- This topic has 111 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM #759792February 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM #759794
an
Participant[quote=flu]I’m thinking about it….I’m outta control….
Can i give you my password, and you change it for me, and only allow me to post 1 time in month, at most?
I’m sending you a PM…
FLU (crack addict)….sniff…[/quote]Don’t ask a crack addict to hold your crack :-D.
February 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM #759795SD Realtor
ParticipantLOL… reply of the day AN.
February 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM #759796SK in CV
Participant[quote=EconProf]We are seeing a lot of scary claims about how much the sequester will hurt. But just how big is it in our overall federal budget?
It is $85 billion in a budget of $2.5 trillion. That puts it at about three percent of our federal spending.
Since our federal spending has exploded in the past four years, it should be easy to find the low hanging fruit and trim the fat. Instead, we will hear sob stories of cuts that hurt real people and valued programs. Instead of cutting waste, they will create real victims to pull at our heartstrings. And this strategy will probably work–it already is working with many people here.[/quote]Re the bolded part….our federal spending really hasn’t exploded the last four years. It exploded in fiscal year ending 9/30/09. Since then, it has been relatively flat, and current projections are for it to remain relatively flat though 2014 with about a 5% increase in 2015. That’s a 5% increase after a 2% increase between 2009 and 2014. Not annual. A total increase of 2% over 5 years. The only time during our lifetimes when the budget has grown anywhere near that slowly over a 6 year period is the late 90’s. When we had a balanced budget.
February 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM #759798ParticipantSo after the explosion it was flat compared to the explosion or flat compared to pre explosion spending?
February 19, 2013 at 12:17 PM #759800ParticipantAfter the explosion it was flat compared to the explosion year. But the increase from FY 2008 through FY 2015 includes the last pre-explosion year. At least that’s what I think I figured. If I remember correctly what I looked at, the pre-explosion year compared to the 1st year with a significant increase was around 27% higher over a 7 year period.
Corrected. Total outlays FY 2008 were $2,982B. Projected FY 2014 is $3,618B, increase of $636B or 21.32% of $2,982. Divided by 6 years is 3.55% average increase over the 6 year period.
February 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM #759802ParticipantSo is 3.55% yoy typical for say the past 50 years?
February 19, 2013 at 1:04 PM #759806Anonymous
Guest[quote=spdrun]. . .even if they richly deserve it.[/quote]
How do you figure “they deserve it”?
Most of the affected individuals have little or nothing to do with the creation of any expensive bureaucracies in this country. The military started on the East Coast and has been largely managed by people working out of the East Coast since its inception.
The majority of the affected individuals have had little or no opportunity to shape military policy, direction and/or spending. They’re just working folks trying to make their way in the world, just like most of us. I’m not sure I could (or even should) wish any hardship on them for decisions their current and/or past superiors have made.
February 19, 2013 at 1:06 PM #759807ParticipantNo, it’s been significantly higher than that most years. Eyeballing the numbers, it looks like it’s been lower than that only a handful of times, mostly in the 90’s, and I think between 2000 and 2009 it happened twice.
Historical numbers are here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
Estimates for future years on that page aren’t valid, too many things have changed.
February 19, 2013 at 1:06 PM #759808no_such_reality
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]So after the explosion it was flat compared to the explosion or flat compared to pre explosion spending?[/quote]
Compared to Bill Clinton’s budget, we are spending one trillion more than his budget when grown for inflation and population growth.
February 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM #759859mike92104
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=EconProf]We are seeing a lot of scary claims about how much the sequester will hurt. But just how big is it in our overall federal budget?
It is $85 billion in a budget of $2.5 trillion. That puts it at about three percent of our federal spending.
Since our federal spending has exploded in the past four years, it should be easy to find the low hanging fruit and trim the fat. Instead, we will hear sob stories of cuts that hurt real people and valued programs. Instead of cutting waste, they will create real victims to pull at our heartstrings. And this strategy will probably work–it already is working with many people here.[/quote]Re the bolded part….our federal spending really hasn’t exploded the last four years. It exploded in fiscal year ending 9/30/09. Since then, it has been relatively flat, and current projections are for it to remain relatively flat though 2014 with about a 5% increase in 2015. That’s a 5% increase after a 2% increase between 2009 and 2014. Not annual. A total increase of 2% over 5 years. The only time during our lifetimes when the budget has grown anywhere near that slowly over a 6 year period is the late 90’s. When we had a balanced budget.[/quote]
Wasn’t the “explosion” supposed to be a 1 time expense (TARP)? My issue is the fact that the govt has continued spending an extra 700 billion a year ever since, so how is it that 86 billion in cuts is going to cripple the govt?
February 21, 2013 at 9:20 AM #759908KSMountain
Participant[quote=EconProf]We are seeing a lot of scary claims about how much the sequester will hurt. But just how big is it in our overall federal budget?
It is $85 billion in a budget of $2.5 trillion. That puts it at about three percent of our federal spending.
Since our federal spending has exploded in the past four years, it should be easy to find the low hanging fruit and trim the fat. Instead, we will hear sob stories of cuts that hurt real people and valued programs. Instead of cutting waste, they will create real victims to pull at our heartstrings. And this strategy will probably work–it already is working with many people here.[/quote]
Great post.February 21, 2013 at 9:45 AM #759909livinincali
ParticipantLooks like sequestration would cut about 30,000 jobs in San Diego County. That’s about 2.5% of the total jobs.
http://www.cbs8.com/story/21232555/federal-sequester-to-impact-local-families
I figure it will initially effect rents/vacancy and then eventually cool off the investor demand. I figure home prices will be a bright spot for a while as we enter a recession. Housing will likely follow the recession rather than lead it this time around.
February 21, 2013 at 1:24 PM #759918bearishgurl
Participant[quote=livinincali]Looks like sequestration would cut about 30,000 jobs in San Diego County. That’s about 2.5% of the total jobs.
http://www.cbs8.com/story/21232555/federal-sequester-to-impact-local-families
I figure it will initially effect rents/vacancy and then eventually cool off the investor demand. I figure home prices will be a bright spot for a while as we enter a recession. Housing will likely follow the recession rather than lead it this time around.[/quote]
I watched the video. A large portion of the DOD jobs and Port Authority jobs in SD which are funded with Federal money are occupied by persons who can retire today with a pension. I’m going to go out on a limb and say these workers will be asked to retire or perhaps be given small incentives to do so before October 1 (when the Federal govm’t’s new fiscal year begins). The affected departments just won’t fill those positions left vacant by the new retirees.
Those new DOD and Port Authority retirees will be a “zero sum game.” They will start collecting their pensions in their SD County homes which they have owned for many years and life will go on.
If any of the ($46B??) in military cutbacks has to do with weaponry and the active-duty members who operate it, the affected servicemembers with 15 years in service will be transferred or offered an “early out” incentive with educational benefits thrown in, and of course, paid relocation to a new duty stn, back home or to the US locale of their choice.
These active-duty members and their families will simply move from Navy-owned housing (or a local rental) to another county or state at the Navy’s expense.
I just don’t see the results of a “Federal sequester” having any effect whatsoever on the housing market in SD.
February 21, 2013 at 1:59 PM #759920Participant[quote=SK in CV]After the explosion it was flat compared to the explosion year. But the increase from FY 2008 through FY 2015 includes the last pre-explosion year. At least that’s what I think I figured. If I remember correctly what I looked at, the pre-explosion year compared to the 1st year with a significant increase was around 27% higher over a 7 year period.
Corrected. Total outlays FY 2008 were $2,982B. Projected FY 2014 is $3,618B, increase of $636B or 21.32% of $2,982. Divided by 6 years is 3.55% average increase over the 6 year period.[/quote]
Actually, the explosion years for 2002-2007. Then in 2008, we just WFN.
From the 2000-’01 budget of $1.789 to the 2012-’13 budge of $3.803T, we’ve increased 6.5% a year.
If you look at the WFN year, the amount jumps to 8.8%.
As for historically, there’s a number of particulars that disrupt an average. i.e. WWII, the Korean War and Truman’s 1952 quadrupling of the defense budget, but largely they kept their budgets balanced keeping the surplus/deficit within 2% over the course of their term. Then the creep started with Kennedy, who over the first two years, cut short, hit 10%, Johnson reigned it back in to 5%, Nixon creeped (no pun intended) to 6%, Ford went off the rails to 16%), Carter, struggled it to 11%.
It was Reagan that lead us to the debt crack pipe of 19% of the budget.
Bush 1 continued the spending without the grand vision. Bill controlled spending growth (3% annual, ironically roughly inflation plus population growth) and reap the subsequent economy growth to balance the initial deficits.
Bush II, blundered through to war and subsequent Reaganesque debts then we WFN with 40% deficits. Replacing Eisenhower’s military industrial complex with the lobbyist security complex.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.