PDA

View Full Version : A terrifying truth.



LWW
07-17-2011, 02:19 PM
Adjusting all federal budget outlays to 2005 FY dollars, the US gubmint spent $3,290.8B between 1941 and 1945.

For that we:

- Ramped the military up from 100,000 to 11,000,000 ... yes, an 11,000% increase.

- Trained them, fed them, paid them, shipped them all over the world, and brought them back.

- Built over 127,000 warplanes.

- Built 2,751 liberty ships.

- Built 31 aircraft carriers.

- Developed and built the atomic bomb.

- Built production factories all across the fruited plane.

- Funded the "LEND-LEASE ACT" which armed the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France, and other Allied nations.

- Operated the entire federal government.

In 2011 alone the federal gubmint will spend enough to do all of that ... plus enough to cover the largest single year's budget deficit in US history prior to 2009.

And we did it in one single year.

And the Obama regime believes we need to spend more.

OH DEAR! (http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/industrialmobilization/p/libertyships.htm)

OH MY! (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_US_planes_were_built_in_World_War_2)

GOOD GOSH! (http://ehistory.osu.edu/wwii/usncv.cfm)

SHAZAM! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)

Soflasnapper
07-17-2011, 06:28 PM
That would appear to be a recommendation of a fascist national economic policy board, price and wage controls, rationing, a war surtax on top of a 93% top marginal rate, and more than tripling our national debt in a 4 year span.

Because none of what you describe was done in a normal free market atmosphere, but war footing for the entire economy, and yes, a domestic policy czar with more power than any president has ever wielded, before or since.

If ALL personal and private economic matters are suborned to the benefit instead of the nation-state, the nation CAN indeed do amazing things.

LWW
07-18-2011, 02:37 AM
Poor deflection ... quite poor.

The point is that our budget can undoubtedly be put in balance without cutting a single service. That isn't to say that further cuts shouldn't be done, but the budget deficit is a symptom of gross government incompetence.

The only thing stopping it from happening is the will to make it happen.

Qtec
07-18-2011, 04:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Poor deflection ... quite poor.

The point is that our budget can undoubtedly be put in balance without cutting a single service. That isn't to say that further cuts shouldn't be done, but the budget deficit is a symptom of gross government incompetence.

The only thing stopping it from happening is the will to make it happen. </div></div>


LOL.

You are comparing <u>wartime </u>US with <u>peacetime </u>US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!!!!!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point is that our budget can undoubtedly be put in balance without cutting a single service. </div></div>

Too true. Cut back on waste and increase revenue...good plan.

Q

LWW
07-18-2011, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Poor deflection ... quite poor.

The point is that our budget can undoubtedly be put in balance without cutting a single service. That isn't to say that further cuts shouldn't be done, but the budget deficit is a symptom of gross government incompetence.

The only thing stopping it from happening is the will to make it happen. </div></div>


LOL.

You are comparing <u>wartime </u>US with <u>peacetime </u>US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!!!!!

Q

</div></div>

You have just demonstrated what an idiot you actually are.

Qtec
07-18-2011, 05:55 AM
LOL.

Lets see, 1941 and its now 2011 = <span style='font-size: 17pt'>70 years ago!</span>

If you go back even further to like 1541, the US debt was zero! Spending was zero!.........

Why go that far back, just go back to 2000. That's when it all started to go wrong.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-18-2011, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Poor deflection ... quite poor.

The point is that our budget can undoubtedly be put in balance without cutting a single service. That isn't to say that further cuts shouldn't be done, but the budget deficit is a symptom of gross government incompetence.

The only thing stopping it from happening is the will to make it happen. </div></div>

That point is so obviously false that there are no proposals to accomplish this, except down the road some 20 or more years from now. And don't forget, under the insane theories of some, merely balancing the budget isn't even half way there-- you'd also be wanting to pay off the entire debt, or at least that's what they want to do.

Now, true, if the retired beneficiary class for MC and SS were not doubling, net, and achieving an 80 million figure compared to the 40 million figure it most recently started its rise from, right before the boomer retirements, it would be a lot easier. It would be a lot easier if we'd started from only a few million recipients, instead of starting the growth from 40 million.

If that's what you mean by the will to make it happen, cut the current recipient number by the 90% or so to make it only as large as it was in the early days of its existence (c. war time), you'd be onto something. Something insane, unfortunately, that cannot happen, but onto something, for sure.

LWW
07-18-2011, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL.

Lets see, 1941 and its now 2011 = <span style='font-size: 17pt'>70 years ago!</span>

If you go back even further to like 1541, the US debt was zero! Spending was zero!.........

Why go that far back, just go back to 2000. That's when it all started to go wrong.

Q </div></div>

Well ... you have proven you were a bigger idiot than I could have ever imagined.

LWW
07-18-2011, 02:35 PM
Can you read at all ... or should I say comprehend?

Do you honestly believe that the federal gubmint operates at higher than 70% operational efficiency?

LWW
07-19-2011, 03:10 AM
It's amazing how deep the left has buried their heads on this one.

Soflasnapper
07-19-2011, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read at all ... or should I say comprehend?

Do you honestly believe that the federal gubmint operates at higher than 70% operational efficiency? </div></div>

I do not think waste fraud and abuse amount to 30% of all spending, whatever operational efficiency one wishes to assume.

Other than a Libertarian view that calls for a savings in defense spending of over 50%, very few, actually no, proposals I've ever seen from anyone can show an immediately balanced budget situation. And remember, that isn't even half way, because then you have the $14 trillion and counting of national debt to pay back/off.

So let's give you your fantasy world assumption that we can immediately balance the budget, through I guess you're saying cutting everything on average 30%. Fine. Then how long would you amortize the full payment of the debt, principle and interest, over? 30 years? 10 years? 5 years?

Would you also get THAT payment of past spending and borrowing on the SPENDING side, after already reducing it 30%? Or lay on taxes in sufficient amounts to begin to make those payments and take a long time doing it?

This is the dirty secret of why the Balanced Budget Amendment has been proposed and been part of the GOP party platform since at least Reagan's time, and yet, never has been advanced really, just given lip service as the panacea, if only we could pass it, if only they'd actually propose it.

Why? Because as much as the debt and deficit is feared and loathed by the right, they oppose the imposition of more taxes even more, and figure that any BBA would end up requiring huge tax increases, by law and by the Constitution. Can't have that.

LWW
07-19-2011, 03:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you read at all ... or should I say comprehend?

Do you honestly believe that the federal gubmint operates at higher than 70% operational efficiency? </div></div>

I do not think waste fraud and abuse amount to 30% of all spending, whatever operational efficiency one wishes to assume.</div></div>

Have you ever watched a road crew?

Dealt with the VA?

Dealt with HUD?

Been to the license bureau?

Surely you don't actually believe what you just posted?

Soflasnapper
07-19-2011, 04:39 PM
There may be quite a bit of inefficiency in certain parts of the government, I agree.

30% across the board? I don't think so. Remember, non-defense discretionary spending is only what, 16% of total spending? You could eliminate that all and not get a 30% reduction (of the total bill), and what would be left would be the entitlements, debt service, and the military.

LWW
07-20-2011, 02:05 AM
I will never forget back in the 1990's a Clinton regime report was released that it took $41,000.00 fior the gubmint to provide $14,400.00 ... then poverty line for a family of 4 ... in welfare benefits.

The Miami Valley received a $30M bikeway as part of the neutron bomb project.

Next myth you would like to discuss?