Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CIA - The World Factbook (Who has money? Who doesn't?)
CIA ^ | 2007 | CIA

Posted on 02/26/2008 7:14:05 AM PST by FreeInWV

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
This is a summary of money in the bank. Is it wise for the US to provide foreign aid, military assistance, etc. to so many countries who are so much higher in this list? Would any bank make a loan to an individual with our spending habits, collateral, debt to income, etc?

Is it apparent that we have spent like drunken sailors? No offense intended towards drunken sailors.

1 posted on 02/26/2008 7:14:09 AM PST by FreeInWV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV
Is it apparent that we have spent like drunken sailors? No offense intended towards drunken sailors.

WooHoo, We're Number ONE!!!!!! Huh? Wha?

Whoops!
2 posted on 02/26/2008 7:16:18 AM PST by BikerJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

Fine: We have spent money like a drunken Kennedy in a whore house.

And, unfortunately, for the things he did right, this is one Bush did very wrong.


3 posted on 02/26/2008 7:16:47 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

read later


4 posted on 02/26/2008 7:17:48 AM PST by al baby (Hi mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

This is money in current accounts? Well no wonder.

It is NOT a measure of net worth.


5 posted on 02/26/2008 7:22:18 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

Most spending is mandated by laws ( for example social security, Medicare , Medicaid). Can a president reduce the number of people who get social security disability benefits or Medicare?NO. Are 14% of Americans really disabled or are they getting a free ride? You decide.

These laws have been passed by mostly by big government Democrats like FDR.

The only way to really decrease spending,stop the United States from becoming bankrupt, and reduce the size of government is to repeal many of these laws passed in the last one hundred years especially the 16th ammendment and the environmental laws that are crippling manufactoring and the energy industry in the U.S..

I haven’t seen anybody, including any politician make this point. Most spending (84%) if you include military spending is mandatory and increases are mandatory. Most government educated people think that a president rules by decree. The U.S. is still a nation of laws and a president has to follow the law too. This is why Bush and even Reagan could not reduce spending. Nobody has been for limiting government and government spending more than Ronald Reagan but he could not do it because of this reason.


6 posted on 02/26/2008 7:29:48 AM PST by rurgan (socialism doesn't work. Government is the problem not the solution to our problems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

True. However, it’s undeniable that we are borrowing ourselves deeper into the hole while providing aid to countries with positive assets.


7 posted on 02/26/2008 7:31:46 AM PST by pgyanke ("Huntered"--The act of being ignored by media and party to prevent name recognition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

Yet, somehow, Clinton was able to eliminate the budget deficit. We may not agree with HOW he did it, but he was able to do it.

Let’s face it, Bush has been irresponsible for nearly 8 years. Yes, many things he can’t affect. But, many he can and should have.


8 posted on 02/26/2008 7:39:15 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

Sorry but government spending did decrease during Clinton’s term but it increased greatly during that time. Look it up.

The budget was balanced only 2 of clinton’s 8 years. so you are wrong about Clinton. Clinton had a deficit 6 of 8 years.
The reason the budget balanced TEMPORARILY was because of several flukish factors that favored the economy temporarily like the internet bubble and a very low price of oil. Clinton did not reduce spending even with the Republican controlled congress he had.

In fact during which president’s term has government spending decreased ?


9 posted on 02/26/2008 7:48:03 AM PST by rurgan (socialism doesn't work. Government is the problem not the solution to our problems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

Sorry but government spending did NOT decrease during Clinton’s term but it increased greatly during that time. Look it up.

The budget was balanced only 2 of clinton’s 8 years. so you are wrong about Clinton. Clinton had a deficit 6 of 8 years.
The reason the budget balanced TEMPORARILY was because of several flukish factors that favored the economy temporarily like the internet bubble and a very low price of oil. Clinton did not reduce spending even with the Republican controlled congress he had.

In fact during which president’s term has government spending decreased ?


10 posted on 02/26/2008 7:48:31 AM PST by rurgan (socialism doesn't work. Government is the problem not the solution to our problems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV
We can't be broke. We still have more checks.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

11 posted on 02/26/2008 7:52:31 AM PST by expatguy ("An American Expat in Southeast Asia" - New & Improved - Now with Search)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

Since when does the CIA get their facts straight?


12 posted on 02/26/2008 7:55:26 AM PST by penelopesire ("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

Federal spending increases during the Clinton 1990’s in million of dollars:

1990 1,253,130
1995 1,515,884
2000 1,789,216

So you see from these figures that Clinton increased spending almost by one half a trillion dollars.

proof:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html


13 posted on 02/26/2008 8:00:59 AM PST by rurgan (socialism doesn't work. Government is the problem not the solution to our problems.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
We can't be broke. We still have more checks.

Thanks for being the voice of reason on this thread!

14 posted on 02/26/2008 8:04:22 AM PST by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

I am not sticking up for X42, but to be fair you should report GWB’s numbers as well.


15 posted on 02/26/2008 8:36:39 AM PST by FreeInWV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

Spending and balancing the budget are two different, even if related, things. You can increase spending and balance a budget. And, you have already admitted that the budget did balance during Clinton’s admin. Where has it gone with Bush?

Say what you want, but, suprisingly, Clinton did consistently push for balanced spending, even if we don’t agree with how it was spent or how he got there. Bush, OTOH, has been horribly irresponsible. Instead of ACTING like a fiscal conservative, he has acted like a liberal, doing nothing to curb either the size of government or its out of control spending.


16 posted on 02/26/2008 8:40:31 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

Hopefully we’ll have a chance to reduce spending with McCain as POTUS.


17 posted on 02/26/2008 8:45:53 AM PST by mossyoaks (Victory for W!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
You forget that the Clintons had a ‘conservative Congress’ which kept their spending in check. President Bush had a ‘war’ to fight and thus turned over to domestic compassionate liberalism to keep that military funded. In spite of the vast spread of USA liberalism under President Bush he could NOT buy the love of liberals.
18 posted on 02/26/2008 8:46:02 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

I have not forgot. But, this is a fact of history: Clinton did TRY and balance a budget. This is also a fact of history: Bush hasn’t evidently given it 2 thoughts. He has given us the 6 worst years in the history of the US, 5 of the 6 individually are the single worst in history by themselves. Collectively, Bush has, what, doubled the national debt or some idiotic percentage.

And, yes, Bush may realize that you can’t buy liberal love. But, you can be assimilated by them and turned into a fiscal liberal.


19 posted on 02/26/2008 8:53:03 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus
Ah, but President Bush came into office telling US he gives what the liberal asketh. He had a war to fight and so he fought but these liberals were not satisfied with the spending concession they planted hatred of said President Bush to the core of this nation.
20 posted on 02/26/2008 8:57:04 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson