| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Muso wrote: |
Here you go.
What you should try to understand is, defense is constitutionally mandated while none of the entitlements are. So you have a federal budget that has ballooned into a monstrosity of, essentially, unconstitutionally mandated spending. The interest payments on the debt, because of those programs, will be taking more out of the pocket of the taxpayer than defense unless these programs are honestly fixed... no more demagoguing the issue by the unions and the left. They either get drastically altered or the nation ends. |
The chart needs to indicate a date otherwise it's meaningless.
As to the other point, there are a couple of issues. Defense may be constitutionally mandated, but how much of the military budget is actually spent on defense? I wouldn't call American troops idling in Germany and other friendly countries as defending the country. The other thing is that the constitution does not say how much must be spent on defense, so there's nothing wrong with debating whether it should be reduced or not. Having too high a military budget could also be detrimental to other parts of the constitution.
You simply side-tracked the whole issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's no sidetrack when well over 50% of the budget is spent on unconstitutional entitlements. You can moan about the defense budget all you want, but it's small compared to entitlements... and, unlike entitlements, it's a legitimate, constitutional role of the federal government.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pitcrawler
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 150
Location: Oklahoma, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Muso wrote: | | There's no sidetrack when well over 50% of the budget is spent on unconstitutional entitlements. You can moan about the defense budget all you want, but it's small compared to entitlements... and, unlike entitlements, it's a legitimate, constitutional role of the federal government. |
So you wouldn't reduce the military budget by even a penny? It's ideological sticking points like this that caused the debt to be so high in the first place. Any president with guts would look at all opportunities to reduce spending. You have to admit that defense is a really big chunk of it, and that there's a lot of waste. You didn't answer any of my points about waste and the constitution not saying how much must be spent on defense.
Last edited by pitcrawler on Tue May 01, 2012 6:23 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More thorough estimates put foreign policy spending at about $1 trillion annually. It's a major component of overspending. I agree with pitcrawler; saying defense is constitutional is no answer.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | Muso wrote: | | There's no sidetrack when well over 50% of the budget is spent on unconstitutional entitlements. You can moan about the defense budget all you want, but it's small compared to entitlements... and, unlike entitlements, it's a legitimate, constitutional role of the federal government. |
So you wouldn't reduce the military budget by even a penny? |
Did I say that?
My point is that when looking for cuts in the federal budget, the most obvious starting place would be the overwhelming portion of spending that is not constitutionally mandated.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pitcrawler wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | pitcrawler wrote: | | The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry. |
Could you point us to a breakdown of that estimate, or some analysis or data that supports that claim?
Are we to believe, based on this whining, that the ethanol industry is not even more heavily subsidized, proportionally speaking? What about the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which is a tax credit of 45 cents per gallon of ethanol? That's a lot of money, when you consider the billions of gallons involved. |
Here (Lists all sources) It shows a long list of subsidies for both the Ethanol industry and the oil industry.
| BoneKracker wrote: | | There is a reason governments subsidize energy production; it is the cornerstone of all economic activity. They don't mention that petroleum consumption is heavily, and increasingly, taxed. An additional 18 cents per gallon tax on petroleum was just approved to partially fund the latest highways bill. |
Governments subsidize energy production with what? Tax money. You seem to be trying to be separating government money and tax money. It's the same thing. Why should it be subsidized at all? Do you not believe in a free market economy? Why tax an industry then give the tax money back to the industry? Does this mean I can open a store, charge tax on what I sell then get the government to give me that tax money back?
To me, if you're happy with oil industry subsidies, you're happy with the national debt. |
Perhaps I wasn't clear. All I'm saying is that the ethanol industry advocates have no right to bitch about petroleum subsidies, because ethanol is even more heavily subsidized. I wasn't trying to differentiate "tax money" and "government money"; I was pointing out cherry picking in their analysis. Free market principles are healthy defaults, but there are some reforms necessary to protect national economies (unless one believes either in global anarchy or global socialism).
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
juniper
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 756
Location: EU
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Muso wrote: |
Spending is the problem. It doesn't matter how much tax they collect when it gets pissed away on stupidity like giving guns to Mexican drug cartels, lavish Las Vegas conventions with mind readers and commemorative coins, billions dumped into failing companies like Solyndra, bailing out union thugs, taking over GM, numerous vacations on the tax payer dime, having the SecDef fly home to California every single weekend with a military entourage, etc etc etc |
don´t forget the military. it´s the fat kid at the teat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gas prices at a new low, bin Laden dead, GM saved. All while Mittens tried to call off the hunt on bin Laden and wanted to kill off GM instead. This is going to be one "exciting" election  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| juniper wrote: | | Muso wrote: |
Spending is the problem. It doesn't matter how much tax they collect when it gets pissed away on stupidity like giving guns to Mexican drug cartels, lavish Las Vegas conventions with mind readers and commemorative coins, billions dumped into failing companies like Solyndra, bailing out union thugs, taking over GM, numerous vacations on the tax payer dime, having the SecDef fly home to California every single weekend with a military entourage, etc etc etc |
don´t forget the military. it´s the fat kid at the teat. |
You can argue the philosophy or morality of military spending versus other types, but the truth is that it is entitlement programs (i.e., wealth redistribution), that is the "fat kid at the teat".
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | Gas prices at a new low, bin Laden dead, GM saved. All while Mittens tried to call off the hunt on bin Laden and wanted to kill off GM instead. This is going to be one "exciting" election |
Gas prices are not at a new low. Bin Laden is dead thanks to the CIA, the U.S. Military, and thanks to Bush's interrogation policies (for which many Democrats called him a 'war criminal'). GM was saved by bankruptcy and debt restructuring (something Obama resisted, and which Republicans insisted upon), not by the billions poured into it by Obama on taxpayers' backs to save fat union benefits.
If you guys thnk Obama can run on his record, you are barking up the wrong tree. He's been an unmitigated failure. Worst President since Jimmy Carter. You should be whipping out red herrings (like the "Repubican War on Women"), killing more bin Ladens (Kony is next, because of all the Internet fapping, even though he's no threat), spreading fear ("three-toothed redneck tea baggers be coming to get you"), releasing carefully faked unemployment data, and producing documentaries about how Mormons eat babies and that re-write history to create the impression Obama kept his promises and doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
