The Worst President in History?

Nah, I wasn't trying to make a point. Possum's post somehow sounded like he would say that the States aren't spending hundreds of billions on the military, so I did a quick check...

But if you want to have an answer: no, I don't think it is inhumane. I think it is outright stupid. What is the biggest military thread to the United States today? Or in the decades to come? What justifies this budget?

If you can come up with a good answer, let me know.

The possible threat of another Grenada.

And I'm questioning Old Europe's source

in my book CIA=communist

Hey, debate is much easier being on the looney right!

I don't think you could kill your offspring prior to being born.

heheheheeheeehehheeee

You aren't taking the time to read carefully.

Yes, isn't it.

Okay blatham in all your wisdom, what are the humane values the government should have? I am predicting it is more spending on social programs, or am I wrong?

HA! Pol Pot was known for his spending on social programs - shee-it!

Old Europe wrote:


United States

Budget:
revenues: $2.119 trillion
expenditures: $2.466 trillion; including capital expenditures of $NA (2005 est.)

Public debt:
64.7% of GDP (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$518.1 billion (FY04 est.) (2005 est.)


(numbers courtesy of the CIA World Factbook)

_________________



SO WHAT?


It is clear that you, Old Europe either never took an Economics Course or earned a failing grade.

If you don't know that the most important number in any nation's Budget is the ratio of the yearly deficit to the GDP, you are an economic imbecile.

If you can't understand the material below, I'll explain it all to you----




August 11, 2006
Off the cliff...
Mike Plaiss sent a link to a good Bloomberg editorial, If a Deficit Falls in the Forest, Do You Hear It?, by Amity Shales...

...This year, the new report says, the deficit will be $260 billion, or $111 billion less than the CBO estimated in March. For 2006, the government deficit will be 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from the old baseline prediction for 2006 of 2.6 percent. On Aug. 17, when the more extensive annual Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook appears, that 2 percent figure is likely to show up more definitively. But neither the budgeteers' news nor the prospect of a confirmation of it is generating much discussion.

This is surprising. The Economic Report of the President shows the federal deficit for 2004 was 3.6 percent. A narrowing of more than 1 1/2 percentage points in such a short time is itself a story.

The U.S. deficit is worth comparing, for starters, with the data for European nations. In the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, European leaders set a deficit goal of 3 percent of GDP. EU member countries have had trouble meeting that target since...
Indeed, they have had trouble, and will continue to do so. And the people who claim that Bush's deficits are sending us over a cliff will continue to ignore this. But more importantly, figures like deficits are only meaningful in the context of the economy as a whole. (It's insulting to explain this in baby-talk, but there may be liberals in the audience.) If my debts are increasing, but my assets are growing even more rapidly, I'm probably in good shape, as long as I can service the debt. (And if my assets are increasing because of the investments for which I incurred that debt, I'm probably making some smart moves!)

On the other hand, if my assets are not growing, if my income is not increasing, but my debts are increasing, I may be in bad shape!

Situation one is USA. Situation two is EU. Who goes off cliff?

*************************************************************

Are you able to read and understand that, Old Europe, or do I have to explain it to you?

Your powers of comprehension are abysmal, BernardR.

OE was quoting the CIA World Factbook to indicate the USA's defense expenditure. Or do you only read your own posts? I pity you if that's the case.

And then you say you'll explain it. By quoting some unlinked source. Again.

Have a nice day.

Mr. Hingehead- Unlike most left wingers, I always have a LINK or EVIDENCE or Documentation.

Now, stop the foolishness. Read the material below and, if you can, show how it is mistaken or erroneous!

www.randomjottings.net/archives/cat_business_and_economics.html

August 11, 2006
Off the cliff...
Mike Plaiss sent a link to a good Bloomberg editorial, If a Deficit Falls in the Forest, Do You Hear It?, by Amity Shales...

...This year, the new report says, the deficit will be $260 billion, or $111 billion less than the CBO estimated in March. For 2006, the government deficit will be 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from the old baseline prediction for 2006 of 2.6 percent. On Aug. 17, when the more extensive annual Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook appears, that 2 percent figure is likely to show up more definitively. But neither the budgeteers' news nor the prospect of a confirmation of it is generating much discussion.

This is surprising. The Economic Report of the President shows the federal deficit for 2004 was 3.6 percent. A narrowing of more than 1 1/2 percentage points in such a short time is itself a story.

The U.S. deficit is worth comparing, for starters, with the data for European nations. In the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, European leaders set a deficit goal of 3 percent of GDP. EU member countries have had trouble meeting that target since...
Indeed, they have had trouble, and will continue to do so. And the people who claim that Bush's deficits are sending us over a cliff will continue to ignore this. But more importantly, figures like deficits are only meaningful in the context of the economy as a whole. (It's insulting to explain this in baby-talk, but there may be liberals in the audience.) If my debts are increasing, but my assets are growing even more rapidly, I'm probably in good shape, as long as I can service the debt. (And if my assets are increasing because of the investments for which I incurred that debt, I'm probably making some smart moves!)

On the other hand, if my assets are not growing, if my income is not increasing, but my debts are increasing, I may be in bad shape!

Situation one is USA. Situation two is EU. Who goes off cliff?
**********************************************************

Now, Hingehead, I do hope that I do not have to explain to you that 2% of a country's GDP is better than 3% of GDP. That means that a country has a yearly debt that is only 2% of its GDP.

That, Hingehead, is the most important fact in US Budget Economics---how the ratio of budget deficit for the year compares to the GDP.

I do hope that you know that the USA has almost always run a deficit each year and that the TOTAL DEBT of the USA keeps going up and that the total debt is to be judged with relation to its size COMPARED TO THE YEARLY GDP!

That, Hingehead, is why it is essential to keep our Economy growing so that EVEN IF THERE IS A DEFICIT EACH YEAR AND THE TOTAL DEBT KEEPS GROWING, THERE WILL BE NO HUGE PROBLEM AS LONG AS THE GDP GROWS F A S T E R THAN THE DEBT>


If you don't understand this, I will be happy to try to explain it to you in a different way.

In the meantime, I suggest you read the link!!!

May I suggest you shove your head up your copius ...

Old Europe quoted the stats to support the notion that the US spends a lot of money on defense. You may not think 500 billion is a lot. You may think the CIA is full of crap. But you are certainly not arguing against a point that anyone else has raised. Continuing yelling at yourself if you like.

Now you can pull your head back out.

Now, Hingehead, I do hope that I do not have to explain to you that 2% of a country's GDP is better than 3% of GDP. That means that a country has a yearly debt that is only 2% of its GDP.

That, Hingehead, is the most important fact in US Budget Economics---how the ratio of budget deficit for the year compares to the GDP.

Old Europe wrote:

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$518.1 billion (FY04 est.) (2005 est.)
***********************************

Gross Domestic Product of the USA.2005
12,485,000,000,000
Twelve TRILLION,FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHT FIVE BILLION

*******************************************************

Ratio of Defense Spending to GDP--

4.1%
************************************************************

For 2006 the deficit will be 2% of GDP

*********************************************************

I am afraid,Hingehead, that you really don't understand Economics!!!

How does getting your information from a blog provide accurate information?

In his recent news conference, Bush said that he will not leave Iraq until the mission is completed. How does this match up with his proclamation years ago, which said: Mission Accomplished?

BTW, a single-payer health insurance plan and our military budget are not mutually exclusive. The payer, of course, need not be the government, but could be a nonprofit.

Medicare is an extremely cost-efficient plan (not considering Bush's new drug entitlement plan), and might take over the nation's health insurance. You would still have private doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc.

Mr. Intrepid- The information can be found in the records of the Congressional Budget Office.

If you can rebut my figures,Please do so, so we may all learn the TRUTH, in the meantime, I will again post the TRUTH. It stands until you or anyone else can show that it is erroneous.

note AGAIN--



www.randomjottings.net/archives/cat_business_and_economics.html

August 11, 2006
Off the cliff...
Mike Plaiss sent a link to a good Bloomberg editorial, If a Deficit Falls in the Forest, Do You Hear It?, by Amity Shales...

...This year, the new report says, the deficit will be $260 billion, or $111 billion less than the CBO estimated in March. For 2006, the government deficit will be 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from the old baseline prediction for 2006 of 2.6 percent. On Aug. 17, when the more extensive annual Update of the Budget and Economic Outlook appears, that 2 percent figure is likely to show up more definitively. But neither the budgeteers' news nor the prospect of a confirmation of it is generating much discussion.

This is surprising. The Economic Report of the President shows the federal deficit for 2004 was 3.6 percent. A narrowing of more than 1 1/2 percentage points in such a short time is itself a story.

The U.S. deficit is worth comparing, for starters, with the data for European nations. In the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, European leaders set a deficit goal of 3 percent of GDP. EU member countries have had trouble meeting that target since...
Indeed, they have had trouble, and will continue to do so. And the people who claim that Bush's deficits are sending us over a cliff will continue to ignore this. But more importantly, figures like deficits are only meaningful in the context of the economy as a whole. (It's insulting to explain this in baby-talk, but there may be liberals in the audience.) If my debts are increasing, but my assets are growing even more rapidly, I'm probably in good shape, as long as I can service the debt. (And if my assets are increasing because of the investments for which I incurred that debt, I'm probably making some smart moves!)

On the other hand, if my assets are not growing, if my income is not increasing, but my debts are increasing, I may be in bad shape!

Situation one is USA. Situation two is EU. Who goes off cliff?
**********************************************************

Now, Hingehead, I do hope that I do not have to explain to you that 2% of a country's GDP is better than 3% of GDP. That means that a country has a yearly debt that is only 2% of its GDP.

That, Hingehead, is the most important fact in US Budget Economics---how the ratio of budget deficit for the year compares to the GDP.

I do hope that you know that the USA has almost always run a deficit each year and that the TOTAL DEBT of the USA keeps going up and that the total debt is to be judged with relation to its size COMPARED TO THE YEARLY GDP!

That, Hingehead, is why it is essential to keep our Economy growing so that EVEN IF THERE IS A DEFICIT EACH YEAR AND THE TOTAL DEBT KEEPS GROWING, THERE WILL BE NO HUGE PROBLEM AS LONG AS THE GDP GROWS F A S T E R THAN THE DEBT>


If you don't understand this, I will be happy to try to explain it to you in a different way.

In the meantime, I suggest you read the link!!!

Advocate wrote-

In his recent news conference, Bush said that he will not leave Iraq until the mission is completed. How does this match up with his proclamation years ago, which said: Mission Accomplished?

BTW, a single-payer health insurance plan and our military budget are not mutually exclusive. The payer, of course, need not be the government, but could be a nonprofit.

Medicare is an extremely cost-efficient plan (not considering Bush's new drug entitlement plan), and might take over the nation's health insurance. You would still have private doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc

end of quote.

ALL LIES, EXAGGERATIONS AND FANTASIES!!

What about a link, or evidence or documentation?

I never would believe a word you wrote if you could not give evidence it was true, Advocate!!

Hiya dingbatpossum

I never mentioned GDP (go back and look loser boy). I only mentioned Defence spending. Screw reading your links - you don't even read short posts like this one.