AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (91 comments)

  1. Here’s the CBO baseline:

    Revenue:
    Individual income tax 1,135.2
    Corporation income taxes 237.5
    other taxes approx 250.0

    Total revenue ……………….1,568.2

    http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf
    page 42

    compare that to Ryan’s budget and see the reality.

    1. Larry,

      I know you think we’re your taxpaying slaves, but you need to add in the entitlement taxes that get sucked out of my paycheck in order to fund your golden years.

      1. no Paul. I did EARN my benefits guy… although for years I had to put up with know-it-all bozos who did not know it all, even not much at all, like you in the workplace but that’s life, eh?

        Paul – a little hint guy. You want a strong National Defense guy? it don’t come cheap..take my word for it.

        1. mesa econoguy

          2 things Larry:

          1. You need to come to terms with the fact that most people know more than you do, and
          2. You may have indeed paid into the current system, but you didn’t pay enough, hence your benefits are going to be cut.

          Get used to both of these realities Larry.

          Larry, you are the problem.

          1. re: meso

            guy.. you’re an idiot…

            you don’t know shit from shinola with respect to me or anything else…

            if you did actually know you might be dangerous but as it is you’re basically a miniature Tasmanian devil.

          2. Nickolaus

            Nothing like the comments section of a blog if you want to watch an argument devolve into petty ad hominem.

          3. “if you did actually know you might be dangerous but as it is you’re basically a miniature Tasmanian devil.”

            Wow, zinger, Larry. They should hire you on for the Comedy Central roasts.

          4. mesa econoguy

            Larry, again, I invite you to remove your cranium from your rectum, a sizable task in your case.

            I do not give you much of a successful chance but, in the unlikely event you do succeed, you will have finally achieved something of significance.

            Now, because you are a full-blown ignoramus, please explain to the room how entitlements and entitlement expenses growing twice to three times as fast as economic growth, coupled with a demographic catastrophe and an already enormous debt bomb, can ever be fulfilled.

            This should be hilarious…..

          5. mesa econoguy

            Excellent explanation so far Larry, care to add anything?

            Nothing is in fact the correct response here, since your entitlements are unsustainable….

          6. re: ” Nothing is in fact the correct response here, since your entitlements are unsustainable…”

            are you saying entitlements paid to the military are “unsustainable”?

          7. mesa econoguy

            Larry, you (like all leftists) have an enormous reading comprehension problem.

            Military spending is not the problem Larry; entitlement spending is the problem.

            Even the SS actuary is advocating raiding the SS retirement fund to shore up the Disability Insurance shortfall –

            http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-03-20/chief-actuary-ss-raid-retirement-fund

            This is literally shifting unfulfillable obligations from one pocket to another, while the problem explodes.

            Larry, hopefully you will be around long enough to watch Socialist Insecurity implode, which should be in about 10 years, conservatively. It could very well happen sooner, thanks to Obamascare and Mediscare.

          8. meso – you don’t think the military retired gets entitlements guy?

            do you approve of the military giving their retirees social security and Medicare in addition to their other retirement “entitlements”?

            would you exempt all the military entitlements?

          9. mesa econoguy

            Larry, we knew you were stupid, but not that stupid. Of course retired military get benefits, but yes, those will need to be curtailed for future recipients (my generation), starting now.

            Larry, my generation is the one getting screwed. Our family is planning as though Socialist Insecurity will not exist in 25 years, because it won’t. It will be either completely defunct or so mangled and ineffective it will be a cost, not a benefit.

            [And the country will likely be in very dire straits – slightly different topic.]

            We are perfectly fine with doing what Ryan suggested – I’ll happily give you everything I’ve contributed in my productive life to date. Take it, it’s yours. However, I will be free from supporting it in any way, shape or form in future, and am not obligated in any way to participate in the failing program. That is for your generation.

            If Socialist Insecurity were a private offering, it would be sued by the SEC and DoJ and shut down for securities fraud (Ponzi scheme).

            In fact, if I really wanted to damage Socialist Insecurity right now, I would bring a securities lawsuit against SSA and the Democratic (I may actually explore that further).

            Again Larry, you had better get ready to have a lot less of what you thought you were going to have. We all are. Thanks to the Boomer generation, the most selfish (and incompetent) generation ever.

        2. “no Paul. I did EARN my benefits guy… although for years I had to put up with know-it-all bozos who did not know it all, even not much at all, like you in the workplace but that’s life, eh?”

          I seriously doubt you ever “earned” a penny at whatever government job it was you spent your working yrs gliding through. Meanwhile, the politicians you voted for your entire life spent what you paid in to the pay-as-you-go entitlement system. I have zero sympathy for you when the debt crisis arrives and suddenly the unthinkable for you greedy geezers becomes the unavoidable.

          Everything should be on the table, but you only want to raise my taxes and leave yourself untouched. Parasite.

          “Paul – a little hint guy. You want a strong National Defense guy? it don’t come cheap..take my word for it.”

          Larry guy, I’m aware of that. I did my boot camp at Fort Jackson, guy. We still need a strong national defense, guy, though it needs to be rolled back some due to fiscal realities, guy. Perhaps we could prioritize rolling back some of the welfare state your hero Obama expanded upon taking office, guy.

          1. Paul – you DID want a strong National Defense, didn’t you?

            did you bother to ask how much it would cost?

          2. “Paul – you DID want a strong National Defense, didn’t you?

            Of course.

            “did you bother to ask how much it would cost?”

            I’m certainly not going to appeal to your expertise on the matter.

          3. It don’t come cheap, Dude.

          4. You should explain that to your boyfriend next time you see him whining about the sequester cuts.

          5. re: sequester cuts – they don’t touch important weapon systems… just the extra stuff.. like gymnasiums and beltway bandits…

          6. “re: sequester cuts – they don’t touch important weapon systems… just the extra stuff.. like gymnasiums and beltway bandits…”

            And yet your boyfriend has had an ongoing tantrum over the sequester for several weeks now.

            But by all means, keep question Ryan’s sincerity.

          7. re: sequester cuts – have you heard the military and the GOP Congress critters in districts with military bases bleating?

            Ryan is not serious. We DO have to cut – serious cuts – but cutting alone is not going to balance the budget and he’s dishonest about that. Instead, he says that we can “grow” the revenues we need for National Defense – at the rate of 5% a year.

            The POTUS, to his credit, will not make that same promise. He KNOWs from the Simpson-Bowles analysis that we need cuts, plus tax reform, plus revenues to balance the budget and it won’t happen quickly.

            Ryan’s budget is just flat bogus.

          8. “re: sequester cuts – have you heard the military and the GOP Congress critters in districts with military bases bleating?”

            Yes, and so far I’ve not seen the GOP put an end to the sequester as your boyfriend demanded. I’ve also seen the House GOP pass 2 bills that exceeded the sequester cuts. Both were ignored by Harry Reid.

            “Ryan is not serious. We DO have to cut – serious cuts –”

            I love how it’s Ryan that isn’t serious even while you keep ignoring your boyfriend’s ongoing hissy fit over the tiny little sequester.

            “but cutting alone is not going to balance the budget and he’s dishonest about that. Instead, he says that we can “grow” the revenues we need for National Defense – at the rate of 5% a year.”

            So, the worst case is the Ryan budget sends the deficit on a downward trajectory that exceeds anything your boyfriend has ever proposed or will ever propose.

            “The POTUS, to his credit, will not make that same promise.”

            Right. He wants to do is raise taxes and restore the sequester cuts.

            But who cares? All he does is sign the checks, right Larry? Might as well ask Obama’s dog Bo what his thoughts are on the budget.

            ” He KNOWs from the Simpson-Bowles analysis that we need cuts, plus tax reform, plus revenues to balance the budget and it won’t happen quickly.”

            LOL!

            Oh yeah, the Simpson-Bowles plan he completely blew off. Here’s what Simpson had to say about Obama:
            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64679.html

            And here’s Bowles:

            “I did not know President Obama, and neither did Alan. So we spent a tremendous amount of time with him and his economic team up-front defining success. And we negotiated a deal that got a majority of Republicans to vote for it, so he had plenty of cover on the other side. It also exceeded every single one of the goals that he had given us.
            I fully expected them to grab hold of this. If it had been President Clinton, he would have said, “God, I created this, this is wonderful. It was all my idea.”
            So we were really surprised. My belief is that most of the members of the economic team strongly supported it. Like every White House, there’s a small cabal of people that surround the president that he trusts and works with, and I believe it was those Chicago guys, the political team that convinced him that it would be smarter for him to wait and let Paul Ryan go first, and then he would look like the sensible guy in the game.
            We then expected, before the State of the Union, that when he did the stimulus, that that would be a great time to say not only, look, we’re going to do this to get the economy moving forward, but we have to do it within the context of long-term fiscal reform and responsibility. And he didn’t.”

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/erskine_bowles_on_obamas_failed_leadership.html#ixzz2ODIEsBuG
            Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

            By contrast, here’s what Bowles had to say about Ryan:

            http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/14/exclusive-bowles-on-ryan-im-not-going-to-act-like-i-dont-like-him/

            The bottom-feeding electorate might be on your side, Larry. But the truth will never be.

  2. Gradual my butt ! The Ryan budget is tricke down on roids.Ir redistributes more wealth to the top while telling the poor good luck making it in a global capitialistic system.Put the top tax rate back to the Eisonhower rates and this economy would get back to its once great dynamic ability.Supply side steals wage growth from productivity gains away from the laborer and sends the rewards up to the CEOs hedge fund managers and Wall St gamblers to party on.Short term fake growth for awhile then a asset bubble is created on greed speculation and what have you,then boom the bubble burst.Thirty years of supply sided economics has brought us these boom & bust cycles,lets try demand sided theory for a change like we had in the forties fifties and sixties.

    1. Nickolaus

      Are you drunk?

  3. Nickolaus

    Why do I get the feeling that any cut to defense, even just reductions in the rate of increase, will always and forever be considered by the right to be cuts that “eviscerate defense.”

    1. Nickolaus

      It’s also not clear to me why “basic research” is an “important function of government” as opposed to an important function of the private sector.

    2. Why do I get the feeling that any cut to defense, even just reductions in the rate of increase, will always and forever be considered by the right to be cuts that “eviscerate defense“…

      Where are you getting that from? Do you have a link to a credible source?

      BTW where do you think/guess more money is being spent, defense or socialist safety net programs?

      Just cujrious is all…

      1. Nickolaus

        To paraphrase Senator Feinstein, you don’t have to be a dbag about it. At least I know that’s what she wanted to say, anyway.

        I know that more money is being spent on socialist safety net programs. I’d eliminate those altogether if I had my way. That doesn’t mean I can’t criticize defense. Republicans are fond of wanting to cut NPR and PBS (which I agree with); are they not allowed to speak of those cuts until the safety nets are dealt with?

      2. Nickolaus

        As for sources, just read anything ever posted about defense on AEI Ideas.

        “But…but… defense is shrinking as a percent of GDP!!! You can’t cut it! “

        1. re: ” As for sources, just read anything ever posted about defense on AEI Ideas.

          “But…but… defense is shrinking as a percent of GDP!!! You can’t cut it! “”

          which is totally ignoring the realities that our total available revenues are about 1.5T and total actual National Defense spending ( which is way more than just DOD) is about 1T.

          that’s why they want to talk about percent of GDP and demonize entitlements but never get to specific numbers for either.

          totally bogus… totally evades the fiscal realities…

          and totally is not seriously interested in fiscal responsible budgeting…

          Ryan “balances” the budget by slashing entitlements THEN assumes a 5% growth rate to pay for National Defense.

          it’s just insane.

          1. mesa econoguy
          2. actually no – but I think it’s more important to deal with the truth when it comes to entitlements … all of them… including the military and including tax expenditures, etc.

            demonizing just selected parts accomplishes nothing other than to stoke the culture wars…which is what I suspect some are really interested in more so that the budget in the first place.

          3. mesa econoguy

            So you’re a Pelosian. You think higher entitlement spending

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-11/foodstamp-recipients-hit-record-alongside-record-dow-jones-and-record-debt-20-eligib

            leads to greater economic growth.

          4. no.. I think ALL entitlement spending is costly but I INCLUDE the military also… and I point out that the military expects their retired to get SS and they reduce the service health benefits when they reach 65 and force them onto Medicare.

            So the military is also not only paying entitlements itself but it’s getting entitlements for their senior retirees the same way as other seniors.

            And I asked you – if you thought this was okay…

            and you responded with “pelosi”… so what’s your answer?

            Do you think the military entitlements are part of the bigger entitlement issue or not?

          5. mesa econoguy
          6. mesa econoguy

            I already stated yes above. You have a massive reading comprehension problem, Larry.

            Yes, that is part of the problem, but not nearly as large as the Boomer retirement/Socialist Insecurity/Medicare/Medicaid economic black holes.

            A fraction of a fraction of a population potentially double dipping is miniscule compared to a majority of a population simultaneously reaching retirement age and drawing down wealth and consuming entitlement economic resources (with a fractionally smaller supporting productive base) at the fastest rate in the entire history of civilization, and in a rising cost environment.

            That is the problem in layman’s terms for you Larry. Entitlements dwarf any military obligations at this time.

          7. ” That is the problem in layman’s terms for you Larry. Entitlements dwarf any military obligations at this time.”

            have you checked the numbers guy? want a link?

            you know, for instance, that there are twice as many retired military as active duty, right?

            and that does not count the civilian DOD workforce that produces all those wonderful weapons like ICBMs, carriers, Aegis Cruisers, LA Subs, boomer subs, drones, UAVs, Strat Air Command, etc, etc, etc..

            you think all of that is a ” A fraction of a fraction”?

            Mesa.. I don’t think you know your head from a hole in the ground on this stuff nimrod.

            You’ve spent way, way too much time sucking on the propaganda weenie.

          8. mesa econoguy

            PS, CBO estimates 4% annual GDP growth in its most recent 10 year projections, so Ryan’s 5% growth is not at all out of line, if we remove Obama/his dangerous and destructive economic policies.

            PPS, Your foundational assumption of “available revenue” is asinine – government has infinite taxation power, and can print as much as necessary, which they are currently doing.

          9. mesa econoguy

            Larry, I’ve tried sixty ways from Sunday to show you how the numbers stack up. You ignore them.

            Yes, military personnel are a fraction of a fraction of overall society, far less than the entire Boomer demographic.

            I’ll stop being nice now, and simply say, you are a batshit looney leftist imbecile, with zero reality perception, and zero facts in your favor.

  4. Thomas Sullivan

    Federal spending in FY 2012 was $3.8 trillion, not the $3.5 trillion cited. See second graph on page 9 of
    http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf

    1. and page 42 separates out earmarked revenues from general revenues with general revenues totaling 1,568.2T and if you subtract the earmarked funds 1,135.3 from the 3.8T spending to get the actual general revenues spending – you get about 2.7T.

      so taking out the earmarked “transfers” (dedicated taxes spend on dedicated spending) – we are spending about twice as much as we are taking in – on non-earmarked entitlements (MedicareB/MedicAid), DOD, National Defense and the rest of govt.

      that breaks down roughly into a trillion for entitlements, a trillion for DOD+National Defense and .7T for the rest of govt.

      It’s almost impossible to balance the budget with only cuts to all 3 much less exempting DOD/National Defense – and that’s the 600 lb gorilla that is not being addressed.

      Ryan uses totally bogus growth projections – almost never seen prior 5% – to balance his budget and he takes this approach so he won’t have to use tax increases to generate the additional revenues.

      In fact, he’d cut taxes even more and counts on growth to make it up and then some.

      This is the Bush Tax cuts all over again – including no Plan B if the growth projections fail to pan out and the deficit continues or gets worse – which how we got to where we are now.

      it’s dumb and it’s dishonest – and he gets away with it because most folks won’t even take a cursory look at the numbers in the Treasury Report than Mr. Sullivan provided

      How can virtually the entire GOP support it ? Either they themselves are also ignorant or they are foisting this on the mostly clueless American public.

      1. mesa econoguy

        Wrong.

        Using 2012 numbers, welfare and entitlement expenditures comprised 62% of total spending (not 1/3d), so from your 2.7T figure, that translates to 1.67T, not 1 T. Why do you attempt to divide the pie equally? Is that some leftist tick or affliction of yours?

        Since entitlements are a larger component of spending (in 2012, DOD “defense spending” comprised 20% of total, not 1/3d, and even if you add VA, that totals ¼, not 1/3d) , they need to be cut more aggressively. Obama/Dumbasscrats have made no attempt to do so. They are intentionally increasing government dependence.

        5% economic growth is not unusual at all, especially during recession recoveries. See, e.g. 1983 Q1 – 1986 Q2, Average: 5.27%. This is theoretically where we should be right now, but aren’t, thanks to piss poor economic policy by Barry & the leftists, resulting in the worst economic recovery on record.

        What is unusual is poor economic recovery, which we have now, averaging 2.06% from Q3 2009 – Q4 2012.

        We got to where we are now via massive stimulus spending, which has not been removed, coupled with crappy growth, not tax cuts.

        Finally, you really should read your own material first, moron. Pages 31 – 32 (45 – 46 pdf):

        “The comprehensive long-term fiscal projections presented in the unaudited Required Supplementary Information section of the 2012 Financial Report of the United States Government (2012 Financial Report) show that—absent policy changes—the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path. The oldest members of the baby-boom generation are already eligible for Social Security retirement benefits and for Medicare benefits. Under these projections, spending for the major health and retirement programs will increase in coming decades as more members of the baby-boom generation become eligible for benefits and the health care cost for each enrollee increases. Over the long term, the structural imbalance between spending and revenue will lead to continued growth of debt held by the public as a share of GDP; this means the current structure of the federal budget is unsustainable. “

        That’s not military spending, Larry, that’s entitlement spending. Get a clue, asshat.

        1. mesofool

          I’m using this:

          http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf

          what are you using?

          I’m using real numbers contained in that document.

          what are you using? don’t use percents guy.

          use actual real numbers.

          if you did that – you’d realize that DOD is only 1/2 of the total spent on National Defense

          ” Other military-related expenditures

          Per-capita military spending 1962–2015 (inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars)

          Military spending 1962–2015 (inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars)[13][14]
          This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department’s payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.

          as I pointed out to you – much of what the military spends on entitlements is not reported under military spending but under “entitlement” spending. Seek the truth here..not your propaganda weenie.

          don’t blame Obama. All of this spending especially for DOD/ND was done in 2000-2008 and now the GOP is not cutting anything but entitlements …. and the math don’t work – if you use real numbers and stop play with percents and GDPs.

          growth rate:

          http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66

          easy to verify this with google guy.

          1. mesa econoguy

            No you’re not, you’re making shit up, like all leftists.

            The total expenditure numbers are from Thomas Sullivan’s reference. The percentages are here:

            http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs

            [sourced from OMB]

            They line up almost exactly with the above Treasury numbers.

            God are you stupid.

          2. mesofool – anytime you use Heritage numbers that “reference” OMB numbers without showing the specific OMB references, you are sucking on the big propaganda weenie.

            use pure OMB, CBO or Treasury numbers please if you are serious about the data. Otherwise we know what you are really up to.

          3. mesa econoguy

            Larry, refute the numbers, which are the same as yours, not the source.

            Dude, ……dude.

            FAIL

          4. mesofool – there’re not numbers..they’re bogus perversions of the source numbers done as propaganda.

            the truth is in the original unmanipulated source numbers but not surprising that you prefer the corrupted versions.

            trouble with you fool is – you actually don’t want the truth – you want the propaganda version of it.

            and the truth is that any “conservative” worth their salt when they wrote a budget would use CONSERVATIVE numbers to start with and not count on atypical growth projections to start with.

            the “more than half” says nothing about the actual budget but the other problem is that they include earmarked entitlements -which are not paid for in the general revenue budget, not a problem in the current budget and easily fixed with modest reforms in the future and even Ryan did not mess with them.

            see this is nothing about you dealing with the reality guy. this is about your partisan ideology that really does not care what the truth is because you’re not really interested in fixing the budget. Like Ryan you have other fish to fry.

            It’s not about entitlements. It’s about how much you want to allocate to National Defense – and then leave the remainder of it to entitlements and the rest of govt but you fools won’t commit to a number or a percent for National Defense because if you did your hypocrisy would be fully exposed.

          5. mesa econoguy

            Assclown, then post your spreadsheet.

            You lose.

            Fucking retarded monkey

          6. mesa econoguy

            Larry, it would be very difficult to attempt to exceed your public stupidity, on this and other blogs.

            I mean this sincerely.

            You are a fabulously ignorant person who, when confronted with contrary evidence, not only hand-waves it away (like all leftists), but then doubles down on his stupidity – that is a sign of psychological delusion, and several other mental disorders.

            Your family – those not incarcerated – must be unbelievably ashamed of you, and that must rip you apart daily. Your failures are now so public, you have become the face of leftist ignorance. You are the brand.

            Suicide is very, very likely your best option. I highly recommend it for you.

          7. Mesofool – I posted a US Treasury document that gave the facts about spending and revenues and you’ve spent the entire time on childish Ad Hominems.

            the facts are the facts.

            The budget is about general revenues and discretionary spending not earmarked spending and they separate that way.

            Earmarked spending has no impact on the deficit and in fact earmarked revenues have been loaned to the discretionary spending and is now debt owed back.

            but all you can do is act like a 5 year old.

          8. mesa econoguy

            Correct. Facts are facts, Larry, and they’re not on your side, as I demonstrated above.

            Nothing is.

            Again, I recommend ritual suicide or seppuku for you. It would be the only honorable thing you have ever done in your entire life.

            Go out with a bang, Lar.

            Well, not really a bang, so much as a grunt….

          9. mesofool – no you did not. You bit the propaganda weenie as acted like a little 5 year old.

            earmarked spending has almost nothing to do with discretionary spending thus when Heritage includes it in thei ‘entitlements’ propaganda.. it ignore the reality and the facts with respect to the spending in the discretionary budget which is not about earmarked revenues/spending at all.

            earmarked spending did not cause the deficit and cannot fix the deficit by being cut.

            Only a fool who spend time sucking on propaganda weenies and whines like a 5 year old would assume that.

          10. mesa econoguy

            Larry, in all seriously, you are, by a wide, wide margin, the dumbest person I have ever encountered, anywhere.

            You elevate stupidity to a high art. Your incoherence is legendary among many of us who read these blogs.

            For every one of me, there are 20 more laughing at you invisibly. You are a running joke.

            Larry, dude, please stop humiliating yourself and refrain from typing. You can only make it worse.

          11. mesofool – STFU you little sniveling infant…

          12. mesa econoguy

            Now Lar, let’s not get ornery….

            Larry, there is only 1 honorable thing for you to do now.

            You know what it is, bitch.

          13. Mesofool – you’re not about anything other than infantile ideological hate and discontent guy.

            sad…. but typical for your type that I’ve become very familiar with here and in Coyote… you guys are very predictable and I seldom see you in other blogs like Cafe Hyaek … why is that?

          14. mesa econoguy

            Larry, you’re right.

            I’ll just erase all of the contrary evidence above.

            Don’t fret.

          15. Mesofool – there is no contrary evidence except in the minds of you ideological cowards.

            the Treasury doc separates discretionary revenues and spending from earmarked because earmarked are not part of the discretionary budget which is where the deficit comes from.

            It take someone who is so committed to ideological idiocy to ignore this.

            Nothing with respect to FICA/SS or the gas tax or other dedicated taxes and spending has much of anything to do with the 1.5T in general revenues but the ideological zealots can’t deal with that reality so they have to make up scenarios that suit their fantasies…

            the earmarked revenues/spending have NOTHING TO DO with the general revenues and discretionary spending and the truth of that is right on page 42 of this:
            http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf.

            to ignore that is just plain dumb but it apparently defines folks like you.

          16. mesa econoguy

            See Larry, the problem is you’re another leftist economic moron (redundant).

          17. mesa econoguy

            Oh, gee, not really sure Larry, hmmm, let’s see….um because you’re a batshit loony leftist?

          18. mesa econoguy

            Hey Lar, show us your “evidence” (LMAO) about Reagan VERSES Climpton.

          19. mesa econoguy

            Larry, there are 2 possible non-exclusive reasons why Obama and you leftists have fucked up the economy so bad:

            1. You are excessively stupid – you clearly are, as is Obama
            2. You are actively trying to sabotage the economy – I don’t yet have enough information about you to definitively answer this, but evidence points to yes. Barry is in a position of power, and like you is fully ignorant of economics, which makes him a criminal. Ignorance of the laws (of economics) is not a defense.

          20. mesa econoguy

            Oh, of course Lar, nothing could possibly contradict your “facts”

            Pfffffffffttttttt……hilarious

            Where do you get this shit? It’s classic, dude.

          21. re: “where do I get this shit”

            from US Treasury, CBO, OMB,

            you know.. REAL data with REAL facts ..

            which you seem to dislike totally.. but I can understand it… facts are troublesome things for folks like you.

          22. mesa econoguy

            Oh yeah Lar, sure, you just make shit up FROM that data.

            Ok, gotcha.

          23. ha ha ha.. you’re a HOOT Mesofool.. a dumb-as-a-stump HOOT… but a HOOT! ;-)

          24. mesa econoguy

            62% of federal spending in 2012 was welfare & entitlement spending, Lar.

            Suck it.

          25. get yourself educated idiot:

            http://www.fms.treas.gov/ussgl/tfintro.pdf

          26. mesa econoguy
          27. Cato? Heritage? what about US Treasury, CBO, OMB?

            are you such a child that you need someone like CATO to “interpret” for you?

          28. mesa econoguy

            Where do you think it comes from, Lar?

            Are you really that stupid?

            Wait – don’t answer that.

            Also, why do you think they present the graph in that manner, Larry?

            “Deception” is not an acceptable answer.

          29. mesa econoguy

            Lar, why do you think they presented categorized spending as percentage of GDP?

          30. looking at spending at a percent of GDP is totally bogus when you ignore the actual revenues that you have available to spend and make it worse by pretending that earmarked revenues are also available when they are not.

            it’s stupid to do that and it’s even stupider to believe someone like CATO/AEI that categories in that way.

            it’s simply not the reality but there is no shortage of fools who prefer NOT to know the reality.

          31. mesa econoguy

            Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………..wrong answer.

            It normalizes for underlying economic performance. It is also an economic convention to do so, for that reason.

            As you can see, nondefense spending is out of control.

            That is also reflected here:

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-11/foodstamp-recipients-hit-record-alongside-record-dow-jones-and-record-debt-20-eligib

            I’m alarmed* that someone of your economic wisdom is unable to connect these dots.

            *Just kidding. We’re unsurprised. You’re a moron.

          32. no, it wrongly portrays the realities. It’s use should be only AFTER you’ve dealt with the fundamental reality of the actual available revenues.

            who in their right mind would actually draw up a budget by ignoring your actual available revenues?

            Paul Ryan for one.

          33. mesa econoguy

            Sure it does, Lar.

            Whatever you say. You’re an “available revenues” expert.

            Hey Lar, I thought the most we would ever pay for Socialist Insecurity was

            “3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.”

            http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html

            The government said so Lar, so it must be true.

            I paid $5000 in SS taxes last year – what gives?

            Why is Socialist Insecurity contributing to the debt, Lar?

          34. no mesofool… earmarked means earmarked and the irony is that earmarked funds can only spend what the dedicated tax generates and can’t play the percent GDP game like is done with discretionary revenues and spending.

            and the bigger irony is that the FICA tax has for years generated MORE than was being spent and that’s where the surplus came from – which then was “borrowed” and spent on discretionary things not related to social security.

            you need to want the facts guy… you are too inclined to accept propaganda for your own ideological leanings.

            that’s not good. you can’t deal with the realities if you go out of your way to avoid them -which is what you do when you suck on propaganda weenies.

          35. mesa econoguy

            Oh, ok, silly me, I’ll just ignore that little billion dollar shortfall. Never mind. You’re the expert.

            [ROFLMFAO]

            Speaking of budgets, Lar, your ass buddy Harry Reid FINALLY drew up a budget…..THE FIRST ONE IN 4 YEARS!!!!

            http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/289989-senate-passes-first-budget-in-four-years

            That’s significant – it’s an awesome achievement of epic proportions.

            Harry Reid deserves at least 3 Nobel Prizes for that.

          36. billion dollar shortfall? on what?

            FICA has generated over 2 TRILLION in surplus… right?

          37. mesa econoguy

            Larry, do you invest?

            Probably not, but if you do, I would like to know exactly what you invest in, so I can short everything you own, and take the opposite side of your trades.

            You are the closest thing to a negative/contrary indicator I have ever seen.

          38. mesa econoguy
          39. FICA was changed some time ago in response to anticipated baby boomer demographics and since that time it has for decades generated more in FICA revenues than it paid out – with the idea that eventually reforms would be made and the surplus built up would then pay back when/if shortfalls happened.

            the important thing to remember is that FICA generated these surpluses – not general revenues AND that by law, SS/MedA cannot pay out more than FICA has generated – UNLIKE the discretionary budget that comes from income tax revenues that has overspent by 16+ trillion.

            there is absolutely NOTHING that could be done in the context of the general fund budget that would do anything to SS – other than to renege on paying back the surplus that was generated from FICA taxes – not income taxes.

            the worst that would happen is that SS/MedA would have to be automatically reduce to not exceed what FICA generates UNLIKE DOD spending or non-FICA entitlement spending.

            this is the truth. It’s not what AEI and CATA say but then again they are not exactly interested in the truth to start with because they have an ideological agenda that has nothing to do with the truth – just what they believe.

            and then folks like you suck on it… either out of ignorance or because you have their same agenda.

            either way – it’s a dishonest and disreputable way to deal with things like the discretionary budget and deficit.

          40. mesa econoguy

            I’m pretty sure you’re a boomer, Lar, and probably a government parasite.

            This Socialist Insecurity problem is your fault. Your generation fucked up, but good. You didn’t pay enough into the program.

            But the hilarious thing is that you just reelected the partial solution to the problem – Obamascare will likely kill off a good number of you parasites, so that’s good.

            Have a wonderful day Larry. Go play in traffic.

          41. Mesofool – you don’t know shit from shinola about me including the social security thing. You’d be a grade A dolt to continue to blather about something you are so ignorant about.

            Obama has ZERO to do with the current SS situation – Ziltch.

            why are you so determined to avoid the simple truth here?

          42. and mesofool –

            if you want to really know about the SS trust fund – don’t go to zero hedge for them to “interpret” for you –

            go here: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

            and go down to What Were the Trust Fund Results in 2011? and then What Were the Components of Trust Funds Outlays in 2011?.

            why do you persist in going to known propaganda sources for your info instead of the original source data?

        2. mesofool

          I’m using this:

          http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf

          what are you using?

          I’m using real numbers contained in that document.

          what are you using? don’t use percents guy.

          use actual real numbers.

          if you did that – you’d realize that DOD is only 1/2 of the total spent on National Defense

          ” Other military-related expenditures

          Per-capita military spending 1962–2015 (inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars)

          Military spending 1962–2015 (inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars)[13][14]
          This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department’s payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.

          as I pointed out to you – much of what the military spends on entitlements is not reported under military spending but under “entitlement” spending. Seek the truth here..not your propaganda weenie.

          1. mesa econoguy

            Apparently you don’t understand double postings, either.

            Unsurprising.

        3. don’t blame Obama. All of this spending especially for DOD/ND was done in 2000-2008 and now the GOP is not cutting anything but entitlements …. and the math don’t work – if you use real numbers and stop play with percents and GDPs.

          growth rate:

          http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=66

          easy to verify this with google guy. The vast majority of years

          Facts:

          1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
          1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
          1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
          1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
          1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
          1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
          1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
          1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
          1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
          1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
          2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%
          2009 (Barack Obama, Democrat), -2.6%

          1. mesa econoguy

            100% wrong, again.

            Obama is absolutely responsible for part of the 2009 binge, and all of the maintenance of it built into subsequent budgets. He never took his foot off the gas, dimwit

            http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/05/actually-the-obama-spending-binge-really-did-happen/

            Apparently, you don’t understand percentage vs. absolute increases and baseline spending.

            Tu stultus es

          2. mesa econoguy

            You are easily the largest planetwide dimwit.

            http://www.cato.org/blog/five-decades-federal-spending

  5. mesa econoguy

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content