get a puppy
i'm not falling for that again
you got burned last time? turned out to be a racoon.
And then your sad ass can reply to it.God Save the Queen wrote:
wait till he watches a movie so he could start another thread
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
and then you could quote me again
or not.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
dude, insulting obama isnt gonna rile me up.
So how to balance the budget and decrease the debt without higher taxes ?
It's not the Iraq engagement alone that bleeds your treasury empty ...
It's not the Iraq engagement alone that bleeds your treasury empty ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Iraq + Entitlements = 90% of federal spendings.Varegg wrote:
So how to balance the budget and decrease the debt without higher taxes ?
It's not the Iraq engagement alone that bleeds your treasury empty ...
Not correct. According to the littel factoid in the 1040 booklet, during the year 2006, the federal goverement spent our money in this order:paul386 wrote:
Iraq + Entitlements = 90% of federal spendings.Varegg wrote:
So how to balance the budget and decrease the debt without higher taxes ?
It's not the Iraq engagement alone that bleeds your treasury empty ...
Evil Entitlement programs:
36%- Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement.
19%- Social programs
12%- Physical, human, and community development
Total: 67% of the federal expenditure
Imperialistic military expansionism:
23%- National Defense, veterans, and foreign affairs (this INCLUDES the 'War on Terror,' as well as establishing and maintaining all of the US embasies abroad)
Total: 23% of the federal expenditure
Hey, what do you know... you were actuall RIGHT! Well, not precisely, but you were close. If by "Iraq" you meant supporting the entire United States military, the entire Veteren's Administration, and supporting the Department of State conduct diplomatic business with the rest of the world, that is. Okay, I will give you half credit.
In case any of you are wondering about the other 10%:
8% Net intrest on the debt
2% Law enforcement and general government
There you go.
all the money going towards iraq is seperate from the budget for defense.
2007 booklet for the 1040, page 86: "Footnotes for Certain Federal Outlays"
Now, the federal Outlay for 2006 was $2.655 trillion dollars. Everyone complains that Iraq is costing $1 billion a week. That sounds like a lot of money, but when you look at it against the budget, or the normal expenditure for the miltary, it really isn't that much.
19% of 2.655 Trillion? ..that comes to .50635 trillion, or 506 billion dollars. Of which, somewhere around 52 billion was for Iraq.
This outlay thing I was posting does not show the proposed budget. It shows where the money went.
***EDITED to fix spelling***
(damn, I hate when I can't cut and paste, and actually have to type something!)2. National defense, veterans, and foreign affairs: About 19% of outlays were to equip, modernize, and pay our armed forces and to fund the Global War on Terrorism and other national defense activities; about 3% were for veterans benifits and services; and about 1% were for international activities, including military and economic assustance to foreign countries and the maintenance of U.S. embassies abroad.
Now, the federal Outlay for 2006 was $2.655 trillion dollars. Everyone complains that Iraq is costing $1 billion a week. That sounds like a lot of money, but when you look at it against the budget, or the normal expenditure for the miltary, it really isn't that much.
19% of 2.655 Trillion? ..that comes to .50635 trillion, or 506 billion dollars. Of which, somewhere around 52 billion was for Iraq.
This outlay thing I was posting does not show the proposed budget. It shows where the money went.
***EDITED to fix spelling***
Last edited by imortal (2008-06-11 21:12:51)
so then you arent including the special alottment set by congress and constantly voted on that sets aside funds seperate from the defense budget to fund Iraq and Afghanistan?
Okay, I will say it again. This is not the budget. This is not funds alloted or set aside. This is the money that was actually spent by the goverment in 2006.---- okay, I found some stuff, but not sure if they will help your argument or mine, to be honest. You decide.God Save the Queen wrote:
so then you arent including the special alottment set by congress and constantly voted on that sets aside funds seperate from the defense budget to fund Iraq and Afghanistan?
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … dget,_2007 )FY 2006 Supplemental Funding : The Defense Department base budget also does not include “one time only” costs attributable to the War on Terror, which are submitted as Supplemental Funding. In FY 2006, an additional $153 billion in Supplemental Funding was added to the base budget - the War on Terror received $120 billion, while $33 billion went primarily for Hurricane Katrina. As a result, 60% of last year's discretionary spending went to DoD/WoT.
Can also scroll down to the bottom of this page to see how the actual defense budget was broken down in 2006.
Actually, after cramming all of these numbers, I can't find anything to say what was proposed, estimated, or actual. Everyone use what numbers make you feel the best and most rightous. I am not sure I care anymore. I need a nap. I may try again later.
Last edited by imortal (2008-06-12 08:00:05)