PDA

View Full Version : Everyone needs to wrap their head around this.



LWW
08-05-2011, 03:04 PM
The numbers used are rough, and all but one rounded down to give the leftist argument every chance it can get.

The only number I googled was the size of the average US household ... 3.14.

Now, let's proceed:

- The USA is a nation of 300,00,000.

- The US gubmint takes in $200,000,000,000.00 each month.

- It borrows an additional $125,000,000,000.00 each month.

- That works out to $2,093.33 in revenue per month, per per household.

- That works out $25,120.00 in revenue per household per year.

- We borrow an additional $1,308.33 per household per month.

- The US gubmint spends $40,820.00 per household per year.

Now, a questions ... does anyone truly believe that an efficiently ran government could not provide every service it currently provides for $25,120 per year per household?

Sev
08-05-2011, 03:16 PM
An efficiently run government could provide every service without running a deficit, national debt and unfunded liabilities.

LWW
08-05-2011, 03:19 PM
My point exactly ... but the Obamatrons simply can't come to grips with reality.

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 03:25 PM
Perhaps an efficient government that wasn't also a global empire, with troops stationed in over 100 countries.

That hadn't spent $14 trillion on the military over the years, currently spending at double the prior rate, at (from memory) $700 billion a year for the basic military costs, and another $150 billion for the wars (including $20 billion a year alone for air conditioning, and $400 a gallon for gas).

And moreover, a government that wasn't paying double the per capita rate of any other country for health care, with 45 million persons receiving those benefits, and the same or larger number receiving old age and disability payments through SS.

And that wasn't required to spend the debt service for all the accumulated debt.

That is, if you take ALL the non-defense discretionary spending, which covers everything government does, except those 4 huge categories mentioned prior (the military, interest on the debt, SS and MC), it would be possible, and it is likely currently the case.

Here's that number: Non-security [discretionary] spending was $491 billion. Assuming 100 million households (more than your math would yield), this is under $5,000 per household for ALL of what we consider government, excepting the 4 huge categories.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Did the Government Actually Spend in FY 2010?:
Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $491 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Education ($64.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($42.8 billion) Justice ($27.6 billion), and Agriculture ($25 billion). (Source: OMB, Table S-11)

What About the Economic Stimulus Package?:

In FY 2012, spending from the Economic Stimulus Package was moved to Mandatory spending, which is the budget category for spending that is mandated by law. This spending included a surplus of $73 billion from banks for the TARP program, $12 billion in tax cuts and $12 billion in jobs initiatives.(Source: OMB, FY 2011 Budget, Table S-1 and S-4) </div></div>

Link (http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm)

Sev
08-05-2011, 03:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps an efficient government that wasn't also a global empire, with troops stationed in over 100 countries.

That hadn't spent $14 trillion on the military over the years, currently spending at double the prior rate, at (from memory) $700 billion a year for the basic military costs, and another $150 billion for the wars (including $20 billion a year alone for air conditioning, and $400 a gallon for gas).

And moreover, a government that wasn't paying double the per capita rate of any other country for health care, with 45 million persons receiving those benefits, and the same or larger number receiving old age and disability payments through SS.

And that wasn't required to spend the debt service for all the accumulated debt.

That is, if you take ALL the non-defense discretionary spending, which covers everything government does, except those 4 huge categories mentioned prior (the military, interest on the debt, SS and MC), it would be possible, and it is likely currently the case.

Here's that number: Non-security [discretionary] spending was $491 billion. Assuming 100 million households (more than your math would yield), this is under $5,000 per household for ALL of what we consider government, excepting the 4 huge categories.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Did the Government Actually Spend in FY 2010?:
Discretionary spending in FY 2010 was $1.3 trillion, or 38% of total spending. More than half ($815 billion) was security spending, which includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingency programs and Homeland Security.

Non-security spending was $491 billion. The largest departments were: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Education ($64.3 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($42.8 billion) Justice ($27.6 billion), and Agriculture ($25 billion). (Source: OMB, Table S-11)

What About the Economic Stimulus Package?:

In FY 2012, spending from the Economic Stimulus Package was moved to Mandatory spending, which is the budget category for spending that is mandated by law. This spending included a surplus of $73 billion from banks for the TARP program, $12 billion in tax cuts and $12 billion in jobs initiatives.(Source: OMB, FY 2011 Budget, Table S-1 and S-4) </div></div>

Link (http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm) </div></div>

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. No.

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 03:40 PM
My mistake on the households.

Since there are indeed less than 100 million, given the size of an average household greater than 3 as stipulated, the number of households is 95,540,000.

So the $495 billion represents a greater amount per household than my suggested figure.

It is NOT lower than $5,000 per household. My apologies for this misstatement.

It IS close to exactly $5,000 per household, given two significant figures as the adding machine I used was set to.

LWW
08-06-2011, 02:03 AM
TRANSLATED:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://apathetic-usa.com/images/ItsAllBushesFault.jpg </div></div>

Qtec
08-06-2011, 04:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The numbers used are rough, and all but one rounded down to give the leftist argument every chance it can get.

The only number I googled was the size of the average US household ... 3.14.

Now, let's proceed:

- The USA is a nation of<span style='font-size: 26pt'> 300,00,000.</span> </div></div>


LMAO.


Thanks........

Q

LWW
08-06-2011, 04:55 AM
So your rebuttal is a typo was made?

That's better than your usual rebuttal ... I'll give you that.

llotter
08-06-2011, 06:09 AM
Obviously efficiency and government are opposites and can never get together. In fact, governments thrive on inefficiency, the more money it has, the more it needs. The only solution to this dilemma is to keep government very small so it wasteful ways are not too consequential.

Sev
08-06-2011, 07:10 AM
Remember Geithner assured us there was absolutely no risk of us losing the AAA rating.

Another expert surprised.

Time for him to go.

Soflasnapper
08-06-2011, 01:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TRANSLATED:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://apathetic-usa.com/images/ItsAllBushesFault.jpg </div></div> </div></div>

This is not from the WH, and not their apologetics, but the analysis from the budget numbers.

And it doesn't say it's all Bush's fault, at all. It quantifies his key policies' contribution, and that contribution is well below 100% of the reason, even adding them all up.

Your inaccurate gloss on what it says may more succinctly be summarized as NOTHING BUSH DID CONTRIBUTED TO THIS WHATSOEVER (and people who say it did are poopy-heads, nyah nyah).

Congrats on that finely wrought rhetoric, once again.

Soflasnapper
08-06-2011, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember Geithner assured us there was absolutely no risk of us losing the AAA rating.

Another expert surprised.

Time for him to go. </div></div>

I'd support that move, right after the troglodyte caucus resigns en masse before it. That group was the only sector of Congress rooting for this collapse, and/or pretending nothing bad would happen if we breached the debt ceiling without extending it. NOTHING BAD WOULD HAPPEN AT ALL, so bring it on, they said. What could possibly go wrong?

LWW
08-07-2011, 05:16 AM
How incredibly lame.

If you ever actually paid attention, which you never do ... except for when the party speaks of course, you would realize that I have blamed every POTUS since FDR for this mess.

OTOH ... dembots such as yourself continue to deny there is a mess at all, and if somehow there is a mess it is solely the fault of one man and one party.

Soflasnapper
08-11-2011, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How incredibly lame.

If you ever actually paid attention, which you never do ... except for when the party speaks of course, you would realize that I have blamed every POTUS since FDR for this mess.

OTOH ... dembots such as yourself continue to deny there is a mess at all, and if somehow there is a mess it is solely the fault of one man and one party. </div></div>

Yes, I now recall you blaming W's bad economy on Clinton. We know Reagan blamed his economic troubles on the Dems in general, and on Carter, in particular.

So maybe it's kind of a leap year thing, or something.

As everyone knows, no president can remake the economy he inherits, except perhaps over almost his first term in office, or maybe as of into his second term.

EXCEPT when a Democrat becomes president. Then they become all-powerful over the economy, and any reference to their predecessor is dishonest and a false alibi.

I think I understand your position, at least with regard to this president and whether anything that happened 2001-2009 mattered in this economy or didn't matter.

LWW
08-12-2011, 01:14 AM
Your desperation is showing again.