Eh, a trillion here, a trillion there. Sounds conservative to me.

6% increase in the budget but only 3% CPI.

Riiiight.

These numbers are so large, I had to use scientific notation to figure it out. If I did this right.

3 trillion = 3 x 10^15
300 million Americans = 300 x 10^9
.01 x 10^6 = 1 x 10^4
Comes out to $10,000 for every American.

And that doesn't count off budget spending and future spending increases. State and local approximately equals federal spending. So I estimate that all government spending is around $25,000 per American.

If those aren't warning signs of a Weimer Republic type hyperinflationary economic collapse I don't know what is.

As usual Ray, you're half right. The spending is atrocious, but isn't hyperinflationary.

its one thing to spend.

its quite another to never get anything for you money.
But it wouldn't be BushCo policy otherwise.

Its not that somebody doesn't benefit, just that it won't be those who actually need it. That would violate Shrub's ethics.

its one thing to spend.

its quite another to never get anything for you money.
But it wouldn't be BushCo policy otherwise.

Its not that somebody doesn't benefit, just that it won't be those who actually need it. That would violate Shrub's ethics.

RR
You are always looking in the wrong direction. I said it is a WARNING sign. They can't tax at those amounts, so they have to create more money because foreign banks are cutting back on buying bonds. What assures severe inflation is that the rate of government spending is accelerating. And that doesn't count the $500 trillion of worthless derivatives that have to be reconciled some day.

"but isn't hyperinflationary."
Posted by rightisright at 2008-02-04

YEAH!

Duh!

It won't be hyperinflationary
untill a "democrat" takes the WH!

Redneckville always adds so much to these threads, doesn't she?

Duh!

Three cheers for fiscal conservatism.
Oh, i forgot...bush is now a "liberal" correct, rightwingnuts?

A a pro-life, pro-death penalty, supply side economics, pre-emptive war, saudi prince hand holding, anti-stem cell, corporate sock puppet "liberal".

After this budget, and the last 8 years I'm really not sure how Republicans hold onto to any type of "Fiscal responsibility" credibility.

Where does a voter whose #1 issue is fiscal responsibility turn?

I'm tempted to vote Clinton b/c her husband was the last president to actually balance a budget... and I hate Clinton.

After this budget, and the last 8 years I'm really not sure how Republicans hold onto to any type of "Fiscal responsibility" credibility.

They don't, but they'll keep saying it anyway, like all the other bullshit peddled over the years.

Like: Vince foster was murdered by Hillary, Reagan ended communism, carter ran from a rabbit. You know the myths...you see them here on a daily basis.

Like: Vince foster was murdered by Hillary, Reagan ended communism, carter ran from a rabbit. You know the myths...you see them here on a daily basis.


Al Gore didn't invent the internet?

Damnit!

Wait wait I know the answer -

TAX CUTS!!!!

Rest assured that those cost cutting Democrats will not allow this to happen. They are looking out for you.

"Redneckville always adds so much to these threads, doesn't she?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, he does.

"Rest assured that those cost cutting Democrats will not allow this to happen."

Actually, the last Democratic President actually did exactly that. It drives Republicans crazy that Clinton was so much more fiscally responsible than any of the recent Republican Presidents but it doesn't stop them from pretending that their party is the party of fiscal responsiblity.
Borrow and spend...the Republican mantra.

I wonder if he could hear them laughing when they read it....

$3 trillion... Why don't we just set a budget of $1 million hundred billion ba-jillion? Yet our brilliant leader, Overlord Dumbass, intends to make the tax cuts permanent? Then where will this money come from? Will the magical money fairy over at the Fed wave a magic wand and suddenly we'll be able to spend money on whatever we want?

Seriously! This is out of control! We cannot afford this much longer without running our country right into the ground! What happens when you get paid $50,000 every year and you spend $80,000? You go bankrupt! And all the stuff you bought is taken away from you as you drown in owed interest! And we're like a child with a credit card, running around charging for everything we see...but then realizing we don't want to pay for it we applaud low taxes

I really can't see how this is not dangerous. Yet neither party seems to have any intention of fixing this problem. I'm all for low taxes, but you can't have large budgets and low taxes. It's irresponsible policy.

Lets see how much pork is added.

Dumbass, intends to make the tax cuts permanent? Then where will this money come from?

Volume.

Al Gore didn't invent the internet?

Damnit!

Posted by Axiom at 2008-02-05 06:05 AM

No, that one is true. He did it to keep a close eye on manbearpig. You can't trust that thing.

But hey, the internet isn't a dump truck, it's a series of tubes!

I wish the American media lapdogs would grill powerful people this way. And BBC is gov't funded.

Posted by bellaspapa at 2008-02-05 08:58 AM

The media over here doesn't have the balls to make a hardtalk. Hardtalk is awesome, real actual questions, and don't let them give bullshit answers. More proof that the MSM is full of shit.

So, will the US House fund the budget proposal? It's not a Democrat President that is the issue. It's a Democrat controlled House.

"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." GWB

yup big numbers... heh heh heh...

The minute you walked in the joint,
I could see you were a man of distinction,
A real big spender,
Good looking, so refined.
Say, wouldn't you like to know
What's going on in my mind?

So, let me get right to the point,
I don't pop my cork for ev'ry guy I see.
Hey, big spender, spend...
A little time with...me...me...me!

The President can only spend what Congress completes the check. It's the Congress, not just the Presidency, that needs to be replaced.

A case in point is the Joint Strike Fighter. It was supposed to cost $200 billion for 2,900 aircraft. The revised estimate is $225 billion for 2,500 aircraft. The Army had said its Future Combat Systems would cost $86 billion for 15 brigades, but later upped the price tag to $130 billion.

"The Air Force space-based infrared missile-warning satellites were expected to cost $4 billion for five spacecraft, but ballooned to $10 billion for just three satellites. The Marines had budgeted $8.7 billion to buy 1,025 new amphibious assault vehicles, but the latest plan calls for $13.5 billion to buy only half that number. The Navy's littoral combat ship, which was hailed as a trailblazer for affordable ships, rose from $1.4 billion for six vessels to $1.8 billion for just four ships."