A $1,560,000,000,000 deficit !

[kentuck]

And how much of that is being spent on wars we cannot afford? Maybe half of the defense budget?

Last year, the deficit was $1,410,000,000,000 dollars, about $1.2 trillion of that from the last Bush deficit.

Bush and the Repubs doubled the national debt in just 8 short years. Even with the present monstrous deficits, the deficits are not expected to double in the next 10 years. Percentage-wise, this Administration is spending less than the previous one. The debt is expected to increase by $8.5 trillion over the next ten-year period.

But the very worst thing in his budget, the absolute worst thing, is that the Bush taxcuts will expire. The Republicans have vowed to fight that with everything they have. That alone added over a trillion dollars to our debt. Will the Democrats fold on this issue?

(edited "Maybe half of the defense budget" for clarification)

[ddeclue]

1. not half...more like 10 to 12%. don't exaggerate please.

[Fumesucker]

8. We spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military..

We cannot continue to do that indefinitely.

[kentuck]

9. I think, combined with intelligence spending, we are spending about $700 billion

on the military. That is almost half the budget. It is not 10% as the other poster indicated.

[ddeclue]

11. except it is INACCURATE to characterize ALL defense spending as being related to the two wars.

the two wars amount to 10% to 12% NOT 50%. FACTS ARE FACTS.

[Fumesucker]

15. Fuck it then, let's just go broke for wars and threats of war..

If we hadn't been spending the kinds of money we have been for fifty years on the military we would never have been tempted to start two land wars in Asia..

[ddeclue]

10. yeah but the OP is still highly inaccurate.

[kentuck]

13. No, its not highly inaccurate.

How much are we spending on defense this year?

[Statistical]

20. That wasn't the statement though.

Saying 50% of budget is spent on defense is one statement.
Saying 50% of the budget is spent on the "2 wars" is another one.

One is marginally correct the other is a complete fabrication.

[kentuck]

22. "Maybe half?"

You are right. All of that is not spent on the "wars". I corrected that.

But your statement is not totally correct either. I did not say exactly 50% of the budget. I put it as "maybe half" with a "?" mark.

[Loge23]

2. A bad joke on all of us.

A guy walks into the accountants office:
"Sir, I have a deficit that spirals out of control when I wage war."
Accountant: "Then stop waging war."

[Mari333]

3. too fucking much.

http://www.warresisters.org/node/642

[dmallind]

5. This chart does not include entitlements for a start

It also lumps "past military" in as an issue. Maybe we should stop the VA benefits and pensions for veterans eh?

[Mari333]

14. too fucking much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Military_budget_and_total_US_federal_spending

[kentuck]

16. Look at what is not included in the defense budget.

How much is spent on "Homeland Security"?

"...Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation<23><24>), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.<22> Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called four percent an "absolute floor".<25> This calculation does not take into account some other defense-related non-DOD spending, such as Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and interest paid on debt incurred in past wars, which has increased even as a percentage of the national GDP."

[Mari333]

17. stupid homeland security bullshit and also

how much are the MERCENARIES getting? where is THAT in the frigging budget

[Statistical]

4. "The debt is expected to increase by $8.5 trillion over the next ten-year period. "

Just let that sink in a bit.

Current national debt is $14T + $8.5T = $22.5T

$22.5 trillion is more than GDP of the country. An analogy would be a family making $50,000 a year having $60,000 in credit card debt.

At current interest rates (4.1% average on national debt) the interest only on the debt at $22.5 trillion is $922 billion. The entire federal budget in 2010 is $3.6 trillion so that's roughly 25% of the current budget.

However it is foolish to think we can expand our debt over 50% and have it exceed GDP and at the same time have foreign lenders not demand more interest.

At 5.1% (just a 1% rise in carrying cost) the interest (no principle) is $1.15 trillion. At 6.1% (comparable to most 1st world nations) it is $1.3 trillion. Japan carrying cost on their debt is 8.7%. At 8.7% our debt will cost us almost $2 trillion every single year.

Imagine 2 Iraq wars in cost every year until the end of time.

The debt is reaching point of utter insanity. We can not keep spending money we don't have.

[dmallind]

7. An analogy would be a 50K earning family having a TOTAL debt load of $60K

including their mortgage. Oh my God they would be bankrupt! Or....actually better off than most. Especially since to make that analogy true, 30% or more of their debt would be to their own 401K investments (4T of the total debt is owed to other governmental agencies) and this family would have the ability to raise their income at will.

[Statistical]

12. raise income at will? lol.

If we can raise income at will how are we even in debt.

Why didn't Obama/Congress "raise income at will" so that the deficit this year is $0.00. Hell even better raise it so that income exceeds expenses by 1% so we can start paying down the debt. :)

[dmallind]

19. "Can" and "do" are not synonyms.

[Hannah Bell]

29. because the rulers chose to debt-finance to siphon off wealth to the financial class.

we certainly can "raise our income at will", in multiple ways.

[Hannah Bell]

28. thank you.

[bik0]

6. "We are all doomed"

The deficit will be above a trillion dollars a year as far as the eye can see. One day, Mr. Bernanke or whoever is at the Fed will have to increase short-term interest rates. When that happens, America's interest burden will go up dramatically. Interest payments could go to 35% of tax revenue in 10 years' time, but that is an optimistic assumption. I'm inclined to think 50% of tax revenue will go toward interest payments on government debt in 10 years. Then you are bankrupt. There is only one way out -- the Zimbabwe way. You will have to print and print and print.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7614281

[Mari333]

18. who would unrec this....bwak bwak bwak..

[Igel]

21. I wholeheartedly agree.

It's not just war spending. It's military spending as a whole.

First, let's fire a few hundred thousand soldiers.

We can close military bases all around the country, and send the civilian and DOD/non-soldier employees packing.

We can shut down the production lines that produce stuff for the military. Clothes, vehicles, satellites.

We can shut down the R&D folk. We don't need their silly innovations. I mean, just look at the ARPA net. It never did anything for us.

We can dispose of the VA programs. No more incentive programs like college tuition for vets.

Instead of directly hiring people, we can directly hire people. Instead of funding R&D we can fund R&D. Instead of paying people to produce we can instead do the important job of paying people to produce. Instead of funding health care we can fund health care. And instead of paying for education we can instead pay for education. Because deficit spending is *stimulus* when it funds production, pays people who otherwise earn below-median wages, and funds R&D. It's good when we pay for health care and education. But only when those beneficiaries, it seems, aren't military.

Even with war spending, a lot of the money stays at home. Soldiers' salaries. Most munitions and materiel purchases.

So while I don't like war, I do have to admit: Such posts are dreadfully confusing. It's like the old Soviet adage: Capitalism is the oppression of man by man, but under communism it's the oppression of man by man. (Only sentence level focus, indicated by stress and intonation, makes it comprehensible. Then it's still utterly sarcastic.)

[newspeak]

23. the repukes are now worried about the deficit

funny, they weren't too worried about it during the * administration when they were cutting taxes on the wealthy and spend, spending on wars and war profiteers.

Maybe they can ask Rummy where the unaccounted money (over trillion) at the pentagon went?

[theothersnippywshrub]

24. Deadeye Dick said The Great Prevaricator proved deficits don't matter. n/t

[bik0]

25. Clyburn: 'We've got to spend our way out of this recession'

Clyburn: 'We've got to spend our way out of this recession'
By Michael O'Brien - 02/01/10 12:56 PM ET
The U.S. government must spend its way out of the recession, the Democrats' third-ranking House leader stressed Monday.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, said that trying to find greater savings in the budget, which was released by President Barack Obama this morning, wouldn't help alleviate the recession.

"We've got to make some decisions here as to what's in the best interests of our country going forward," Clyburn said during an appearance on Fox News. "And I think the best interest is to invest in education, control these deficits, while at the same time trying to get people back to work."

"We're not going to save our way out of this recession," the majority whip added. "We've got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that."

http://goo.gl/dsEU

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. "Borrow and spend" at it's most lucrative...for the MIC.

[Hannah Bell]

27. not a DEFICIT. deficit = the borrowing in the yearly budget.