Bush's deficits and the coming crunch.

[DanS]

Nothing stopping you. Have a nice life.

[Colonâ„¢]

What's the situation at state and local level?

[DanS]

Most state and local level governments are precluded by state and local laws from deficit spending from year to year. However, there's some infrastructure spending that is backed by revenue bonds and the like. That's deficit spending under many accounting systems. Overall, probably state and local deficits are of the magnitude of 0.5% - 0.8% of the economy. Last quarter, it was 0.7%.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oerdin, I'm afraid yer screwed. You should throw yourself on DanS' mercy.

Rita just added another 8 billion to start with.

And knowing how this administration mismanages money, I'm sure all estimated tabs will go up.

We can always send more iPods to Iraq.

[Dinner]

65 for Kitrina and 8 for Rita so far nets me 73 that has been announced so far. I just need 37 more between extra spending or decreased economic activity due to the storms.

[Barnabas]

even if dans wins, it is bad.

[MrFun]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by DanS
Misleading statistic to make things appear better than they are. QUOTE]

Yes, this is your particular speciality.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
65 for Kitrina and 8 for Rita so far nets me 73 that has been announced so far. I just need 37 more between extra spending or decreased economic activity due to the storms.

Promised money doesn't count. It has to actually be spent (i.e. Congress appropriates the money and the Pres signs the bill). 37 billion in four days is a lot to hope for.

I have to say, I hope you lose. Not for any personal reason, but we're already to much in debt. It don't want to owe another $123 just so you can make DanS change avatars.

[Dinner]

My luck the bastard politicians will try to hide their spending binge by pushing off the final bill until the start of the new fiscal year.

[Drake Tungsten]

DanS

[Dinner]

Yes! Keep spending! It is looking more and more like my ponies are coming in and now I just have to hope the final draft gets passed before the end of the fiscal year. Here's another $40 Billion.

Senate measure would push Iraq, Afghanistan war costs to $400 billion

By Liz Sidoti

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Senate would give President Bush $50 billion more for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a $440 billion defense-spending measure a panel approved yesterday.

The House already has approved $45 billion more for the wars as part of its $409 billion version of the bill providing money for the Defense Department for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

Both the Senate and House versions provide for a 3.1 percent pay raise for the military, but the bills differ in other areas. The conflicts must be sorted out before Congress sends the final bill to the president.

Overall, Congress already has given the president about $350 billion for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting terrorism worldwide since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. That total includes $82 billion that lawmakers approved in May.

The Bush administration has not yet asked for more war money, but lawmakers are reluctant to wait for a formal request. Costs are certain, given that there's no end in sight to involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Lawmakers are doling out dollars for the wars even as concerns arise about paying for reconstruction of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast. At the same time, Congress and the president are facing public unease about the direction of the war in Iraq, according to public-opinion polls that show dwindling support for it.

The House spending measure has been finished since June, but the Senate defense-appropriations subcommittee postponed work on the Senate version in hopes that an authorization bill setting defense policy would be voted on first, as is customary.

But that bill is stalled, and subcommittee Chairman Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said the panel couldn't wait any longer to approve the spending bill, given that the new budget year is approaching. "We know that 2006 funding will be needed in early November," he said.

Excluding war money, the Senate bill totals $390 billion — about $7 billion less than the $397 billion the president had requested for the Defense Department.

The House bill totals $364 billion, but it is not directly comparable to the Senate version because some items funded in the Senate defense bill were paid for in nondefense bills in the House.

The Senate bill also would:

• Pay for permanent manpower increases in the Army, to 522,400 soldiers, and the Marine Corps, to 178,000 Marines. Lawmakers want to increase active-duty troop levels to take pressure off of National Guard and Reserve troops serving overseas.

• Add $422 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, some of which is being used — and battered — in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

• Include $622.5 million to support additional recruiting and retention incentives at a time when enlistments are lagging.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002522926_warspend27.html

[Dinner]

The pigs are at the trough and it looks like it will exceed $200 billion. To bad the final bill will likely be put off until after the fiscal year ends this month. So close... But if I lose at least it will be due to a technicality and the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republicans will still be proven for all time.

From WaPo:

As fiscal hawks surrendered, would-be government contractors were meeting in the Hart Senate Office Building to figure out how to get a share of the money. A "Katrina Reconstruction Summit," hosted by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and sponsored by Halliburton, among others, brought some 200 lobbyists, corporate representatives and government staffers to a room overlooking the Capitol for a five-hour conference that included time for a "networking break" and advice on "opportunities for private sector involvement."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) sent his budget director, Bill Hoagland, who cautioned that federal Katrina spending might not exceed $100 billion. But John Clerici, from a law firm that helped sponsor the event, told the group that spending would "probably be larger" than $200 billion. "It's going to be spent in a fast and furious way," Clerici said.

[Dinner]

While the final budget numbers may not be posted for a few days I wanted to post the big picture of the budget and the national debt under the control of the Republicans. To call it leadership would be a misnomer. This is a post for any fiscally responsible fence sitters out there.

From: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. ... Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.

Please note the charts on pages 1-7 of the above linked pdf document.


Concerning our much ballyhooed finally increasing federal revenues: http://www.crfb.org/html/documents/R...SRJuly2005.pdf

While higher revenues are indeed good news, the recent revenue surge only begins to restore the decline in revenues over the last several years. Total revenues last year were $145 billion lower in nominal terms than they were in 2000. Even if the trend of unexpectedly high revenues continues throughout this year, total revenues will almost certainly fall below the 2000 revenue levels adjusted for inflation.

Please note the chart on page 2 of the above linked pdf document.

From: http://www.crfb.org/html/documents/R...SRJuly2005.pdf

Annual non-military and non-homeland security spending increased $303 Billion between Fiscal Year 2001 and Fiscal Year 2005. The acknowledged Federal Debt has increased over $2 Trillion since Fiscal Year 2000 and now stands at $7.9 Trillion.

Our Republican controlled federal government has been spending borrowed money like a drunken sailor on shore leave at the exact time in our overall demographic "lifespan" when our government should be most concerned with saving. Baby boomers are now at the height of their earning power as well as their ability to refinance real estate holdings because interest rates have been held artificially low for years. This has allowed the US population to temporarily fund consumption levels that are almost certainly unsustainable, despite lower real wages and salaries and a moribund job market. However, these boomers are approaching retirement age (even if it gets raised to 68 or 70) very rapidly. In addition, the Republicans' pharmapork prescription drug plan has committed our federal government to hundreds and hundreds of billions more in wasteful corporate welfare.

So after a truly historic orgy of tax cuts, corporate giveaways and rampant overall federal spending increases unseen since the days of LBJ's Great Society, exactly what do we as US citizens have to show for our 8 trillion dollar federal debt? Real wages and salaries are down. Past due credit card debt just hit a record high along with gas prices, and consumer confidence just suffered its biggest drop in 15 years. Job growth remains stagnant (to put it kindly), and the jobs that are being created are far less attractive than the well-paying white collar, information technology and manufacturing jobs that corporations are rushing to outsource to Asia by the million.

After spending over $400 billion in Iraq, we have somehow managed to reduce the number of Iraqi battalions capable of combat without U.S. support from three to one ( http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB60MB97EE.html ). How's that for money well spent? And with well over $100 billion already showered on the Department of Homeland Security, we can't even keep US citizens from dying of thirst by the hundreds in the aftermath of a natural disaster so predictable that the entire scenario was run as a mock FEMA exercise in July 2004 ( http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13051 ). How secure does that make you feel?

[RGBVideo]

Should've listened to Kid, Oerdin. If you let DanS to make up the rules, he'll ***** you badly with them; it's not like it's big news in this board.

[Dinner]

We will see if I lose on a technicality or not. It all depends on if the Republicans sit on their $200 billion dollar spending program which it looks like they will.