Not sure if this is factoring Inflation into the analysis or not, and this is even worse when you factor in State and Local spending compared to 100 yrs ago I'm sure:


Are you getting what you paid for?

Quote:I am borrowing this from newsletter guru, John Mauldin, who apparently borrowed it from The Privateer. It is verifiably true, and stunning beyond words.

In 1909 the federal government had an annual budget of $0.8 billion (yep, just $800 million). The population was 90 million. The cost of government was $9 per capita. In 2009, the federal government had a budget of $3,550 billion (yep, $3.55 trillion). The population is just over 300 million. That is a cost of $11,675 per capita.

So, are we 1,200x better off than we were 100 years ago in government services? 1,200x. Stew on it.

Conservatives err when they solely focus on the unaffordable nature of present government. It is too big, period. Too expensive, yes. Irresponsibly expensive, yes. And just too big. 1,200x more expensive (adjusted for population growth, mind you) than 100 years ago. Anyone care to compound the math out another 100 years? Heaven help us.

Our federal budget will ALWAYS increase in dollar amount over the years due to common demand. However, it needs to be 1/50th of what it is today.

Well you know Pelosi needs her 747 to file back to San Fran twice a week. While Michale O needs Designer clothes, Russian cariver, lobster and champaign for her lunch snack. Some things you just cannot do without.

(09-17-2009 10:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Well you know Pelosi needs her 747 to file back to San Fran twice a week. While Michale O needs Designer clothes, Russian cariver, lobster and champaign for her lunch snack. Some things you just cannot do without.

There is plenty of damn waste that can be attributed to BOTH gangs.