ext_36450 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
underlankers.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2011-02-28 12:17 pm
underlankers.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2011-02-28 12:17 pm
A few sincere questions about the budget crisis:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451268
One interesting bit of political chicanery is the phenomenon whereby the states that condemn loudest the mere idea of the welfare state as an atrocity against all law and order, and as a type of Communism (whereby instead of a totalitarian party-state idea they seem to mistake it for Dr. Doom's Latveria with elements of Mordor) themselves take more out of the government than they pay into it. My first question is why these people expect the Federals to keep doing this? My second is what good is it if the Federal government keeps subsidizing people who give great lip service to the ideas of Ayn Rand, but like Rand herself depend on the Federal dole to keep themselves functional?
My second point is here: http://moneyning.com/money-news/federal-budget-breakdown-2011/
Defense, Social Security, and Medicare respectively are the big three of Federal spending, as shown by actual data. If people are truly sincere about cutting the budget, wouldn't one of the first and most obvious moves be to retool the military for a post-Cold War geopolitical sphere where soft power is more advantageous than hard power? Given the huge degree of pork spending in the Defense System, and the extent to which it serves to keep Senators and Representatives in the Congress until they're 100, why not start eliminating all *this* pork? It hardly meets the needs of a 2010s military, and didn't really meet the needs of the 1980s one very well. Too, a lot of military investment is toward weapons that break if you look at them cross-eyed, meaning millions of dollars, frankly, go to something that does not half of what it's supposed to do. Is it also not sensible to eliminate useless things like this?
Too, both Social Security and Medicare were designed for the lower-population and higher mortality rate of the 1930s, when most people, to put it bluntly, did not live to be 80. These days the Baby Boomers are getting older, but are going to be supported on a system drawn up in the 1930s. Wouldn't the most sensible ideas about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid be to retool them to a 21st Century society that is much more populated and older, as opposed to the one of FDR's day?
In my view, so long as these big 3 are ignored any and all talk of "fiscal conservatism" is so much humbug designed to hoodwink the voters. To retool and cut from these services is not a magic bullet, and there's other cuts that will have to be made. But how is it remotely possible to believe a budget can be balanced when these three are considered sacred cows that must not be harmed lest Ahura Market have to face the challenge of Angra Gubment?
One interesting bit of political chicanery is the phenomenon whereby the states that condemn loudest the mere idea of the welfare state as an atrocity against all law and order, and as a type of Communism (whereby instead of a totalitarian party-state idea they seem to mistake it for Dr. Doom's Latveria with elements of Mordor) themselves take more out of the government than they pay into it. My first question is why these people expect the Federals to keep doing this? My second is what good is it if the Federal government keeps subsidizing people who give great lip service to the ideas of Ayn Rand, but like Rand herself depend on the Federal dole to keep themselves functional?
My second point is here: http://moneyning.com/money-news/federal-budget-breakdown-2011/
Defense, Social Security, and Medicare respectively are the big three of Federal spending, as shown by actual data. If people are truly sincere about cutting the budget, wouldn't one of the first and most obvious moves be to retool the military for a post-Cold War geopolitical sphere where soft power is more advantageous than hard power? Given the huge degree of pork spending in the Defense System, and the extent to which it serves to keep Senators and Representatives in the Congress until they're 100, why not start eliminating all *this* pork? It hardly meets the needs of a 2010s military, and didn't really meet the needs of the 1980s one very well. Too, a lot of military investment is toward weapons that break if you look at them cross-eyed, meaning millions of dollars, frankly, go to something that does not half of what it's supposed to do. Is it also not sensible to eliminate useless things like this?
Too, both Social Security and Medicare were designed for the lower-population and higher mortality rate of the 1930s, when most people, to put it bluntly, did not live to be 80. These days the Baby Boomers are getting older, but are going to be supported on a system drawn up in the 1930s. Wouldn't the most sensible ideas about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid be to retool them to a 21st Century society that is much more populated and older, as opposed to the one of FDR's day?
In my view, so long as these big 3 are ignored any and all talk of "fiscal conservatism" is so much humbug designed to hoodwink the voters. To retool and cut from these services is not a magic bullet, and there's other cuts that will have to be made. But how is it remotely possible to believe a budget can be balanced when these three are considered sacred cows that must not be harmed lest Ahura Market have to face the challenge of Angra Gubment?
Check out the Actual Data!
Source: 2010 IRS i1040ez
1. Social security, Medicare, and other retirement: These programs provide income support for the retired and disabled and medical care for the elderly.
2. National defense, veterans, and foreign affairs: About 22% of outlays were to equip, modernize, and pay our armed forces and to fund national defense activities;
about 3% were for veterans benefits and services; and about 1% were for international activities, including military and economic assistance to foreign countries and the maintenance of U.S. embassies abroad.
3. Physical, human, and community development: These outlays were for agriculture; natural resources; environment; transportation; aid for elementary and secondary
education and direct assistance to college students; job training; deposit insurance, commerce and housing credit, and community development; and space, energy, and general science programs.
4. Social programs: About 13% of total outlays were for Medicaid, food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, supplemental security income, and related programs; and the remaining outlays were for health research and public health programs, unemployment compensation, assisted housing, and social services.
Note. The percentages on this page exclude undistributed offsetting receipts, which were $93 billion in fiscal year 2009. In the budget, these receipts are offset against spending in figuring the outlay totals shown above. These receipts are for the U.S. Government’s share of its employee retirement programs, rents and
royalties on the Outer Continental Shelf, and proceeds from the sale of assets.
Re: Check out the Actual Data!
If I tried to run my life that way, I'd be bankrupt pretty quickly.
did someone say "pie charts"??!!!
Re: did someone say "pie charts"??!!!
Re: did someone say "pie charts"??!!!
Re: did someone say "pie charts"??!!!
Re: did someone say "pie charts"??!!!
Look the data is right there at the link. It's admittedly a very partisan source, I was just trying to show that much of what is counted as military spending is a bit of a judgement call and that simply throwing out "22%" may leave out a lot of things that the typical person would assume was being included.
Re: did someone say "pie charts"??!!!
Your chart offers them, and at a premium as well. Even if we accept their numbers, they're still pretty way off.
Look the data is right there at the link. It's admittedly a very partisan source, I was just trying to show that much of what is counted as military spending is a bit of a judgement call and that simply throwing out "22%" may leave out a lot of things that the typical person would assume was being included.
Yeah, I've seen this before. Take a look at the budgets, though - the numbers don't come close to what these lunatics come up with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
Re: did someone say "pie charts"??!!!
Re: Check out the Actual Data!
Re: Check out the Actual Data!
Are you really so clueless about what a free market is?
Let me clue you in on something. Our so called "free market" is every bit as much of a free market as the German Democratic Republic (AKA East Germany) was a Democratic Republic".
The Health Care system in the US hasn't even come close to resembling a free market since at least 1950
Re: Check out the Actual Data!
Ha!
Re: Check out the Actual Data!