Sense of something wrong

[SK in CV]

[quote=sreeb]
1) If interest rate only go up by a factor of 4 (not unrealistic given how low they are now), we are completely screwed.

[/quote]

Well, maybe not exactly. It would be detrimental, but US Govt bonds aren’t callable. I believe average maturity on outstanding government debt is about 5 years. (I have no idea how the inter-governmental debt figures into that average, like the special issue bonds for SS OAB.) So if rates go up by a factor of 4, interest paid will not suddently get quadrupled. The interest on long-term debt won’t change at all. It will increase expenditures for new bonds, but not by a factor of 4. Some of those bonds coming due were issued 10 years ago and more when rates were significantly higher than they are today.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]According to that wiki link, military spending as % of GDP is 4.3%. Here’s the break down of government spending as of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending.

Pensions $747.1 5.7
Health Care $783.8 6.0
Education $900.8 6.9
Defense $622.2 4.8
Welfare $411.4 3.2
Interest $312.3 2.4[/quote]

The numbers above represent all government spending, including federal, state, and local. Comparing defense spending, which is exclusive to the federal budget, to overall pension or education spending, which are a much bigger component in state budgets, is not exactly apples to apples.

I’m not a big fan of government pensions, but these numbers are misleading.

Most discussions about the debt are limited to the federal budget (except for us here in CA, of course.) It doesn’t make much sense to lump all government debt together when discussing possible solutions.

This is a much more useful breakdown of the federal budget:

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

Social Security and Medicare are the biggest items, but it is very important to recognize that these two programs are also a source tax of revenue. If we ended Social Security tomorrow, we instantly cut spending by 20%, but this would do nothing for the deficit, since we would also lose about the same amount of tax revenue as well (unless we went to the extreme of continuing to deduct payroll tax but not pay any benefits.)

SS and medicare are separate pools of money from the general, “discretionary” budget. Although they take up a big chunk of the pie chart, they are *not* the biggest culprits when it comes to the deficit.

In the discretionary federal budget, there is one item that overwhelms all others: Defense spending.

Given that our military spending is about as big as the rest of the world combined, common sense dictates that this number far exceeds what is necessary for national security.

Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]According to that wiki link, military spending as % of GDP is 4.3%. Here’s the break down of government spending as of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending.

Pensions $747.1 5.7
Health Care $783.8 6.0
Education $900.8 6.9
Defense $622.2 4.8
Welfare $411.4 3.2
Interest $312.3 2.4[/quote]

The numbers above represent all government spending, including federal, state, and local. Comparing defense spending, which is exclusive to the federal budget, to overall pension or education spending, which are a much bigger component in state budgets, is not exactly apples to apples.

I’m not a big fan of government pensions, but these numbers are misleading.

Most discussions about the debt are limited to the federal budget (except for us here in CA, of course.) It doesn’t make much sense to lump all government debt together when discussing possible solutions.

This is a much more useful breakdown of the federal budget:

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

Social Security and Medicare are the biggest items, but it is very important to recognize that these two programs are also a source tax of revenue. If we ended Social Security tomorrow, we instantly cut spending by 20%, but this would do nothing for the deficit, since we would also lose about the same amount of tax revenue as well (unless we went to the extreme of continuing to deduct payroll tax but not pay any benefits.)

SS and medicare are separate pools of money from the general, “discretionary” budget. Although they take up a big chunk of the pie chart, they are *not* the biggest culprits when it comes to the deficit.

In the discretionary federal budget, there is one item that overwhelms all others: Defense spending.

Given that our military spending is about as big as the rest of the world combined, common sense dictates that this number far exceeds what is necessary for national security.

Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]According to that wiki link, military spending as % of GDP is 4.3%. Here’s the break down of government spending as of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending.

Pensions $747.1 5.7
Health Care $783.8 6.0
Education $900.8 6.9
Defense $622.2 4.8
Welfare $411.4 3.2
Interest $312.3 2.4[/quote]

The numbers above represent all government spending, including federal, state, and local. Comparing defense spending, which is exclusive to the federal budget, to overall pension or education spending, which are a much bigger component in state budgets, is not exactly apples to apples.

I’m not a big fan of government pensions, but these numbers are misleading.

Most discussions about the debt are limited to the federal budget (except for us here in CA, of course.) It doesn’t make much sense to lump all government debt together when discussing possible solutions.

This is a much more useful breakdown of the federal budget:

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

Social Security and Medicare are the biggest items, but it is very important to recognize that these two programs are also a source tax of revenue. If we ended Social Security tomorrow, we instantly cut spending by 20%, but this would do nothing for the deficit, since we would also lose about the same amount of tax revenue as well (unless we went to the extreme of continuing to deduct payroll tax but not pay any benefits.)

SS and medicare are separate pools of money from the general, “discretionary” budget. Although they take up a big chunk of the pie chart, they are *not* the biggest culprits when it comes to the deficit.

In the discretionary federal budget, there is one item that overwhelms all others: Defense spending.

Given that our military spending is about as big as the rest of the world combined, common sense dictates that this number far exceeds what is necessary for national security.

Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]According to that wiki link, military spending as % of GDP is 4.3%. Here’s the break down of government spending as of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending.

Pensions $747.1 5.7
Health Care $783.8 6.0
Education $900.8 6.9
Defense $622.2 4.8
Welfare $411.4 3.2
Interest $312.3 2.4[/quote]

The numbers above represent all government spending, including federal, state, and local. Comparing defense spending, which is exclusive to the federal budget, to overall pension or education spending, which are a much bigger component in state budgets, is not exactly apples to apples.

I’m not a big fan of government pensions, but these numbers are misleading.

Most discussions about the debt are limited to the federal budget (except for us here in CA, of course.) It doesn’t make much sense to lump all government debt together when discussing possible solutions.

This is a much more useful breakdown of the federal budget:

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

Social Security and Medicare are the biggest items, but it is very important to recognize that these two programs are also a source tax of revenue. If we ended Social Security tomorrow, we instantly cut spending by 20%, but this would do nothing for the deficit, since we would also lose about the same amount of tax revenue as well (unless we went to the extreme of continuing to deduct payroll tax but not pay any benefits.)

SS and medicare are separate pools of money from the general, “discretionary” budget. Although they take up a big chunk of the pie chart, they are *not* the biggest culprits when it comes to the deficit.

In the discretionary federal budget, there is one item that overwhelms all others: Defense spending.

Given that our military spending is about as big as the rest of the world combined, common sense dictates that this number far exceeds what is necessary for national security.

Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]According to that wiki link, military spending as % of GDP is 4.3%. Here’s the break down of government spending as of 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending.

Pensions $747.1 5.7
Health Care $783.8 6.0
Education $900.8 6.9
Defense $622.2 4.8
Welfare $411.4 3.2
Interest $312.3 2.4[/quote]

The numbers above represent all government spending, including federal, state, and local. Comparing defense spending, which is exclusive to the federal budget, to overall pension or education spending, which are a much bigger component in state budgets, is not exactly apples to apples.

I’m not a big fan of government pensions, but these numbers are misleading.

Most discussions about the debt are limited to the federal budget (except for us here in CA, of course.) It doesn’t make much sense to lump all government debt together when discussing possible solutions.

This is a much more useful breakdown of the federal budget:

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

Social Security and Medicare are the biggest items, but it is very important to recognize that these two programs are also a source tax of revenue. If we ended Social Security tomorrow, we instantly cut spending by 20%, but this would do nothing for the deficit, since we would also lose about the same amount of tax revenue as well (unless we went to the extreme of continuing to deduct payroll tax but not pay any benefits.)

SS and medicare are separate pools of money from the general, “discretionary” budget. Although they take up a big chunk of the pie chart, they are *not* the biggest culprits when it comes to the deficit.

In the discretionary federal budget, there is one item that overwhelms all others: Defense spending.

Given that our military spending is about as big as the rest of the world combined, common sense dictates that this number far exceeds what is necessary for national security.

Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.

[an]

pri_dk, I see where you’re coming from. However, do you have proof of this statement?
[quote=pri_dk]
Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.[/quote]

Based on this: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?

[an]

pri_dk, I see where you’re coming from. However, do you have proof of this statement?
[quote=pri_dk]
Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.[/quote]

Based on this: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?

[an]

pri_dk, I see where you’re coming from. However, do you have proof of this statement?
[quote=pri_dk]
Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.[/quote]

Based on this: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?

[an]

pri_dk, I see where you’re coming from. However, do you have proof of this statement?
[quote=pri_dk]
Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.[/quote]

Based on this: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?

[an]

pri_dk, I see where you’re coming from. However, do you have proof of this statement?
[quote=pri_dk]
Cut defense spending by half, the country will be just as safe, and we can actually be within reach of balancing the budget.[/quote]

Based on this: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?

[Anonymous]

“it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.”

Uh… Obama was in the Congress that preceded his presidency, and was in the majority at that. It is entirely appropriate to saddle Obama with the massive debt/spending that Bush signed into law, since Obama… VOTED for it.

[Anonymous]

“it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.”

Uh… Obama was in the Congress that preceded his presidency, and was in the majority at that. It is entirely appropriate to saddle Obama with the massive debt/spending that Bush signed into law, since Obama… VOTED for it.

[Anonymous]

“it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.”

Uh… Obama was in the Congress that preceded his presidency, and was in the majority at that. It is entirely appropriate to saddle Obama with the massive debt/spending that Bush signed into law, since Obama… VOTED for it.

[Anonymous]

“it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.”

Uh… Obama was in the Congress that preceded his presidency, and was in the majority at that. It is entirely appropriate to saddle Obama with the massive debt/spending that Bush signed into law, since Obama… VOTED for it.

[Author]

Posts