Give that man a cigar, err, a tub of Metabolic Drive!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
A military is one of the few things we are actually SUPPOSED to be spending lots of money on. That is an expenditure I have no problem with. It’s the rest of all these bullshit socialist welfare programs that are a destructive waste of money we do not have.
Destructive? Are you flippin’ serious?
You actually think that footing the bill for a sick elderly or better schooling environment for needy American kids is more “destructive” than raining down bombs and bullets on broke countries?
I think I just entered the Twilight Zone.[/quote]
The government has no business ‘schooling’ children (http://www.schoolandstate.org/case.htm). Public schools are a disaster-- please give me my voucher so I can educate my kids how I want.
Welfare is welfare and is destructive. After 60+ years of large scale institutional welfare and 40+ years of “The Great Society” there are generations of families who have known nothing except collecting welfare and are truly subjects of the State.
A strong national defense is money well spent. I used to think the government should build roads, too, but after consulting for State and Federal DOT’s, I’m not so sure I believe that anymore.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
A military is one of the few things we are actually SUPPOSED to be spending lots of money on. That is an expenditure I have no problem with. It’s the rest of all these bullshit socialist welfare programs that are a destructive waste of money we do not have.
Destructive? Are you flippin’ serious?
You actually think that footing the bill for a sick elderly or better schooling environment for needy American kids is more “destructive” than raining down bombs and bullets on broke countries?
I think I just entered the Twilight Zone.[/quote]
There is absolutely no need for social welfare. I wish you would enter a a zone - a live fire zone.
The more “broke countries” we destroy, the less lixys there will be on the face of the planet.
Hopefully that would take care of both the incessant screeching noise, and the global pedophilia epidemic.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
The government has no business ‘schooling’ children (http://www.schoolandstate.org/case.htm). Public schools are a disaster-- please give me my voucher so I can educate my kids how I want.
Welfare is welfare and is destructive. After 60+ years of large scale institutional welfare and 40+ years of “The Great Society” there are generations of families who have known nothing except collecting welfare and are truly subjects of the State.
A strong national defense is money well spent. I used to think the government should build roads, too, but after consulting for State and Federal DOT’s, I’m not so sure I believe that anymore.
[/quote]
Look, I’m very much in favor of small government and all that, but between my money being used for welfare or warfare, the choice is quickly made in my mind.
You speak of a “strong national defense” and it seems like a reasonable thing to do. Trouble is that I don’t see much “defense” in the way the US military behaves. I see money spent to start wars of aggression under the guise of preemption. I see emboldening imperialistic endeavors such as that of Georgia, Morocco and the rest. I see meddling with the business of sovereign states the world over. On top of that, I hear inflammatory rhetoric.
Defense doesn’t mean what you think it means.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Look, I’m very much in favor of small government and all that, but between my money being used for welfare or warfare, the choice is quickly made in my mind.[/quote]
You are for any government that isn’t the US.
[quote]You speak of a “strong national defense” and it seems like a reasonable thing to do. Trouble is that I don’t see much “defense” in the way the US military behaves. I see money spent to start wars of aggression under the guise of preemption. I see emboldening imperialistic endeavors such as that of Georgia, Morocco and the rest. I see meddling with the business of sovereign states the world over. On top of that, I hear inflammatory rhetoric.
Defense doesn’t mean what you think it means.[/quote]
Who cares what you see? Do you pay any taxes here? Have the right to vote here? Until you can answer yes two the last two questions, you are the living definition of inflammatory rhetoric. It’s really all you are, regardless.
Actually, Lixy, I quite understand what ‘Strong National Defense’ means. You’ve never read anywhere where I’ve typed that I support aggression from any nation. I don’t know that the US ever invaded Georgia (unless we’re talking Civil War and Georgia, USA).
I’m the first in line to pull the US out of the U.N., then no one has to worry about the US meddling in UN (ie useless global endeavors). Of course, that means the UN would crumble because UN = World Welfare/World Police largely at the expense of US taxpayers, but I digress.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Ahmadinejad doesn’t evenly remotely get it.
His country is fucked. High unemployment, high inflation and a stagnant economy. Hardly one to give advice.
His blustering is going to get his country attacked by the great Satan. If we don’t sack up and do it then the little Satan will do it. Either way he is screwed and if he retaliates then either of the Satan’s will anhiliate them…even if that metro Obama is elected.
He get’s it wrong almost every time.
[/quote]
The little rat looking bastard is just a puppet of the mullahs. How nice would it be to whipe that big grin off his face?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But nice to see your true colors come out. Perhaps you should change your name to Lixy Jr. [/quote]
I was here first dumbass.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A military is one of the few things we are actually SUPPOSED to be spending lots of money on.[/quote]
Yes, but spending more that you have is still not a sound economic idea.
DoD could spend 100% of our stolen paycheck to fund the military but spending more than that is inflationary.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
A military is one of the few things we are actually SUPPOSED to be spending lots of money on.
Yes, but spending more that you have is still not a sound economic idea.
DoD could spend 100% of our stolen paycheck to fund the military but spending more than that is inflationary.[/quote]
Who says we are spending more than we have on Defense? I would make the argument hat we are spending tons more on social programs, and that is what is causing the debt. Get rid of the social bullshit, and we have a nice budgetary surplus.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
<<< He speaks of nothing but the military. Our military is not the problem. In fact, it is the only thing we are spending real money on that is constitutional. >>>
Why oh why cannot more people understand this simple point.
A military is one of the few things we are actually SUPPOSED to be spending lots of money on. That is an expenditure I have no problem with. It’s the rest of all these bullshit socialist welfare programs that are a destructive waste of money we do not have.
Here’s the part where somebody jumps in and says “yeah but we spend a lot more on defense than we do on those things” which misses the point altogether.[/quote]
Dude, The military spending isn’t what he is talking about. It’s using the military to bomb a bridge in Iraq, and then using our Taxpayers money to rebuild it. The occupation is what is hurting us. If we just went in, whipped some ass and then got the hell out of there, it would have been a good thing.
Now some people will say, oh but if you just left, another regime, would have taken power in the turmoil and we would have had a worse dictator in there. Ok how long would that have taken? one year? So after one year we go back in, bomb the fuck out of the new asshole and leave again. If someone want’s to try it a third time, so be it. At the worst, we would have had 3 six month military engagements, A lot less loss of life and probably a better reputation as not being an “occupier”. If we did this, the fed wouldn’t have had to PRINT 2 trillion dollars to pay for the current clusterfuck, and my dollar would be worth more, as would every other americans. I could still go to Canadia, and get drunk for a lot less than I can here.
V
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
A military is one of the few things we are actually SUPPOSED to be spending lots of money on.
Yes, but spending more that you have is still not a sound economic idea.
DoD could spend 100% of our stolen paycheck to fund the military but spending more than that is inflationary.
Who says we are spending more than we have on Defense? I would make the argument hat we are spending tons more on social programs, and that is what is causing the debt. Get rid of the social bullshit, and we have a nice budgetary surplus. [/quote]
People I used to work with, my next door neighbor and all his college friends. Customers who’s computers I fix.
I haven’t checked lately, but I suppose if you took single entities like HUD and matched it with the department of defense you could say military spending is more. However when you compare all social spending there’s no way.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is Ahmadinejad’s statement less true because he lacks credentials as an economist?
What is untrue about the statement despite the accusations one can make about him?
Don’t try and deflect this one. You said he gets it. Explain to us how military expenditures take down the largest financial institutions in the country. You seemed so confident that this was indeed the case. Let’s hear your reasoning. Something about bombs and home mortgages.
Or just admit that you hadn’t really thought it through and we will all move on.[/quote]
Still a lot of deflection and subject changing. Still don’t want to take a stab at this?
"The $477.6 billion Pentagon budget reflects a $17.3 billion increase over this fiscal year�??a top priority for Republicans. But on the home front, the same measure goes well beyond the administration�??s requests, adding tens of billions of dollars in emergency funds to cover recent disasters and increasing funding for education, energy assistance and food programs important to the poor.
The annual appropriations for Pell Grants for low-income college students would be increased by $2.5 billion. Home energy assistance is effectively doubled to $5.1 billion, a $2.5 billion increase, and $1 billion is added for the WIC program targeted to pregnant women and their infants.
The Big Three auto companies would also benefit from $7.5 billion in funds to cover the subsidy costs for $25 billion in loans to the industry�??squeezed by the same credit crunch that is driving Paulson�??s own plan."
A good comparison of the military budget compared to just a few small social programs.
We are spending money we shouldn’t everywhere. To me the first step is to cut the spending that is not consitutional. Say what you will about the money spent in Iraq but there is little we can do about it now. Let’s not make the same mistake (if it was one, time will tell) and move on to things we can actually improve. When I say we, I mean the crooks we elect. When I say actually I mean not a chance in hell, but you get the point.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
<<< and probably a better reputation as not being an “occupier”.
[/quote]
OK, I’m gonna hijack the hell outta this thread.
How pervasive and strong do you think the perception of a US occupation in Iraq is? Seriously, what do people think?
Federal spending breakdown (FY2006):
http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-07tax2.htm
Federal spending breakdown (FY2007):
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-08tax.htm
2008 Budget breakdown:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Fy2008spendingbycategory.png
Note, military spending is consistently about sub-1/5 spending, while social and entitlement programs collectively take up much larger proportions.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
"The $477.6 billion Pentagon budget reflects a $17.3 billion increase over this fiscal year�??a top priority for Republicans. But on the home front, the same measure goes well beyond the administration�??s requests, adding tens of billions of dollars in emergency funds to cover recent disasters and increasing funding for education, energy assistance and food programs important to the poor.
The annual appropriations for Pell Grants for low-income college students would be increased by $2.5 billion. Home energy assistance is effectively doubled to $5.1 billion, a $2.5 billion increase, and $1 billion is added for the WIC program targeted to pregnant women and their infants.
The Big Three auto companies would also benefit from $7.5 billion in funds to cover the subsidy costs for $25 billion in loans to the industry�??squeezed by the same credit crunch that is driving Paulson�??s own plan."
A good comparison of the military budget compared to just a few small social programs.
We are spending money we shouldn’t everywhere. To me the first step is to cut the spending that is not consitutional. Say what you will about the money spent in Iraq but there is little we can do about it now. Let’s not make the same mistake (if it was one, time will tell) and move on to things we can actually improve. When I say we, I mean the crooks we elect. When I say actually I mean not a chance in hell, but you get the point.
[/quote]
I agree that we should cut all unconstitutional spending. But that includes Iraq, no need to keep it out of the pie. I love a big strong military too, but lets only use it when we have to and not treat it like a new toy we want to play with all the time.
V
since we’ve moved away from the original topic and are now talking about spending:
Pork
2007 13.2M
2008 17.8M - this is after all the attention and grandstanding on pork.
2007 spending and increas from last year.
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans’ benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
Most of the Iraq war is funded with supplimentals. Through 2007 this was $115B.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Vegita wrote:
<<< and probably a better reputation as not being an “occupier”.
OK, I’m gonna hijack the hell outta this thread.
How pervasive and strong do you think the perception of a US occupation in Iraq is? Seriously, what do people think?[/quote]
Right now, based on no facts whatsoever, just my perception. BTW my perception is arrived at be reading news articles and listening to commentary from non MSM sources. I use the internet and internet radio to stay current. I would say that the rest of the world views Americans as they always have, as arrogant, big dumb americans. Only now they think we have a screw loose and think we have no problem attacking whoever we want and occupying thier country. In the muslim world, it’s even worse. They think we are straight up EVIL. Again, I’m thinking about the masses here, not the highly educated ones who end up leaving thier respective countries anyways.
Also I am pretty sure “how the world sees us” will always be an objective question, so don’t go asking for facts or figures, they don’t exist. (aside from polls, which are about as close to worthless as anything can be)
V
What’s telling is that everything in increasing. There is no area that any cuts have been made.