thats $208,347,000,000 out of the government coffers.
Yep and in OUR hands to spend, not the Gov't. And actually, if you go look at the sources I presented, the revenue to the Gov't is actually exceeding that amount as the Gov't gets taxes on that money in other ways (sales tax being the biggest). Personally, I want my $1877 in MY pocket, not in the Gov'ts.
It's called Velocity of Money, it's a means of measuring how $1 creates several more dollars through the banking system and lend/borrow services. It's pretty standard in any intermediate and most basic economics studies. Go take a look for yourself.
if you, your children, your grand-children and your great-grand-children are comfortable with that, then you better be ready when the collection agency comes a callin'
If the fatcats in Washington quit doing things like spending $215 million on a bridge that servers 18,000 people, or spending $25 million studying cow flatulance, or $17 billion on a drug program that was supposed to cost $5 billion, we wouldn't have this problem either. You can't tell me that politicians know how to spend MY money better than I do.
I want MY money. Call me greedy, but damnit I work hard for it. My "social (in)security" account has only grown about 1/2% since I started working. My 401(k) has exceeded that by more than 600%, even in a bad year. For every dollar that goes into that worthless program, $.75 goes somewhere.... don't know where and neither does the gov't. Call it account maintanence fees, or whatever. It's a very inefficient system. Anyone who thinks that Social Security has a "lockbox" is welcome to my ocean-front property in Nevada.
Under the Consitution, the only thing that the Government was REQUIRED to pay for was the common defence (military and civilian justice). THAT'S IT! Now we have more than $2 TRILLION in annual budgets, less than 1/4 of which is for common defence. Cut out the other BS and that 8.6 trillion that you note above is paid for in 6 years, that's without a single cent in additional taxes than we already pay.
Did you also note in your numbers that a percentage of the increase is to actually pay off the bonds (treasury to be exact) that we sold to fund Bill Clinton's supposed Balanced Budget? Do you also know that the "budget surplus" (a VERY bad thing for a government economically) was a
projected number that was actually the projected budget 7 years out (so that would have been starting in 2007 when Mr. Clinton was touting it). That projection did not take into account the fact that the economy of 1998-2000 was built on hype and not reality, and the fact that a group of 19 men did some very bad things.
the most trusted source for accurate and unbiased news/information.
I bet you wet yourself everytime that the Clinton whitehouse released some "good" economic news though....
my "Total Compensation" was $20000 more than my base salary
Wow.... that's amazing. Where do you live, the PRK or Massoftwoshits? I am in God's Country (Arkansas) and my total compensation was only about $4500 more than my salary (totalling near $53k).
Do you know what the "poverty" level even is? Do you know that if I made $50,000 in NYC, I would probably fall into that poverty class? $30,000 a year in places like Arkansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska is doable. "Poverty level" is an average across the nation. It is not an effective indicator of who actually is in poverty. Also note that in the last 20 years, the population of the US have gone up quite significantly. If you take 200,000,000 multiply that by 12.6% you have 2.52 million. Multiply 300,000,000 by 12.6% and you get 3.78 million or a 33% increase, with a ZERO percentage change in the poverty rate.
According to your own referred chart, there has been about a 2.5% change in the poverty rate.
In 2000, the popul
