Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Taxes and budget (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Taxes and budget
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I referred to this in another thread, but it's worth tossing out on its own line where more interested people might see it:

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5927/wallstatsdatlarge.jpg

An excellent visual breakdown of the federal budget.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do we really spend almost 70% of our budget on military stuff? That seems kind of... excessive.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We like to overlook the fact that the whole America as Pax Romana II didn;t just fall in our lap from the branches of the Tree of Liberty or something:

we been bombing the **** outta whomever we thing is making the world unsafe for democracy or Exxon for some time.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lina Inverse:
Do we really spend almost 70% of our budget on military stuff? That seems kind of... excessive.

70% of the discretionary budget, yes. The whole budget is much larger, per the lower right, but military is, by far, the biggest chunk.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When one considers the meaning of 'discretionary', this 70% is more not less frightening.

'Yo! We paid the rent! Now let's go kick some ass!'

I'll be glad when aMERICA MOVES FROM RAMPANT ADOLESCENCE AND INTO TRUE YOUNG MANHOOD.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The 70% is matched, nay, exceeded by NON discretionary spending on SS, Medicare, Medicaid etc. One TRILLION, 53 BILLION in Non discretionary outlays. The graphic would prefer you don't consider that, liking the punch of 70% spent in war while ignoring the 400 pound gorilla. Was that the manhood you were talking about, ken? Overspending like a 20 year old?

So you CAN change the growth of military spending. You CANNOT change the spending on the others, which exceed military spending without a knock down drag out fight, made much more difficult by the constant demonization of many of the Left and Democrats by anyone mentioning that the Emperor has no wallet.

Also ignored is the proposal to add half of the entire military budget as a "downpayment" for universal healthcare. If 10 year old girls were allowed to vote, one expects that there would be a sizable downpayment for ponies as well. So 400 BILLION dollars are missing.

[ May 02, 2009, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You CANNOT change the spending on the others, which exceed military spending without a knock down drag out fight, made much more difficult by the constant demonization of many of the Left and Democrats by anyone mentioning that the Emperor has no wallet.
Here's a long shot, but it will be awfully satisfying if it pays off. Fly, what will you say if by 2012 there is a significant reduction in future non-discretionary expenditures, and that the Obama Administration brokers the compromise that lets this happen? You're right that this has been a third rail in American politics that no President has been able to challenge. I do not think it is likely that this will happen, but I do think it is possible under this Administration in a way that it would not have been possible under previous ones.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, re: that 3rd rail, and putting aside questions of efficiency, I note that we das peeples are much less willing to let go of goodies that actually serve us than those that blow up foreigners to little good end and, too often, negative net gain (except for those constituencies whose economies heavily depend on the military-industrial complex).

We may now decry how wasteful much of this perceived goodiness is, and how it is robbery of the unwilling via taxation, and there will be much to at least some merit in these cries, but they are still (sorry, I haven't apologized for a pun in awhile so I will now to remain, perfunctorily, at least marginally decent) a far cry from discretionary wasteful spending on things that at worst, kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners and a fair # of our own, and at best produces a bloated military that scarcely addresses the real and pressing need to have a truly strong and effective national defense.

God, the harrumphing/hallelujah chorus groweth deafening at times to my puritan ears.

As for the democracy that underlies these processes, I quote our Puritan forefathers from an oatmeal box I bought on Mars:

"Nothing is better for thee than we."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the one hand, Obama may have the momentum, the mana to be able to cut back on these programs; an "Only Nixon could go to China" type thing.

However, if his addition of healthcare as another third rail is any indication, he has neither the will, desire or inclination. His 'cuts' to the budget are a sick joke, and his abuse of the fiscal crisis to pass out goodies is instructive.

So you have a talent for understatement. A very long shot indeed.

[ May 02, 2009, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as defense vs. all the other stuff...I'd like to think that Americans being alive is a higher priority than Americans being able to have medicare, seeing how the former is so important to the function of the latter. Vital even.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
As far as defense vs. all the other stuff...I'd like to think that Americans being alive is a higher priority than Americans being able to have medicare, seeing how the former is so important to the function of the latter. Vital even.

I imagine that Medicare helps save more than 5000 lives/year of people that would not have had access to care otherwise. If your metric is lives saved, Medicare wins flat out- especially when a significant portion of defense money is being sunk into war that has put more lives at rise than it has protected.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tell you what, disband the standing army and airforce. Maintain the Marines, Navy and Coast Guard. Place the National Guard fully on the front lines of defense on a per state basis.

In short go back to the norm we had post World War One.

Now exactly how long would you expect us to remain free?

Without that 900lb gorilla backing up our right to exist, there would be a lot of very powerful forces more than capable of literally enslaving us with little military effort.

If you truly think that Medicare saves more lives than the Military- You are delusional.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Without that 900lb gorilla backing up our right to exist, there would be a lot of very powerful forces more than capable of literally enslaving us with little military effort.
Who? Which forces are capable of enslaving us that aren't more dependent on our purchasing power?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Tell you what, disband the standing army and airforce. Maintain the Marines, Navy and Coast Guard. Place the National Guard fully on the front lines of defense on a per state basis.

In short go back to the norm we had post World War One.

Now exactly how long would you expect us to remain free?

Without that 900lb gorilla backing up our right to exist, there would be a lot of very powerful forces more than capable of literally enslaving us with little military effort.

If you truly think that Medicare saves more lives than the Military- You are delusional.

My claim was very specifically directed. Medicare
saves American lives, Iraq has saved none and cost many.

When our military might is well applied- especially when we hearken to Teddy Roosevelt's policy of speaking softly and carrying the big stick rather than yelling and swinging it at whoever happens to be in the way, we do well.

Right now our military is barely capable or protecting us or our interests because it is exhausted from being misused. The 900 lb gorilla loses its impressiveness after its been forced to fight for hours without any rest.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you truly think that Medicare saves more lives than the Military- You are delusional."

I suspect, Red, that an exhaustive search or Ornery archives would reveal that 99.9% of the times you called someone else delusional or deliberately obtuse or analogs thereof, you proved to be that which you alleged.

Trick with throwing stones is to aim wisely -- and avoid boomerang shapes.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This represents about 1/3 the total budget Obama proposed. Graphic is about $1.2 Trillion; proposed was about $3.55 Trillion.
Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IrishTD:
This represents about 1/3 the total budget Obama proposed. Graphic is about $1.2 Trillion; proposed was about $3.55 Trillion.

As noted- the big section is the discretionary budget, the smaller one in the lower right has the non-discretionary items on it as well.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
roper66
Member
Member # 2694

 - posted      Profile for roper66   Email roper66   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the citizen's guide to the fed's financial health. It's published by the treasury. It points out that current funding of HHS and SSA (each at nearly 20% of the budget) will be unsustainable in the near future. Medicare expenses already passed the program tax revenues last year.
Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is medicare a program designed with the intention of "saving lives"? Is that its first and foremost priority? No it is not. It certainly does achieve that along the way, but that is not the DESIGN of the program. The military defense is designed to ( you can see it right in the name there...) DEFEND us. I maintain what I said, that if the USA didn't have as its FIRST priority ( not its only priority, just the first ) to defend us, there would be less of us alive to enjoy the benefits of such things as medicare. To sum up, Medicare isn't as efficient as protecting us ( saving lives ) as the military defense is. The military defense is not as efficient as providing people with medical care as medicare is.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Iraq has saved none (lives) and cost many.
Absurdly false.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Is medicare a program designed with the intention of "saving lives"? Is that its first and foremost priority? No it is not. It certainly does achieve that along the way, but that is not the DESIGN of the program. The military defense is designed to ( you can see it right in the name there...) DEFEND us. I maintain what I said, that if the USA didn't have as its FIRST priority ( not its only priority, just the first ) to defend us, there would be less of us alive to enjoy the benefits of such things as medicare. To sum up, Medicare isn't as efficient as protecting us ( saving lives ) as the military defense is. The military defense is not as efficient as providing people with medical care as medicare is.

That's a false dichotomy, as to put it in equal terms, our military- especially as applied in non-defensive applications as it is now- is a tool of social and political policy, which incidentally can reduce risk to our lives (per Afghanistan) but also increase said risk (per Iraq)

Medicare, being a medical program, is actively designed to improve health. Saving lives is far less incidental there though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was not addressing " risk of death" or specific wars. Originally, it was posted that spending 70% of a budget on defense could be "excessive". My comment was that it makes more sense to keep the citizens alive as a first priority. Military defense is designed to do just that, so it makes sense to put more of a budgets resources into it. Medicare was not created to "save lives" directly, it was created to allow easier access to medicine and medical care. It so happens that that will save lives as well, which is great. I am not advocating less money to that program. ( at least not in this topic )

I am saying that if you were limited in money, it would make more sense to fund the military first, and things like medicare second.

How the military is applied ( Afghanistan vs. Iraq ) is a separate argument.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/comparisonofdiscretionarysavings-thumb.png
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry, but I have no clue as to what that chart is saying, other than Pres. Obama's plan looks to be spending less money.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
I'm sorry, but I have no clue as to what that chart is saying, other than Pres. Obama's plan looks to be spending less money.

Those are cuts- it's saying that Obama made smaller cuts, but the ones he made came largely out of defense, while Bush didn't cut defense at all.

It's meaningless though, because it doesn't show increases as well, or what kinds of programs those cuts represented, or even if those cuts are actually shifts in funding from one department to another.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh I see, ok thanks Pyrt.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
nothing like showing Lockheed and Haliburton how much they are not going to make this year.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
Military defense is designed to do just that, so it makes sense to put more of a budgets resources into it.

That'd make sense if the budget cared cared to make a distinction between "military defense" and "military offense". The latter is designed to kill the people of other nations, not to defend the lives of your own.

quote:
How the military is applied ( Afghanistan vs. Iraq ) is a separate argument. [/QB]
It kinda is the same argument actually, since the military and its budget may be applied for either defense or offense. And America has been mainly applying it for offense.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am really really not going to get into it with you on whether or not the military "is designed to kill the people of other nations," which, even if it were true, might be a way for our country to save lives. We've already strayed off the topic too far, which was the budget. My original point still stands, and hasn't really been addressed. It's been convoluted a bit, and used to discuss some other things, but no one has commented on the concept of what I actually posted.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The budget numbers are being revised. Of course, it's worse than Obama told us. The new estimates are for a deficit of over $1.8 trillion for fiscal 2009 and a deficit of just under $1.3 trillion in 2010 - I wonder how long that estimate is good for?

For fiscal 2009, federal spending of about 3.5 trillion will be supported 54% by collected tax revenues, and the rest by debt. Nearly half of the federal budget is supported by financed debt. That has never happened before in this country's history. How long can anyone, even a government, spend twice its income?

As we finance more and more debt and take on the sheen of a banana republic, who is going to want to keep buying? Not many, they're already having trouble getting debt sold. To sell the bonds, the government has to increase the interest rates which in turn will raise interest rates for everyone else in the country as well. How's double digit interest rates with the coming double digit unemployment going to look?

This is looking worse than it's looked in a very long time. Maybe we'll begin talking about the "misery index" again and become reacquainted with terms like "stagflation".

[ May 11, 2009, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Keep movin' Obama.

Just remember your 15x injection plan is not enough.

I want more.

I intend to help MAKE more production, so I want the currency out there so it can come to momma.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:
quote:
Iraq has saved none (lives) and cost many.
Absurdly false.
Please demonstrate how so?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, kuato, as stated, "Iraq has saved none (lives) and cost many" is false. (Absurd? Don;t know. O ne man's hyperbole is another man's WTF?)

I believe you read that sentence as an equation. iT ISN;T; IT;S A sentence.(dck!)

As a sentence, it is false to say no lives by a) our invasion of Iraq or b) IraQ, THE NATION, PERIOD. (dck!!!!!!)

COst many? Yes. That is true, but perhaps that is where the absurdity comes in, for all large scale human behavior spread over a course of years costs lives, usually many.

Now, as an equation, it is perhaps your obligation to demonstrate how so? Hmmm????

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is looking worse than it's looked in a very long time. Maybe we'll begin talking about the "misery index" again and become reacquainted with terms like "stagflation".
Worth worrying about. This is the worst economic situation I've seen in my lifetime. One possibility that isn't talked about much is that the stock market will recover, but the real economy (goods and services) won't. Instead of the catastrophic situation where people pour a half glass of money into a house and pour a full glass out shortly after, I worry that they will pour the money into the stock market to make back what they lost on their houses. Then they won't have money left to buy houses or other goods and services. While the stock market inflates, the real market will live in will deflate. We've become a nation of gambling junkies, need a fix of cash and can't come by it except to win it in the housing, market or state run lottery.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kuato:
Keep movin' Obama.

Just remember your 15x injection plan is not enough.

I want more.

I intend to help MAKE more production, so I want the currency out there so it can come to momma.

The injection plan has been a demonstrable failure, it did nothing. Throwing good money, that we don't have, after bad will accomplish the exact same thing. There is no evidence thta these "injections" do anything other than what they've already done: nothing.

The economics you're pushing for are obviously unsustainable.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just came across this really great advertisement: Child's Pay.

But that was back when deficits were bad; the ad came from MoveOn.org. Now, of course, they're good. Although here is the current cut of that ad, this time from RedState.

[ May 12, 2009, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Orignally posted by Kuato:
quote:
Originally posted by edgmatt:

quote: Iraq has saved none (lives) and cost many.

Absurdly false.

Please demonstrate how so?
You made the first assertion, please demonstrate how the Iraq war has saved 0 lives.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will demonstrate that the war cost more than 4k American lives.

Now, your turn.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More like it, kuato.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The economics you're pushing for are obviously unsustainable. "

Well, then, perhaps you can make it obvious for us, please. Meanwhile, I note that it's obvious that the sun circles around the earth.

kuato, is your name a symbolic pun on the Martian air rate, inflation, and the concept of releasing currency to match production/consumption? [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1