harvard study prepared by people who were anti-war from the beginning and continue to be anti-war while hating and accusing George Bush for lying us into illegal wars, etc. etc. etc. etc.

The study projection is based on post war Veterans costs for medical care and replacement of personal and equipment. They are in line with the costs incurred from prior wars and with other similar studies conducted by groups who don't have any anti-war agenda.

You initially claimed that the cost of the wars was less than the cost of TARP but your own link demonstrates that war funding to date is $1.48 Trillion while total TARP was only allocated at just under $800 Billion. I am curious as to your claiming that the TARP money is being re-spent over and over again. What is your source for that because I can't find any myself?

Read more carefully. I initially claimed that the cost of the wars (which was based on the link I subsequently posted) was less than TARP plus the stimulus package.

 

[Foxfyre]

Will the NWO/MIC ever run out of Boogeymen to scare the People with?

The problem, whether globally or nationally, is with government that exists to sustain itself. And the more it can increase its size, scope, expense, power, authority, etc., the more those in government can use it for self serving purposes to increase their own personal power, influence, authority, and personal wealth.

The certain effect is they will ever keep pushing the envelope a little more and then a little more. And each time the push goes unchallenged, the people give up a little more of their power and freedoms and government is encouraged to continue to seize it.

The perpetual war machine is just one symptom of all that, but an important one. It is just one more method used to take power from the people until government succeeds in having it all thus securing the future and fortunes of those who manage to be at the top when that happens.

 

[paulitician]

Will the NWO/MIC ever run out of Boogeymen to scare the People with?

The problem, whether globally or nationally, is with government that exists to sustain itself. And the more it can increase its size, scope, expense, power, authority, etc., the more those in government can use it for self serving purposes to increase their own personal power, influence, authority, and personal wealth.

The certain effect is they will ever keep pushing the envelope a little more and then a little more. And each time the push goes unchallenged, the people give up a little more of their power and freedoms and government is encouraged to continue to seize it.

The perpetual war machine is just one symptom of all that, but an important one. It is just one more method used to take power from the people until government succeeds in having it all thus securing the future and fortunes of those who manage to be at the top when that happens.

Welcome to the New World Order. Sounds fun huh?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you know that the total tab for fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years is less money than was allocated for TARP followed by Obama's stimulus package? Neither of which any provision was made for repaying?

Please provide links, Foxy, because from what I can find 95% of TARP funding has been repaid to date and the cost of the wars is said to be between $4 and $6 Trillion.

Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill


Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion
By Jeremy Herb - 03/29/13 11:50 AM ET


The final cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be between $4 and $6 trillion — and most of those costs have yet to be paid, according to a new study out of Harvard University.
The report from Harvard Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds the Iraq and Afghanistan wars together will be the most expensive in U.S. history when long-term medical and disability costs for service members are factored in.
“The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come,” Bilmes wrote.

The study says that the United States has already spent nearly $2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that bill is only “a fraction” of the total war costs, Bilmes wrote.
“The single largest accrued liability of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to war veterans,” she said. “Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later.”
The report noted that the peak year in compensation for World War I veterans was 1969, and World War II veterans saw the largest payments from the government in the late 1980s.
Payments to veterans of Vietnam and the first Gulf War are still rising, Bilmes wrote.
A key factor in the cost growth for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is the expansion in quantity, quality and availability of medical benefits for U.S. troops since 9/11, according to the report.


Read more: Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I didn't comment on what the cost of TARP would ultimately be calculated to be, etc. My comment was based strictly on the fact that repayment of TARP monies has NOT resulted in any reduction whatsoever in what Congress spends. Once they spend the money they keep right on spending the same amount year after year long after the initial purpose has ended. Can you get that? They can claim until the cows come home that TARP has been mostly repaid, but if they then keep spending the money for something else--money they don't have in the bank to spend--it still keeps adding up on that debt clock.

Same with the stimulus monies. Obama boasts that he has increased spending less than any president in recent history. But he always leaves the 2009 increase out of the pretty charts and graphs he has them make to show that. But the fact is, he increased spending over and above the budget by roughly a trillion in 2009, but then didn't drop the budget back down to its previous levels but has kept it at that highly inflated number. So they essentially have continued to spend the equivalent of a stimulus package, in addition to the regular budget, every year since. And because the unbridled spending, among other things, has created such a tremendous drain on the economy, tax revenues have not even begun to keep up and the debt is sky rocketing.

I don't excuse the spending excesses of the Bush administration either, but at least in spite of 9/11 and Katrina and the war costs, treasury revenues were healthy and the deficits were coming down. At the rate they were coming down, if the housing bubble collapse had not happened in 2008, I believe we could have had a more or less balanced budget again by 2009. (The 2008 deficit included the $400 billion of unbudgeted TARP monies spent after Obama was elected but before he took office. President Bush left the remainder of the TARP monies for Obama to allocate. But if TARP had not been passed, the 2008 deficit would have been less than the 2007 deficit.)

As for the war costs, I took my numbers from here:
About These Counters | COSTOFWAR.COM

It is anybody's guess whether these numbers are more accurate than a Harvard study prepared by people who were anti-war from the beginning and continue to be anti-war while hating and accusing George Bush for lying us into illegal wars, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You seem to be under the impression that the $800 billion TARP was just added to the budget. That is not the case. It was a one time allocation.

Secondly your deficit chart is from the discredited anti-Obama Heritage foundation. It credits Bush with Clinton era deficit reductions and imposes Bush era deficits on Obama. Furthermore it fictitiously claims that Obama will still be responsible for the deficit spending in 2020. You strenuously object to even legitimate criticism of Bush but you are openly pushing anti-Obama propaganda. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

As far as spending is concerned there have been year on year spending reductions albeit less than there should have been.

US Federal Deficit by Year 2008_2018 - Charts Analysis

Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers
Obama Deficits ------------ Bush Deficits

FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

 

[Foxfyre]

Please provide links, Foxy, because from what I can find 95% of TARP funding has been repaid to date and the cost of the wars is said to be between $4 and $6 Trillion.

I didn't comment on what the cost of TARP would ultimately be calculated to be, etc. My comment was based strictly on the fact that repayment of TARP monies has NOT resulted in any reduction whatsoever in what Congress spends. Once they spend the money they keep right on spending the same amount year after year long after the initial purpose has ended. Can you get that? They can claim until the cows come home that TARP has been mostly repaid, but if they then keep spending the money for something else--money they don't have in the bank to spend--it still keeps adding up on that debt clock.

Same with the stimulus monies. Obama boasts that he has increased spending less than any president in recent history. But he always leaves the 2009 increase out of the pretty charts and graphs he has them make to show that. But the fact is, he increased spending over and above the budget by roughly a trillion in 2009, but then didn't drop the budget back down to its previous levels but has kept it at that highly inflated number. So they essentially have continued to spend the equivalent of a stimulus package, in addition to the regular budget, every year since. And because the unbridled spending, among other things, has created such a tremendous drain on the economy, tax revenues have not even begun to keep up and the debt is sky rocketing.

I don't excuse the spending excesses of the Bush administration either, but at least in spite of 9/11 and Katrina and the war costs, treasury revenues were healthy and the deficits were coming down. At the rate they were coming down, if the housing bubble collapse had not happened in 2008, I believe we could have had a more or less balanced budget again by 2009. (The 2008 deficit included the $400 billion of unbudgeted TARP monies spent after Obama was elected but before he took office. President Bush left the remainder of the TARP monies for Obama to allocate. But if TARP had not been passed, the 2008 deficit would have been less than the 2007 deficit.)

As for the war costs, I took my numbers from here:
About These Counters | COSTOFWAR.COM

It is anybody's guess whether these numbers are more accurate than a Harvard study prepared by people who were anti-war from the beginning and continue to be anti-war while hating and accusing George Bush for lying us into illegal wars, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You seem to be under the impression that the $800 billion TARP was just added to the budget. That is not the case. It was a one time allocation.

Secondly your deficit chart is from the discredited anti-Obama Heritage foundation. It credits Bush with Clinton era deficit reductions and imposes Bush era deficits on Obama. Furthermore it fictitiously claims that Obama will still be responsible for the deficit spending in 2020. You strenuously object to even legitimate criticism of Bush but you are openly pushing anti-Obama propaganda. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

As far as spending is concerned there have been year on year spending reductions albeit less than there should have been.

US Federal Deficit by Year 2008_2018 - Charts Analysis

Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers
Obama Deficits ------------ Bush Deficits

FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

Yup. That's the propaganda the Administration has been feeding us to sell its policies. And the gullible lap it up and desperately want to believe it. But you can't find a competent credible source anywhere that will support the purely manufactured projections Obama wants you to believe.

Here's just one rebuttal. (There are many many more):

CBO Report Reveals Spending Disaster | Cato @ Liberty

And before you go off claiming CATO is a partisan source, I should point out that they were witheringly critical of many of George W. Bush's policies and have had little good to say about many GOP spending initiatives.

 

[numan]

The problem, whether globally or nationally, is with government that exists to sustain itself. And the more it can increase its size, scope, expense, power, authority, etc., the more those in government can use it for self serving purposes to increase their own personal power, influence, authority, and personal wealth.

The certain effect is they will ever keep pushing the envelope a little more and then a little more. And each time the push goes unchallenged, the people give up a little more of their power and freedoms and government is encouraged to continue to seize it.

Irrational Americans WILL insist on clinging to an antiquated and destructive Constitution....
.

 

[paulitician]

Well, clearly most People recognize the problem. Now, how do they solve it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I didn't comment on what the cost of TARP would ultimately be calculated to be, etc. My comment was based strictly on the fact that repayment of TARP monies has NOT resulted in any reduction whatsoever in what Congress spends. Once they spend the money they keep right on spending the same amount year after year long after the initial purpose has ended. Can you get that? They can claim until the cows come home that TARP has been mostly repaid, but if they then keep spending the money for something else--money they don't have in the bank to spend--it still keeps adding up on that debt clock.

Same with the stimulus monies. Obama boasts that he has increased spending less than any president in recent history. But he always leaves the 2009 increase out of the pretty charts and graphs he has them make to show that. But the fact is, he increased spending over and above the budget by roughly a trillion in 2009, but then didn't drop the budget back down to its previous levels but has kept it at that highly inflated number. So they essentially have continued to spend the equivalent of a stimulus package, in addition to the regular budget, every year since. And because the unbridled spending, among other things, has created such a tremendous drain on the economy, tax revenues have not even begun to keep up and the debt is sky rocketing.

I don't excuse the spending excesses of the Bush administration either, but at least in spite of 9/11 and Katrina and the war costs, treasury revenues were healthy and the deficits were coming down. At the rate they were coming down, if the housing bubble collapse had not happened in 2008, I believe we could have had a more or less balanced budget again by 2009. (The 2008 deficit included the $400 billion of unbudgeted TARP monies spent after Obama was elected but before he took office. President Bush left the remainder of the TARP monies for Obama to allocate. But if TARP had not been passed, the 2008 deficit would have been less than the 2007 deficit.)

As for the war costs, I took my numbers from here:
About These Counters | COSTOFWAR.COM

It is anybody's guess whether these numbers are more accurate than a Harvard study prepared by people who were anti-war from the beginning and continue to be anti-war while hating and accusing George Bush for lying us into illegal wars, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You seem to be under the impression that the $800 billion TARP was just added to the budget. That is not the case. It was a one time allocation.

Secondly your deficit chart is from the discredited anti-Obama Heritage foundation. It credits Bush with Clinton era deficit reductions and imposes Bush era deficits on Obama. Furthermore it fictitiously claims that Obama will still be responsible for the deficit spending in 2020. You strenuously object to even legitimate criticism of Bush but you are openly pushing anti-Obama propaganda. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

As far as spending is concerned there have been year on year spending reductions albeit less than there should have been.

US Federal Deficit by Year 2008_2018 - Charts Analysis

Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers
Obama Deficits ------------ Bush Deficits

FY 2014*: $744 billion FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion FY 2008: $458 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

Yup. That's the propaganda the Administration has been feeding us to sell its policies. And the gullible lap it up and desperately want to believe it. But you can't find a competent credible source anywhere that will support the purely manufactured projections Obama wants you to believe.

Here's just one rebuttal. (There are many many more):

CBO Report Reveals Spending Disaster | Cato @ Liberty

And before you go off claiming CATO is a partisan source, I should point out that they were witheringly critical of many of George W. Bush's policies and have had little good to say about many GOP spending initiatives.

Are you claiming that the CBO is both incompetent and lacks credibility?

CBO | Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP.

Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015. However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later in the coming decade, reaching 3.5 percent of GDP in 2023, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. By comparison, the deficit averaged 3.1 percent of GDP over the past 40 years and 2.4 percent in the 40 years before fiscal year 2008, when the most recent recession began. During the next 10 years, both revenues and outlays are projected to be above their 40-year averages as a percentage of GDP (see figure below).

 

[Foxfyre]

You seem to be under the impression that the $800 billion TARP was just added to the budget. That is not the case. It was a one time allocation.

Secondly your deficit chart is from the discredited anti-Obama Heritage foundation. It credits Bush with Clinton era deficit reductions and imposes Bush era deficits on Obama. Furthermore it fictitiously claims that Obama will still be responsible for the deficit spending in 2020. You strenuously object to even legitimate criticism of Bush but you are openly pushing anti-Obama propaganda. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

As far as spending is concerned there have been year on year spending reductions albeit less than there should have been.

Yup. That's the propaganda the Administration has been feeding us to sell its policies. And the gullible lap it up and desperately want to believe it. But you can't find a competent credible source anywhere that will support the purely manufactured projections Obama wants you to believe.

Here's just one rebuttal. (There are many many more):

CBO Report Reveals Spending Disaster | Cato @ Liberty

And before you go off claiming CATO is a partisan source, I should point out that they were witheringly critical of many of George W. Bush's policies and have had little good to say about many GOP spending initiatives.

Are you claiming that the CBO is both incompetent and lacks credibility?

CBO | Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP.

Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015. However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later in the coming decade, reaching 3.5 percent of GDP in 2023, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. By comparison, the deficit averaged 3.1 percent of GDP over the past 40 years and 2.4 percent in the 40 years before fiscal year 2008, when the most recent recession began. During the next 10 years, both revenues and outlays are projected to be above their 40-year averages as a percentage of GDP (see figure below).

You changed abruptly from ratio to GDP to deficts? Tsk tsk. That kind of thing can make you really REALLY look like a liberal.

But from your own link:

For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $6.3 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain above 70 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP.) Under current law, the debt is projected to decline from about 76 percent of GDP in 2014 to slightly below 71 percent in 2018 but then to start rising again; by 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 74 percent of GDP and continue to be on an upward path (see figure below).

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yup. That's the propaganda the Administration has been feeding us to sell its policies. And the gullible lap it up and desperately want to believe it. But you can't find a competent credible source anywhere that will support the purely manufactured projections Obama wants you to believe.

Here's just one rebuttal. (There are many many more):

CBO Report Reveals Spending Disaster | Cato @ Liberty

And before you go off claiming CATO is a partisan source, I should point out that they were witheringly critical of many of George W. Bush's policies and have had little good to say about many GOP spending initiatives.

Are you claiming that the CBO is both incompetent and lacks credibility?

You changed abruptly from ratio to GDP to deficts? Tsk tsk. That kind of thing can make you really REALLY look like a liberal.

But from your own link:

For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $6.3 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain above 70 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP.) Under current law, the debt is projected to decline from about 76 percent of GDP in 2014 to slightly below 71 percent in 2018 but then to start rising again; by 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 74 percent of GDP and continue to be on an upward path (see figure below).

Mea culpa. Feeling under the weather today so I probably copied the wrong link.

The current projections assume that there will be no increase in tax revenues. In real terms that means that the American people will continue to allow themselves to be driven further and further into debt while the wealthy pay a pittance in taxes. This is unsustainable and will result in an economic collapse. When faced with that reality Congress won't have any other choice but to increase taxes. Whether they do it before or after an economic collapse depends entirely upon the ability of those currently obstructing the inevitable to comprehend what they are doing to this nation.

After every single major war that involved massive spending taxes were increased to pay for it. Republicans have always demanded that there must be revenues to offset spending EXCEPT when it comes to defense spending and wars. The current situation is untenable and will result in economic pain clear across the nation. We have plenty of evidence that pure AUSTERITY programs such as those currently being enforced in the EU sector do more harm than good. It was the economic stimulus that barely staved off another depression. Capitalism fails when there is no revenue in the hands of government and the consumers. The state of perpetual war is intended to keep trillions flowing into the pockets of the defense special interests. The problem with that is without a robust economy that level of spending kills the golden goose. Given the current impasse and the constant demands that the US become involved in yet another war in the middle east the collapse of the economy is a foregone conclusion.

Yes, I have not addressed spending cuts for 2 reasons. Number one the largest social programs are already fully or almost fully funded with tax revenues. Number two the biggest spending of all occurs in the defense sector. You like to show partisan graphs that hide the truth about defense spending but no matter how hard they try it is still the single largest area where spending cuts can be made across the board without harming this nation's ability to defend itself. Until you are willing to address that sacred cow this discussion is going nowhere.

 

[Borillar]

An you do not include Bush in this? You have no credibility.

Bush responded to an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor. After several decades of Islamic terrorist attacks against us and our interests, it was time to see it for what it was - war. The objective was to target sponsors of terrorism as well as the terrorists themselves, and Bush did the right thing. You can argue over the way he carried it out, but to say he "started wars" is not accurate. We were attacked, and before you start complaining about Iraq, Saddam was paying $25,000 to families who offered their children for training as suicide bombers, so Saddam was a legitimate target. We can criticize him for his choices of who to go after, and in what order, but Iraq was an active participant in terrorism against the west.

BUT. . . .still trying to maintain focus here. . . .we have had U.S. military in harms way for a very long time now going back many decades before 9/11. Our more leftist doves and some of our more staunch libertarians sometimes accuse us of perpetuating a condition of perpetual war because we have deployed that military presence all over the world and thus created resentment that we are there.

We have active duty U.S. military deployed--working from memory here--I believe in 148 different countries and we maintain 662 bases around the world--if we count military presence in ours plus other people's bases, that number rises to something like 900. Some of these detachments are as few as maybe 10 people, but they are there as U.S. military personnel.

And is the result resentment of our presence? Does that outweigh our ability to have eyes and ears on the ground observing what is happening around the world?

So I still keep coming back to the original question. Do we want the President to continue have the authority to deploy people all over the world, anywhere he wants, however he wishes?

Do you want the President to have to get the consent of Congress BEFORE deploying the military onto foreign soil? Do you want the Congress to make a formal declaration of war before the U.S. military intentionally engages in combat conditions?

Do you want to hamstring the president from being able to respond to an attack? Things happen pretty quickly now. What if (God Forbid) a nuclear attack was launched against the US? Would you expect the President to go to Congress to beg permission to defend us or to retaliate? This congress, which can't even agree on when to break for lunch without a filibuster? This country would be flattened before those idiots could agree on anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bush responded to an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor. After several decades of Islamic terrorist attacks against us and our interests, it was time to see it for what it was - war. The objective was to target sponsors of terrorism as well as the terrorists themselves, and Bush did the right thing. You can argue over the way he carried it out, but to say he "started wars" is not accurate. We were attacked, and before you start complaining about Iraq, Saddam was paying $25,000 to families who offered their children for training as suicide bombers, so Saddam was a legitimate target. We can criticize him for his choices of who to go after, and in what order, but Iraq was an active participant in terrorism against the west.

BUT. . . .still trying to maintain focus here. . . .we have had U.S. military in harms way for a very long time now going back many decades before 9/11. Our more leftist doves and some of our more staunch libertarians sometimes accuse us of perpetuating a condition of perpetual war because we have deployed that military presence all over the world and thus created resentment that we are there.

We have active duty U.S. military deployed--working from memory here--I believe in 148 different countries and we maintain 662 bases around the world--if we count military presence in ours plus other people's bases, that number rises to something like 900. Some of these detachments are as few as maybe 10 people, but they are there as U.S. military personnel.

And is the result resentment of our presence? Does that outweigh our ability to have eyes and ears on the ground observing what is happening around the world?

So I still keep coming back to the original question. Do we want the President to continue have the authority to deploy people all over the world, anywhere he wants, however he wishes?

Do you want the President to have to get the consent of Congress BEFORE deploying the military onto foreign soil? Do you want the Congress to make a formal declaration of war before the U.S. military intentionally engages in combat conditions?

Do you want to hamstring the president from being able to respond to an attack? Things happen pretty quickly now. What if (God Forbid) a nuclear attack was launched against the US? Would you expect the President to go to Congress to beg permission to defend us or to retaliate? This congress, which can't even agree on when to break for lunch without a filibuster? This country would be flattened before those idiots could agree on anything.

I think I have been pretty specific that I want the President to have every ability to order whatever he needs to order to repel a direct or imminent attack on U.S. citizens. I believe that is an absolute and specific mandate of the U.S. Constitution and the oath he takes when he is sworn in. If he does so, I would want him to be commended and applauded. And if he does not use good judgment in what he orders done, or if he fails to act appropriately, I want the full power of Congress to come crashing down on him according to the severity of the offense.

It is all the other uses of military power or deployment of the U.S. military to which my questions are posed.

And agreed on the inefficiency of Congress. But at least there we aren't giving the ability to start a war or to unnecessarily put our troops into harms way into the hands of one lone individual.

 

[georgephillip]

Humans have been at war since the beginning of time.

Why not tax war into extinction in the same way chattel slavery could have been exterminated during the decades between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor?

It is the failure to increase taxes to pay for the past decade of wars that is putting the American way of life on the endangered species list.

Perhaps those citizens, natural and otherwise, who profit most from wars should face a 90% tax rate on all war related profits AFTER the first innocent civilian dies? King Cotton kept chattel slavery alive in this country for a couple of generations after the US Revolution. King Oil drives war in much the same way today...Obviously, our current crop of elected Republicans AND Democrats will vote to send their children to war before they would turn on their 1% masters, but I can't help wondering if Republicans AND Democrats are the only game in town anymore?

Americans Elect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Beachboy]

Perhaps those citizens, natural and otherwise, who profit most from wars should face a 90% tax rate on all war related profits AFTER the first innocent civilian dies? King Cotton kept chattel slavery alive in this country for a couple of generations after the US Revolution. King Oil drives war in much the same way today...Obviously, our current crop of elected Republicans AND Democrats will vote to send their children to war before they would turn on their 1% masters, but I can't help wondering if Republicans AND Democrats are the only game in town anymore?

You are my nomination for post of the month! I especially like that you got your idea out clearly and simply without a lot of unnecessary words.

Frankly, if a post goes on more than three paragraphs, I read the first and last. If I want to read a novel, I'll buy a book!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Beachboy: "Due to distractions, name-calling, twisting of facts, and failure to support remarks with fact links. I have placed Unkotare and Pogo on "Ignore."

Having just had the misfortune to come across Unkotare your action is understandable.

 

[Contumacious]

Perhaps those citizens, natural and otherwise, who profit most from wars should face a 90% tax rate on all war related profits AFTER the first innocent civilian dies?

Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

President Wilson, a democrat, turned the US into a imperialist country in the name of Jesus H Christ.

Go fig

.