What we're REALLY spending money on....

[Pangloss]

According to the September update from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the final spending for 2004 will be in the neighborhood of $2,293 billion.

 

Read that again, would you please?

 

Even worse, defense is expected to hit a whopping $536 billion in 2005 once the Iraqi war costs are factored in. Here's roughly how it breaks down:

 

Table 1.

Federal Outlays in Billions

 

2004-2005

2004 2005 Percent Change

 

Entitlements and Interest

Entitlements 1,247 1,299 4.2%

Interest on Public Debt 159 178 11.9%

Total, Entitlements and Interest 1,405 1,477 5.1%

 

Discretionary

Defense, Homeland Security, Iraq Supplementals 478 536 12.2%

Other Discretionary 410 429 4.6%

Total, Discretionary 888 965 8.7%

 

Total Outlays 2,293 2,442 6.5%

 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office (CBO), September 2004; unpublished data from CBO and Congressional Budget Committees.

Note: Items may not sum to totals due to rounding.

 

The fastest-growing areas are not healthcare or unemployment, folks. They're defense/war, and debt interest. This report actually shows that entitlement spending is the SLOWEST area of growth.

 

Ultimately entitlement spending will far overwhelm anything else, thanks to baby-boomer retirements spiking Social Security. But people are so focused on that they're missing the fact that over the short haul our real problem is discretionary spending (things like the war and homeland security) and interest on the debt.

 

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting. Couple links here if you want to read more:

 

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/10/17_guest_budget.html

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5773&sequence=0

[Douglas]

According to the September update from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the final spending for 2004 will be in the neighborhood of $2,293 billion.

I thought Kerry said we're not spending enough on defense!!

 

Anybody notice the 1st segment on 60 minutes last night?

 

It was a tale of woe, on how under-equipped our military is. Kind've like our military is fighting a war with one hand tied behind their backs.

[Pangloss]

Actually I believe what he said was (in effect) that it's astonishing that we spend so much money on defense without providing adequate protection to our soldiers.

 

That's what I dimly recall, anyway. I Tivo'd over most of 60 Minutes last night, as it is my general policy to time-shift all commercials.

[Phi for All]

It was a tale of woe, on how under-equipped our military is. Kind've like our military is fighting a war with one hand tied behind their backs.

For half a trillion dollars, you'd think every HumVee could have armor, wouldn't you?

 

I don't think most people are aware of how much defense spending has gone up. When I mention Pangloss' figures about how it took us over 200 years to go from $0 to $250 billion, and just 10 years to double that, most people just blink rapidly while trying to keep their jaws from dropping. Most of it, I'm sure, goes to folks like Lockheed Martin, the world's largest arms dealer, for high-tech/high price tag goodies that the public gets to ooh and aah about while viewing the CNN footage. Meanwhile, soldiers get to ride underarmored convoys and scrounge for body armor.

 

I read in USA Today over the weekend where something like 250 of the 1100+ American troops who were killede in Iraq died from non-combat related means. The article didn't go into more depth. What non-combat related means did we lose over 20% of the casualties to, does anyone know?

[YT2095]

so this is yet Another "America Only" based thread then?

[Phi for All]

so this is yet Another "America Only" based thread then?

I'm not the author but nothing in the title suggests that. What does the UK spend on defense? Do you feel your tax dollars are fairly spent?

[Pangloss]

Hehe, I'm sorry YT, I didn't mean to exclude anyone.

[Douglas]

I read in USA Today over the weekend where something like 250 of the 1100+ American troops who were killede in Iraq died from non-combat related means. The article didn't go into more depth. What non-combat related means did we lose over 20% of the casualties to, does anyone know?

I'm not sure what "non combat related" means

If a guy is going to starbucks for a cup of coffee and steps on a mine, is that non combat related?

How about the accidents among the troops themselves. Sgt Guiltmore accidentally shoots Pvt freeburg 'cause he's voting for Kerry.