Skip to main content


"This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base."

George W. Bush


"It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake."

Margaret Thatcher


"Being rich is having money; being wealthy is having time."

Margaret Bonnano


lest we forget ...


'True Wealth', it's the stuff that fuels, a million dreams ... the tide that lifts a million boats ...

"The percentage you're paying is too high priced. While you're living beyond all your means. And the man in the suit has just bought a new car, From the profit he's made on your dreams."

Steve Winwood


Steve Winwood, Eric Clapton - Can't Find My Way Home

http://www.youtube.com/...


"Wealth is the ability to fully experience life."

Henry David Thoreau


"Wealth is a tool of freedom, but the pursuit of wealth is the way to slavery."

Frank Herbert


"Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."

Ambrose Bierce


How quickly we forget the True Costs of Corporate Excess, when those "fictitious persons" are given free reign, to set the rules of the game ...

Elizabeth Warren pursues Oversight, through TARP Maze
epluribusmedia.net


Those TARP Numbers in that Pie Chart are in BILLIONS, by the way.

THAT was some FREE Lunch!   (Maybe they DO Exist?)


Imagine IF all those Billions, were "invested wisely" instead of, squandered away -- Imagine where the Country would be, if we only learned how to Invest in OURSELVES, in OUR Futures -- instead of the perpetual mop-ups of too many Corporate Failures.

Billionaire Greed, knows few restraints ... (It's rarefied air.)


By the way, I'm glad that President Obama today, somewhere(?) found $2 Billion dollars, to invest in Clean Energy Solar Jobs, for folks in AZ and CO -- it's a great start!  With a meaningful amount of DOLLARS, too!  WTG Democrats!

But given the the Untold Billions the US Govt throws around at other problems, to fuel the 'status quo' Goals of Corporate conquest and Quarterly greed, you'd think there'd be a few more Billion sloshing around in that perpetual 'Money Pot', to actually HELP the People -- who ultimately must Pay the Bill.  (those Bills, which just keep rolling in, from somewhere ...)


Despite the Corporate rumors to the contrary -- Those 'Easy Billions' Giveaways DO NOT grow on Greenback Trees.  It comes from OUR sweat equity.

Our U.S. Dollars are ultimately backed by -- OUR hard work and diligence -- and little else, except for maybe the Fed's Accounting Ledger (aka "Greenspan Trees").


2010 United States federal budget
Wikipedia

Total receipts

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2010 are $2.381 trillion, an estimated decrease of 11% from 2009.

-> $1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
->  $940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
->  $222 billion – Corporation income taxes
->   $77 billion – Excise taxes
->   $23 billion – Customs duties
->   $20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
->   $22 billion – Deposits of earnings
->   $16 billion – Other


Total spending

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

-> Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)

 -- $695 billion ( +4.9%) – Social Security
 -- $453 billion ( +6.6%) – Medicare
 -- $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
 --   $0 billion (−100%)  – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
 --   $0 billion (−100%)  – Financial stabilization efforts
 --  $11 billion (+275%)  – Potential disaster costs
 -- $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
 -- $164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt


-> Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)

 -- $663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Dept of Defense (incl. Overseas Contingency Operations)
 --  $78.7 billion ( −1.7%) – Dept of Health and Human Services
 --  $72.5 billion ( +2.8%) – Dept of Transportation
 --  $52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Dept of Veterans Affairs
 --  $51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Dept of State and Other Intnatl. Programs
 --  $47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Dept of Housing and Urban Dev.
 --  $46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Dept of Education
 --  $42.7 billion ( +1.2%) – Dept of Homeland Security
 --  $26.3 billion ( −0.4%) – Dept of Energy
 --  $26.0 billion ( +8.8%) – Dept of Agriculture
 --  $23.9 billion ( −6.3%) – Dept of Justice
 --  $18.7 billion ( +5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Admin.
 --  $13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Dept of Commerce
 --  $13.3 billion ( +4.7%) – Dept of Labor
 --  $13.3 billion ( +4.7%) – Dept of the Treasury
 --  $12.0 billion ( +6.2%) – Dept of the Interior
 --  $10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
 --   $9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
 --   $7.0 billion ( +1.4%) – National Science Foundation
 --   $5.1 billion ( −3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
 --   $5.0 billion (+100%)  – National Infrastructure Bank
 --   $1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corp. for National and Community Service
 --   $0.7 billion (  0.0%) – Small Business Administration
 --   $0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
 --  $19.8 billion ( +3.7%) – Other Agencies
 -- $105   billion – Other


larger image
A pie chart representing spending by category for the US budget for 2010


Deficit

The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion, a $960 billion increase from the 2008 deficit.

The changes: account for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of "emergency" supplemental spending bills

For contrast, and a significant Note about GOP Budget Tactics -- maybe worth repeating:

These very costly wars were "off budget" in previous years ... sort of like the GOP Govt of the last decade was living off of Daddy's Credit Card, while making the 'Have-mores' Frat Party circuit, having a good ole time ...

2009 United States federal budget
Wikipedia

The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

Deficit

With projected receipts significantly less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $1.4 trillion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion.


A Deficit of 'True Accounting' is one thing -- that Historians will no doubt debate the Merits of, for decades.

But a Deficit of 'True Wealth' is a whole other matter ...

For where your wealth is stored, there also will your heart be.

Link


Why do we as a Nation Invest SO Much in the concept of War?  (Wars with No clear line of Success either.)


Hmmmm?  It seems we should strive for more agreement -- between our  Heart, Mind -- and Wallets?  

Maybe ...

War Resisters League

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY:     54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion


[...]
The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes.
[...]
The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller [...]

The government view of the budget [...]

[ Defense Spending is about 20% of Federal Spending, per CBO 2008]

is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending.

[...]
Why Do the Percentages Vary from Group to Group?

The U.S. Government says that military spending amounts to 20% of the budget, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War Resisters League claims 54%. Why the variation?

Different groups have different purposes in how they present the budget figures.
[...]

Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national debt.


The League of War Resisters (established 1923) does raise some good questions, don't you think -- despite whether or not you agree with their politics (not everyone is, not should be, a pacifist.)


Why do we mix Trust Funds Income and Obligations, into the same pot, as National Defense Obligations?


People who pay Unemployment Insurance and FICA Taxes [the Trust Fund] ARE "Entitled to" the Benefits those Programs provide --

We may be forced to bear the long-term costs of Endless Wars, which are frequently maintained off-Budget -- BUT that DOES NOT imply Military Corporate Interests ARE "Entitled to" -- co-op OUR Social Programs, nor our Freedoms, nor our Economic Security.


People have a right to Invest in our "Common Welfare".  (It's in the Constitution.)

Corporations to do not have a right, to turn Citizens into paupers.  (That's guaranteed, Nowhere, that I can find.)


"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

Martin Luther King, Jr.


"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


"Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it."

David Starr Jordan


Castles Made of Sand -- Jimi Hendrix

http://www.youtube.com/...


Someday the Peoples of the World, and more specifically Our Leaders, must learn how to -- Wage Peace.

that or we must learn how to exist, with our 'best ideals', consigned into trash bin of history.

... those Ideals, were just TOO Costly to implement ... you understand -- Now Get to work!

[PS.  Commentors, this is a Meta Diary only -- Not an Economic Dissertation. Thanks!]

Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 03:57 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Great diary, jamess!! I've enclosed a link you (8+ / 0-)

      might enjoy...

      http://www.socialsecurity.gov/...

      A snip...

      Summary-

      So, to sum up:

      1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
      2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
      3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
      4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

      Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

      You asked,

      Why do we mix Trust Funds Income and Obligations, into the same pot, as National Defense Obligations?

      People who pay Unemployment Insurance and FICA Taxes [the Trust Fund] ARE "Entitled to" the Benefits those Programs provide --

      The social security trust fund, by law, must not be used to compute the deficit. Visit the link above.

      Thanks for the diary!!

      NOP - pronounced nope. The NOP party. The NO Party = NOP. BTW, Boner from Ohio still sucks.

      by 0hio on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:29:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for that 0hio (7+ / 0-)

        that sound like some "serious ammunition"

        for defending the sanctity of Social Security.


        What did Al Gore call it --

        A Lock Box

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:38:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Another snip.... (4+ / 0-)

        In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993. This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission's report argued: "The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget." (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.

        The actual form of the 1983 change was somewhat complex. It provided:

        1. That the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (and the income and outgo to these funds) be treated as separate budget functions, starting with the 1985 fiscal year and ending with fiscal year 1992.
        1. For the initial budget year after enactment (FY 1984) the Congress would be bound to use the new procedures but the executive branch would not (because the FY 1984 President's budget had already been submitted to Congress under the old rules).
        1. Starting with fiscal year 1993, Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds were not only off-budget, but were exempted from any general budget reductions that might otherwise apply to the entire federal budget (such as an across-the-board cut). The Part B Medicare trust fund, while also to be shown as a separate budget function, was not protected from general budget limitations.

        Thus, in this rather complicated fashion, the Social Security program was again off-budget by FY 1985. Perhaps the more important date here, however, was the 1993 date because that date exempted the Social Security program from the potential of generalized budget-cuts.

        http://www.socialsecurity.gov/...  

        Now then, the current bs by the peterson whackos ignores our laws and invites regular people to join into their bullshit with their townhall meetings.

        Once involved the suckers then spread the bullshit around on behalf of the peterson commission.

        NOTE: Everything in your life requires thought. Everything you do, say, think, write, etc. requires thought.

        When we fail to think for ourselves and allow others to think for us, why do we wonder we are in the mess we are currently in?

        Fuck peterson and his ilk. You must think for yourself.

        NOP - pronounced nope. The NOP party. The NO Party = NOP. BTW, Boner from Ohio still sucks.

        by 0hio on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:39:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so help me out here 0hio (3+ / 0-)

          are you saying
          The Trust Funds bucket, still is, by law,

          a separate Off-budget Item?


          Or did that Greenspan Commission,
          mix those Trust Funds, into the General Operational Fund,
          along with Roads, Cops, Military, Parks and Welfare, etc?

          thx

          The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

          by jamess on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 05:05:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  alright this I think answers my queston (0+ / 0-)

            The social security trust fund, by law, must not be used to compute the deficit.

            thx 0hio, this is good to know.

            The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

            by jamess on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 08:48:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  They pillaged and plundered, (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      0hio, RiaD, newpioneer, jamess, miss SPED, publicv

      and they're not done yet.  Why should they care . . . they own the Congress, the Senate and the White House.  Who's going to stop them ? ? ?

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:30:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  jamess, you always write great diaries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, DawnN

      Tonight's is no exception.  Tipped and recommended.

  •  What a fantastic diary!!! (7+ / 0-)

    Many excellent points- I will be sharing this!

  •  That pie chart is very decieving (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, miss SPED

    Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
    MILITARY:     54% and $1,449 billion
    NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

    Thats based on hard tax receipts (2,650 Billion (or 2.6 trillion.)   You could swipe out out the military spending and replace it with descretionary spending and it would cause the same outrage depending on your audience.

    Generate a pie chart that includes all spending (including deficit) and the percentage consumed by the military goes down significantly.  

    "To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen

    by soros on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:13:42 PM PDT

    •  You missed the point (6+ / 0-)

      The point is not whether the numbers generated by the War Resisters League were accurate. The current spending levels on the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are obscene. The point is that bailing out crappy financial institutions and spending a boat load of cash on wars and military infrastructure benefit the few at the expense of the most. Those priorities must change. Quibbling about a chart generated by a cited source is a great way to ignore the substance. Corporate subsidies and defense spending need to be slashed.

      Please help the people of Haiti

      by DWG on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:22:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree with that... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, jamess, miss SPED

        just saying.. the chart has problems but it was designed that way.

        As far as military spending goes... it comes down to a fundamental question of our role in policing the world.   I believe ATM there are 11 or 12 active aircraft carriers  (massively huge galaxy sized money sucking machines.)   Are we ready to accept smaller fleet of just 2 or 3 and all of the consequences of such?

        I would hope so but it I've not seen a democrat or republican even hint at that.

        "To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen

        by soros on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:31:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What did I hear recently on CNN (5+ / 0-)

      "Figures lie

      and

      Liars figure."


      Go Figure!

      thanks for the feedback sorso

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:23:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No the LEADERS of the World Need to Learn Peace (6+ / 0-)

    I don't see that we have a problem with torch and pitchfork crowds carrying Presidents and ministers off to throw into battle.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 04:39:33 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget John McCain.... (5+ / 0-)

    ...who, when asked the boundary where middle class meets rich, put it at $5 million a year.

    So when you hear "Boner" of McCain say "the America people want...", they are talking, on (their) average, about millionaires.

  •  winwood quote, long version (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, greengemini, gulfgal98

    Everybody takes me too seriously. Nobody believes anything I say. - Philip Whalen, The Madness of Saul

    by rasbobbo on Sat Jul 03, 2010 at 06:56:13 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site