Bankrupting Our Kids

[Joe Steel]

This is another example of Conservative incompetence and ideological extremism. It seems worse than most, though. It's going to do an unusually large amount of damage to the country.


I'd also forgotten that back in September, when President Bush first rolled out the Korea model of the permanent occupation of Iraq which Sen. McCain (R) has now embraced as his platform, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office did a study of what a 50 year 'Korea model' presence in Iraq would cost.

The study was done with highly conservative estimates, figuring a much smaller contingent of troops, and basically all the best case scenario numbers, including everything being basically chill over there like McCain says it'll be.

They came up with an additional $2 trillion over 50 years.

Now, an interesting point of comparison is the projected shortfall in the Social Security budget, which is on the contrary tabulated on highly pessimistic assumption. That number over 75 years is projected at $4.7 trillion.

Now I hasten to add, again, that the Iraq numbers are highly optimistic and the Social Security ones highly pessimistic. If we do a simple back of the envelope calculation we get the 75 year cost of Iraq would be $3 trillion.

And remember that the Social Security number is the one that is supposed make the country curl up, collapsed in upon itself and supernova.

Bankrupt Our Kids (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192813.php)

[red states rule]

This is another example of Conservative incompetence and ideological extremism. It seems worse than most, though. It's going to do an unusually large amount of damage to the country.

Yes, liberals say the hell with defending Amercia and fighting terrorism - we need the money for more important things

With an Federal budget now over $3 trillion, there are so many things that still are not being funded at proper levels

How is the Reid and Pelsoi run Cngress spending your money?


2007 Pig Book Summary

The 2007 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 24 of the juiciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book. (.pdf)


According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. Fortunately for American taxpayers, it will be a smaller pig than usual. The 2007 Congressional Pig Book has not been this little since 1999, as only two of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted by Congress and the remaining nine were subject to a moratorium on earmarks. There are no indoor rainforests, National Peanut Festivals, mariachi music grants, or teapot museums to be found.

This year’s Pig Book breaks a run of seven consecutive years of record dollar amounts of pork, culminating in $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book. This lesser barrel of pork can be attributed to the efforts of Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who prevented the enactment of nine appropriations bills in December, 2006, and the subsequent moratorium on earmarks announced and enforced by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairmen David Obey (D-Wis.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in H. J. Res. 20, the bill that funds the government for the remainder of fiscal 2007.

There is still enough pork to cause concern for taxpayers, as 2,658 projects were stuffed into the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts, at a cost of $13.2 billion. Pork identified in the Pig Book since 1991 totals $252 billion. Defense had 2,618 projects, or 204 less than in 2006, at a cost of $10.8 billion, or 28 percent less than the $14.9 billion in 2006. For homeland security, the totals were $2.4 billion, or 10 percent less than the $2.7 billion in 2006, and 40 projects, or five more than in 2006.

While only two bills were enacted, the states of Alaska and Hawaii, which have been the top two states in pork per capita every year but one since 2000, were served more then their fair share of bacon by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). In the defense appropriations bill alone, Alaska received $209,900,000, a 127 percent increase over the total of $92,425,000 in 2006.

Based on historical figures, the enactment of H. J. Res. 20 eliminated more than 7,000 earmarks and saved between $12-$15 billion in pork-barrel spending. Unfortunately, in this Year of the Pig, taxpayers are not getting a pork dividend. Instead, Congress took the savings and spent it on other programs.

for the complete list of pork

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

[Joe Steel]

Diverting money to an unnecessary war is a crime against America's future when we hand the bill America's children. We should be investing in an infrastructure which serves life not death. That would be a much better legacy.

[red states rule]

Diverting money to an unnecessary war is a crime against America's future when we hand the bill America's children. We should be investing in an infrastructure which serves life not death. That would be a much better legacy.

Again, only a moonbat liberal would whine a $3 trillion Federal budget (plus the money from state and local budgets) is not enough money

[Joe Steel]

McCain wants a hundred year occupation of Iraq at a cost of $2 trillion dollars for just half of it. That money should be spent on American schools and hospitals and roads.

[red states rule]

McCain wants a hundred year occupation of Iraq at a cost of $2 trillion dollars. That money should be spent on American schools and hospitals and roads.

We are already spending records amounts of money on those projects you listed

Perhaps if the Dems would honor their campaign promise and end pork, waste, and Congresional perks you would get more money for them without screwing national defense

But that would make to much sense for liberals so it would never happen :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

Joe,

If you are so worried about bankrupting our children then stop supporting wasteful social programs that are unconstitutional, proven not to work, and start supporting the family as the first and last institution in which Americans should rely on rather than government.

[82Marine89]

Joe,

If you are so worried about bankrupting our children then stop supporting wasteful social programs that are unconstitutional, proven not to work, and start supporting the family as the first and last institution in which Americans should rely on rather than government.

Ditto!

[stang56k]

Democrats and republicans both SUCK complete ass when it comes to money.

[Joe Steel]

Joe,

If you are so worried about bankrupting our children then stop supporting wasteful social programs that are unconstitutional, proven not to work, and start supporting the family as the first and last institution in which Americans should rely on rather than government.

That's all nonsense. The programs work. They're not unconstitutional. And promoting the general welfare is the purpose of government.

[actsnoblemartin]

You might be right, that the war is too expensive, but you know what costs double the war, Benefits that seniors get, the average senior couple gets 54,000 a year of benefits.

as far as death, you want islamic terrorists to live?


Diverting money to an unnecessary war is a crime against America's future when we hand the bill America's children. We should be investing in an infrastructure which serves life not death. That would be a much better legacy.

[actsnoblemartin]

we can argue about the governments primary role, but a big percentage of social programs money goes to illegals.

we cut that, were in better straights


That's all nonsense. The programs work. They're not unconstitutional. And promoting the general welfare is the purpose of government.

[actsnoblemartin]

Over the last 8 years you are correct about the republican party, which is why i wont support them any longer, and the democrats, the same.


Democrats and republicans both SUCK complete ass when it comes to money.

[red states rule]

That's all nonsense. The programs work. They're not unconstitutional. And promoting the general welfare is the purpose of government.

Personal responsibility to liberals is always considered nonsense

The more people on a government program the happier libs are

[actsnoblemartin]

Liberals say tax and spend :laugh2:

I say spend less, and less need to tax :)


Personal responsibility to liberals is always considered nonsense

The more people on a government program the happier libs are

[82Marine89]

That's all nonsense. The programs work. They're not unconstitutional. And promoting the general welfare is the purpose of government.


Could you please show me where social programs are mentioned in the Constitution? Also, please take the time to read this (http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html) and then tell me that giving away my hard earned dollars to another person just so they may remain dependent upon government to control their lives is a good thing.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

we can argue about the governments primary role, but a big percentage of social programs money goes to illegals.

we cut that, were in better straights no shit it pisses me off thinking my hard earned dollars go to support some Illegal on welfare and food stamps

[midcan5]

'War good, children bad.'

Platform Position Republican Party

[DragonStryk72]

That's all nonsense. The programs work. They're not unconstitutional. And promoting the general welfare is the purpose of government.

Really, education's working? Welfare is working? then why are the grades dropping, basically at the same rate as we throw more money to the schools, and the number of people on welfare growing?

If Social security were 'working' need would diminish, not increase, and for education, literacy, math, and science skills would be rising, not falling. So how are these "working"? do you mean it in the same vein, "My car is working because it still runs..... sort of.", cause that is about the closest these programs are getting.

[DragonStryk72]

'War good, children bad.'

Platform Position Republican Party

So then, why haven't the Democrats stopped it, given their majority hold on the Congress?

Second, look at what was said, "If they would cut waste", meaning that, should the government spend conservatively, then the money would be there for both the education and the national defense.

[avatar4321]

'War good, children bad.'

Platform Position Republican Party

You mean living good, throwing away money bad.

[Joe Steel]

Could you please show me where social programs are mentioned in the Constitution?

"...promote the general welfare." -- Preamble

"...provide for the general welfare" -- Art. 1, Sec. 8