Check this out: I found it amazing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16928315/ 1954 2006 US fed budget $70.8 billion $2,654 billion % spent on defense/ military 69% 19% social security 4% 20% medicare 0% 14% medicaid 0% 7% interest on debt 7% 9% other programs 20% 31% 1954 was the high for post WWII spending (percentage wise) for defense/military. The biggest issue for long term budget and debt control are the entitlements for Social security, medicare, and medicaid. Of interest I think I read somewhere where total US military spending is twice that of all NATO countries combined. 2nd point: you could cut all the congressional entitlements to 0 and it would not have a big impact on the budget. just thought it was interesting.
Short-term....yes and no. Long-term...absolutely. Entitlements will be growing incredibly, and are by far our worst problem fiscally. --------------------- I'm curious what 'other programs' are....? Welfare a part of that as well? I'm assuming that's a form of entitlement. --------------- Last to note, our contitutional government had not completely died pre-54. Deficit spending did happen, but the gold standard and other element kept it inline politically. Short-term deficits aren't really scary in my perspective, but long-term trends or drastic changes could cause significant economic changes....probably bad. So we would be better off being a constitutionally limited government. I have no doubt of that.
social programs are a pyramid scheme that are doomed to failure. it's just a matter of when and how bad the damage is.
yep, pretty much. cuz the choices always boil down to govt pyramid schemes or diseased homeless people living in your backyard.
I think those numbers speak for themselves. If the war in iraq had 1/2 of the public backing that WWII had, it would have been over 2 years ago. But like Vietnam, there are people that are so anti-USA that the US can't get behind a common goal, which is to keep us safe from terrorism.
how?, let's say everyone in the country was as dumb as you and couldn't see what a mess Iraq is , what would be different? Do you think the IEDs wouldn't work, Do you think people wouldn't be killing each other? What exactly would be different?
I think we would have sent more troops, we would have more financial funding, and the "mess" as you called it would have been a lot less than it is now. Instead I think that right now the terrorists believe they are winning, and instead of fixing that, the democratic congress passes a bill saying they don't agree with the new resolution to send more troops...what kind of message does that send to the terrorists? Heck, we might as well wave a white flag.
Bush and Party where 100% in charge at the beginning of the war, and they chose not to send more troops, they chose to disband the Iraq army, and close all the state run factories If you want blame someone for difficulties in Iraq blame the people who are actually responisible for it.
This is a false assumption. Poverty before the advent of the welfare state was steadily declining (among all ages). After the creation of the welfare state, only those of old age continued to be less impoverished (but to a smaller degree),while those less than 18 increased in poverty. My only problem revolves around the federal government getting involved. If a state wants to institute these sort of programs, then apply them lawfully within. The federal government should have no role in this. Many states do not need such programs, and would be incredibly better-off without those burdens. If a state can demonstrate a successful program, while remain economically competitive, it will gain the respect of their neighbors. Obviously at this point states are not given that chose.
Ohh, and don't forget the naivee democrats that voted to give him the authority. I knew what they were doing the moment they did that...I wouldn't believe them if they said otherwise. In fact, I remember say, 'We're going to war.' I shook my head, because I thought it was not prudent at that point. The 'mess' Iraq is more or less concentrated to three provinces. In most cases Iraq security forces have taken a leadership role in other provinces...only conveying the need of help when the problem is bigger than they can handle. But generally it's a matter of concentration and perception, imo.
Yes, but I'm more or less saying that the mid-sixties created a shift in the paradigm. Social Security was augmented before that and after that...