neptronix said:
I did not intend to mislead. Social Security and Medicare are separate parts of the budget. But those two areas have major shortfalls as well ( that's a whole nother ball of wax )
Something that isn't always realized is that the money spent doesn't just disappear. It goes right back into the US economy, since a majority of the contractors for the military are US citizens and corporations.
Sure, you spend that money, then maybe 20% of it comes back if you are lucky. Many of the big military contractors have gotten away with $0 tax bills for a while though; GE is one example.
Where's the 80% go? what benefit does that provide to me, you, and others?
Only a tiny slice of that 80% actually defends us.
What I was trying to say is, the common view is that when we spend money on a project (defense or otherwise) it magically evaporates somewhere and is lost to everyone. Even if that project completely collapses, and nothing comes of it. The money that was spent most still went somewhere. So while only a thin slice of that 80% actually translates into defense points. So long as the military's policy of sourcing things from the US first holds true, for better or worse the money they spend goes back into the US economy.
Don't get me wrong It is definitely bad when we spend money on a project, and nothing comes of it. The point I am trying to make, most of the costs associated with anything, are personal costs. So when we spend money on a project, that money goes to the people associated with the project, and not into whatever installation, or widget that was created.
That means that, that $1 spent by the government, does not exactly translate into $1 debt created. There are a lot of ulterior pathways that filter back into paying for that debt. Even if corporations do get tax breaks, the people they employ still pay taxes. Which is why all this budgeting stuff is always so complicated, as actions often have unintended consequences.
I definitely agree there are plenty areas of corruption, and waste in the government. But people rarely remember that most of the money that the government spends goes back into the people. We just need to make sure its not all just going to a few people. :lol:
neptronix said:
According to the data i've seen, at the end of 2009, debt as a percentage of GDP was 86.4%. It is now 101.7%.
Why is there a difference in our numbers? The CIA says it is 67.7% in 2012, the International monetary fund says it is 102.94 as of 2011. The difference may be in things that are 'off budget'.
And your interest number does not agree with what treasurydirect.gov states; i wonder what the difference is there too.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Treasurydirect.gov says ~454 billion in 2011 and ~359 billion in 2012.
I wonder why different govt. agencies are producing different numbers?
I can answer that one! The reason why you see a 67.7% number from the CIA, and 101.7% percent from your numbers, is because of how they counted.
Around 30% of that 101.7% number you have there is debt that we hold to ourselves. Most of that is to the social security program.
For a while now we have been raiding the social security tax revenues to pay for general expenditures, and to keep track of it they add it up as IOUs.
A teacher I had likened it to if you bought a 24 pack of soda to sell, but drank 12 of them before you sold them, you would be in debt to yourself 12 sodas. You still don't owe anyone but yourself 12 sodas, as you already purchased them before hand. However it is a bad business to consume the items you intend to sell so if you want to keep your business afloat you remember to make up for those 12 sodas later. In this case we have been taking money from the social security fund, so they don't have to sell bonds/ raise taxes to raise money for expenditures. Technically I suppose they did raise taxes, as the social security money you have been paying has been acting like an additional income tax.
I would think the CIA naturally wouldn't count debt held within the federal government as its impact is mainly limited to governmental programs, However that last 67.7 percent reflects the debt held to the public and by the treasury, which would have a larger impact to the country in the international community. So it really just boils down to what they want to show as to counting debt within the federal government. I would be interested to know how many other countries include debts held within their governments in their outlook as well. Or better yet who is smart enough not to do so.
As for other differences in numbers, they were made by humans. So they naturally will have some sort of slant to them. I don't count myself as I financial expert (too much witchcraft involved for me), so I cant tell you who's numbers are the closest to reality, if anyone's is.
