Performance Chevy LS Engine Comparison - LS Motors Decoded - by Stephen Kim

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-----------------------------

Some hot rodders are reluctant to embrace the indisputable virtues of technology. Let's call them traditionalists. Others would rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy. Let's call them victims of brand loyalty. Then there are those who are more impressed by the number of valves an engine has, and the rpm it turns, than the tally it posts in the hp column. Now they're just out of their mind. In just a little over a decade, GM's LS engine platform has converted hoards of traditionalists and even Ford loyalists alike. These days, Gen III and IV small-blocks are popping up in everything from Chevelles to Mustangs, to BMWs, to Mazdas, to Jaguars, to Hondas, to Datsuns, and even Porsches. Staggering power, low mass, compact external dimensions, and excellent fuel mileage have made the Gen III/IV small-block the new King of engine swaps. Perhaps the most significant factor is the sheer number of LS motors now piling up in boneyards-which translates to cheap cores-and the constant influx of affordable aftermarket parts. Some of the cheapest and most potent hardware of all comes straight from the factory, as GM has continually updated the platform since its inception. There are now more than two dozen Gen III and IV variants in existence, so we've set up this guide to explain the differences between them to help you decide which is most appealing for your project car.

Much like the Gen I and II small-blocks, almost all the hardware amongst the different LS variants are interchangeable. In fact, except for the smallest (4.8L) and largest (7.0L) motors in the LS lineup, all share the same 3.622-inch stroke. In most instances, the cylinder heads, camshafts, crankshafts, and intake manifolds can all be mixed between different LS motors. Furthermore, while Gen III and IV truck motors are usually labeled "Vortec," they share the exact same architecture and many of the same parts as their "LS" designated counterparts. Vortecs were once distinguishable by their iron blocks and heads, but that's no longer the case since many trucks now come equipped with all-aluminum engines. Interestingly, only minor differences distinguish Gen III from Gen IV small-blocks. Gen IVs feature provisions for variable valve timing, active cylinder deactivation, and a revised camshaft position sensor location. Otherwise, both generations of motors are very similar.

The engines outlined in this guide represent every Gen III and IV small-block ever installed by GM in a production car or truck. Whenever possible, or relevant, we've included cam specs. At the current rate of LS engine development, it's quite possible that we'll need to add an appendix to this story in a couple of years. Happy swapping!

Quick Notes
What We Did
Compile descriptions and vital stats of every production Gen III/IV small-block in existence

Bottom Line
LS motors are cheaper, more plentiful, and more powerful than ever

Cost (APPROX)
$500-$22,000 here.

LS1

Although the one that started it all is already considered relatively old, no one could have predicted the impact the original Gen III LS1 would have on the hot rodding public. The LS1's greatest asset is its revolutionary 15-degree cylinder heads, which are capable of flowing over 320 cfm in the hands of a skilled porter. So good were these castings, in fact, that it took the aftermarket over five years to even attempt to top the factory design. Simply massaging the stock heads and swapping in a larger cam had LS1s easily approaching the 550hp mark in no time. Furthermore, bone stock LS1s routinely pushed F-bodies into the 12s. While LS1 F-bodies were rated at 40 hp less than their Corvette-spec brethren, they essentially produced the same power despite minute differences in cam specs. Likewise, all '01-04 LS1s were upgraded from the factory with the same valvesprings and high-flow intake manifold as found in the LS6. One of the biggest drawbacks of the LS1 are its thin iron cylinder liners that can only be bored about 0.010 over. Anything larger requires re-sleeving the block with aftermarket liners, which isn't cheap, but doing so enables displacement figures well in excess of 400 ci. Likewise, the standard 3.900-inch bore isn't compatible with the latest and greatest GM L92 cylinder heads. Nonetheless, the original LS1 provides more than enough power potential for the vast majority of hot rods, and there are still a ton of them available in salvage yards ready for plucking.

Time is overdue to repeal the Second Amendment - by Tom H. Hastings

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------
This is embarrassingly immature writing from a supposed professional. Here's a man who clearly did no research, who gave no thought to presentation or a logical procession of ideas, who seems content to simply engage in verbal diarrhea. He doesn't even get the most basic of concepts right. Read on:
--------------------------------

What country fetishizes, lionizes, valorizes, idolizes, and sacralizes guns as much as does our United States? OK, possibly Mozambique — the only country with an AK47 on its flag, but really, it's long past time to end this obsessive "My Precious" attachment of Americans to instruments of death. (Sir, the attachment is with liberty, which is a founding principle of this country. No other country has ever been premised on the idea that government ought to be restrained, limited, and diffuse, and that the liberty resulting from this is ensured for its citizens as their rights are acknowledged as unalienable. Those rights are a check on the power of government. An armed citizenry can defend its rights from oppressive government.)

This morning of Dec. 25, 2014, of the nine top stories from US Reuters, six were about shootings — four new ones and two about the national movement against shootings of citizens by police. This pandemic of sick violence, punctuated by mass killings of children, has gone on far, far too long. It is long past time to repeal the stupid Second Amendment. (Unfortunately for the author, gun deaths are trending downward. This of course means that the sensationalist reporting of the news has skewed perceptions with anecdotal evidence and emotionalized reporting, and thus is not based on fact. Here are the real statistics:

The fate of the Second Amendment should have been sealed when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that past rulings by their predecessors were wrong, (The Left is never troubled by the overturning of precedent when it comes to their issues. However, even here the author is wrong, since the Supreme Court was overturning lower courts and not itself.)

that in fact the amendment that provided for a "well regulated militia" really guaranteed every individual the right to own a gun. Wow. That is an interesting reading of the English language. (Using his warped language to describe the court decision is ironic indeed. The decision was not to interpret the meaning of "well regulated militia." The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes." 

Legally speaking, the militia consists of "...of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...", and can be either in the National Guard or separate from it. The People can be called upon to defend the country, even if they're not in the military. The militia, then, is the citizenry, who come when called to serve, with their weapons in hand. They are already armed! )

What the Supremes have done is to not only warp the meaning and make it into twisted law, but to further prohibit states and local governments from declaring their places free of legal guns.  The conservative court once again rules against the power of states, a principle that used to be associated with darn liberals who wanted to make sure everyone had the right to vote, for example, even though they weren't properly white enough. Now when a city or state wants to outlaw firearms, too bad. The conservatives took away their powers and rights in favor of Big Brother. (Indeed, the court has been rather consistent violators of the Tenth Amendment. Ironically, this may be the only instance of states' rights being an issue for the Left.)

The only logical path, given the clearly decided role of the Second Amendment, is to repeal it. American people are tired of mass shootings and police shootings and family feud shootings and sibling shootings and accidental toddler shootings and teen suicide by gun (highly popular).We are exhausted by the proliferation of death, of threats, of bloodshed, and by the NRA/gun industry moral garbage spewing forth every time someone challenges the ubiquity of guns. (And all this has happened despite a plethora of laws already on the books. On what planet does one have to live on to think that more gun restrictions will have any effect?) 

Repeal the Stupid Second Amendment. Surround it, grab it, bring it in the back room, pull down the shades, and end it. OK, petition for it, get it on the ballot, and get it done by enough of the US populace, by enough people in enough states, to get it consigned to the dustbin of history. (And here's the final nail driven into the coffin of stupidity being spouted by the author. The Second Amendment, like all provisions of the Constitution, defines and limits the power of government, the repeal of the Second Amendment will reduce government power. The Constitution will then fall silent on granting any power at all to government to regulate guns.

I can only attribute this level of ignorance to maleducation.)

Tom H. Hastings is PeaceVoice Director and teaches in the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University in Oregon.

On Leaving Church - by Bill Muehlenberg

Found here. Excellent article.

----------------------------------------------

There are many Christians who have stopped going to church. They have not given up on God, have not renounced their faith, have not denied Christ, and have not become pagans. They simply are no longer going to church. That this is happening is not a matter of doubt, but why this is happening is in fact a difficult question to answer.

One recent article spoke about this trend. Entitled “The Rise of the ‘Done With Church’ Population,” it looks at this scene – primarily in America – but does not offer us any clear indications as to why this is becoming such a problem. The article begins:

John is every pastor’s dream member. He’s a life-long believer, well-studied in the Bible, gives generously and leads others passionately. But last year he dropped out of church. He didn’t switch to the other church down the road. He dropped out completely. His departure wasn’t the result of an ugly encounter with a staff person or another member. It wasn’t triggered by any single event. 

THE ONE BAPTISM -BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. My comments in bold.

-------------------------------------

Mr. Finnell persists in his claim that one needs to be baptized in water to be saved: 
--------------------------------------

THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. WHAT IS THAT BAPTISM? (EPHESIANS 4:5 ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM,) WHAT IS THAT ONE BAPTISM?

There is one baptism. Is it water baptism or baptism with the Holy Spirit? (Granting for a moment that there is only a singular baptism, which I would dispute, then what does Mr. Finnell do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit? I'm going to surmise that Mr. Finnell believes the baptism of the Holy Spirit has ceased. This would conveniently allow him to claim there is only one baptism, water baptism.)

The 12 apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. What was the purpose of their baptism? (Notice that Mr. Finnell will restrict his discussion to the apostles, which suggests he believes that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Most certainly he believes the Apostles received a "special" amount of Holy Spirit not available to us today.)

A market-based method to deal with warming - letter by Dr. Kenneth Pierce

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

Dr. Pierce apparently does not understand the concept of free markets, because "putting a fee" on carbon content has nothing to do with the free market. A "fee" (that is, a tax) is a government intervention into the free market, not an activity of the free market. And this particular tax is not for the purpose of generating revenue for the operation of government, it is a manipulation designed to alter peoples' behavior to certain desired outcomes. This is known as social engineering, which is about as far from the free market as one can get.

Citizens' Climate Lobby is an advocacy organization attempting to persuade people to consent to taxing themselves by dangling a carrot called a dividend. This dividend is intended to be given to people to mitigate the impact of the fee. They claim: "A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things: internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, rapidly achieve large emission reductions, stimulate the economy & recruit global participation. And it will do so for FREE." Yes, they really believe it is free.

Here's a chart from their website:

Notice they want an escalating tax, obviously intended to become confiscatory at some point, which will be transferred to you and me. This tax will be applied "at the point where they [greenhouse gases] first enter the economy," but each household will receive a dividend from a "trust fund," which supposedly covers the increased cost of goods and services resulting from the tax. 

The point at which carbon enters the economy is not the point where carbon enters the ecosystem. Therefore, it seems that their intent is to tax oil, coal, and gas companies. for that is the only substantial place where carbon enters the economy.  "The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year." 

Atheists Rewrite Ten Commandments, MythBusters’ Adam Savage Judged New Commands

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------

Anyone catch the colossal, stark irony here? Atheists, who bristle at the idea of absolute truth, wrote their own list of do nots. The very same people who don't want religion telling them what's moral are perfectly fine authoritatively telling us what's moral.

Our question is this: In a world without objective morality, on what basis do these atheists offer us commandments about anything? If truth is relative, then each person chooses for himself what to believe, and there is no imperative. However, each of their "commandments" is a moral principle, offered as self-evident truth to be embraced and promulgated. Each assumes the moral stature to apply universally. 

Sounds like what a church would do, right? 

Further, the final commandment, "there is no one right way to live," is self contradicting. Aside from the fact that there are nine previous commandments telling us how we must live, the statement asserts an absolute. That is, there is a right way to live, and that way is to live as if there is no right way to live.

There's a lot more that can be said about each one from a logical and moral perspective, but I'll leave you with a final comment about #7, "Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective." Have you heard that before? "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

---------------------------------

Atheists have written their own version of the ten commandments. These commandments were chosen from submissions to Atheist Mind Humanist Heart’s (AMHH) Re-Think Prize, a crowdsourcing project.

Previously reported by the Inquisitr, in November Adam Savage announced he would be a judge in the ReThink Project, the host of MythBusters (one of only two, these days), caused a new surge of interest and awareness for the contest — so much that the contest website crashed shortly after his tweet.

THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------

Mr. Finnell asks how being born of water can be anything but water baptism. He would find the answer by actually reading the Scripture in question to determine context. Here is the passage, only a part of which, verse 5, seems to interest Mr. Finnell:

Jn. 3:3-8 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

Notice what Jesus says in verse 6, as he amplifies verse 5: "Flesh gives birth to flesh (first birth), and "Spirit gives birth to spirit" (i.e., born again). Jesus is telling Nicodemus that the natural birth is is not enough to "see the kingdom of God" (vs. 5). Something else is required, to be "born of the Spirit" (vs. 8). In fact, Jesus suggests that this is simple, and that Nicodemus as a teacher of Israel should understand these things (vs. 10).

Jesus is speaking also to arrogant attitude of the Jews regarding their status as the chosen nation. This is a critical understanding, for remember that Nicodemus was a teacher of the law, and believed that being a Jew and keeping the law was sufficient. Jesus is not teaching Nicodemus that he had to be baptized.

Let's go to the account of John the Baptist. He is baptizing in the River Jordan when he has an encounter with the teachers of the law:

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.'" Mt. 3:7-11

Notice John the Baptist condemned the teachers of the law for their smug nationalism, as if that were enough. Remember that John the Baptist was a forerunner (Matt 3:3). He was preparing the way by using water baptism for repentance. But he knew that such a baptism was inferior to the one Jesus would bring, that is, the baptism of the "Holy Spirit and with fire." 

This old order, the external regulations, have passed away, and John the Baptist's ministry was transitory. It is not enough to be born a Jew. It is not enough to be baptized in water and repent. The new way cleanses the conscience. He. 9:8-10: 

"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings — external regulations applying until the time of the new order."

Jesus is intent on telling Nicodemus that his genetics isn't enough. He wants Nicodemus to know that salvation comes in a way Nicodemus had not considered. Jesus is teaching the teacher spiritual things, the true way of salvation. Being born of the Spirit is the issue, not the water. Tit. 3:5-6: 

"He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior..."

Peter reinforces the idea: 1Pe. 1:23: 

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

There is the natural birth, which is perishable, and the spiritual birth, which is imperishable. Being born again is a supernatural occurrence,  here brought about by the Word, the word that washes us per Ep. 5:25: 

"...Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."

The testimony of Scripture is that we need to be washed by the Word and the Holy Spirit. Water does nothing for us.
-------------------------------

The scribes and Pharisees had a spiritual problem, they liked man-made doctrine better than God's commandments.

Matthew 15:1-9 ....3..."Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?.....9 And in vain they do worship Me, Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." (NKJV)

When Jesus said unless one is born of water he cannot enter the kingdom of God; was he expressing God's commandment? (John 3:5)

When men say you have to be born of amniotic fluid to enter the kingdom of God; it that a doctrine of God or a teaching of men?(John 3:5)

How could born of water be anything but water baptism?

When Jesus said unless one is born of water and the Spirit, He was giving requirements in order to enter the kingdom of God.

Being born of water does not mean you have to exist in order to enter the kingdom of God. The existence of men is obvious. Existence is not a term for pardon.


When Jesus said "he who believes will be saved," was He stating a commandment of God? (Mark 16:16)

When Jesus said he said " is baptized will be saved," was He stating a commandment of God? (Mark 16:16)

When men say "men are baptized after they are saved." is that a commandment of God?

When men say " men are baptized as an act of obedience and it is not essential for the forgiveness of sins", is that a doctrine of God or doctrine of men?

WATER BAPTISM OR HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM? By Steve Finnell

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------------------------

Mr. Finnell must be responding to those of us who are challenging his position on water baptism. Reluctant to enter into a dialogue, he simply creates new posts on his blog where he restates his position, emphatically, without offering anything new. 

I suppose this is easier and safer than actually debating with one's interlocutors. It relieves him of the necessity of the give and take of intellectual exchange. 

I posted an extensive discussion of baptism here, the points of which I shall try to avoid repeating.

-----------------------------------

Did Jesus command water baptism or Holy Spirit baptism? There is just one baptism; which did Jesus command? Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (NASB) (Indeed there is one baptism we are called to. Was it water baptism?)

Matthew 28:16-19 But the eleven disciples...18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (NASB) (The reader will note that Jesus did not say, "baptizing them in water." One would think that if Jesus was requiring water baptism, He would have been baptizing thousands himself. In fact, Jesus was not a baptizer. "The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." Jn 4:1-2  

Jesus did not baptize anyone, nor is there any record of Him commanding His disciples to baptize with water. 

Helpfully, John the Baptist tells us what Jesus would do: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." [Mt. 3:11] This is John the Baptist minimizing his own baptisms and pointing to a better one.

Jesus frequently referred to the Holy Spirit, even indicating that it was better He should go so that the Holy Spirit could come. And, we see the Holy Spirit is important to Jesus, even to the point of Him imparting the Holy Spirit to the disciples: "And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." Jn. 20:22  

You would have thought he would have baptized them if water baptism was so important, but He didn't. Instead, he pointed to the One he would send. That's where we should look as well.)

The 7 biggest economic lies - Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold. I have previously commented on Dr. Reich here and here.
--------------------------

Dr. Reich, a Rhodes Scholar, sets out to refute big lies told about economics. Read on:

"Big lies are to be believed unless they're refuted with the truth. Here are the seven biggest economic whoppers and facts in two minutes thirty seconds."

1) Tax cuts to the rich trickle down to the rest of us. Wrong. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cut taxes on the rich and nothing trickled down. In fact, adjusted for inflation the median hour wage stagnated and dropped. (Neither Reagan nor Bush cut taxes on the rich. Only Congress can appropriate and spend money. And the statement is cleverly phrased to allow Dr. Reich to refute a claim no one has made. No one has advocated tax cuts on the rich. But many have advocated tax cuts.

In addition, it is incorrect to claim that nothing trickled down. Wages did indeed stagnate, but we could just as easily blame the national debt for this. Government takes a huge share of the production of the economy and wastes it. It shifts whole industries, obsoletes others, and forces the economy to adjust and compensate. It's no wonder the worker has suffered, because business simply cannot account for what the fickle government will do next.

PROPHECY-TONGUES-KNOWLEDGE - BY STEVE FINNELL

Avowed cessationist Steve Finnell makes an attempt to explain away the supernatural gifts of the Spirit by using but a single word of Scripture. We chronicle these attempts to defend cessationism from a variety of sources on a regular basis, because we are genuinely seeking a defense of the cessationist view that relies firmly upon Scripture.

So Mr. Finnell takes one word, "perfect," and builds a doctrine that the gifts have ceased because the perfect has come, and this based on what he infers Paul is "likely" talking about. This is thin evidence, indeed, to extrapolate on a word in order to bolster his preconceptions.

That word, "perfect, "teleion, is found 19 times in the N.T., and no instance is the word referring to Scripture:

If you make $50,000 per year, you pay....

This was posted by a FB friend.

Let's look at the real numbers. Please note that the above post is calculating the allocation of taxes paid for wage earners at a specific level of income, while I am calculating the burden of government for the entire population. Of course, my method makes it even worse for the those who are making these claims.

First claim, that it costs $247.75/yr for defense. Actual budget for defense is $839.9 billion (shown below). With a population of 322.4 million, that works out to about $2605 for every person in the US, per year.

Second claim, $3.98 for FEMA. FEMA's budget request for 2015 is $10.38 billion, which works out to $32 per person, per year. 

Third claim, $22.88 for unemployment insurance. Montana unemployment tax rates are found here on page 16. The average tax rate is 1.92%, which for a $50,000 wage is $960. Federal spending on unemployment insurance was $93 billion in 2012, which equals $288 per person, per year.

Fourth claim, $36.82 for SNAP. Total federal spending for SNAP in 2011 was $78 billion, which is $241 per person, per year.

Fifth claim, $6.96 for welfare. According to the below pie chart, 10% ($390 billion) is spent on welfare, which equals $1209 per person, per year.

Sixth claim, $43.78 for government pensions. From the chart below, that amount is $969.7 billion, which is $3007 per person, per year.

Seventh claim, $235.81 for Medicare. Planned spending for 2015 is $530 billion, which equals
$1645 per person.

For the eighth claim, it's difficult to know what is being measured. I presume it is tax breaks for corporations. We need to note that every tax dollar paid by corporations filter down to the end user, you and I. Taxes are simply another expense included in the price of the products and services you and I purchase. All taxes are paid by people. Nothing is or can be paid by corporations.

One final note. The total planned spending for 2015 is $3.901 trillion. That is $12,100 per person, per year. If the point of the post was to point out how cheap government is and how evil corporations are, well, we can see that this is just not the case.

-----------------------------

GDP: $18,219.4 bln GO: $32,178.5 bln	United States Federal State and Local Government Spending	US CA > Pop: 322.4 million
-5yr -1yr   Fiscal Year 2015 in $ billion   +1yr +4yr

View: people old default radical census programsaltprog COFOG				Fed	Gov. Xfer	State	Local	Total
[+]	Pensions			969.7	0.0	221.2	47.1	1,238.0
[+]	Health Care			1,044.5	-358.1	499.5	146.4	1,332.4
[+]	Education			130.7	-69.3	301.0	692.7	1,055.1
[+]	Defense			839.9	0.0	0.7	-0.1	840.6
[+]	Welfare			385.8	-113.2	142.8	80.5	495.9
[+]	Protection			34.1	-5.1	70.2	165.4	264.6
[+]	Transportation			97.8	-67.0	127.2	162.2	320.2
[+]	General Government			49.7	-4.1	52.9	71.3	169.7
[+]	Other Spending			97.0	-16.3	70.6	326.7	478.1
[+]	Interest			251.9	0.0	50.7	66.9	369.4
[+]	Balance			0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
[+]	Total Spending:  Start chart			3,901.0	-633.1	1,536.8	1,759.1	6,563.8
[+]	Federal Deficit			563.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	563.6
[+]	Gross Public Debt			18,713.5	0.0	1,227.7	1,956.2	21,897.3