British Expatriate Network

Check out this chart

http//i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg

Corporate welfare at work.

Just about every hot-button issue in this country could be solved almost at a stroke by simply reducing the ridiculously obscene defense budget by a half or even less.

Personally, I'd rather see the money invested in free college education than the next "Star Wars" vaporware or Patriot missiles that put the "miss" in missile.

I vote for doing away with sporting scholarships, they serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever...just jumping on a moving bandwagon.

Well I sort of agree but a) how does that relate to the subject of this thread; b) sometimes the scholarships are a tangible "investment" that could lead to more revenue, more enrollment, more publicity for the educational establishment; c) sometimes the scholarship money is more than 50% from boosters, event ticket sales etc. and d) Title IX insists that females be included in the athletics scholarships, even if their sports are otherwise considered inferior or make no revenues.

So it's not really a cut and dry subject.

While I certainly agree that money for education should be a primary concern, we had 'free' at the point of entry higher education in the UK for years and it only served to perpetuate class division and thus privileges. The fact that we now charge tuition or 'top-up' fees in the UK has gone a long way to increasing HE participation for working class students. It forces institutions to compete for these additional resources rather than operating within the traditional British model of HE rationing.

Now back to the topic. As for the US budget deficit, its amazing the extent that the US rightwing hypocrisy and political expediency. They really have extreme contempt for their followers and for the whimsy political ideals of their so-called founding fathers.

source ??
not saying it isnt fact ,but a a verification would be helpfull remember charts /stats only say what the oringinator wants them to .

It clearly states the source at the bottom of the chart - Bureau of Public Debt, United States Department of the Treasury.

Correction it says *BASED* on info from the bureau of public dept united states department of the treasury . big difference .

while we all agree bush has taken govt spending to a all time level ( the irag war ) I dont see a chart from a *govt body* being published like that with notes and political statements .
its been doctored . the extremes to be questioned ?
the entity publishing the articule is more likely the culprit of political gerrymongering .
l

Here is the site you are referring to .

http//www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

the facts and fiqures there do not portray what you say they do ,its addressing PUBLIC dept interest rates securities etc NOT goverment spending .
dont mind a good discussion on govt spending ( you all know i want less govt control .spending and intrusion on our lives) . but this is not the site to obtain facts ...


http//www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/govt.htm
i do believe it you click on this site the second chart that appears is the one being used by tinypic .com

No, it says based on DATA - not info.

Data is the collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn. If you bother to check up on this graphical representation at the Treasury Department, you can see, as I did, that the figures represented in the graph are ACCURATE.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

The culprits in fact are people who simply take a dislike to the presentation of facts and do everything in their limited power to rubbish them. Yes, the creator of the graph has embellished it with some obvious historical pointers but other than that - the graph speaks for itself.

As a viewer of Fox News John, I'd have thought you'd be quite at home with embellishments. ;-)

No, it says based on DATA - not info.

Data is the collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn. If you bother to check up on this graphical representation at the Treasury Department, you can see, as I did, that the figures represented in the graph are ACCURATE.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd.htm

The culprits in fact are people who simply take a dislike to the presentation of facts and do everything in their limited power to rubbish them. Yes, the creator of the graph has embellished it with some obvious historical pointers but other than that - the graph speaks for itself.

As a viewer of Fox News John, I'd have thought you'd be quite at home with embellishments. ;-)[/quote

Sure i watch fox news after ive seen the embellishments presented on CNN .
in my opinion fox news is the ONLY tv news network that isnt biased towards the left makes for a refreshing change

pilgrim
not to belabour the point the graph MAY BE correct in the figures it portrays BUT ITS not GRAPH OF ( national dept ) with is what i believe the oringinal poster was referring to its public dept a differant animal ...

dept owed by the nation is shown on another part of the site and its not so extreme

any armed action against another country courses A high in natinal spending, there for the war in irag would make it jump as did the war in vietnam .
wether you agree with the actions taken is another matter

I can't see where the original poster said anything other than "Check out this chart" and posted a link to a commonly circulated, stating-the-somewhat-obvious-to-most chart.

Total debt owed by the nation has still gone up (possibly almost doubled) since 2000 so nothing to be proud of. Seems a rather dangerous position to hold - isn't this country supposed to be moving away from dependence (oil) on other nations?

As far as the "war" goes - no one should be allowed to use that word unless and until war time conditions are imposed, such as occurred in World War II. For the record, that means

all pay frozen - no raises, no adjustments for inflation;
wartime taxation imposed - very high rates that would make even the most left-leaning Democrat squeal, unless they were kept in line by the "Patriot" creed.

That is not to mention the possibility of rationing which was experienced to some extent here in WW2, although hardly on the lines of our original country.

It is not a "war" in Iraq, merely a conflict or occupation, which then begs the question as to whether this nation and its military is really getting its moneysworth.

If all this money is being spent then why are troops still lacking armor, why are vehicles still in combat zones without being up-armored and what happened to the hundreds of millions that were floating around in Iraq for the past four years?