Debt, Deficit, and Spending.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Navy1960, Jan 27, 2010.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    CBO projects, that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. At 9.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit would be slightly smaller than the shortfall of 9.9 percent of GDP ($1.4 trillion) posted in 2009. Last year's deficit was the largest as a share of GDP since the end of World War II, and the deficit expected for 2010 would be the second largest. Moreover, if legislation is enacted in the next several months that either boosts spending or reduces revenues, the 2010 deficit could equal or exceed last year's shortfall.


    Debt

    Of the more than $7.5 trillion in outstanding public debt at the end of 2009, domestic investors such as mutual funds, state and local governments, Federal Reserve banks, commercial banks, insurance companies, and individuals owned 52 percent ($4.0 trillion), and foreign investors, such as private foreign entities and central banks, held 48 percent ($3.6 trillion). Under current laws governing federal spending and revenues, during this decade debt held by the public is poised to climb to the highest levels recorded since the early 1950s (when measured relative to the size of the U.S. economy).



    Spending

    Since September 2001, lawmakers have appropriated about $1.1 trillion (including $130 billion so far in 2010) for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other war-related activities. That figure could rise if additional appropriations are required later this year to support the planned increase in troop deployments to Afghanistan. Outlays this year are expected to total at least $165 billion.


    CBO estimates that the spending increases and tax reductions resulting directly from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (popularly referred to as “the stimulus bill”) will peak in fiscal year 2010, adding about $400 billion to the deficit this year. That legislation accounted for approximately $200 billion of the 2009 deficit, and CBO expects that it will cost more than $860 billion over the 2009-2019 period. That amount is about $75 billion more than originally estimated.


    CBO estimates that the program will have a net cost of $99 billion over its lifetime—much less than originally expected. In March 2009, CBO estimated the cost to be $356 billion, but since then, market conditions have improved, and many institutions, including several large banks, have repurchased the preferred stock that they sold to the government.


    Congressional Budget Office - The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020


    People wonder why our nation is debt? it's really very simple, you cannot continue to pay your bills on one credit card with another credit card and not expect that someday we will have to pay that back. One other issue that does not get much play at least in my opinion is the MASSIVE amount of waste our Govt. is famous for one of them is defense spending and DOE spending. Want a really great example of that look no further than Yucca Mtn. want another one in defense, you can start with the comanche helicopter, all the way to the C-17 and right on through how the US Military disposes of assests. Its time our Govt. came to realize that while some may want it to be the end all and be all for everyone, they simply cannot afford to do so. When Govt. is the largest growth employer there will come a time that even those employee's will be faced with the same reality that the rest of the nation is faced with and that is lack of funds to pay for their existance.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2010
  2. TheSuaveOne
    Offline

    TheSuaveOne Man without a party

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    617
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +61
    The C-17 was indeed needed. The Air Force's inventory of transport aircraft were getting very aged and cost the tax payer a lot of money to keep it flying. The same reason they are trying to upgrade our current KC-135 fleet with new tankers. The unit I was attached to in michigan was a KC-135 wing. Most of the tail numbers were dated back into the late 60's. The engines we still A models. Year after year we tried to get them upgraded to match our sister wing in Indiana which had R model engines. Our operating budget for maintenance and repairs was far higher...why? We had outdated aircraft. The same goes for the C-17. It was needed before the C-130's and C-141 airframes started to fail.

    -TSO
     
  3. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    The US Air Force has three times told the DoD and congress that the total number of C-17's meets the needs for airlift capacity, in conjunction with the additional C-130J's that are in inventory as well as the Air National Guard versions of the C-130. I didn't say the C-17 was not needed, however when the Air Force has told the DoD more than a few times as well as congress that they need no more C-17's beyond the 232 ordered and congress each year adds more aircraft to that original order regardless of what the Air Force has told them then you see the issue. Especially when you consider the length of time and the debacle that has been made of the Tanker pruchase which is in dire need by all services. Your correct the KC-135 is a VERY old airframe and should have been replaced long ago, but when you consider the circus that has been made of RFP on that particular aircraft you start to see who really suffers in all that, the warfighter and the taxpayer. If your familier with the long story on it, then you would know that first the Air Force has leased 100 KC-767 Tankers from Boeing which was stopped in the Senate and then another RFP went out and was awarded to EADS for the KC-45 which was then appealed by Boeing and now we are on the third RFP and this whole time the KC-135 is getting older. I might add also that the RFP for these Tankers calls for Airlift capability which will MORE than add to the capacity in that area. The point here is that money spent in waste can be better spent for programs that are very much needed. Let me also add that the C-17 is not suffering because it is also very much kept alive with foreign sales.
     
  4. TheSuaveOne
    Offline

    TheSuaveOne Man without a party

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    617
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +61
    The KC-135 is already used in an airlift capacity. Anytime our unit was deployed, we shipped our equipment and troops on the aircraft that were deployed with us. Hell, I spent many a cold trip in the belly of one of our tankers. My favorite was the trips across the pond where we were told to bring our sleeping bags.

    -TSO
     
  5. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    I'm aware of KC-135's and their airlift capability, its worth noting the 2 aircraft that have been involved in this controversy one from Boeing and one from EADS will been a large increase in that capacity...

    AIRLIFT CAPABILITY. As made clear in the Air Force Statement of Objectives for this competition, air refueling is the primary mission of the KC-X tanker. The Secretary of the Air Force reiterated this point unequivocally when he said, “We do not want to buy a cargo airplane that tanks, we also do not want to buy a passenger airplane that tanks. We want to buy a tanker.” However, Boeing states that, in addition to being the superior tanker, the KC-767 provides 69% greater Airlift Efficiency than the tanker it’s meant to replace, a particular “Strength” as noted by the Air Force in 2007. Furthermore, the floor of the KC-767 is a true cargo deck and much stronger than the floor of the KC-30—so while the KC-30 has more cargo volume, the KC-767 can carry approximately the same cargo weight and transport it more efficiently
    KC-X

    If you note that the KC-30 now the KC-45 has an even larger cargo volume. So if you add that to the number of C-17's in the inventory as well as the C-30J's your getting more than enough airlift capability. However, I'm in complete agreement that this tanker issue needs to be solved and soon.
     
  6. Vast LWC
    Offline

    Vast LWC <-Mohammed

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,390
    Thanks Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +871
    So, it comes down to this.

    Even if we completely cut out every single program the government funds except for the Military (with war funding and the VA), Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on the Debt, we would still have a deficit.

    So, What do we cut?

    We have to cut something, but it's a catch 22.

    Let's say Obama tries to cut programs, he gets attacked for it. If he tries to raise taxes, he gets attacked for it. If he does nothing at all and lets the deficit stay at the exact same level it was at when Bush left office, he gets attacked for it.

    And the same thing would happen if a Republican were in office.

    It's a seriously fucked up situation. No-one wants to take responsibility in congress and do the right thing, because they're all a bunch of pussies.
     

Share This Page