If Only It Was June 4th 2001

[Megamixman]

You realize the Social Spending eclipsed military spending long ago? Do you realize how much money is actually going into Iraq in comparison the Billions of dollars being spent on absolute crap here?

False.


Good job using an estimate by a completely biased group? War Resistor's League. No Liberal spin there. Not to mention the budget is not even locked in for 2009 and we're only half way done with 2008.
Lets look at actual values from 2007, because these are ACTUAL, not estimates.
http://treas.gov/press/releases/hp603.htm
Department of Defense = $530 Billion
Department of Veteran's Affairs = $73 Billion
Department of Homeland Security = $39 Billion
Army Corp of Engineers = $3.9 Billion
Total = $645.9 Billion
Department of Health and Human Services = $672 Billion


I did what i could to decrease the gap between them. $26 Billion is not a huge difference in those realms of numbers, but considering most of the world considers us to be in the middle of a war, those figures speak to large amounts.

QUOTE
The effects of Presidential Economic Policy lags 4-10 years.

Still false.


Great, considering The Budget is determined by CONGRESS, not the PRESIDENT. That being said, that doesn't say jack squat. It presents raw figures on Government Spending, Government Debt, and general figures that describe an economy during that same time. It says that during Clinton's Presidency, the Budget was balanced, a good portion of the National debt was eliminated, the Economy was flourishing. So, even though the government was spending more each year, it was taking in more because of a good economy.

Also those charts are highly deceptive. They include projections by the US government for the post 2003 period, even though they are just that, Projections. even though the government was spending more each year, it was taking in more because of a good economy.

Now, who here wants to explain to me how the Dot Com boom, which is the reason for that good economy and high GDP, was Clinton's doing? Mind you, you then need to show me how Al Gore invented the internet. Economics is not all numbers. You need to explain those numbers, and provide valid justification. You also need to be mindful of the bias a source provides. But, since we are just blatantly linking sources without half reading/thinking about what they say and what they are TRYING to convince you of, lets have a gander at this, which gives you an idea of why the debt was reduced. It also presents a possible reason for the good economy, besides the technological marvels occurring in the private sector, which I need i remind people, is not the government. I should also remind you that the GOP controlled Congress during Clinton's presidency, so while I will agree that he managed to work with GOP Congress quite effectively, I should also remind you that Congress does in fact decide the budget, not the President. He can only make recommendations.

 

[Chip]

Lets look at actual values from 2007, because these are ACTUAL, not estimates.

Had you bothered to read the "biased" data, you'd see that the reason the "un-biased" government figures come out so differently is because they do not include current payments for past military spending in with current military spending. They also don't include the annual "emergency" war funding bill that tacks another couple hundred billion ($124 billion in 2007) of pure debt onto the bottom line. The military eats more than half of the entire federal budget, if you actually include all military spending. This is a tragedy.


QUOTE
It says that during Clinton's Presidency, the Budget was balanced, a good portion of the National debt was eliminated, the Economy was flourishing. So, even though the government was spending more each year, it was taking in more because of a good economy.

Also those charts are highly deceptive. They include projections by the US government for the post 2003 period, even though they are just that, Projections. even though the government was spending more each year, it was taking in more because of a good economy.



Do you have more accurate figures? Do you have any figures to back up your claims? The Marktaw page has no bias in any direction, it just presents raw data. If the data runs contrary to your position, it's because your position is wrong.

Look at the first chart again. The total amount of money spent by the government every year (outlays) goes up every year. However, you'll notice the rate of increase is significantly lower in the 90's than in the 00's. The rate of spending increase under Bush is the highest ever. This is at a time when, as you've noted, the government is taking in less money. Spending more (mostly on an unnecessary war) while you're making less is not a sound economic plan by any standards.

 

[DaveC]

All I have to say to Megamixman and others is to not just take the Faux news channel's propaganda as gospel. That must be where you guys are getting your "news" from as you seem to parrot back the same Republican neo-con talking points.