Our Great Nation's Budget
coil
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Can *I* balance my checkbook this way?</div> According to the NY times, here's what our goverment's national deficit has done in the last 10 years, as a percentage of the GDP:
1989: 2.8%.
1990: 4%.
1991: 4.5%.
1992: 4.8% (This is the last year of the old Bush administration, and the previous record for largest deficit at $290 billion).
Clinton comes into office:
1993: 4%.
1994: 3%.
1995: 2.2%.
1996: 1.4%.
1997: 0.3%.
1998: 0.7% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
1999: 1.3% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2000: 2.4% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
George W. comes into office:
2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>.
Current projections for 2003 and 2004 are a 4.2% deficit. This year's projected deficit is currently <b>$455 BILLION</b>, which is not only by far the largest deficit ever, but $150 billion MORE than the previous estimate, made just five months ago.
The White House projects the following deficits for the future:
2004: $475b
2005: $304b
2006: $238b
2007: $213b
2008: $226b (yes, that's a HIGHER number again)
This would add $1.9 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion by 2008. Budget *spending* estimates, however, don't even include the costs of maintaining troops in and rebuilding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon estimates put spending for these actions at $5 billion PER MONTH for military expenses alone.
Someone remind me why we elected Dubya? Oh wait, we didn't.
1989: 2.8%.
1990: 4%.
1991: 4.5%.
1992: 4.8% (This is the last year of the old Bush administration, and the previous record for largest deficit at $290 billion).
Clinton comes into office:
1993: 4%.
1994: 3%.
1995: 2.2%.
1996: 1.4%.
1997: 0.3%.
1998: 0.7% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
1999: 1.3% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2000: 2.4% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
George W. comes into office:
2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>.
Current projections for 2003 and 2004 are a 4.2% deficit. This year's projected deficit is currently <b>$455 BILLION</b>, which is not only by far the largest deficit ever, but $150 billion MORE than the previous estimate, made just five months ago.
The White House projects the following deficits for the future:
2004: $475b
2005: $304b
2006: $238b
2007: $213b
2008: $226b (yes, that's a HIGHER number again)
This would add $1.9 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion by 2008. Budget *spending* estimates, however, don't even include the costs of maintaining troops in and rebuilding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon estimates put spending for these actions at $5 billion PER MONTH for military expenses alone.
Someone remind me why we elected Dubya? Oh wait, we didn't.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Someone remind me why we elected Dubya? Oh wait, we didn't.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pwned.
i'm proud to be a crazy dutch **** for once :/
ditti
I'm not a republican or a democrat, they are both equally useless imo. But I am sick of the liberal propeganda about the economy. Countries take money to run, and the US is one of the largest in production and has the most security issues to worry about at the moment. Just because a country is in surplus doesn't mean it is a good thing, it could in fact mean there is something wrong as was the case with Mr. Horny-****-pardon-my-criminal-buddies president.
Bush is getting flak for trying to end terrorism and I don't understand it. Iraq was housing terrorist training camps, funding terrorist groups, and was a symbol for fundamentalist mentality. Bush gets flak for starting a war with a lot of civilian casulties, and what exactly was Kosovo? And Kosovo didn't even have a point we just ended pulling out after we did a crapload of damage. I won't even mention Samalia.
He is waging war and spending money for a reason and it may be more pleasant to do nothing but it isn't right. Imo it's time to start cleaning up the world and getting rid of these idiotic sectors of fundamentalist thug countries that have just been taking a giant poop on diplomacy for about 60 years.
You mean America?
And even if we are "cleaning up the world" who made it our job? And since when has cleaning up the world taken a back seat to cleaning up your own back yard? Because that's what this war has meant. Taking money from domestic prgrams and your own citizens, and useing it to wage wars that will not help to solve any domestic problems and will most likely start a few new international problems.
You mean America?
And even if we are "cleaning up the world" who made it our job? And since when has cleaning up the world taken a back seat to cleaning up your own back yard? Because that's what this war has meant. Taking money from domestic prgrams and your own citizens, and useing it to wage wars that will not help to solve any domestic problems and will most likely start a few new international problems. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I was saying, its cheaper, nicer, and easier to do nothing, but that doesn't make it right.
It's like seeing a gaint steaming turd in your yard and saying "Well no one has assigned me the job of turd cleaner so I won't do it". Everyone else says well we've never had to clean up that poop before why start now. Then when the lawn is covered in crap people will wonder why no one cleaned it.
You mean America?
And even if we are "cleaning up the world" who made it our job? And since when has cleaning up the world taken a back seat to cleaning up your own back yard? Because that's what this war has meant. Taking money from domestic prgrams and your own citizens, and useing it to wage wars that will not help to solve any domestic problems and will most likely start a few new international problems. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its our job because we have the military might and economy to drive it, thats why.......
It sickens me to see a good President like Clinton take so much **** for one mistake he made, even barring that it wasn't really a political mistake, but rather a mistake caused by human nature itself. I don't even want to get started on George Bush.
It sickens me to see a good President like Clinton take so much **** for one mistake he made, even barring that it wasn't really a political mistake, but rather a mistake caused by human nature itself. I don't even want to get started on George Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you talking about? He enacted two military campaigns that were horrible failures, he did nothing when a terrorist group claimed responsiblity for the FIRST WTC bombing, he cut major funding that could have easily lead to the security holes that caused 9/11, and he pardoned convicted criminals right before stepping down from office.
That's nothing political?
Anyway I'm going to either stop posting or stop posting angry. It just annoys me when people make statements about the way a country is run while ignoring facts to contradict those statements.
It's like seeing a gaint steaming turd in your yard and saying "Well no one has assigned me the job of turd cleaner so I won't do it". Everyone else says well we've never had to clean up that poop before why start now. Then when the lawn is covered in crap people will wonder why no one cleaned it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really the same thing, though. The "turd" isn't in our yard - it's in our neighbor Jim's yard, and it was deposited there by our neighbor Todd's dog.
Why should we clean up Jim's yard, when Jim hasn't asked for help with it? Especially when we have our own yard to worry about.
So basically your answer is "because we can"? Well I "can" punch you in the face, does that mean I have to? Does that make it a good idea? No in both cases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like I was saying, its cheaper, nicer, and easier to do nothing, but that doesn't make it right.
It's like seeing a gaint steaming turd in your yard and saying "Well no one has assigned me the job of turd cleaner so I won't do it". Everyone else says well we've never had to clean up that poop before why start now. Then when the lawn is covered in crap people will wonder why no one cleaned it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it is a good idea to clean up the turd in your pool, but not the turd sitting in the neighbors yard. Especially when your naighbor has a gun and doesn't like people on his property.[edit] darn Coil beat me to this gem of a metaphor[/edit]
And BTW, dr.r, you're right about Clinton. He was a crappy president as well.
Oceans aren't borders of apathy anymore, yes it's self rightous and makes us assume the role of "police man", but it's 2003 folks and we shouldn't still have people living in dirt holes with no food and water in constant fear for their lives. This will never change with thugs running the countries that couldn't give a damn about a life.
It's like seeing a gaint steaming turd in your yard and saying "Well no one has assigned me the job of turd cleaner so I won't do it". Everyone else says well we've never had to clean up that poop before why start now. Then when the lawn is covered in crap people will wonder why no one cleaned it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really the same thing, though. The "turd" isn't in our yard - it's in our neighbor Jim's yard, and it was deposited there by our neighbor Todd's dog.
Why should we clean up Jim's yard, when Jim hasn't asked for help with it? Especially when we have our own yard to worry about. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
becuase we have to see, smell ect it, so it affects us, so we do it............
If he is spending a bunch of cash on good programs, good for him. As much as I would love to see the Deficet shrink, sometimes good can come from a bad thing.
Compare what bush spends to what Clinton has spent money on in the past before we say that all that money is a waste.
As for that whole elected thing. Yah, Gore was great...but Leibermen?...scary scary scary man. And while I feel bad that the popular vote did not get him elected I have come to realize that the electoral college is better than the popular vote in many ways and worse in some as well. But I still perfer it.
Do you really want the average joe, who is probally misinformed, if not totally uniformed voting in a canidate because they look good??? Not because they know politics, but because they can put on a good show?. We Americans spending our times watching realilty TV and leaving our lives through other people. Its already a polularity contest, I dont want our election system to become a total fame contest.
I would rather risk corupt educated politicians who at least know policy, then uninformed, uneducated people that spend their time watching TV and not keeping up with politics at all.....ewwwy.
There is no lack of power of the average man with the electoral college, people just want direct influence...which is laziness and impateince.
I dont like any of our leaders, but I have not in a long time. I kinda wish we could get a few more parties than this two party garbage....but even then you have to be careful. To many and we risk a Hilter...
Compters are soo much easier than politics. I will have to talk to my GF...I swear she will be the first female president. She is a freaking awesome poli-sci major.
But yah, Bush sucks, but to compare him to Clinton...is kinda not good. I hate it when people do that. Clinton had some good things but the man commited plently of bad things while in office(scandal not included).
So basically your answer is "because we can"? Well I "can" punch you in the face, does that mean I have to? Does that make it a good idea? No in both cases.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could, but it wouldnt be benificial. For the USA to go do what they do best is a great benifiet as it expands their shpere of influence......
nah, there couldnt be a goverment based on racism in america, its to racialy diverse, although a dictator would turn things around........
So basically your answer is "because we can"? Well I "can" punch you in the face, does that mean I have to? Does that make it a good idea? No in both cases.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could, but it wouldnt be benificial. For the USA to go do what they do best is a great benifiet as it expands their shpere of influence...... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our "sphere of influence"?!?! So basically right now you are saying that it's ok for us to use our power to subjugate other countries? Iperialism anyone? And you expect those other countries to go right along with being inside of our sphere of influence, especially if the people disagree with our culture that we will be forcing upon them?
So basically your answer is "because we can"? Well I "can" punch you in the face, does that mean I have to? Does that make it a good idea? No in both cases.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could, but it wouldnt be benificial. For the USA to go do what they do best is a great benifiet as it expands their shpere of influence...... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our "sphere of influence"?!?! So basically right now you are saying that it's ok for us to use our power to subjugate other countries? Iperialism anyone? And you expect those other countries to go right along with being inside of our sphere of influence, especially if the people disagree with our culture that we will be forcing upon them? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
pretty much, its worked many many many times before.......
Oceans aren't borders of apathy anymore, yes it's self rightous and makes us assume the role of "police man", but it's 2003 folks and we shouldn't still have people living in dirt holes with no food and water in constant fear for their lives. This will never change with thugs running the countries that couldn't give a damn about a life. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm pretty sure no one is denying getting rid of these guys is a bad thing but everyone acts as soon as doing something requires getting your hands dirty it's not worth doing. People like to have their lives comfortable and not think about bad things so when they live in a country where the leader is spending some of their money and taking away some of their comforts and bringing focus to a lot of the worst things in this world people get resentful.
So basically your answer is "because we can"? Well I "can" punch you in the face, does that mean I have to? Does that make it a good idea? No in both cases.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could, but it wouldnt be benificial. For the USA to go do what they do best is a great benifiet as it expands their shpere of influence...... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our "sphere of influence"?!?! So basically right now you are saying that it's ok for us to use our power to subjugate other countries? Iperialism anyone? And you expect those other countries to go right along with being inside of our sphere of influence, especially if the people disagree with our culture that we will be forcing upon them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pretty much, its worked many many many times before....... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where has it worked before?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oceans aren't borders of apathy anymore, yes it's self rightous and makes us assume the role of "police man", but it's 2003 folks and we shouldn't still have people living in dirt holes with no food and water in constant fear for their lives. This will never change with thugs running the countries that couldn't give a damn about a life. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are people starving in our country too, there are thugs in high places in this country too. Which affect us more? It's a no brainer.
I swear to God I thought they locked the Discussions Forum...must just have been me.
I know, its weird, but I do at least care a bit about what happens in the world are me. If someone can live a little better of a life and we can give it to them, why not?
So basically your answer is "because we can"? Well I "can" punch you in the face, does that mean I have to? Does that make it a good idea? No in both cases.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could, but it wouldnt be benificial. For the USA to go do what they do best is a great benifiet as it expands their shpere of influence...... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our "sphere of influence"?!?! So basically right now you are saying that it's ok for us to use our power to subjugate other countries? Iperialism anyone? And you expect those other countries to go right along with being inside of our sphere of influence, especially if the people disagree with our culture that we will be forcing upon them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pretty much, its worked many many many times before....... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where has it worked before? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rome, America, and various European countries during Industrilazation period and Exploration period. Look at South America, Spain changed that totally from a heathen cullture to a Christian Spanish colony...
You know who never assumed the role of imperalist? Countries in Africa that are the size of california and have the political and economic power of a flea fart.
Anyway I've made my points, I think 1 live is worth saving 1000, I think giving up personal comforts to better the world is a good thing, and I think sometimes people have to die and wars have to happen to change things.
Is Bush doing things perfect, probably not. Is it produtive? I think so.
if you want to post some alternate methods, ideas, points about how we should handle terrorism etc. go ahead. I think saying imperalism is stupid, bush is stupid, isn't the way to go about this.
Rome fell because it stretched itslef too thin, trying to control to much land and battling all of the people who lived in those placed because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE PART OF ROME!!! What makes you think that would ever change?
SOUTH AMERICA?!?! How can that be cited as a succesful outcome of imperialism? Sure the white people in SA weren't "heathen" and they were pretty well off, but the people who lived there before were no better off after imperialsm and settlent than they were before. They were worse off in most cases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You know who never assumed the role of imperalist? Countries in Africa that are the size of california and have the political and economic power of a flea fart. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason they have such weak economies is because they were all VICTIMS of imperialsm. The Europeans moved in, mines and farmed the place while subjugating the locals, and took all the money back to Europe. It didn't help the locals and so eventually they revolted, which was not a good thing for the mother countries.