On that topic this last week I had a great discussion with a government insider. There is this disease of the mind among government folk, they think that all that needs to be done is spend money on a problem and said problem is solved. They tend to be managers, politicians etc. For example I was involved in a project that was trying to make a new kind of solar cell. The funding managers we dealt with tended to think linearly in terms of X dollars spent = Y amount of new technology (milestones hit), they can't seem to grasp the highly nonlinear nature of progress. If the real world really worked the way bureaucrats thought, economics would be simple. All that we would have to do is spend enough gov't money on anything and get our desired planned results including material well being. basically communism Liberals have this same disease. However notice they never enough money. A thinking person might conclude that you can't throw money at people and plan all results, such as in education. A liberal however is a person who will not accept that reality.
Mav88 = smart any views different than Mav88 = dumb most logical pragmatic intelligent man = Mav88 Thank you Mav88, thank you
hehe get ready to pay the "carbon taxes" scam at home...meanwhile... Maybe now you realise the world's most profitable business is...is....WAR. Hands down, the best. May 12, 2008 | The nation's biggest polluter isn't a corporation. It's the Pentagon. Every year the Department of Defense churns out more than 750,000 tons of hazardous waste -- more than the top three chemical companies combined. http://www.alternet.org/health/85186?page=entire
I read all the posts in this thread. I am trying to be objective when I say that arguments supporting the position that the U.S. is over spending on the military are the more convincing. Many of the arguments for current spending seem to me to be based on incorrect premises. For example the idea that defense spending buys freedom appears to be false. I have traveled widely, and it is clear that personal freedom and freedom from government intrusion into private lives is greater in many other countries than it is in the U.S. How can this be if defense spending buys freedom? The arguments in favor of defense spending for the purpose of job creation seem illogical, because they ignore the value of what is produced by those jobs. If one wants to create jobs, wouldn't it make more sense to create productive rather than destructive jobs? The arguments in favor of defense spending to protect against invasion or attack are not convincing. Since the end of the second world war, if there is any correlation at all between military spending and a countries chance of being attacked, invaded or becoming involved in war, it would seem to be a positive rather than negative correlation! But it seems to me that there is not a strong correlation either way. The reality of the 21st century may be quite different from that of the 19th century. Could it be that the thinking of U.S. politicians is outmoded? Are national armies effective against the kinds of threats facing modern nations in the 21st century, or is there a better approach? Perhaps the only reason the U.S. spends far more than other nations on its military is because the self-serving arguments of the military industrial complex have been too easily accepted as correct? Perhaps there is a conflict of interest here that needs to be addressed.
Typical uninformed response. Keep in mind that most social spending is paid for by a tax. Medicare and social Security have run a combined surplus of ~3T dollars so far. So, none of the 13T debt is due to these two social programs. Defense spending is the largest form of corporate welfare in history. Around 80% of defense contracts are overbudget, but defense contractors report record earnings. Does that make sense? The gov't uses debt to backstop the defense contractors so they are guaranteed profits regardless of how badly their contracts overrun. To be technical, FY 2009 total spending was estimated at 3.6T. Out of this ~1.2T was on medicare and Social security. But, since these are covered by a tax and these programs have run surpluses, the unfunded part of the spending was ~ 2.4T. Defense spending was estimated at ~ 780B. So, defense spending was ~ 32.5% of unfunded spending. This means defense spending was responsible for about 1/3 of the deficit. With the deficit at ~1.5T, defense spending was responsible for $500B of the deficit. The last budget under Clinton had defense spending at 300B. So, it should be no surprise that all of the $500B increase in annual defense spending has been paid for by debt.
well that could be another discussion, but I think you ae seeing what you want to here. My own point, and not to speak for others, is that at current levels, this would be just another typical cold war year, nothing new over the last 50 years. To sound some sort of alarm would be strange. The exploding government spending is far far greater on social welfare and other domestic programs. It is the single largest fiscal challenge faced by us. This is well documented by just about everyone. Ok, so I'm willing to go for military cuts, BUT not until these asshat liberals will start cutting their much larger and out of control social welfare schemes.
Personal income tax receipts more than cover the constitutionally mandated DoD, so none of the debt is due to defense, it's due to liberal waste on things like agriculture subsidies. Medicare is not in surplus, and how convienient to leave out SCHIP, medicaid, health and human services... typical liberal- very dishonest arguments. There's always waste when it comes to government, at least we can agree on that. Then why oh why do you lefties wan't gov't government to run evreything? At least we get tanks and planes out of the defense contractors, what do we get from the ag subsidies that pay farmers not to plant? Defense is paid out of income taxes so it is all paid for, all your other bullshit is debt. You are also incorrect to say that all defense contract are guaranteed profit, but that's typical because you are uninformed. ...this ought to be rich... You don't need to estimate, FY09 is in the books. Second I said local, state, and federal which is $6.091T and ( http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a ) the federal number is $3.51T. $1.3T... but again, leaving out medicaid, SCHIP, etc. is disingenuous. nope, ever since Obama jacked them up as part of stimulus they are in the red, even worse is the unfunded future liabilities. *sigh* ... the deficit in 2009 was $1.41T, I have no idea what you mean by 'unfunded spending', apparently you just like to make shit up. You can't just assume that everything else the government does is somehow required and not subject to acccounting, that's just retarded. Everyone else knows that bailout and stimulus were largely respoonsible for exploding deficit, but genius you can see right through that bullshit eh? why do you guys like you bother? really, this is getting old. How can you possibly be traders when simple accounting eludes you?
My accounting is perfect. I will stick by the numbers I found on government and other websites. This is focused on federal spending only since state and local govts cannot run deficits. The constitution does not mandate 800B per year on defense. If so, how did Clinton only spend 300B per year? Your argument that defense is paid for first out of tax receipts, with everything else being debt, is completely ludicrous. The taxes for social security and medicare are to pay for those programs, by law. The remaining ~2.4T is to be paid for by the remaining taxes. So since defense takes up 1/3 of the unfunded spending, it is responsible for 1/3 of the debt. The other programs you mentioned are responsible for the other ~1T in deficit spending. They are part of the unfunded part of spending too. There is no way to refute my argument that defense spending is responsible for 500B per year in deficit, give or take rounding error. So, instead of arguing, I will propose solutions. We need to decide what is absolutely needed to keep the country safe and win our present and future wars. All other defense spending on fancy projects that defend against threats we might face 20 years down the road needs to be cut. Cutting the deficit by 50% to 700B or 750B, depending on ones deficit estimate, is not enough. The deficit needs to be cut to500B. We make 1T worth of cuts as follows: Cut defense spending by 300B until the wars are won. When the wars are won, cut another 100B from defense. Cut 500B from the remaining 1.6T of unfunded spending while the wars are fought. Once the wars are won, reduce this cut to 400B. Cut social security and medicare by 200B. Although these programs have run surpluses, they have to feel the pain, too. Deep cuts like these are the only way to save this country in my opinion. Obviously, it is doubtful they will happen. Congress had no problem increasing spending from 1.9T in the last budget under Clinton, to 3.1T in the last budget under Bush, to 3.8T in the last budget under Obama. Cutting spending on the other hand...
Ha ha ha ha ha. I don't think they are traders. Just liberal hacks who stop by to get a pounding with facts and logic.