As was expected from reports yesterday, President Trump today unveiled some new details on his budget priorities, seeking a 9% increase, or about $54 billion, in increased military spending for next year, with a series of plans to reduce domestic spending to try to cover the different.
Exactly where all the cuts are coming from is unclear, but the State Department and the EPA are both said to also be marked for substantial cuts in the range of tens of billions of dollars, and President Trump is determined to keep his campaign promise not to touch Social Security, other domestic programs are all facing potential cuts.
Since the election, President Trump has been talking up some very expensive military plans, including increases in the number of troops, ships, and warplanes the US has available, and has talked up more nuclear weapons recently, arguing the US needs to be unrivaled.
Trump is further arguing that the US needs an increased budget in general to “win wars again,” lamenting that when he was younger people used to say the US “never lost a war.” A 9% increase is a big one, given how big the US military’s budget already is, and that the growth is in the range of the whole annual military budget of a country like France or Britain.
But the one certainty in any budget proposed by any president with any level of military spending increase is that the hawks in Congress won’t think it’s enough, and that’s true today as well, with Sen. John McCain (R – AZ) and others attacking the plan as nowhere near enough of an increase to military spending.
McCain went so far as to predict that a budget with “only” a 9 percent increase might not have enough support to get through the Senate at all. This may be a huge concern, with a number of top Democrats already voicing concerns about the cuts elsewhere expected to pay for the increase.
This $54 billion raise goes to the same DoD that had $2.3 trillion go “missing” in 2001 (as announced by Don Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001), and admitted to another “missing” $6.5 trillion in 2016 – as documented here: http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/6-5-trillion-missing-from-defense-department/ (or search on [6.5 trillion missing] for your own source). Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that?
SMH-WHS
54 billion. Imagine giving each state 1 billion for their infrastructure. We’d still have 4 billion left over for the parasite Israel.
You keep failing to understand that Israel is a big part of a worthy cause. US wars in the ME is the worthy cause for America. It’s part of making America great again. When Syria and Iran are wrapped up the PNAC agenda will be complete and the ME will start to pay even higher dividends than it’s paying now.
These are annual loses folks you will never hear in the state run media.
April 08, 2016 U.S. Government Accounting Is Fraudulent
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is the non-partisan auditor and investigator for Congress. The GAO says that the U.S. government’s records are so poorly kept that it can’t really audit them. Moreover, the Pentagon hasn’t even attempted to comply with government audits … and “$8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon [between] 1996 [and 2013] has never been accounted for.” The military wastes and “loses” trillions of dollars.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-government-accounting-is-fraudulent/5519261
54 Billion? That’ll buy you a toilet seat and a hammer from Lockheed.
With the total amount of money pissed away in the ME since oh, let’s say 1991 is as good a starting point as any I guess, we could have completely rebuilt all the bridges and roads that are failing in our country as well as probably found a cure for cancer or many of the illnesses that plague the citizens of our country. And for all that money, what do we have? An industry whose only purpose is to destroy political/religious enemies.
The cuts to social spending will crash the economy even further. So get ready for a rocky ride.
‘Defence’ spending has pretty much the lowest multiplier of all and social spending the highest.
There is no “multiplier.” All government spending is a net detriment to the economy. You are, however, essentially correct that paying for bombs does more damage to the economy than paying for food and medicine.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Government spending is the source of net financial assets in the private sector.
Every dime that government spends comes out of somebody else’s pocket. What those high-roller defense contractors are spending is what the people that money was taken from are not spending. The so-called “multiplier” equals, in sum, zero.
“Every dime that government spends comes out of somebody else’s pocket. ”
No. That’s just right wing theology. It’s the opposite of the truth.
“Right wing theology”? Try “Real world economics.”
If every dime government spends DOESN’T come out of somebody’s pocket ~ at least not the deficit spending dimes, which are created by fiat by the Federal Reserve ~ then where does it come from?
For FY 2016, 47% of projected federal revenues came from Individual Income taxes; 32% came from Payroll taxes; and 13% came from Corporate Income taxes [Source: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2015/president-obamas-2016-budget/ ]
In what way does this total of more than $3 Trillion NOT come out of somebody’s pocket?
What “truth” are You asserting?
And that deficit spending WILL come out of somebody’s pocket some day; when the bills come due and folks start calling in our “National Debt.”
“then where does it come from?”
It comes from thin air.
“And that deficit spending WILL come out of somebody’s pocket some day;”
No. You need to think about macro in balance sheet terms. The government’s liabilities are the non-government’s assets.
The so called national debt is the net financial US$ assets of the private domestic and foreign sectors.
You’re being conned by the rich who want you to have less while they have more.
Yes, i know, john, that deficit spending dollars come “from thin air”; that’s what the Federal Reserve does. Will You agree at least that the $3.2 Trillion in federal tax receipts comes out of somebody’s pocket? Or does that come out of thin air, as well?
And in response to my claim that “deficit spending WILL come out of somebody’s pocket some day, You denied that and suggested that i “need to think about macro in balance sheet terms,” so that i will understand that “the government’s liabilities are the non-government’s assets.” i have tried that, and have come up with a question for You: Does that make the government’s assets then, the non-government’s liabilities?
And, if indeed “the so called national debt is the net financial US$ assets of the private domestic and foreign sectors,” then my question is: and Who, exactly, thereby owns, and is thus financially accountable and fiduciarily responsible for those government liabilities? And, on the other hand, what control and authority do these private domestic and foreign sectors have over these, what You call their “non-government’s assets”?
My understanding of a balance sheet is that it depicts the assets and liabilities of a single individual, family, business, or organization. Or government. Are You saying that Your macro balance sheet has the government and the non-government sectors (foreign and domestic) as a single, operational accounting entity?
To cut to the chase: What happens on March 16 if Congress doesn’t raise the Debt Ceiling, and the United States defaults? Nothing? It will have no effect on anybody or anything? i would say, “Obviously not.”
Am i reading You correctly that You are saying that failure to raise the Debt Ceiling is no big deal? If so, why then is anybody ever concerned at all about our national debt? Or is that just more right-wing theologian and reality economists misperception and misconception?
Or maybe i’m just totally confused about what You are saying. Can You explain a little deeper and clearer exactly what You are claiming? Or refer me to a book or a website where i can read about this truly remarkable concept that somehow transforms the national debt into something that governments ~ and their citizens ~ need not worry about. Like….. is this something close to what Mr Cheney was talking about when he claimed that “Deficits don’t matter”?
From Your admonition that i am “being conned by the rich who want me to have less while they have more,” i think i have a pretty good idea as to the foundational basis of Your thinking on this. But, i’d like very much to explore this further.
Thanks. Have a good one.
jeff
Those dollars are the same dollars that the government has created. Out of thin air. Taxation is just removing the high powered dollars that the government has spent into existence.
Why do you find this so difficult?
i think i probably find it so difficult because it doesn’t make a bit of logical, economic, or even common sense.
If the dollars that the government is taking out of taxpayers pockets so as “just” to remove the dollars that the government has “spent into existence” are the same ones that it created out of thin air in the first place, how does this make government’s liabilities into the assets of “private foreign and domestic sectors”? You lost me there, friend.
Is this Your own concept, or are You expressing the thoughts of a particular school of political economic thought? If that’s the case, like i said earlier, can You refer me to a book or a website or something for a bit clearer articulation?
In any case, the real issue here isn’t about dollars and where they come from and where they go. It’s really about how wealth ~ the ability to satisfy human needs and wants through the creation and provision of goods, products, and services ~ is either created, handicapped, or destroyed. And what the proper role of government is relative to civil and economic society so as to minimize the likelihood of its handicapping or destroying wealth; which it has historically shown itself to be quite efficient and effective at doing..
That’s where i’m coming from on all this; where are You coming from?
j
“You lost me there, friend.”
You don’y understand that the dollars in your pocket or your bank account aren’t assets?
Yes, i understand that. And it is also my understanding that my loans from the bank are my liabilities. Are You saying that my cash balance is a liability of the bank’s?
Also, i presume that i see and understand how my loans are bank assets. That is, until i default on them. Then whose assets and/or liabilities do they become?
“Sectoral balance accounting,” eh? Learn somethin new every day… . thanks.
” Are You saying that my cash balance is a liability of the bank’s?”
Yes, of course it is.
Except that my cash isn’t there, IN the bank, is it?
And it ~ via fractional reserve banking ~ has been expanded and lent out, as credit, to the tune of about 10 or 12 or so times as much money as i have on deposit, Correct?
And chances are pretty good that the only reason the bank had enough money to lend me some was because of that same f/r system.
But i don’t want to get into one of those wonkish fiscalist/monetarist discussions about that, the Federal Reserve, and so forth. At least not yet.
In any case, as i understand what You’re saying, my assets and the bank’s liabilities, and vice versa, are in the private domestic sector. And the government’s liabilities are the pds’s assets. So then the pds’s liabilites are the government’s assets?
Whew….. that’s some System. But i think the SBA model of the world needs to include another Sector beyond government, the foreign and domestic private. Included should be the one around which, through which, of, by, and for which this whole system works (at least so far): the banks.
Specifically, in the US, the Federal Reserve and its Members. And globally, the Central Banks and the CB of CBs, the Bank for International Settlements. After all, that’s where the money comes from, is, and ultimately goes, as Willie Sutton might have put it.
Let me read that Wiki thing. Plus, i’ve found some other items online about Modern Monetary Theory and other related concepts. Good stuff.
Be talkin w Ya. have a good one.
j
Banks don’t lend out deposits. Every new loan creates a new deposit.
Your bank credit is redeemable for state money on demand.
This may help….
http://heteconomist.com/verticalhorizontal-vs-exogenousendogenous/
By “state money,” i assume You mean a Federal Reserve Note, backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government of the United States of America (“In God We Trust”).
Let’s save the discussion on “state money” for when we chat about whether or not we “have FRB in reality,” and Central Banking in general, and the Federal Reserve in particular.
State money is the high powered notes and coins and electronic reserves in the system. As opposed to bank credit.
“In any case, the real issue here isn’t about dollars and where they come from and where they go.”
Nope. The issue I am discussing is the monetary system.
You’ll have to find someone else to talk with about your religious dogma.
OK…. so it’s “sectoral balance accounting” that we are discussing. Never heard of it, but i did find it in Wikipedia, and will take a look, and get back to You.
Let me ask You a question first, tho: was (is) Keynesianism a religious dogma, a revealed truth, or something else?
Keynes formalised the discipline of macroeconomics and debunked much of the false classical dogma that had caused so much poverty and war.
But I’m not going to get into one of those libertarian intellectual wanking discussions.
i was just asking if it is dogma, revelation, or some combination of the two. No discussion intended.
Keynes’ work is still relevant today. The neoliberalism which has infected the management classes for the past 40 odd years has clearly been a disaster for working people the world over.
Impoverished and debt strapped populations don’t buy stuff.
Now THAT’s the start of a whole new discussion which i would very much enjoy, but not today. i’ll get back to You. Or, You can email me at jgmoebus@gmail.com, and we can carry on the chat that way. Your call.
Correct me if i am wrong, but isn’t where dollars come from and where they go what the monetary system does?
The following is an example of something i find not difficult at all:
DEBT CEILING DÉJÀ VU
Two days ago, President Trump sent out a tweet crowing that the national debt went down by $12 billion in the first month of his administration, as compared to the first month of the Obama regime, when it went up by $200 billion.
If Trump really believes that he is responsible for that reduction in the amount of the national debt, we are in much bigger trouble than everyone thinks we are. But if he didn’t really believe it, why would he say it?
The debt ceiling debate is upon us once again. The total amount of the federal government’s debt — currently $19.979 trillion and climbing by the second — is about to run up the maximum amount permitted by law.
The debate will revolve around whether Congress should raise the debt ceiling again, in order to permit the feds to borrow even more money into the future and add to their already existing level of debt.
If all this sounds familiar, it’s because every time Congress is faced with this issue, it caves and lifts the debt ceiling again and again. That’s how the amount of the federal debt has reached almost $20 trillion dollars.
That debt is real. The federal government owes real money to real people and real entities who have loaned their money to the government.
The problem, of course, is that it’s not federal officials, including Trump, who will be paying back creditors with their own personal funds. Instead, it is taxpayers who will have their money taken from them by the IRS in order to pay off the creditors.
What is each taxpayer’s share of the federal debt? According to usdebtclock.org (a website worth looking at but be prepared to be stunned), the amount each taxpayer currently owes is $166,751. So, if you’re married, you and your spouse have a current liability of $333,502.
What would you do if the IRS came asking for its money and imposed a lien on your house to ensure payment?
Why is there so much federal debt? The answer is simple: U.S. officials spend more money than they receive in taxes. When you spend more than what you’re making, you have to borrow the difference.
This has been going on for a long time. They just keep spending, knowing full well that they lack the tax revenues to cover it all. That’s how the federal debt has continued rising, year after year.
What if federal expenditures were suddenly slashed so that expenditures matched tax revenues. That would mean that the total amount of the debt would still remain at $19.979 trillion. It would still have to be paid. Every taxpayer would still be on the hook for it. But at least it wouldn’t be growing.
What happens if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. That means that the federal government has now incurred the total amount of debt it will be permitted to incur. It will not be permitted to add any debt to its already mountainous existing debt.
That means that federal officials will necessarily have to slash expenditures so that expenditures equal tax revenues.
Take my word for it: We are about to hear all sorts of Chicken Little scenarios from statists in the weeks ahead, as the debt ceiling is approached. “Oh, we can’t afford to shut down the federal government!” “Oh, we can’t afford to default on the national debt.”
But notice something important here: It’s not necessary to shut down the federal government or default on the national debt. All that is necessary is to slash expenditures to the point they equal revenues.
How can that be done? Any number of ways, but especially by ending the illegitimate functions of the federal government.
For example, legalize drugs and end the war on drugs, enabling a layoff of DEA agents and others in the drug-war bureaucracy. Or bring the troops home from the Middle East, Afghanistan, Europe, Korea, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere. Close all foreign military bases and most domestic military bases. Abolish the CIA and the NSA. Dismantle America’s Cold War era military industrial complex. Dismantle HUD, Homeland Security, the Department of Education, Department of Commerce, and other welfare-state agencies. Abolish Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, foreign aid, education grants, farm subsidies, and other welfare schemes.
So, you see, it is possible to slash expenditures. The problem, of course, is that the members of Congress and the recipients of all the federal largess don’t want to let go of all their political dole. They just wring their hands, keep spending, and keep hoping.
And what are they hoping for? “Growth!” That’s always the magic word for big spenders. What it means is that they are hoping that taxpayers work harder and produce more so that they’ll send more taxes to Washington, thereby obviating the need to slash spending. Happy days would be here again with taxpayer working harder than ever and federal coffers overflowing.
But it’s not going to happen. The system is starting to implode in on itself, just as it has in Greece and Puerto Rico and some American cities. At some point the debt becomes so huge that taxpayers simply cannot handle the burden of paying such high taxes.
Today, many young people are having a horribly difficult time making ends meet. Hardly anyone saves money anymore. Yet, savings is the key to productivity, which is what produces “growth.”
Two years ago, during the last debt ceiling debate, I predicted that if Congress were to cave again and permit federal officials to continue borrowing more money, not one big spender would then say, “Well, we now have to slash spending because two years from now the same thing will happen again.”
See my article on the debt ceiling debate of two years ago here.
Needless to say, my prediction came true. As soon as the debt ceiling was lifted, big spenders went out and laughed and celebrated over the fact that they had done it again — pressured and scared Congress with their Chicken Little scenarios into raising the debt ceiling.
And then for the past two years, not one of them have said: Time to slash spending so that expendiures equal revenues before we reach the next debt ceiling.
So, here’s my new prediction: It’s going to be déjà vu all over again. The big spenders are soon going to hit us with all their Chicken Little scenarios. “The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We need to raise the debt ceiling again to prevent the sky from falling all the way.”
And here’s my other prediction: As soon as the debt ceiling is raised, the Chicken Little criers will laugh and celebrate, and not one of them will call for a slashing of federal expenditures in preparation for reaching the next debt ceiling a couple of years from now. And so the fiscal problem will only get worse.
The best thing that Congress could ever do is refuse to lift the debt ceiling, which would force the feds to slash federal expenditures.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
February 27, 2017
https://www.fff.org/2017/02/27/debt-ceiling-deja-vu/
“So, if you’re married, you and your spouse have a current liability of $333,502.”
Government liabilities are NOT private sector liabilities. That is just nonsense used to scare people.
“Why do you find this so difficult?”
Because I don’t believe in heeby jeeby hoodoo magic ritual.
Your Austrian stuff is voodoo. I’m describing the system as it is.
That remains to be seen.
US$ come from thin air. They are self created liabilities of the Federal government and thus are credits of the non-government.
They are extinguished by taxation or other federal charges i.e. they return to thin air.
” Your macro balance sheet has the government and the non-government sectors (foreign and domestic) as a single, operational accounting entity?”
It’s called sectoral balance accounting.
“You are saying that failure to raise the Debt Ceiling is no big deal?”
I’ve said nothing about the ‘debt ceiling’. I’m explaining the workings of the monetary system. Not arbitrary political slf imposed restraints.
Marching moron warmongers, heading straight to disaster.