continuum:

Voters favor cuts to balance the budget — yet they object to most of the cuts that could be made, a Los Angeles Times/USC Poll shows.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.  [original post]

The Obama fiscal commission’s draft report suggested that federal spending be reduced from 25.1% of GDP today to 22% by 2020, and lower after that. That’s a reasonable goal for a centrist kind of commission, but let’s remember that spending was just 18.2% in President Clinton’s last two fiscal years, 2000 and 2001.

For the final report, the commission’s staff might look to Clinton’s budgets for guidance. The chart shows federal spending as a share of GDP in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2012. Fiscal 2001 was Clinton’s last year, and it was before all of President Bush and Obama’s spending increases. I choose 2012 as the end year because most of the “stimulus” spending will be finished by then, defense is supposed be down a bit as foreign troops are partly withdrawn, and the economy will have hopefully recovered. Based on President Obama’s Mid-Session Review, spending in fiscal 2012 will be 23.0% of GDP.

Total federal spending is expected to increase 4.8 percentage points of GDP between 2001 and 2012. The chart shows that increases have occurred in every part of the budget–entitlements, defense, and domestic spending. Thus, the Obama fiscal commission is on the right track to propose cuts across all areas of the budget. However, it needs to be about 4 percentage points of GDP more aggressive in downsizing the government to get us down to Clinton-level spending.

Contrary to belief that federal earmarks and “stimulus” packages stimulate the private-sector economy, a new study from the Harvard Business School actually concludes the opposite.
“the firms significantly cut physical and R&D spending, reduce employment, and experience lower sales” 

(Originally posted by NoMossHere )

So is the US an “aggressive, war-mongering military machine” obsessed with spending on defence and plumping up its armed forces? Perhaps, the numbers say, not.

So I was starting some research to do a post complaining about the ongoing budget deficit issues, fiscal conservativism, etc; in response to the Arizona Proposition 100 comments popping up all over the interwebz… and I was planning to say something to the effect of ‘Congress is treating the budget like a teenager with a credit card’.  

… That is, until I found out George W. Bush said such during a speech in 2007.  

Not to be associated with his ridiculous notions of fiscal conservativism or his other failures as a President, I decided to scrap the post.. but was amused enough to feel like sharing. 

Compare your state’s sales, income, and property taxes to the rest of the nation.

[Credit to Mike for originally showing me this.]

A look at United States government’s budget and deficits as of 2009.

Their conclusion?  Unsustainable.
Well, no shit.

Thanks to Mike for this link re: death and taxes chart. 

A visual guide to where your federal tax dollars go.

One thing I like to point out to my Marine friends is comparing the USMC budget to that of other branches.

For my fiscal conservatives, take note of the huge discrepancy between expenses and collections. 

For a more interactive version