Obama govt proposes 33% hike in cyber-security spending The outgoing Obama administration has proposed increasing federal cyber-security spending by $5bn, or around a third, in the hope of reaching $19bn in 2017. Reuters reports that the Democrat president's proposals, due to be unveiled later on Tuesday, will earmark $3.1bn for technology modernisation at various federal agencies …
The outgoing Obama administration has proposed increasing federal cyber-security spending by $5bn, or around a third, in the hope of reaching $19bn in 2017.
Yeah, right. I remember Barry's $50B Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill where $2B went to Sandy relief and $48B went to programs like trout fisheries in Nevada and a museum in Arkansas.
Barry's $50B Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill where $2B went to Sandy relief and $48B went to programs like trout fisheries in Nevada and a museum in Arkansas.
1. Though shall not question the distribution of Pork.
2. Though shall not question the mechanics of bribing through Pork.
In order to get the 2B$ for Sandy Relief to New York (D), New Jersey (D), Connecticut (D), Taxachusets (D), Vermont (I), New Hampshire (D) you have to buy off the supposedly against government spending kleptocrats elsewhere with appropriate amount of Pork. So Pork had to go to Nevada (R) and Arkansas (R) and many more (R) places (actually TP, not R). This is one of the best examples of the truth about "we are against government spending" and how it really works. For every 1Bn the government spends on something useful, it has to buy supporting votes to the tune of around 20-30Bn wasted on Pork. The loudest and most big-mouth anti-spending advocates usually get their first share (end of the day, you have to support the pig industry to have pigs that squeal when castrated).
Thanks for bringing it up.
Federal spending grew much more (by both percentage and actual dollars) under Bush than it has so far under Obama. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
The last fiscal year where spending was determined primarily by Clinton's budget (with Bush having some influence since he took office about halfway through it) was fiscal 2001, where the US spent $1.9 trillion. If you want to count from the last year Clinton was fully in charge the 2000 spending was $1.8 trillion.
Bush's spending per year (note this is actual spending not 'budgeted' spending)
2002 - $2.0 trillion
2003 - $2.2 trillion
2004 - $2.3 trillion
2005 - $2.5 trillion
2006 - $2.7 trillion
2007 - $2.7 trillion
2008 - $3.0 trillion
2009 - $3.5 trillion
Obama's spending (again actual, not budgeted)
2010 - $3.5 trillion
2011 - $3.6 trillion
2012 - $3.5 trillion
2013 - $3.5 trillion
2014 - $3.5 trillion
2015 - $3.7 trillion
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
If you want to claim that 2009 wasn't 'really' Bush's spending but Obama's since he took office halfway through (though the commitment for TARP was already signed into law by Bush) Bush went from $1.8 trillion to $3 trillion ($1.2 trillion increase or 67%) in eight years, and counting from 2008 Obama has gone from $3 trillion to $3.7 trillion ($700 billion increase or 23%) so far in seven years. And saddling Obama with 2009 is the only way Bush even does that well in the comparison!
Blaming Obama as a big spender is laughable when he can't touch Bush in size of spending growth let alone percentage!
Yes, but it is a cooperative effort - the president signs and will veto it if he doesn't accept it. If someone wants to blame Obama for how much we're spending then they have to equally blame Bush for how much he did.
If you want to look at it in terms of when a president's party controlled both the house and the senate, Bush had republican control of congress for (over) four years and Obama had democrat control of congress for only two. Either way the argument that democrats are spendthrifts and republicans are responsible is not proven out by the facts. That's true even if you go back to Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.
The main culprit is the massive increases in defense spending that republicans generally push, compared to which increases in spending on food stamps or Amtrak or whatever people complain about for democrats is a drop in the bucket.
Federal spending grew much more (by both percentage and actual dollars) under Bush than it has so far under Obama. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
You listed the submitted budgets and did not include off-budget spending. If you want to see just how outrageous federal spending has become under Obama, look at this chart from George Mason University:
High Levels of Government Spending Become Status Quo
Just take a look at Bush's last year when the Dems in Congress passed massive pork and overrode Bush's veto.
But even if you do not agree with me, laying blame does not make everything better. If you are a Dem, proving Bush is to blame does not suddenly make the economy O.K. And if you did not live though the Federal government incompetence that followed Hurricane Sandy, you can't understand. And if you think that the people whose lives were destroyed by Obama's mishandling of Sandy victims are simply inconvenient to your political ideology, then you are a cold person.
If you think that it's O.K. that of the $50B of the Sandy bill, $48B went to pork and only $2B went to victims <- if you want to make excuses for that, then tell that to my brother. His house is still uninhabitable because the promised Federal funds never showed up.
http://www.fema.gov/sandy-recovery-office
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/03/08/3631236/christie-sandy-protestors-iowa/
Is there to add heuristics-based filtering to the previously mentioned Einstein, the Department of Homeland Security's malodorous beached whale of a firewall. What a bargain!
(Tux--because unlike the DHS' roll-your-own firewall fiasco, his stuff pretty much works.)
Considering how much has been spent on the F-35 project vs the fact that only 162 have been 'delivered', it works out to be just over $8 Billion per unit...
Of course, none of the 162 delivered are actually combat ready, but rather only usable for testing and evaluation. Oh, and they won't even have all the promised features until 2022, at the earliest. Even then, they'll still be experiencing some pretty spectacular problems such as the fact that the helmet is so heavy that any attempt to eject would snap the pilot's neck; a MiG from the early 80's can trounce it in a dogfight; overly-complicated power-plant causing numerous engine failures and maintenance headaches; the designs have been modified so much that there are very few parts actually compatible between the three variants...
....as long as MS malware is involved!
One company I consulted for spent £4m on useless "anti-malware" Windows snake-oil. It had a "good" brand name, but did nothing useful and slowed machines down to the speed of a snail on Mogodon.
One quick change to a "corporate" spin of a well-known Linux distribution for their terminals and the update of their servers from Windows Server to Red Hat, and their problems vanished. Machines thought to be "too slow" received a new lease of life and productivity rose massively. All costs were significantly reduced - including their IT support staff (they just hired a few people who really knew what they were doing). Their board now actively proselytises for the uptake of FOSS in the corporate world!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
