The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. Adjust
that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I don't
think we are getting our money's worth.
Remember also that they took the money that used to be called social
security insurance and also used it in the excessive spending.
I wish what I had contributed to social security for the last 50 years
had been in my 401k. I would have significantly more money to live on
than what the "well run" govenment management (read mis management) of
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:13:07 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:
That's true only if you paid the maximum, or nearly paid it. If you had
been lower on the income scale you would more than recover the money that
you and your employers put in. What the equivalent interest rate would
be I don't know.
In my particular case, even though I was on the high end, I have myself,
my wife, and my ex-wife all getting SS based on my payments. So overall,
we may well still recover more than I plus my employers paid.
Which merely opens the other end of the argument - that we're living on
government handouts - you can't win :-).
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy? No way
possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way! So what does our leader do?
NOTHING! We are in desperate need of a leader who is serious about
financial responsibility. I've flipped from Democrat to Republican.
Bless you Scott Brown!!!
It's over $12T and that doesn't include unfunded mandates like SS and
federal pensions. In reality it's well North of $50T.
No, he's spent *lots* more.
Carter did that for me. Every Demonicrat since has dug the hole
deeper. Though, to be fair, the Rs haven't done a wonderful job with
the budget either. The lesser of evils has to go to the R's, though.
One of which was discretionary and a HUGE blunder.
Of course, Obama's administration started with a MAJOR recession
(damn near a depression), continues to fight the terrorist onslaught,
and fight two wars.
I'm just saying, despite the increase during Obama's first year, it's
the Republican admistrations that have rung up the first 10 trillion
I'm a staunch independant and blame anybody who deserves it.
Also, I don't know where you got the $1.4 trillion number. Based on
the number is more like 4.35 trillion (9-30-2000 through 9-30-2008).
Or was it due the vastly increased productivity associated with the
adoption of desktop PC's and the internet? Or was it due to the
documented decreased crime rate resulting from Roe v. Wade 17 yrs
previously (ugly as the conclusion is)? And why didn't the peace
dividend kick in during Bush Sr's administration? Heard of beer
goggles? You got partisan goggles on. THe fact is that since 1980,
the first $8 to $9 trillion were added on mostly by Republican
Let people absorb the debt like we all did on the legalized by congress
after close trades and the real time trading.
Then with all of the money printed, inflation dollars will pay them off.
Crazy world when the Demos yell and scream about spending money and then
they take control and push power - they do it in aces. What a glutting
time it has been spending money they loaned to banks on projects they
want. Expanding government for all to hold up for many years.
Actually, it is more like $12T. But we've been in worse debt before. Not in
absolute amounts, but relative to GDP, which is a better reflection of our
ability to repay. That $12T is about 80% of GDP. We got to 120% of GDP in the
So my take is that the debt is higher than it ought to be, we need to do
something about it, but we are not in trouble yet.
I feel your pain. I've certainly not "flipped ... to Republican". I
can only recall voting for an R Presidential candidate twice in 30
years. But - thanks to that very same irresponsible administration
and party now in power - I think, come November, I'm going to do
something I've never done - pull a straight R vote. It's not that
I love the Rs - they're mostly as lousy as the Ds. It's just that
with a more balanced distribution of power, they'll spend more of
their time arguing and actually doing less, which will be very good
for the nation.
OTOH, the fiscal irresponsibility you see comes first from the
population at large that hires its politicians to go get them
"free" stuff. The politicians respond by spending money we don't have.
To fix this mess requires the entire population to become personally
responsible fiscally ... it ain't gonna happen.
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.