Author Topic: Visual Representation of Federal Spending. (Read 2796 times)

Justin · « **on:** March 22, 2006, 08:20:33 AM »

Too big to duplicate here.
So click the link already.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2006, 08:59:13 AM »

That diagram is misleading.

It claims that national defense spending accounts for about half of our tax dolars. This is flat out wrong, as national defense amounts to only about 15% of federal expenditures.

Social security (~20%) acounts for much more than national defense, yet SS doesn't appear in that diagram.

Interest on the national debt (~13%) is almost as costly as defense.

Medical welfare (Medicaid, Medicare, etc - 25%) consume 1.6 times more federal money than national defense, but you'd never know it from looking at that diagram.

Art Eatman · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2006, 09:07:17 AM »

If you really want some scary number, check out this website. Click on the tab, "What We Know Now" (or Now Know).

http://www.caseyresearch.com/wwnkOptIn.php

griz · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2006, 10:05:03 AM »

The blurb in the center explains that it doesnt include discretionary spending such as social security, interest on the debt, etc. They say that stuff is misleading because congress has no control over it. (Really, you cant make this stuff up) It looks as if there point is non-discretionary spending is good and everything else is bad.

Guest · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2006, 10:44:38 AM »

Art, reading Doug Casey will get you in trouble... . 8^) (Or out of it, one or 'tother.)

Move along folks, nothing to see here. Pay no attention to the nice professorial looking banker man behind the curtain, loading money into the helicopter. Doesn't mean anything- why, yes, you have seen him on television lately. But don't stare, it isn't polite. Yes, yes, it IS Mr. Bernanke. Now go on, don't be a nuisance.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/16/news/notes.php

Let's see, put it in writing, maybe that will help:

$9,000,000,000,000.00 That's nine trillion dollars. Of federal government debt, that they will OPENLY AND FREELY ADMIT TO. Nine thousand billion dollars, to put it another way. Or since a billion is a thousand million, that would be nine thousand, thousand million dollars.

Are you beginning to tumble to the scale of the debt I am talking about here yet? And as I said, this does not include the other interesting accounting tricks Uncle Sam uses to hide his profligate ways. You want an intro to those, take a look at http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/ . It seems that total federal liabilities are in the neighborhood of $51 trillion. Some ritzy neighborhood, huh? Need a source? Mr Williams again, at http://www.weedenco.com/welling/Downloads/2006/0804welling022106.pdf .

You want the humorous take on this, see the Mogambo Guru's column at http://www.321gold.com/editorials/daughty/daughty032206.html . Sorry, but I see no humor in it at all, it scares the bejeezies out of me.

lpl/nc

The Rabbi · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2006, 11:38:50 AM »

If you wrap your wallet in tinfoil it wont hurt you.

Headless Thompson Gunner · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2006, 01:08:04 PM »

Yeah, big numbers are scary. Let's all run and hide, before those dastardly big numbers kill us all.

...has left the building. · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2006, 02:20:47 PM »

Does anybody know how much revenue in taxes, fees, etc. the Federal Government pulls in?

Guest · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2006, 02:42:28 PM »

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Does anybody know how much revenue in taxes, fees, etc. the Federal Government pulls in?

About half a $trillion less than they spend per year.

Justin · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2006, 02:56:21 PM »

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Does anybody know how much revenue in taxes, fees, etc. the Federal Government pulls in?

More than they damned well ought to.

grampster · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2006, 02:58:08 PM »

I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee. See, now the the debt is canceled and we can start over new tomorrow.

Guest · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2006, 07:44:12 AM »

Quote from: grampster

I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee. See, now the the debt is canceled and we can start over new tomorrow.

If only that tactic could secede.

...has left the building. · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2006, 08:14:26 AM »

Quote from: Justin

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Does anybody know how much revenue in taxes, fees, etc. the Federal Government pulls in?

More than they damned well ought to.

That I agree with, but I'm trying to get a true gauge of how strong we are financially. Just having numbers of debt are completely meaningless without numbers of income. So far, I haven't found any resource that gives an accurate measure of federal receipts.

Glock Glockler · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2006, 01:14:39 PM »

Dan,

Your buddies in the mortgage business can probably give you a good idea of our financial strength, we have our finger on the pulse of the economy and see people's situations every day. As far as I can most people are just getting by, barely keeping their heads above water, partially from their own stupidity but also from a bad govt/economic situation. If a large portion of the country is 2 paychecks away from going under how strong can the country be?

...has left the building. · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2006, 01:23:42 PM »

Glockler,

I don't dispute the effects of high taxation or the state of the common man, but I am interested in looking at the federal government just like any other corporation. I'd like to see various financial ratios and figures.

Glock Glockler · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2006, 01:33:22 PM »

I understand, but I think you'll have a tough time getting accurate numbers from the Feds themselves.

Guest · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2006, 01:33:24 PM »

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Quote from: Justin

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Does anybody know how much revenue in taxes, fees, etc. the Federal Government pulls in?

More than they damned well ought to.

That I agree with, but I'm trying to get a true gauge of how strong we are financially. Just having numbers of debt are completely meaningless without numbers of income. So far, I haven't found any resource that gives an accurate measure of federal receipts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be flippant. Sad

The yearly budget as of the most recent figures works out like this:

Receipts: $2,415,900,000,000. ($2.4 trillion)

Outlays: $2,770.100,000,000. ($2.7 trillion)

Deficit: $354,200,000,000. ($354 billion)

By "we" do you mean the United States Government (USG)? If so, the USG is the greatest debtor nation - not only currently, but ever.

Tallpine · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2006, 02:04:40 PM »

"$9,000,000,000,000.00 That's nine trillion dollars. Of federal government debt, that they will OPENLY AND FREELY ADMIT TO. "

Not to mention the unfunded liability for future social security and medicare benefits. Sad

If the US govt was a corporation, the SEC would shut them down.

...has left the building. · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2006, 02:18:28 PM »

Quote from: mercedesrules

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Quote from: Justin

More than they damned well ought to.

That I agree with, but I'm trying to get a true gauge of how strong we are financially. Just having numbers of debt are completely meaningless without numbers of income. So far, I haven't found any resource that gives an accurate measure of federal receipts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be flippant. Sad

The yearly budget as of the most recent figures works out like this:

Receipts: $2,415,900,000,000. ($2.4 trillion)

Outlays: $2,770.100,000,000. ($2.7 trillion)

Deficit: $354,200,000,000. ($354 billion)

By "we" do you mean the United States Government (USG)? If so, the USG is the greatest debtor nation - not only currently, but ever.

Thanks! That is very interesting. And yes, by "we" I mean the USG. I have no choice but to say "we" since I pay taxes Wink

If the USG were a person they couldn't even be approved for a credit card.

roo_ster · « **Reply #19 on:** March 23, 2006, 03:37:26 PM »

I would like to see fed.gov have to adhere to the same accounting standards they impose on publicly held corporations. I would include the staffs/offices of the congresscritters.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #20 on:** March 23, 2006, 04:30:09 PM »

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Thanks! That is very interesting. And yes, by "we" I mean the USG. I have no choice but to say "we" since I pay taxes Wink

If the USG were a person they couldn't even be approved for a credit card.

How many individuals do you know that can command others to pay them money under severe penalty and create their own money? I'd lend money to anyone like that.

The USG doesnt need to adhere to GAAP because it isnt a corporation or business entity. So accounting rules don't apply here. As anyone who has had any experience with companies and how they account for things knows, companies have some leeway in how they categorize expenses and income. USG is the same but more so. I dont argue they are always on the up and up. They aren't. But it isnt fair to compare them like that.

...has left the building. · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2006, 04:43:46 PM »

Quote from: The Rabbi

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Thanks! That is very interesting. And yes, by "we" I mean the USG. I have no choice but to say "we" since I pay taxes Wink

If the USG were a person they couldn't even be approved for a credit card.

How many individuals do you know that can command others to pay them money under severe penalty and create their own money? I'd lend money to anyone like that.

The USG doesnt need to adhere to GAAP because it isnt a corporation or business entity. So accounting rules don't apply here. As anyone who has had any experience with companies and how they account for things knows, companies have some leeway in how they categorize expenses and income. USG is the same but more so. I dont argue they are always on the up and up. They aren't. But it isnt fair to compare them like that.

I wouldn't lend money to anyone I found to be in direct violation of another's rights. For example, I wouldn't make a loan to a company that traded slaves. Anyway, I'm aware that the USG isn't, and most likely shouldn't be, held to GAAP standards. In fact, they're not held to any standards...and I that is what I have a problem with.

The Rabbi · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2006, 05:18:05 AM »

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Quote from: The Rabbi

Quote from: Daniel Flory

Thanks! That is very interesting. And yes, by "we" I mean the USG. I have no choice but to say "we" since I pay taxes Wink

If the USG were a person they couldn't even be approved for a credit card.

How many individuals do you know that can command others to pay them money under severe penalty and create their own money? I'd lend money to anyone like that.

The USG doesnt need to adhere to GAAP because it isnt a corporation or business entity. So accounting rules don't apply here. As anyone who has had any experience with companies and how they account for things knows, companies have some leeway in how they categorize expenses and income. USG is the same but more so. I dont argue they are always on the up and up. They aren't. But it isnt fair to compare them like that.

I wouldn't lend money to anyone I found to be in direct violation of another's rights. For example, I wouldn't make a loan to a company that traded slaves. Anyway, I'm aware that the USG isn't, and most likely shouldn't be, held to GAAP standards. In fact, they're not held to any standards...and I that is what I have a problem with.

I wouldnt lend money to a White Supremacist or a missionary but that doesnt mean such people wouldnt qualify for a credit card.

News:

Author Topic: Visual Representation of Federal Spending. (Read 2796 times)

Guest

...has left the building.

Guest

Guest

...has left the building.

...has left the building.

Guest

...has left the building.

...has left the building.