Going Bankrupt: Why the Debt Crisis Is America's Greatest Threat

This article is so wrog on so many levels, it doesn't even qualify as propaganda. To start:

"There are three broad aspects to our debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defense" projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry, the DOD budget is historically small. The rest of the budget is growing beyond historic bounds.

"Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our manufacturing base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures -- so-called "military Keynesianism," which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. By military Keynesianism, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OK, in my last post, I exploded the massive military expenditures myth. Now, manufacturing, manufacturing as a share of the economy has remained constant for about 50 years, no change, got that! What has changed is automation, we use less people to produce more things.

Unfortunately, the work force is changing. No longer can people get paid for showing up at an assembly line. What the country need is knowledge workers. That's workers with skills and training.

Just as we went from a nation where 90 percent of the workers were agricultural to the industrial revolution, society is going thru changes and will stop for no one.

The GDP is not the Budget, it is the Gross National Product. Our budget is sperate. The Defense Budget has been growing every year.

As the article points out we don't have the money for these expenditures and we are borrowing to pay for them. Also, they are not necessary and as Iraq and Afghanistan are proving, not practical. There is not a "threat" to justify such massive spending on weapons that don't address the real threats.

Also, our debt, our crumbling infrastructure, the loss of much of our manufacturing sector are a real threat as is our health care crises. Machines may replace some jobs but the US has lost a few million jobs to overseas production. The Auto Industry continues to close plants in the US and open them in Mexico and other countries.

Whether Automation or Globalization the jobs are gone and there are many people with skills and degrees that can't find decent pay jobs. Wages are down and barely keeping up with inflation. Workers have lost good paying jobs and now work for half or less. They are called under employed.

The talk of the Corporate Globalization apologists has been that the loss of these jobs will not effect the US but as we have seen it has.

Also, as the article points out, a lot of the Military Budget is hidden.

AlterNet: Going Bankrupt: Why the Debt Crisis Is America's Greatest Threat

http://www.alternet.org/stories/74620/


It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense's planned expenditures for fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations' military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defense budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The United States has become the largest single salesman of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out of account President Bush's two on-going wars, defense spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defense budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since World War II.

Before we try to break down and analyze this gargantuan sum, there is one important caveat. Figures on defense spending are notoriously unreliable. The numbers released by the Congressional Reference Service and the Congressional Budget Office do not agree with each other. Robert Higgs, senior fellow for political economy at the Independent Institute, says: "A well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it." Even a cursory reading of newspaper articles about the Department of Defense will turn up major differences in statistics about its expenses. Some 30-40% of the defense budget is "black," meaning that these sections contain hidden expenditures for classified projects. There is no possible way to know what they include or whether their total amounts are accurate.

There are many reasons for this budgetary sleight-of-hand -- including a desire for secrecy on the part of the president, the secretary of defense, and the military-industrial complex -- but the chief one is that members of Congress, who profit enormously from defense jobs and pork-barrel projects in their districts, have a political interest in supporting the Department of Defense. In 1996, in an attempt to bring accounting standards within the executive branch somewhat closer to those of the civilian economy, Congress passed the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. It required all federal agencies to hire outside auditors to review their books and release the results to the public. Neither the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Homeland Security has ever complied. Congress has complained, but not penalized either department for ignoring the law. The result is that all numbers released by the Pentagon should be regarded as suspect.

In discussing the fiscal 2008 defense budget, as released to the press on February 7, 2007, I have been guided by two experienced and reliable analysts: William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative and Fred Kaplan, defense correspondent for Slate.org. They agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4 billion for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7 billion for the "supplemental" budget to fight the "global war on terrorism" -- that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4 billion to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional "allowance" (a new term in defense budget documents) of $50 billion to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This comes to a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5 billion.

But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the American military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4 billion for the Department of Energy goes toward developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3 billion in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt, and Pakistan). Another $1.03 billion outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and reenlistment incentives for the overstretched U.S. military itself, up from a mere $174 million in 2003, the year the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7 billion, 50% of which goes for the long-term care of the grievously injured among the at least 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and another 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4 billion goes to the Department of Homeland Security.

Missing as well from this compilation is $1.9 billion to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5 billion to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6 billion for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200 billion in interest for past debt-financed defense outlays. This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year (2008), conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.

"The GDP is not the Budget, it is the Gross National Product. Our budget is sperate. The Defense Budget has been growing every year."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree, but economics, math and logic aren't strong points in your argument. I showed a military budget that has remained static or decreased over the years as part of our overall economy -- something you either overlooked or decided not to acknowledge. With more wealth in our society, a larger military budget is less out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The GDP for until 2006 from my earlier charts is shown below. As of 2007, it about $14 trillion. As to ,uch of the military budget being hidden, sorry but a half-truth. The budget for the CIA, DIA, etc are in the military budget. just not identified, as such, -- its part of the bottom line, just not broken out.

The GDP is not the budget, which is made up from taxes. The economy is growing and the wealthy are profiting yet the government is running a deficit. The Miltary Budget comes from the over all Budget, not the total GDP. Your basically comparing apples and oranges.

Chalmers Johnson was a former CIA analysts and knows how the money is shifted around. As expenditures are hidden in other budgets, as he point out.


I will try to make it a little easier for you to understand and try to just highlight some excerpts about the hidden budget.

http://www.alternet.org/stories/74620/

"....The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defense budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. "

"....The defense budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since World War II."

".....Some 30-40% of the defense budget is "black," meaning that these sections contain hidden expenditures for classified projects. There is no possible way to know what they include or whether their total amounts are accurate."

"....They agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4 billion for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7 billion for the "supplemental" budget to fight the "global war on terrorism" -- that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4 billion to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional "allowance" (a new term in defense budget documents) of $50 billion to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This comes to a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5 billion.

"But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the American military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4 billion for the Department of Energy goes toward developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3 billion in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt, and Pakistan). Another $1.03 billion outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and reenlistment incentives for the overstretched U.S. military itself, up from a mere $174 million in 2003, the year the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7 billion, 50% of which goes for the long-term care of the grievously injured among the at least 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and another 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4 billion goes to the Department of Homeland Security.

"Missing as well from this compilation is $1.9 billion to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5 billion to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6 billion for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200 billion in interest for past debt-financed defense outlays. This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year (2008), conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion."

Chalmers Johnson is a very intelligent man and I would encourage every American who has even a passing interest in the future of our country to read all three of the books he has written in his Blowback trilogy.

I just started reading his third book of the trilogy, titled "Nemesis - the Last Days of the American Republic". Nemesis is the goddess of retribution who punishes human transgression of the natural, right order of things and the arrogance that causes it.

Contrary to the postings that are sure to follow trying to discredit Mr. Johnson, his writings are all too factual and based on careful research, often quoting government publications and sources.

He mentions in his book how the present president Bush, as every president since Truman before him, has misused the power of having virtually his own private army, the CIA, to pursue heavy-handed American policies on both our friends and our enemies. This private army is accountable essentially only to the head of the executive branch of our government, who apparently believes he is accountable to NO ONE.

The framers of our Constitution no doubt are all spinning in their graves right now seeing how the present administration has hijacked Congress's intended oversight and granted King George unprecedented powers to wage pre-emptive wars and violate international treaties and conventions.

For some reason, when I view this thread, it displays as a very WIDE document and I need to move the screen over to view it.

Is this phenomenon something peculiar to me only, or has anyone else noticed the same thing?

"The GDP is not the budget, which is made up from taxes. The economy is growing and the wealthy are profiting yet the government is running a deficit. The Miltary Budget comes from the over all Budget, not the total GDP. Your basically comparing apples and oranges."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
I'm comparing the amount of money available. When the Soviet Union went belly up, its military budget was 50 percent of its GDP. As to the deficit, the same may be said for the entire federal budget, not just defense.

I'm comparing a small number of apples to a large barrel of apples.

Again, you've said nothing new, just parroted an article and agitprop party line.

As to VA's budget, much of it is going for care for the WWII vets in their declining years -- once an Army that numbered upto 14 million.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"He mentions in his book how the present president Bush, as every president since Truman before him, has misused the power of having virtually his own private army, the CIA, to pursue heavy-handed American policies on both our friends and our enemies. This private army is accountable essentially only to the head of the executive branch of our government, who apparently believes he is accountable to NO ONE."

This quote just proves the author's hatred of the US "Impeach every President since FDR," line.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FY 2007 budgeted DOD and "GWOT" expenditures were 481.4B$ and 145.2B$, in that order. There was an additional $170.1B$ autorized in separate spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That gives us a total of nearly $796,700,000,000 or roughly $2500 per man, woman and child in the USA for war and defense. That is over 3/4 of a trillion dollars for of a population slightly over 300 million, which is not even 1/3 of a billion! What exactly do we have to show for this? The Muslim world is almost unimously opposed to the US foreign and military policy, the EU and Canada are frustrated with us as the "senior partner" of the Western Alliance, and Russia is flexing its muscles alongside with China. Not that Russia and China's spheres of influence are per se "bad," but it seems as if we are living an Orwellian Nightmare, only substitute Air Strip One for the US and Old Sammy for Manny Goldstein. War is now peace, water boarding is not torture as their is no organ damage involved, and instead of 2 minutes of hate we have 24 hours of hate via the televisors and radio. The New York Timesturned itself into the Ministry of Truth, and we even have the tawdry sex romps of George Orwell's magnus opus in our Brittany fetish.

Going???

Technically, we've been bankrupt for years.

We've just been borrowing and printing/counterfeiting to cover our shortfall and being repossessed by our lenders.

Have you ever wondered, if we are such a noble nation, then why is it that we have to spend more on our military and "national defense" than ALL of the other countries in the world COMBINED?

quote:

Originally posted by Peace Brother:
Have you ever wondered, if we are such a noble nation, then why is it that we have to spend more on our military and "national defense" than ALL of the other countries in the world COMBINED?

Military/Industrial complex and empire go hand in hand. We also sell a sh*tload of weapons worldwide....

Yes, we sure do sell a lot of weapons worldwide. We can only wonder how many of our own troops are killed or wounded by these weapons that were Made in the USA. We provide all these sophistocated and deadly weapons to a lot of our dictator friends all over the world and then circumstances change and they turn the weapons against us.

I suppose as long as it ends up being "good for business", by creating the demand for even more deadly killing machines to be manufactured at the taxpayers' expense, it is really in our best interest to arm the entire world.

"Have you ever wondered, if we are such a noble nation, then why is it that we have to spend more on our military and "national defense" than ALL of the other countries in the world COMBINED"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because we were the only one that didn't destroy ourselves in two trans-continental wars and did not spawn the demons of imperial colonialism,fascism and communism which have haunted the planet and murdered hundreds of millions. Guess you overlooked that!

Very few US weapons appear to be used against the US. Mostly automatic weapons, crew served weapons, artillery and armor from old communist block nations, plus a lot of French electronics.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Peace Brother:

"He mentions in his book how the present president Bush, as every president since Truman before him, has misused the power of having virtually his own private army, the CIA, to pursue heavy-handed American policies on both our friends and our enemies. This private army is accountable essentially only to the head of the executive branch of our government, who apparently believes he is accountable to NO ONE."

Howard Roark"

This quote just proves the author's hatred of the US "Impeach every President since FDR," line.

________________________________________________________________________________________________


Typical response from the right wing. We don't "hate" every president but we do criticize and condemn crimes they have committed against other nations.

The quote by Johnson is accurate and has been documented by former, intelligent agents, historians, journalists, professors and victims of these crimes.

Chalmers Johnson is a very credible person. He has also written numerous articles on the subject but as far as I know they appear mainly in the progressive publications. I know has appeared on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS and the progressive program "Democracy Now" and probably C-SPAN if people want to checkout more information by him. In one of his blurbs it mentioned that he was a former CIA analyst.

He is not the only one to study this subject and you can read it by other authors but most are ignored by the main stream Corporate Media because this is information and crimes they want to keep hidden from the American people.

The reason people hate us is because the US has been overthrowing governments and interfering in other countries and bullying countries for decades. It is imperialism and colonialism when you overthrow a government, install a repressive dictator or regime so US businesses can profit, which is what the US has been doing. Iran and the Mideast are excellent examples and so is Latin America and Africa. Shurato in Indonesia was another.

The defense budget is not in proportion to the actual need or threat. Another organization that has been writing and documenting this incredible scam is the Center for Defense Information, (cdi.org) which is made up of retired military personal who are appalled at this scandal.

It is information the Corporate Media does not report and keeps hidden from the American people.

I just quoted a line I've read in several leftist publications and websites.

The Suharto affair was a zero sum game. He killed many communists, who had their own plans to kill his followers.

The defense budget, as percentage of the GDP, includes the supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan. As show, is is much smaaler than the Cold War era budgets. As to whether it is too large that is simply an opinion.

We are not really discussing Indonesia or Shurato but just as a point former CIA agent Ralph Magehee was stationed in the Far East and said internal CIA documents showed that there was no threat but the CIA supported Shurato to ethnically cleanse Indonesia of Chinese who were predominately Communist. There was no threat and Shurato's military killed something like 800,000 people in his purge. The CIA called it a "Model Operation." He ruthless and corrupt dictator. I believe his book is called "Deadly Deceits."

The supplements for Iraq and Afghanistan are not in the military budget and other costs are hidden in other departments.

The GDP is not the Budget. The US is a wash in money. Productivity is up and so are the profits of the Corporate Class but the Government is in debt and borrows to pay for their wars and to keep functioning.

Military spending does not come out of the GDP but out of the Budget.

Military Spending is out of line with the actual threats to the US. It is a total rip-off and is atucally a "Threat to US Security."

Pogo,

“We are not really discussing Indonesia or Shurato but just as a point former CIA agent Ralph Magehee was stationed in the Far East and said internal CIA documents showed that there was no threat but the CIA supported Shurato to ethnically cleanse Indonesia of Chinese who were predominately Communist. There was no threat and Shurato's military killed something like 800,000 people in his purge. The CIA called it a "Model Operation." He ruthless and corrupt dictator. I believe his book is called "Deadly Deceits."”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If you bring it up as a point, then don’t be surprised at a response!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The supplements for Iraq and Afghanistan are not in the military budget and other costs are hidden in other departments."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The War on Terror supplements are included in the percentages I posted. Other costs such as Energy Department costs for nuclear weapons are not hidden, but are well known. Officially, DOD owns no nuclear weapons. They are the property of the Office of the President. It’s an old safeguard established years ago as part of an internal control system.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“GDP is not the Budget. The US is a wash in money. Productivity is up and so are the profits of the Corporate Class but the Government is in debt and borrows to pay for their wars and to keep functioning.

Military spending does not come out of the GDP but out of the Budget.

Military Spending is out of line with the actual threats to the US. It is a total rip-off and is atucally a "Threat to US Security."”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I never said the GDP was a part of the budget, but it is a consumer of the budget, as is the entire federal budget. Showing the DOD budget as a percentage of the GDP is done for comparison purposes. You’re point was that DOD expanded budgets caused the deficit. My point was and is that DOD as part of the federal budget is shrinking. Therefore, other expenditures contribute to the deficit, as well, only more so. Pogo, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Your statement that education is slipping, while true, has little to do with the deficit and nothing to do with less funds for education. Education spending is rising, a point you acknowledged earlier.

There has been no massive increase in military manpower, as I’ve shown that since the Cold War the Army has lost 8 divisions, the navy has lost half its ships, and the air force is reorganized with fewer wings under a single HQ, rather than separate more expensive HQs.

I mentioned the US support of the coup and repressive, corrupt and murderous regimes of Shurato in Indonesia as an example of the types of crimes most Americans condemn. My point was it doesn't mean we "hate our Presidents" or we are anti American when we condemn these crimes.

We don't have to get distracted by going into the particulars of each coup and US action. Perhaps in another thread.

Your charts state Military Spending but doesn't really make it clear if it counts supplemental funding and miliatry costs hidden in other departments. Which Chalmers Johnson explains is a "trick" that is frequently used.

The wealth of the US is increasing, but not for the majority of the American people, who's wages are declining and debt increasing. Social Programs are being cut but military spending is increasing. What caused the deficit was the tax cuts that benefited the wealthy while increasing military spending, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Nation is running a deficit and is borrowing money.

As military spending grows so does the deficit, that's a more important figure then the GDP. The Defense Budget should be in proportion to the threat, not the seize of GDP. Just because the GDP is growing doesn't mean the Defense Budget should automatically be growing. There is no threat in the world that justifies the amount we are wasting. Most of the money goes to Defense Corporations and the Military Industrial Complex and Wall Street that benefit from the spending on expensive sophisticed weapons that are not necessary.

The example that was used in the past was that we have enough nuclear wepaons to blow the world apart 10 times. But all we really need is enough to blow the world up once. That's all it takes. The rest is waste.

"Your charts state Military Spending but doesn't really make it clear if it counts supplemental funding and miliatry costs hidden in other departments. Which Chalmers Johnson explains is a "trick" that is frequently used.

The wealth of the US is increasing, but not for the majority of the American people, who's wages are declining and debt increasing. Social Programs are being cut but military spending is increasing. What caused the deficit was the tax cuts that benefited the wealthy while increasing military spending, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Nation is running a deficit and is borrowing money."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I stated that the War on Terror supplement was included, but nuclear weapons were not. Its no trick, but a budget device well known to those involved with the federal budget.

Please state what federal social programs are decreasing and give data. So far, I see no cuts.

Bush's tax cuts did not decrease available revenues, far from that. it increased them.


Many people in Washington have long known a dirty little secret about tax-cut measures: When done right, they actually result in more money for the government.

Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years.
Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes.

In 2000 and 2001, the end of the dot-com bubble, the 9/11 attacks and a series of corporate scandals sent the economy into a tailspin. During the downturn, high taxes limited economic growth and kept receipts down. Although Americans were making some of the largest per-household tax payments in our nation's history, revenues plummeted in 2002 and 2003. When the major tax-relief measures kicked in, they restored the economy to health and helped deliver quarter after quarter of strong growth.

Republicans' decision to reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends provides a good case study in effective tax policy. When we enacted these measures in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that revenues would decline by $27 billion over the next two years. Instead, it turned out that the tax cut stimulated investment and increased revenues by $26 billion — a $53 billion difference.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-02-20-debate-oppose_x.htm

Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium

This is an extraordinary fact, although you may be reading it here first. Most in the mainstream media would rather tout the faults of American capitalism than sing its praises. And of course, the media will almost always discuss supply-side tax cuts in negative terms, such as big budget deficits and static revenue losses. But here’s another suppressed fact: Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTVlZWE2NDQ3ZDkyMD...NzIzOTNmOGRkMmYyYjM=

Pogo and Howard Roark I must say I enjoy your debates.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


Howard Roark

I stated that the War on Terror supplement was included, but nuclear weapons were not. Its no trick, but a budget device well known to those involved with the federal budget.

Please state what federal social programs are decreasing and give data. So far, I see no cuts.

Bush's tax cuts did not decrease available revenues, far from that. it increased them.


Many people in Washington have long known a dirty little secret about tax-cut measures: When done right, they actually result in more money for the government.

Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years.
Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes.

In 2000 and 2001, the end of the dot-com bubble, the 9/11 attacks and a series of corporate scandals sent the economy into a tailspin. During the downturn, high taxes limited economic growth and kept receipts down. Although Americans were making some of the largest per-household tax payments in our nation's history, revenues plummeted in 2002 and 2003. When the major tax-relief measures kicked in, they restored the economy to health and helped deliver quarter after quarter of strong growth.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


First let me say Thanks JJPaul for the interest and compliment. I don't think you really see this kind of dicussion the Mainstream Corporate Media and people should check out the Alternative Progressive Meida for more perscpectives and information.


The "War on Terror" is not included in the Military Budget and the hidden expenditures in other departments for nuclear weapons is not known by the general public and never brought out in any public debates we might see in the Corporate Media. As a matter of fact the Military Budget is rarely questioned in the Corporate Media at all.

Social spending has declined for the last 35 years and we read about the cuts every year including money towards our infrastructure.

Tax revenues from the tax cuts went up slightly but not in proportion to the loss. When Bush took office there was a surplus and we are now running deficit because the tax revenues were no where close to making up the loss. Bush "emptied the treasury" to his wealthy supporters and it's still empty.

Same happened with Reagan who also left office with the greatest debt the US had ever known until George Bush. The shift in wealth to the top percentages increased and wages for working people stagnated. We also saw the beginning of Corporate Globalization as Reagan and Bush Sr gave tax cuts and incentives for manufacturing to relocate in Central America. Reagan called it something like his "Global Trade Initiative."

After Clinton's tax hike we had a surplus in the budget and he left office with surplus.

After the dot com bubble burst Greenspan lowered interest rates and made borrowing money cheap which jump started the economy. Wall Street boomed but not the average worker who's wages stagnated. Actually the Bush administration was bragging about it's "Jobless Recovery." Investing in Real Estate and the Housing market caused prices to rice and created the Housing Bubble which was also article, as was the Dot Com Bubble and we see the effect as it now bursts.

Unemployment Insurance is a good example of a Socialist program, started under the New Deal, that helps create a safety net for those who suffer form Capitalism greed and effects but it will need to be expanded to handle this latest disaster to hit the people.

Military spending is completely out of line with the threats we face today and a drain on the people. It profits the corporations and wealthy elite's in the Military Industrial Complex and provides the least cost benefits for society as a whole.

“First let me say Thanks JJPaul for the interest and compliment. I don't think you really see this kind of dicussion the Mainstream Corporate Media and people should check out the Alternative Progressive Meida for more perscpectives
and information.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, JJPaul, thanks for the complement.!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“The "War on Terror" is not included in the Military Budget and the hidden expenditures in other departments for nuclear weapons is not known by the general public and never brought out in any public debates we might see in the Corporate Media. As a matter of fact the Military Budget is rarely questioned in the Corporate Media at all.”
________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, there is a supplementary budget for the War on Terror. But, the percentages I posted included that supplement. But, not the 75 billion for the Energy Department support of nuclear weapons.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

“Social spending has declined for the last 35 years and we read about the cuts every year including money towards our infrastructure.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Now Pogo, I’ve told you about believing your own leftist propaganda – you only fool yourself..

Here are the major federal government departments with social spending. No great cuts and a few increases.

In Billions
***********Agriculture*****HHS****Education
2008**********20.2*********69.3*****56.5
2007**********19.6*********69.1*****56
2006**********21.1*********69.1*****57.3
2004**********20.7*********69.3*****55.7
2003**********21.7*********65.7*****53.1
2002**********21.1*********59.5*****48.5
2001**********19.1*********54.0*****40.1
_______________________________________________________________________

“Tax revenues from the tax cuts went up slightly but not in proportion to the loss. When Bush took office there was a surplus and we are now running deficit because the tax revenues were no where close to making up the loss. Bush "emptied the treasury" to his wealthy supporters and it's still empty.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The surplus was caused by a combination of significant cuts in defense (the Army, Navy and Air Force cut their strengths by half and closed many expensive overseas bases). And, tax revenue from the dot bomb economy increased significantly – and dropped significantly when the economy went bust.

As to increasing “slightly,” did you even read what I posted?

Here it is again:

Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years.
Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes.

In 2000 and 2001, the end of the dot-com bubble, the 9/11 attacks and a series of corporate scandals sent the economy into a tailspin. During the downturn, high taxes limited economic growth and kept receipts down. Although Americans were making some of the largest per-household tax payments in our nation's history, revenues plummeted in 2002 and 2003. When the major tax-relief measures kicked in, they restored the economy to health and helped deliver quarter after quarter of strong growth.

Republicans' decision to reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends provides a good case study in effective tax policy. When we enacted these measures in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that revenues would decline by $27 billion over the next two years. Instead, it turned out that the tax cut stimulated investment and increased revenues by $26 billion — a $53 billion difference.
_________________________________________________________________________________________


Same happened with Reagan who also left office with the greatest debt the US had ever known until George Bush. The shift in wealth to the top percentages increased and wages for working people stagnated. We also saw the beginning of Corporate Globalization as Reagan and Bush Sr gave tax cuts and incentives for manufacturing to relocate in Central America. Reagan called it something like his "Global Trade Initiative."
______________________________________________________________________________________
The increased in expenditures under Reagan were mainly non-defense. The infamous earmarks perpetrated by both parties.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

“Military spending is completely out of line with the threats we face today and a drain on the people. It profits the corporations and wealthy elite's in the Military Industrial Complex and provides the least cost benefits for society as a whole.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I’ve shown repeatedly by actual fact and figure that the Defense budget is a minor portion of the economy, but you continue to repeat rhetoric with no actual facts.

_________________________________


Howard Roak:

I’ve shown repeatedly by actual fact and figure that the Defense budget is a minor portion of the economy, but you continue to repeat rhetoric with no actual facts.

________________________________________________________________________________________________



I read the alternative progressive press because it cuts through the double talk nonsense we are fed by the right wing and Corporate Media. As I have explained the Defense Budget is not coming from the totally economy, it come from the Federal Budget, which is running a deficit. The wealthy are racking up huge profits and that's the GDP but the government is in debt.

It's like working for a company making millions but you are only paid a salary. If you can't pay your mortgage and ask for a raise but the boss says you should be able to pay your mortgage, this company makes millions.

Military spending is out of line with the actual threat.

The Tax Cuts emptied the Treasury which were not make up by the revenues. We are running a deficit

You don't have to read the alternative press to know we have cut social spending, it's right in the Corporate Media. Spending on Agriculture are just farm subsidies to Agribusiness and Collages must raise tuition's because of cuts while they have been cutting aid school loans making the cost of Collage prohibitive to middle and lower class people.

Our infrastructure is in need of repair but there is not money because we are in debt and we borrow to pay for Military Spending that is not needed.

Social Programs have been cut as well as aid to States. As the population increases our costs and needs are going up but we are not increasing social spending in accordance with the need.

Pogo,

"You don't have to read the alternative press to know we have cut social spending, it's right in the Corporate Media. Spending on Agriculture are just farm subsidies to Agribusiness and Collages must raise tuition's because of cuts while they have been cutting aid school loans making the cost of Collage prohibitive to middle and lower class people."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
US Department of Agriculture's budget includes the Food Stamp program, School Nutrition program -- free breakfast and lunches, WIC nutrition program for expectant mothers, and several other minor nutrition programs. None have been cut in years.

OK, I've just proved your knowledge of the US budget is wrong and conclusions your drew from reading alternate universe agitprop.

Pogo,

"Our infrastructure is in need of repair but there is not money because we are in debt and we borrow to pay for Military Spending that is not needed."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The 250 billion in earmarks in the Transportation bill should cover that quite nicely.

Pogo,

"Social Programs have been cut as well as aid to States. As the population increases our costs and needs are going up but we are not increasing social spending in accordance with the need."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Where do you get these delusions? State spending has not been cut. Services to illegal aliens is bankrupting some counties and cities.

Pogo,

"I read the alternative progressive press because it cuts through the double talk nonsense we are fed by the right wing and Corporate Media. As I have explained the Defense Budget is not coming from the totally economy, it come from the Federal Budget, which is running a deficit. The wealthy are racking up huge profits and that's the GDP but the government is in debt.

It's like working for a company making millions but you are only paid a salary. If you can't pay your mortgage and ask for a raise but the boss says you should be able to pay your mortgage, this company makes millions."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The entire Federal budget is paid for out of the GDP, where do you think it comes from -- manna from heaven?

The comparison is used to show that Defense does not soak up a large amount of society's wealth -- the wealth of the nation's citizen's.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The Tax Cuts emptied the Treasury which were not make up by the revenues."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Again, here is proof thaat is not true! Back up your statements with some semblace of fact -- not agitprop.

Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years. Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes.

Republicans' decision to reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends provides a good case study in effective tax policy. When we enacted these measures in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that revenues would decline by $27 billion over the next two years. Instead, it turned out that the tax cut stimulated investment and increased revenues by $26 billion — a $53 billion difference.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE FEDERAL BUDGETARY PROCESS. NO PROOF OF STATEMENTS MADE! ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS ON STATE SPENDING ON WELFARE!

DON'T WASTE TIME WITH AGITPROP -- SHOW SOME PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENTS!

Defense spending soaks up the Federal Budget and prevents Congress from spending money on programs that are needed to serve the people. And it does costs us in the final GDP because it has the lowest amount of benefits for the dollar. The same amount of money could produce more benefits for people then the bloated Military Budget.

If the tax cuts raised so much revenue where is it? We are deep in debt and the government is running a deficit of over $3 Trillion Dollars. I can't even print out how many zero's that is. Clinton left the country with a budget surplus.

Military spending for just the Iraq War is expected to cost 2 trillion.

Even though our GDP is growing we our borrowing money to operate and our dollar is devaluing.

Defense Spenidng is way out of line with the threats we face and is a drain on the country.