Politapocalypse (U.S. Politics Megathread)

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1021 - 1040 of total 2595 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

John M

climber

Jan 12, 2016 - 10:34am PT

oops.. looked at the pie chart again..

veterans benefits = 160 billion
servicing the debt = 230 billion

160 + 230 = 390 billion dollars. And thats if you never want to pay down the debt.

So I guess under Escopeto's budget plan, we can't afford any military. Or I suppose we could renege on paying the benefits, but I imagine china would have something to say if we didn't pay the debt. So sorry all you americans. We have to close the military. And you chumps with no legs.. cause you served your country, well, screw you too I guess. Welcome to Escopeto land.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jan 12, 2016 - 10:38am PT

It appears I've struck a nerve with John M.

The phrase "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" comes to mind.

EDIT: WS quote is in no way intended to be a commentary on the gender, or lack thereof, of the intended party.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Topic Author's Reply - Jan 12, 2016 - 10:39am PT

You're right. "If you don't agree with me based on a pie chart you probably shouldn't have children" is something only the humblest of men makes.

Lest we bore people to death, here is the SOTU as a Wes Anderson film:

[Click to View YouTube Video]

John M

climber

Jan 12, 2016 - 10:43am PT

no nerve struck here. Just simple math.

so what would you spend 330 billion dollars on? or what do you think the federal budget should be? since you say 90 percent is just wealth redistribution. Or do facts and numbers mean nothing to you?

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jan 12, 2016 - 10:54am PT

If we spent only what was needed for national defense as opposed to spending it on global intervention, domestic spying and foreign entanglements with no clear objective, that $330 B would look like an extravagance also.

Maybe we could start there?

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jan 12, 2016 - 10:58am PT

Let's try this. What part of your pie do you think is "collective infrastructure" expenditure and not wealth re-distribution. Realizing that the terminology is a very loose definition.

I'd give that one a go, even though I largely agree with Escopeta's viewpoints. To me, "collective infrastructure" consists of what economists would call "public goods." A public good is one for which there is no pracitcal ability to exclude, and therefore no market demand. Public protection, including defense, police and fire protection, most roads, etc., are examples. So, in its way, are regulations that give us cleaner air and water, or otherwise provide an external benefit or reduce an external cost.

Looking at HDDJ's pie chart, which is consistent with the numbers I've seen, it is readily apparent that more than half is income redistribution. I don't find that necessarily theft, however. There is also the economic concept of a "merit good," meaning a good or service to which the society in general believes every member is entitled to a certain minimum amount. For example, I think a hugely overwhelming majority of Americans believe that no one should lack at least a minimal amount of food, clothing or shelter, even if they cannot pay for it.

In addition, a society where every member receives at least some amount of education (as opposed to the indoctrination gulags we seen at times) is better off than one that produces those who want an education, but can't afford one. This, too, is both a merit good and a public good, because we cannot exclude those who don't pay from the benefits of a properly educated society.

That said, the problem with budgetary pie charts is that they only show the total expenditures, not who pays for them. Because of the unequal tax rates, a small percentage of California taxpayers provide a huge share of its overall budget. While the U.S. tax burden isn't quite so skewed, it still accomplishes a substantially redistributive result that the budget pie cannot measure.

I guess in the end, I can only conclude that the budget pie could be completely appropriate. I personally don't find it all that far out of whack, although as a conservative, I would only approve the use of "subsidy" in a sentence of approval if that sentence also includes "eliminate." The problem may not be how we spend our money so much as how we collect it.

And, as HDDJ reports, the reality is that the misState of the Union is at 6:00 p.m. PST. (After we bailed out New York in the mid-1970's I refuse to use Eastern time.)

;>)

John

Norton

Social climber

Jan 12, 2016 - 10:59am PT

Maybe we could start there?

and which political party would be more conducive to agreeing with your idea?

then why do you vote for the other one?

John M

climber

Jan 12, 2016 - 11:03am PT

I do fully agree that we need to reduce our military and how we use it.

What do you think that we should be spending on a military? You are the one who threw out the first number. So get serious. How much would you spend on a military?

On wiki you find different amounts for different countries. The next highest is China at supposedly 220 billion. Would that amount be appropriate to you, or less? Just asking because I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. I fully agree that we need to reduce our military.

I suppose that I'm asking because you threw out the 10 percent 90 percent number and since we have a current budget of 3.3 trillion dollars. That leaves just 330 billion to spend if that is your true number. So lets start with.. is 330 billion dollars you real total budget for America?

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jan 12, 2016 - 11:04am PT

Norton, was your question intended for me? If so I'm not sure I understood it.

John M

climber

Jan 12, 2016 - 11:10am PT

JohnE, I have a real problem with how you think. I don't know how to exactly explain my position, so will have to think about it some more, But as an example, and this isn't well thought out, I have a real problem with your notion that wealth distribution is the wealthy pay for more then their fair share. Especially based on the biblical notion that to whom much is given, much is required. But also on the understanding that the wealthy have more to protect, so benefit more by protection. And benefit more by roads which service their businesses.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Topic Author's Reply - Jan 12, 2016 - 11:13am PT

John posted

While the U.S. tax burden isn't quite so skewed, it still accomplishes a substantially redistributive result that the budget pie cannot measure.

It's not quite so skewed because Republicans have successfully pushed more of the tax burden onto the middle class who have, in turn, leveraged regressive taxes and fees on the lower class.

The assumption here is always that compensation is appropriately distributed to begin with. Capitalism is redistributive to the point where millions of people are unable to meet basic daily needs. Where it not for this flaw, free market capitalism would be a perfect system. It isn't, which John thankfully is human enough to acknowledge.

Larry Nelson

Social climber

Jan 12, 2016 - 11:38am PT

I loved the scene in the movie "Cinderella Man", where Braddock makes some prize money on his boxing comeback, returns to the welfare office and pays them back what he previously received.
It was shameful to be on welfare in those days.

Our popular culture has murdered shame and gratitude.

Ask not, what your country can do for you... oh, never mind.

Escopeta

Trad climber

Idaho

Jan 12, 2016 - 12:15pm PT

The common argument here is that the absence of a government program somehow leaves nothing in place of it.

But the absence of over-burdening regulations, a coercive government and wealth re-distribution is not nothing. Its thriving free individuals, a growing economy without the burdens of over-taxation and crony capitalism. Its people helping each other by forming communities for common purpose.

How delusional do you have to be to look at the robust system that is the United States and see nothing beyond what the government provides?

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Topic Author's Reply - Jan 12, 2016 - 12:17pm PT

And I loved how in that other movie when everyone was well fed, safe, content and got their dream job. Sorry, Larry, but that's just more propaganda. Most welfare recipients still do not want to be on welfare.

John M

climber

Jan 12, 2016 - 12:19pm PT

Its people helping each other by forming communities for common purpose.

we the people.. thats government. right or wrong.. thats what it is. Can it be overbearing? for certain. Can it get out of balance? For certain.. but its delusional to think that replacing it with..

"Its people helping each other by forming communities for common purpose"

is anything different.