America's Cold Civil War

[F-Sharp]

Found another nice chart. I, as most, do like a little visual stimulation.

[rCoder]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

I guess that's the difference between you, me, the Tea Party and corporations who don't pay Federal taxes. You're perfectly fine voting for and supporting the GOP while they are in office racking up this ridiculous debt and picking fights around the globe. But the very minute they're no longer in control you start kicking and screaming about taxes and debt as if you didn't know anything about it before they lost power. I'm not happy about it, but I have fully expected to have my taxes increased the very minute GWB took office and starting spendng Clinton's savings account. If you're truly not happy about paying higher tax rates, then you and the Tea Party should strongly consider writing your congressen about their economic policies and starting next year, stop voting against your own economic interests next election. Entitlements are not going away Coder, not ever. Might as well get that ridiculous idea out of your head now and come join the rest of us in the real world.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I haven't voted GOP in decades. I'll admit I love it when the Tea Party sticks to fiscal conservatism (hey, it's a first step in the right direction) but can't stand their religious right calls for violence (yes, I have attended a Tea Party event and was very disappointed).

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't "Clinton's savings account" actually add to the national debt? It was the strong economic bubble that showed the debt as a percentage of GDP that decreased.

Scenario, the economic problems continue to escalate until we get a total collapse. Extremely doubtful the "entitlements" would survive. I'd much rather see slashing "entitlements" now than suffer an economic collapse. Think of it as amputating a gangrene leg or two.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by rCoder

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't "Clinton's savings account" actually add to the national debt? It was the strong economic bubble that showed the debt as a percentage of GDP that decreased.

Clinton was in office for eight years. Six of those were deficit years, two were surplus.

Originally Posted by rCoder

Scenario, the economic problems continue to escalate until we get a total collapse. Extremely doubtful the "entitlements" would survive. I'd much rather see slashing "entitlements" now than suffer an economic collapse. Think of it as amputating a gangrene leg or two.

Total collapse will only happen if taxes are not raised, I am most certain the Bush tax cuts will be left to expire in 2013. Entitlements are never going away, too many people depend on them, and quite simply they are not the culprit behind our debt. The whole idea of abandoning benefits for 100 million people in this country that depend on them is seriously asinine Coder. Less people than that voted in the general election in 2010! It just ain't gonna happen.

Coder, let me ask you some questions...not insinuating that these are even trade-offs but...

Would you rather give $20 billion a year to oil companies in subsidies and tax breaks or have Social Security?

Would you rather give $40 billion a year to countries like Pakistan and Egypt or have Medicare?

Would you rather allow companies such as GE who cut 34,000 jobs from this country and sent 25,000 of them overseas in the last ten years to continue to avoid paying anything in Federal taxes, or would you prefer to have unemployment insurance?

Would you rather spend:

U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ

About $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through November 2010.

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Lost and Reported Stolen - $6.6 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money earmarked for Iraq reconstruction, reported on June 14, 2011 by Special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen who called it "the largest theft of funds in national history." (Source - CBS News) Last known holder of the $6.6 billion lost: the U.S. government.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

U.S. Annual Air-Conditioning Cost in Iraq and Afghanistan - $20.2 billion (Source - NPR, June 25, 2011)

U.S. 2009 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $7.3 billion as of Oct 2009

U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)

or would you rather we provide benefits to veterans?

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Clinton was in office for eight years. Six of those were deficit years, two were surplus.



Total collapse will only happen if taxes are not raised, I am most certain the Bush tax cuts will be left to expire in 2013. Entitlements are never going away, too many people depend on them, and quite simply they are not the culprit behind our debt. The whole idea of abandoning benefits for 100 million people in this country that depend on them is seriously asinine Coder. Less people than that voted in the general election in 2010! It just ain't gonna happen.

Coder, let me ask you some questions...not insinuating that these are even trade-offs but...

Would you rather give $20 billion a year to oil companies in subsidies and tax breaks or have Social Security?

Would you rather give $40 billion a year to countries like Pakistan and Egypt or have Medicare?

Would you rather allow companies such as GE who cut 34,000 jobs from this country and sent 25,000 of them overseas in the last ten years to continue to avoid paying anything in Federal taxes, or would you prefer to have unemployment insurance?

Would you rather spend:

U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ

About $900 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through November 2010.

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Lost and Reported Stolen - $6.6 billion of U.S. taxpayers' money earmarked for Iraq reconstruction, reported on June 14, 2011 by Special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen who called it "the largest theft of funds in national history." (Source - CBS News) Last known holder of the $6.6 billion lost: the U.S. government.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

U.S. Annual Air-Conditioning Cost in Iraq and Afghanistan - $20.2 billion (Source - NPR, June 25, 2011)

U.S. 2009 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $7.3 billion as of Oct 2009

U.S. 2008 Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)

or would you rather we provide benefits to veterans?

Surprisingly I agree with most of these proposals. Except for getting rid of the Air Conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan, lol. It's freaking hot over there!
Seriously though, whether you agree or not with our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you from personal experience that the lack of oversight on the money spent was and still is appalling.
I would venture to say that both of these wars could have been fought for half the price when you take out all the wasted money, much of which went into the pockets of corrupt Iraqi and Afghan politicians.
There is no reason why we should be subsidizing oil companies today. There's no reason why GE should not be paying taxes given their profit margin.
As far as aid to Egypt and Pakistan. Pakistan has been making a fool out of us while pocketing our money since the 1980's. However, although they have been playing a shell game for a very long time, the fact is it's on a small scale relatively speaking. I don't think turning out back on them completely and making them an outright enemy will lead us in a positive direction. If we were to pull ALL of our troops out of the entire region then we could probably afford to go the route of cutting off all foreign aid in the region. I'm not convinced however that we wouldn't be sucked back into that quaqmire sooner or later at an even higher cost.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Seriously though, whether you agree or not with our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can tell you from personal experience that the lack of oversight on the money spent was and still is appalling.

I would argue that both conflicts were completely unecessary and in the long term a complete waste of time. I think in 10-20 years they will be right back where we found them...run by some shitheal pocketing their oil money. I think we could have easily accomplished far more with a lot less, and I think finding and finally killing Bin Laden proved that.

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

I don't think turning out back on them completely and making them an outright enemy will lead us in a positive direction. If we were to pull ALL of our troops out of the entire region then we could probably afford to go the route of cutting off all foreign aid in the region. I'm not convinced however that we wouldn't be sucked back into that quaqmire sooner or later at an even higher cost.

I would say they are already "enemies" if that's what you want to call it. Our differences in culture are just far too vast, especially as far as Pakistan is concerned. I'd be curious to know in detail what the amount of money we've given them has gained us as far as intelligence or support is concerned.

Regardless, taking care our of own should be our first priority. I would think that if our revenues are so low we need to consider cutting such things as Medicare and veteran's benefits, foreign aid should be one of the first things on the chopping block.

[rCoder]

What I would rather have is a government that exists solely within the limitations of the Constitution.

On the military issues, the Constitution charges the feds to provide for a common defense. Not be the world's policemen, not engage in undeclared wars, not even to defend the country. That's right, it's job is to provide the logistics and command structure for the states' militias to defend the country.

Personally I believe each individuals "fair share" is zero. That each individual should pay for the services they contract to. Should mitigate risk with insurance.

So for all these examples of wastefulness, I say let individuals throw their money where ever they wish. Just do not use violence to force others to do the same.

So since you are hung up on SS and believe it is such a wise investment, why not donate extra to it?

[F-Sharp]

You mean "this" Constitution?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

[theaustinescorts]

Enact a 1% sales tax on all sales of financial instruments and the debt will disappear in two years.

Done.


ps...like I've said before all the increase in government spending and waste has been on the county, state and city level. It's the local side the Right needs to vent their outrage about....but then they couldn't use that as an argument in elections for Federal office.

[greymouse]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Found another nice chart. I, as most, do like a little visual stimulation.

Remember when Ross Perot was running for Boss and had big flip charts to make his points? He was widely scorned by political insiders who said that charts and graphs make no impression on American voters who long for "stories" they can understand, preferably short enough to fit on a bumper sticker and suitable for shouting.

I was struck by that NYT's graphic about the national debt and copied it to my computer. I notice no one has commented on it, just gone ahead the dialogue of the deaf. I can't help wonder why not since it is such a spectacular indictment of Republican policies, or maybe that is why there has been no comment.

I confess to having a degree in economics and to finding information in graphic form to be persuasive and to be puzzled by those who ignore it. I also confess to being stubbornly convinced that if you keep confronting people with facts they will eventually have to acknowledge them. So, here is more information about where the debt came from in graphic form:



Notice most of the present debt was accumulated in the Reagan and Bush years. The debt increased during the Clinton administration as a whole although the total fell in latter part of the Clinton prosperity (remember that? When unemployment fell below 4 %?) but not enough to offset the increase in the earlier years.

Here is another chart that puts the increase in debt as percentage of national income:



Please notice the the Adminstrations are in a different order now. The economics blog this is taken from, Econbrowser, says this about that:

"Note that in this last graph, the "Clinton" block is below the zero line because publicly held debt was paid down during the Clinton Administration, in ppts of GDP terms. If we normalized by potential nominal GDP, the Obama block would look smaller. I also find of interest the debt accumulated during Reagan, GHW Bush, and Bush Administrations versus that during Clinton and Obama... (recalling Clinton paid down, as a share of GDP)."

PPTS = percentage points
these are from http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...ic_of_the.html

Finally (don't want to overload anyone) here is chart of where the money went:



Notice this involves a projection out to 2019 assuming current policies do not change. The big components in the increase in debt are the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the orange and red. The rest, in blue are the result of the Second Bush Recession, now called the Great Recession. The thin dark blue line is the bailout of the banks that were too big to be allowed to fail, the medium blue is direct result of the Recession and the light blue is the Obama administration's feeble attempts to revive the economy - the "Stimulus" after the Boy-Geniuses-of-Wall-Street-blew-up-the-world-economy in the concluding months of the Bush Administration.

Maybe it needs explaining why an economic downturn increases the annual deficit and the cumulative debt: when the size of the national economy shrinks tax revenues decrease while simultaneously unemployment benefit payments, Medicaid payments for health care for the newly poor uninsured (because they no longer have jobs) and food stamps increase. Most people think that is better than letting the unemployed starve in the streets. Clearly some do not. It is useful to remember that these so-called economic stabilizers are not a display of altruistic selflessness but a way to keep the economy from free falling into a 1930s-type depression that would destroy the jobs and incomes of millions of additional people.

The point of all this is that this is not an Our Team vs Their Team situation where it makes sense to pick a side and root for it. Unless you are in the top 1 or 2 % in terms of income you do not have a team. "To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $380,354 or more" in 2008 according to the Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
As I like to say, the Republican Party is wholly owned by the richest of the rich while the same people have a long-term lease on the Democratic Party, including the current President. So, what to do, other than argue whose fault it is? Now that is the potentially productive discussion.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by greymouse

Unless you are in the top 1 or 2 % in terms of income you do not have a team.

I think that the more zealous among us have a tendency to disregard and dismiss charts and facts in general because they misunderstand the intention. By taking a side in a discussion politically based, the zealous most often come to some default conclusion that you MUST be on the side of the other team. Go back and read responses to many of my posts and tell me how many times I've been accused of being an Obama lover, a liberal or a socialist. The truth is, I am none of the above. I simply go where the facts lead me. I think this is true for anyone who actually takes the time to read and understand these charts or better yet, goes as far as I do to confirm their accuracy. Until everyone starts taking the time to understand what the real problems are and understand what the possible solutions might be in a realistic way, nothing's ever going to change in this country. Regrettably, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils much of the time.

[rCoder]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Regrettably, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils much of the time.

... which is still evil.

Sorry I had to finish the quote. Amazingly I find myself in agreement with F-Sharp.

[iman77]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

I'm not insinuating one single damn thing, I am simply sharing facts. Easily obtainable facts at that. If you bothered to read the links I posted or did just a little fact gathering you would know that there is no such thing as a "Social Security Fund". Since 1969 the government has operated on a unified budget. You care to point out one single politician to me who says this isn't true? I'm glad you're glad I find humor in such ridiculous statements as illegals receiving Social Security. It's complete nonsense. No Social Security benefits can legally be paid to illegal immigrants. Not now, not ever! This is simply beyond intelligent dispute and I won't waste any more of my time addressing it.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/soc...al-immigrants/

http://www.factcheck.org/article447.html




Interesting. You make absolutely no mention of the Iraq or Afghanistan "debacles" that have cost far more in both money and lives. I am not convinced you have your priorities straight Sir.



This statement has no basis in fact and makes absolutely no sense. Ever bothered to look at a historical tax rate chart or compare spending by party in the last 50 years or so? You care to explain to me where Democrats have wanted "never ending tax increases" to justify spending they inacted? I challenge you to do so!

In a nutshell it went something like this:

Reagan lowered the marginal tax rate to 38.5% in 1987 and again down to 28% in 1988. Those tax cuts ultimately increased our debt to the tune of about 20% debt/gdp, or you can call it $2 trillion if you prefer. His economic policies also lead to a steep rise in inflation and ultimately a recession.

GHWB then has to raise that rate to 31% to make up some of that deficit and cost of inflation. (*Note to self, GWHB raised taxes to cover Republican spending, GWHB was not a Democrat!) Unfortunately his Budget Enforcement Act is not enough when you throw the end of the Cold War and a war with Iraq in to the mix. GWHB ultimately raised our debt/gpd by another 13%, or $1.5 trillion. "Read my lips, no new taxes", I heard him state ever so firmly on my television screen back in 1988.

So that brings us to 1993 and along comes Clinton sitting on a National debt of $4.6 trillion created mostly by our two former wealth-trickling-voodoo-economic presidents. Clinton was the only President since Carter (*Note to self, Carter also a Democrat) to reduce our National debt. Yes, Clinton did indeed raise the marginal tax rate to 39.6%, and guess what it worked. Not only did we enjoy record economic gains, but also record job growth.

Let's repeat that for DTorrchia and the other slow kids at the back of the room. Carter and Clinton are the only two Presidents that have actually reduced our National debt since 1977. Both Democrats. I won't even go in to the spending enacted during Bush Jr's terms as you've wasted enough of my time already. We'll reserve the Obama discussion for when his terms are over in 2016, and I will predict for you here that the Bush tax cuts will be left to expire in 2013 and we will have a reduction in our National debt by the time his two terms are finished.

Perhaps you care to revise your ridiculous statement, or at very least make an attempt to provide some factual data to support it?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=213

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

you don't have enough space on a pae to show Hussein's spending increases. Remember, Clinton's surpluses were only projected, and went away when the war started. The surpluses never materialized.

To cut real spending, Congress would have to 100% defund the DOEducation, NEA, DOEnergy, NPR, and ObamaCare, and return the power to the states like it should be.

If you were to double the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, you would only get an extra 248 bil dollars. That is nowhere near a drop in the bucket and would not even come close to fixing our national debt. Some increases to the uber wealthy, you and I, and the 51% of Americans who pay 0 taxes plus the above listed cuts would be a real good start.

The above mentioned cuts are real, and not baseline cuts. Then we need Social Security and Medicare reform to boot.

Now, quit arguing based on being Republican and Democrat, because they have both stuck it to all of us where the sun don't shine equally. Most voters base their votes on the letter D or R after a candidate's name. This is a great disservice to yourself and your fellow Americans.

Take this example into consideration. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin went through hell and back for removing the teachers rights to collective bargaining for pension and healthcare, but prevailed in the end. What most people don't know is that the health insurance for the teachers was administered by the union itself, and therefore they increased rates to get more money from government in exchange for campaign money. The insurance rates were also the highest rates for any health insurance in the state of Wisconsin. After the bill was passed, the insurance rates were drastically cut, and so much money was saved (over 1 mil per school district) that all districts in Wisconsin had a budget surplus to begin this school year. Oh, and all those bafooms that were protesting at the capital received raises due to the surpluses. They really look like an ass now, but are paying into their own pension and healthcare instead of expecting tax payers to pay it for them. The teachers salaries in that state were on the average 40% higher than the people they wanted to pay their pension and medical insurance premiums. See, real reform works.

Also as a side note. The Wisconsin Gov. office released figures in 2009 showing how they spent the stimulus money they got from Obama. They received upwards of 700 billion, and over 600 bil went to pay those teacher pension and medical insurance premiums. What a waste. I thought that was for "shovel ready" jobs

[Yssup Rider]

Hussein. How cute. Should have had his middle name legally changed before he sneaked into the country.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by iman77

you don't have enough space on a pae to show Hussein's spending increases. Remember, Clinton's surpluses were only projected, and went away when the war started. The surpluses never materialized.

To cut real spending, Congress would have to 100% defund the DOEducation, NEA, DOEnergy, NPR, and ObamaCare, and return the power to the states like it should be.

If you were to double the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, you would only get an extra 248 bil dollars. That is nowhere near a drop in the bucket and would not even come close to fixing our national debt. Some increases to the uber wealthy, you and I, and the 51% of Americans who pay 0 taxes plus the above listed cuts would be a real good start.

The above mentioned cuts are real, and not baseline cuts. Then we need Social Security and Medicare reform to boot.

Now, quit arguing based on being Republican and Democrat, because they have both stuck it to all of us where the sun don't shine equally. Most voters base their votes on the letter D or R after a candidate's name. This is a great disservice to yourself and your fellow Americans.

Take this example into consideration. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin went through hell and back for removing the teachers rights to collective bargaining for pension and healthcare, but prevailed in the end. What most people don't know is that the health insurance for the teachers was administered by the union itself, and therefore they increased rates to get more money from government in exchange for campaign money. The insurance rates were also the highest rates for any health insurance in the state of Wisconsin. After the bill was passed, the insurance rates were drastically cut, and so much money was saved (over 1 mil per school district) that all districts in Wisconsin had a budget surplus to begin this school year. Oh, and all those bafooms that were protesting at the capital received raises due to the surpluses. They really look like an ass now, but are paying into their own pension and healthcare instead of expecting tax payers to pay it for them. The teachers salaries in that state were on the average 40% higher than the people they wanted to pay their pension and medical insurance premiums. See, real reform works.

Also as a side note. The Wisconsin Gov. office released figures in 2009 showing how they spent the stimulus money they got from Obama. They received upwards of 700 billion, and over 600 bil went to pay those teacher pension and medical insurance premiums. What a waste. I thought that was for "shovel ready" jobs

$700 Billion of an $858 billion dollar stimulus package, 1/3rd of which is strictly tax cuts went straight to Wisconsin? That's simply amazing, and they must truly be special!

Try $4,074,029,752, and if you want to see what that money was ACTUALLY spent on:

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientReportedDataMap.aspx? State=WI&datasource=recipient

I wont even bother commenting on the other six paragraphs of lies, conjecture and overall extremely bad judgement.

[iman77]

Madison — The first solid - if still incomplete - employment numbers for federal stimulus spending by Wisconsin state government show that retaining government positions was job one.
Three-fourths of 8,284 stimulus-related jobs accounted for so far were public-sector posts protected by the federal infusion into state and local government coffers, Gov. Jim Doyle's office reported.
That included teachers, police officers and other government workers.
Of the remaining one-fourth, it's not clear how many are private-sector jobs, and whether the jobs were retained or newly created.
Predictably, the report touched off partisan disagreement, with Democrats calling the figures a good start and Republicans questioning the success of the hotly debated federal package approved in February, especially in light of recent record job losses.
The state-released numbers, meeting a federal reporting deadline, are just a slice of the stimulus picture in Wisconsin. They do not include money funneled directly to local municipalities or to the University of Wisconsin system; those reports are being made separately. The spending so far represents just over one-third of the $1.92 billion awarded to the state.
The Doyle administration said that $680 million of the state-controlled funds has been spent so far - nearly all of the $701 million received. Another $1.2 billion has been awarded but has not yet landed in Wisconsin, Doyle's office said. Eventually, and more broadly, an estimated $7.7 billion will go to Wisconsin individuals, governments, nonprofit agencies and private firms under the stimulus plan.
The $1.92 billion state-controlled chunk eventually should directly save or create some 25,000 jobs over the next couple of years, said Chris Patton, director of Wisconsin's Office of Recovery and Reinvestment.
"This is money well-spent," Patton told reporters at the Capitol. The rough per-job cost of $82,000 is below original federal estimates, he said.
The stimulus package was designed to spread spending mainly over two years. Many of the funds dedicated for road construction won't be spent until 2010.
Earlier Tuesday, state government's top economist told an Assembly committee that the effect of the federal stimulus package "is only really beginning to be felt." John Koskinen of the state Department of Revenue noted that much of the money will not be spent until 2010 or later.
The main effect of the stimulus money that went to state and local governments was to prop up health care and education spending so the state could balance its budget without huge tax increases, Koskinen said.

Right there it is cowboy. I did make a typo, as it was 700 mil not bil dollars. It was late.

You see they spent the money on retaining jobs, and not "shovel ready" jobs. Im not saying none were created, just short of what was promised.