Posted: 12/8/2012 5:45 PM
Posted: 12/9/2012 1:04 PM
Posted: 12/9/2012 1:57 PM
Posted: 12/9/2012 3:04 PM
VUGearhead wrote: That seems reasonable, but good luck getting Dems to agree to 1% or Rep's to even consider 1.25%. After all, when you attach a dollar amount to those percentages ($135B and $170B, respectively per year) that's too much for either side to agree to.BTW, the historical average for federal spending WRT GDP is around 18%, so those percentages should really be reversed.
The flaw in this reasoning is that we're on the verge of doubling the number of seniors on Social Security and Medicare. Ronald Reagan ran government at 22 percent of GDP when the United States' population was much younger. Even after we take steps to slow the growth of our health and pension programs (which we must), it's impossible to fund the boomers retirement at historic levels of taxation and balance the budget without decimating government activities devoted to non-elderly purposes—including the R&D and infrastructure that help propel future growth.
Sorry Grover—in an aging America, federal spending, and taxes, are destined to rise."Indeed.
Posted: 12/10/2012 7:54 AM
Posted: 12/10/2012 10:39 AM
VUGearhead wrote: According to this web site: www.usgovernmentspending.com/s...3s1li011mcn_F0ffederal expenditures did not consistently top 20% of GDP until the mid-70's, under Jimmy Carter, except during times of war. As for Reagan and Bush Sr., Reagans cold war defense expenditures toppled our greatest adversary, the USSR. And Bush Sr. was in power for Gulf War I to free Kuwait. Federal spending even dipped under 20% during the late Clinton years. So federal spending in excess of 20% is a relatively new phenomenon.Not to start a bashing contest on previous administrations, but we knew the boomers were coming. These services should be prepared to meet their fiduciary responsibilities. If they aren't, then the promises made by previous administrations/politicians aren't worth the tape they were recorded on. And impoverishing future generations to pay for the expectations from an unreasonable promise is ludicrous.Face it, our politicians from generations past have sold us the Brooklyn Bridge (or waterfront property in New Mexico, or whatever flim-flam you can imagine).
"I am a member of the international capitalist conspiracy. Both my grandfathers owned and operated import/export businesses in the early twentieth century, one in St. Petersburg, Russia, where my father was born, and the other in Kobe, Japan, where my mother was born.
I was born in India and raised and educated in England. I immigrated to the United States in 1968 and worked for many years designing and implementing utility control systems and software in Seattle.
Despite 35 years living in Seattle, I instinctively revolted against the suffocating left-coast culture of the Soviet of Washington, and came to revere the four great Germans who helped inspire the Reagan revolution: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin."
Last edited 12/10/2012 10:40 AM by Dore2004
Posted: 12/10/2012 12:06 PM
Posted: 12/10/2012 12:10 PM
This website www.usgovernmentspending.com/s...3s1li011mcn_F0f wrote: ...Reagans cold war defense expenditures toppled our greatest adversary, the USSR...
Posted: 12/10/2012 1:04 PM
Posted: 12/10/2012 1:37 PM
VUGearhead wrote: According to this web site: www.usgovernmentspending.com/s...3s1li011mcn_F0ffederal expenditures did not consistently top 20% of GDP until the mid-70's, under Jimmy Carter, except during times of war.
Posted: 12/10/2012 2:10 PM
VUGearhead wrote: Did I say RR was the sole instigator of the downfall of the USSR? No...But that was not the point, so please try to stay on the subject...
Posted: 12/11/2012 1:16 AM
Posted: 12/11/2012 10:46 AM
BigHatchie wrote: "I'm happy to discuss the USSR's fatally flawed reliance upon oil production & export, if anyone's crazy enough to ask." Careful, comrade. Gazprom and Rosneft know where you live and how you remain warm.
Posted: 12/11/2012 11:02 AM
Posted: 12/11/2012 11:12 AM
VUGearhead wrote: Excellent post, vebilt. What portion of our trade deficit does foreign oil currently represent? 40%, more?...
Posted: 12/11/2012 11:13 AM
Posted: 12/11/2012 11:38 AM
VUGearhead wrote: Classy, Bruin. Ford also had to deal with the last democratic supermajority in the House this government had. Where do appropriations originate in our form of government again?
Posted: 12/11/2012 11:54 AM
Posted: 12/11/2012 1:03 PM
Posted: 12/11/2012 2:04 PM
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|