03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessOriginally posted by uzless
Post this website.
Also post the website that compares the previous years budget to the current one and shows increases and decreases in funding.
Also, since this website is likely a government run website, post a website that interprets the data from an unbiased perspective.
You said you looked for proof of my claim and couldn't find any. I assum ...[text shortened]... ed above and found no evidence. Please post this website(s) so we can substantiate your claim.
"Please post this website(s) so we can substantiate your claim."
What claim have I made? Ahh .. you mean where I claimed you are full of crap. Self evident. 🙂
Originally posted by uzless
”That would be true except the US government also slashed spending on social programs to partially offset the cost of the war."
I am still waiting... Just show a cut in one social program. Lets say something like:
(example)
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
2004 15b
2005 12b
2006 10b
2007 00b
You must have had something of this sort before your declaration was made. Suuuure .. Riiiight. 😀
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkThat only shows total government spending. It doesn't break down individual programs. The total spending increased largely due to the wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS: 1789–2012
(in millions of dollars)
2001 1,991,426 1,863,190
2002 1,853,395 2,011,153
2003 1,782,532 2,160,117
2004 1,880,279 2,293,006
2005 2,153,859 2,472,205
2006 2,407,254 2,655,435
2007 estimate 2,540,096 2,784,267
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/hist.html
04 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by MacSwainThat's not a website link.
Originally posted by uzless
"Please post this website(s) so we can substantiate your claim."
What claim have I made? Ahh .. you mean where I claimed you are full of crap. Self evident. 🙂
Originally posted by uzless
”That would be true except the US government also [b]slashed spending on social programs to partially o ...[text shortened]... had something of this sort before your declaration was made. Suuuure .. Riiiight. 😀[/b]
But here's some spoonfed research for you. It may be biased, it may be unbalanced, who knows? Unless you read a book and do your own research you'll never know. But you insist on webpages so here ya go. Books are better.
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/update/2004/12/2004120101.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-12-01-cops-cover_x.htm
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01352.html
http://www.wiretapmag.org/stories/15941/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/316190_workcuts18.html
http://www.cbpp.org/2-23-06bud-tables.pdf
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/REPOSITORY/702270367/1022/LIVING02
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E3DB1F39F931A15754C0A9649C8B63
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1016/is_1_108/ai_85175578
http://www.nhsa.org/download/announcements/NHSA2007_Budge_Report.pdf
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020402b.htm
http://dwb.islandpacket.com/news/local/story/6391867p-5700956c.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/medi-o10.shtml
http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/108/highlights/cu04_1123.jsp
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phillyblocks/message/9368
http://www.cbpp.org/11-27-07fa.htm
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.wallace-wells.html
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_rumblings_010920.html
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1302_Sass.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/1123rd.shtml
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/30/212451/290
http://en.greenmedia.md/?p=1621
You posted this and then accused me of making stuff up.
"Uzless posted the following and I have searched for, but cannot find any ‘slashes’ or cuts to USA social programs since the Iraq war began."
Your reasearch skills must be a joke. Feel free to apologize at any time.
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessFrom that same link.
That only shows total government spending. It doesn't break down individual programs. The total spending increased largely due to the wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
Table 4.1 Outlay By Agency
Military and Defense
(Billions)
01 290.2
02 331.8
03 388.7
04 437.05
05 474.37
06 499.4
07estimate 548.9
Civilian Defense programs have also increase somewhere between 1 to 4 billion each year. Pretty small increase so I'm not going to put it in list form.
04 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessAs you can see from my above post. Government spending increased by far more than the increase in military spending.
That only shows total government spending. It doesn't break down individual programs. The total spending increased largely due to the wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
Which makes it clear that there were no cutbacks to directly offset the increase in military expenditures.
More likely cuts are tied to politics than military spending, but you can feel free to presume as you wish.
04 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by MerkI agree it would be difficult to tie any specific spending cut to an increase in military spending vs political ideology since all spending comes from the same pot.
Which makes it clear that there were no cutbacks to directly offset the increase in military expenditures.
More likely cuts are tied to politics than military spending, but you can feel free to presume as you wish.
But, consider what spending cuts would not have occured if the increase in military spending did not occur. That is a tougher question but I would suggest that not as MANY cuts would have been made for deficit/debt control since expenditures would have been lessened.
One of the space.com links i posted above explains how gov departments were asked to trim 5% of their budgets in preparation for Afganistan. The rest of the links are just examples of the kinds of cuts that have occured in the last 5 years...most of them make reference to the cuts occuring due to military expenditures.
05 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessFirst - what is this you wrote at the start of your post?
That's not a website link.
But here's some spoonfed research for you. It may be biased, it may be unbalanced, who knows? Unless you read a book and do your own research you'll never know. But you insist on webpages so here ya go. Books are better.
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/update/2004/12/2004120101.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nat q war began."
Your reasearch skills must be a joke. Feel free to apologize at any time.
Originally posted by uzless
That's not a website link.
I have not posted or intended to post any link.. Are you continuallly confused? My posts have simply been asking the same question over and over. Show the "BUDGET NUMBERS" you have that prove your original declaration: Which was > ”That would be true except the US government also slashed spending on social programs to partially offset the cost of the war.”
Second - This list of websites is NOT "budget NUMBERS" that indicate cuts in budget you declared. I am not responsible for finding proof for your claims.
Originally posted by uzless
"Your reasearch skills must be a joke.'
I repeat: It is not my responsibility to find proof or research your ill advised declaration: Without having "official" budgetary facts in your hands, only "parroting" editorial pieces of people who clearly have a political conflict of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even your political mate and defender, cleared up the relavancy of one of the propaganda sources you named, Professor Krugman:
Originally posted by telerion
”On the otherhand, Krugman has become a hack in the last decade. He really doesn't do any good research anymore. Instead he decided to go Rambo on George Bush, becoming his "worst nightmare."”
As to your ability to even understand that which you are desperately trying to comment on, again you required "saving" from another inane declaration which indicated you don't know Debt from Deficit when tele had to clear up another of your assinine statements:
Originally posted by telerion[i]
[i]”Deficits of 30% of GDP would be insane. I think you mean debt, not defecit. ”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remind you of the (still) unsubstatiated declaration you made long ago:
Originally posted by uzless
”That would be true except the US government also slashed spending on social programs to partially offset the cost of the war.”
I ask once more, show actual budget proof for your declaration:
Just show a cut in an actual social program. Lets say something like:
(example)
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
2004 15b
2005 12b
2006 10b
2007 00b
05 Dec 07
Originally posted by uzlessSocial program spending in USA is permanent. This shows your claim, I quote: ”That would be true except the US government also slashed spending on social programs to partially offset the cost of the war.” is as bogus as presumed when first read.
I agree it would be difficult to tie any specific spending cut to an increase in military spending vs political ideology since all spending comes from the same pot.
But, consider what spending cuts would not have occured if the increase in military spending did not occur. That is a tougher question but I would suggest that not as MANY cuts would have been ...[text shortened]... he last 5 years...most of them make reference to the cuts occuring due to military expenditures.
It seems for some time the USA has put social program spending on an automatic schedule that is immune from their 'tinkering."
I quote from the source:
”There are two types of government spending — discretionary and mandatory.
Discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of all Federal spending, includes money for things like the Army, FBI, the Coast Guard, and highway projects. Congress explicitly determines how much to spend (or not spend) on these programs on an annual basis.
Mandatory spending accounts for two-thirds of all government spending. This kind of spending is authorized by permanent laws. It includes "entitlements" like Social Security, Medicare, and Food Stamps — programs through which individuals receive benefits based on their age, income, or other criteria. Spending levels in these areas are dictated by the number of people who sign up for these benefits, rather than by Congress.
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/government-spending
07 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainPretty lame attempt Macswain.
First - what is this you wrote at the start of your post?
Originally posted by uzless
[b]That's not a website link.
I have not posted or intended to post any link.. Are you continuallly confused? My posts have simply been asking the same question over and over. Show the "BUDGET NUMBERS" you have that prove your original declaration: Which wa to Families with Dependent Children
2004 15b
2005 12b
2006 10b
2007 00b[/b]
I accept your non-apology.
All the proof you need, from government websites, newspaper websites, private websites, and non-profit websites all pointing out examples of budget cuts due to military expenditure increases yet you still won't own up. You are corrrect...all 20+ sources are liars!!!!!!!
I salute you.
08 Dec 07
If the American People were on the job as they are supposed to be there would be no war. Remember this, prior to EVERY war the American People are OPPOSED to war. The powers that operate the levers of power in the govt and in the media, the powers that WANT war, then go to work on us, laying down propaganda which gradually brings the People around to THEIR position: war.
The best example of this which Ive ever seen was when we were persuaded to support the neocon invasion of Iraq the FIRST time - under the Elder Bush. Remember, what happened. State Dept employee, April Glaspy, told Saddam we would not be too bothered if he reacted to evidence that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by invading Kuwait, against which he had a territorial claim anyway. (And if memory serves we provided him with that evidence. Hmm.) So he invaded and quickly chased the Kuwaitis to London hotels where they sat out the fight with their chatel slaves.
American Public Opinion was stuck at UNDER 50%. Congressional hearings of Iraqi behaviour in the invasion were televised on cspan. One episode made the networks as well. A pretty young girl testified that Iraqi soldiers took the hospital in which she was a candy-striper in the neo-natal ward. She tearfully told of how the Iraqis left babies writhing on the floor as they stole their incubators. It was unacceptable - "It will not stand!" - The American People (predictably) reacted with outrage (so did I! so did I!) and demanded that THAT act of cruelty not go unpunished. Saddam must be taken down! (or at least thrown out of the Kuwaiti billionaires playground, eh? Bush friends - ya gotta love those Bush friends - lol) - Public Opinion leapt past the 50% mark in favor of military action. The Gulf War ensued. Remember alllll that?
Only later did we discover that the heart-rending story about the poor cold babies on the floor was a hoax. The tearful little nurse was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. We had been taken for a ride. Americans died. Kuwaitis died. Many Iraqis died. On-going action against Saddam was established - with UN support - and THAT was NOT rescinded when the hoax to move public opinion was discovered. The media did not want to tarnish our gleaming victory by highlighting that story. Remember all that?? Our present disaster in Iraq was set in motion by that televised malarkey about the incubators. This whole thing was contrived. We were deceived.
So, to answer your question, we get squat from our sacrifice. Treacherous agents of the power elite swagger away with the wealth of a good country theyve looted. American dominance in world affairs is diminished.(A long-term goal of the Illuminati overlords.) Our infrastructure sold. The future labor of our people stolen. The aims of the very top-most elites born-to-power are advanced. Our people shackled in debt-slavery.
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by RodneyPorterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Power_(comedy)
If the American People were on the job as they are supposed to be there would be no war. Remember this, prior to EVERY war the American People are OPPOSED to war. The powers that operate the levers of power in the govt and in the media, the powers that WANT war, then go to work on us, laying down propaganda which gradually brings the People around to TH ...[text shortened]... s of the very top-most elites born-to-power are advanced. Our people shackled in debt-slavery.
You should watch this show. It manages to be both funny and scary at the same time.
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by MerkWait a second though...
As you can see from my above post. Government spending increased by [b]far more than the increase in military spending.
Which makes it clear that there were no cutbacks to directly offset the increase in military expenditures.
More likely cuts are tied to politics than military spending, but you can feel free to presume as you wish.[/b]
We know Bush has increased military spending, he keeps going back to some or other government office and asking for billions more every couple of months or so.
And you say other spending has increased as well???
But taxes are the same?
Where's all this money comin' fae?
08 Dec 07
Originally posted by shavixmirWE BORROW IT!
Wait a second though...
We know Bush has increased military spending, he keeps going back to some or other government office and asking for billions more every couple of months or so.
And you say other spending has increased as well???
But taxes are the same?
Where's all this money comin' fae?
G.