In 2000, under Bill Clinton, the feds spent $2,392 billion, in inflation adjusted dollars. Obama is spending around $3,800 billion a year. Military spending, which should decrease by at least $100 billion a year now that we are out of Iraq, accounts for only $323 billion of the increased spending. If Obama is willing to cut federal spending to no more than $2,800 billion a year, which would give us a budget surplus without raising taxes, then I might be willing to listen to him babble about the need for more money.
The feds don't need more money, We the People need FAR less federal government.
I wonder how many "AR-model handguns" he originally had in stock?
In the US over 300,000 crimes, using guns, are comitted annually. The feds convict less than 5,000 people of 922(g) crimes a year. (For those who don't know, 922(g) prohibits felons, drug users, illegal aliens, wife beaters, etc, from legally having a gun) Are we supposed to beleive that less than 2% of gun related crimes are comitted by illegals, drug users and felons?
For the norhern Illinois district, which includes Chicago, there were only 25 federal weapons prosecutions during the first 4 months of 2011 (the lates stats I could find).
I have to wonder why the federal government refuses to enforce 922(g). Is it just not that important to them?
Just more coercion by the liberal/progressives running the federal government and federal courts. The feds think it is their job to ram liberal/progressive thinking down our throats. They will bankrupt or imprison us if we refuse to give up our conservative, or civil libertarian, viewpoints. Our grandchildren will never know freedom if we continue to let the federal government force us bow to them.
The really sad thing is that not only are we going to pay, but so are our children, grandchildren, and all future generations. The problem is not that the federal government has to little income, the problem is that we have elected people who have grown government far beyond what anyone who voted for the original Constitution ever believed would be allowed to occur.
In 2000, when Bill Clinton was President, the federal government spent $1,789 billion, 18.2% of GDP. Under Obama it is spending over $3,500 billion annually, around 25% of GDP. Less than $400 billion of the over $1,700 billion spending increase was for national defense.
Even after allowing for inflation Obama is spending over 50% more than Clinton. If spending were reduced to Clinton levels, after adjusting for inflation, and taxes stayed the same as they are in 2012, we would have a budget surplus, not a trillion dollar plus deficit.
Wonder how many of these people, who can afford lottery tickets, that the government is forcing me to support, in some manner.
This guy will get off with a light slap on the wrist. Just another scumbag, crooked politician whose main goal in life is feathering his own nest.
Is this article just a press release by city government? Is there no one else who is interested in some actual data, as opposed to the fluff in the article? "more than $31 million budget", how much more? Is it to difficult to actually add a decimal point and a couple of more significant figures to the number? How does the budget compare to last years expenditures or the years before? Taxpayers should be provided with actual data, not press release fluff.
Over 40 years of ever increasing welfare spending since Johnson started the "War on Poverty", and TRILLIONS of tax dollars spent. Welfare spending sucks up more and more of the federal budget, and what have we taxpayers gotten for our money. Nothing but an entitlement mentality society that actually believes that they have a right to steal the money I worked to earn.
Insanity - continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different result.
If the Democrats plan was to create a group of people who would always vote for an ever increasing welfare state, they have succeeded.
I think the first sentence of the article says it best. These investigations are clearly "federal abuse of power". If the federal government had enforced immigration laws after the last amnesty for illegals we would not have a problem today. Thirty years of refusal, by federal bureaucrats and politicians, have forced State and Local governments into a corner. Someone has to enforce immigration laws, this President has refused to do so.
This is yet another article on spending cuts that omits actual data. Why is government/the press afraid to give us real data? Please include data on the total city spending in each of the past several years as well as proposed total spending in the new budget. Let us make up our minds about "cuts".
Last login: Saturday, December 22, 2012
Copyright © 2014, CMNI.
All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Central Missouri Newspapers Inc.
Material from the Associated Press is Copyright © 2010, Associated
Press and may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall
not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or
redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for
personal and noncommercial use. The AP will not be held liable for any
delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages
arising from any of the foregoing. All rights reserved.
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.