Author | Thread |
|
10/10/2013 10:06:56 PM · #551 |
Originally posted by Melethia: Since there seems to be a bit of a pause.... here are a couple of questions.
If you think the Federal government is too big, and "non-essential", who would you cut, and why? How would you propose replacing those services, if at all? What should those Americans who have been doing those jobs do instead? In other words, where should America grow its labor force? |
I have never said that the govmt is "non essential"...however it is too big. I would cut heavily on "entitlement" programs. I would also drastically reduce foreign aid. I have actually thought about downloading the budget to see what I keep and what I would get rid of. Homeland security could prob be rolled into the FBI to reduce costs. I will need to do more research on that one. There is another thing they could do for the future (this would not have an impact on past bills) They could pass a bill that outlaws pork. This means that if there is a healthcare bill...it is %100 about healthcare...etc, etc
|
|
|
10/10/2013 10:41:13 PM · #552 |
Oh.
One big one. Get rid of the TSA entirely. Replace them with common sense, which would not only be cheaper, but it would almost certainly increase effectiveness. |
|
|
10/10/2013 11:11:44 PM · #553 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977: Originally posted by GeneralE: Originally posted by Cory: Originally posted by Art Roflmao: Originally posted by Cory: I owe no-one. |
Correction: I believe your share of the national debt is in the thousands. :P |
And if it'd do a damned bit of good I'd pay what I 'owe'. |
There's a line on Form 1040 you can use to make a "voluntary" payment toward reducing the national debt.
I wonder how many of those conservatives who say the debt is the biggest problem we face have ever used it ... |
Have you??????? |
I am neither a "conservative" (at least within the current perverted definition) nor wealthy -- I've been in a negative cash-flow situation since I lost one of my two part-time jobs in 2009 due to the economic downturn. I'd think that one of these guys (and a couple of gals) would be in a somewhat better position to spare some cash, since they all pretty much make more before lunchtime of the first workday than I do in an entire year.
|
|
|
10/11/2013 12:05:33 AM · #554 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977: I would also drastically reduce foreign aid. |
The average American thinks 25% of our budget goes to foreign aid. Less than 0.7% does.
The Majority of that aid goes to Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt. The majority of the aid given is old Military hardware.
If we "drastically cut" foreign aid, what will we do with our old military hardware which makes up most of our largess? |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:08:45 AM · #555 |
It's not a good idea to confuse these folks with facts, Brennan: they get huffy. |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:11:19 AM · #556 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB: Originally posted by cowboy221977: I would also drastically reduce foreign aid. |
The average American thinks 25% of our budget goes to foreign aid. Less than 0.7% does.
The Majority of that aid goes to Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and Egypt. The majority of the aid given is old Military hardware.
If we "drastically cut" foreign aid, what will we do with our old military hardware which makes up most of our largess? |
"Average"..
Not that I happen to disagree that most Americans are completely uninformed about these things, but how exactly was 'average' defined there?
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 00:11:56. |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:20:39 AM · #557 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If we "drastically cut" foreign aid, what will we do with our old military hardware which makes up most of our largess? |
I've actually just gone through the process to get a permit -- PITA alert! -- to legally carry old military hardware formerly designated for foreign aid. Still working out closet space, but I feel safer already. |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:42:31 AM · #558 |
Originally posted by Cory: Not that I happen to disagree that most Americans are completely uninformed about these things, but how exactly was 'average' defined there? |
"That’s right. According to pollsters, the vast majority of Americans polled say the US should put foreign aid first in line for the chopping block. When you ask them how much of the federal budget is now spent on such aid, they say 25 percent. And how much should it be? They say about 10 percent."
By Ken Hackett / March 7, 2011 Published in the Christian Science Monitor
" When WorldPublicOpinion.org asked the public in 2010 to estimate the percentage of the federal budget going to foreign aid, respondents on average reckoned 27 percent—and suggested that a more appropriate percentage might be 13 percent. "
Council on Foreign Relations Publication |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:45:51 AM · #559 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB: Originally posted by Cory: Not that I happen to disagree that most Americans are completely uninformed about these things, but how exactly was 'average' defined there? |
"That’s right. According to pollsters, the vast majority of Americans polled say the US should put foreign aid first in line for the chopping block. When you ask them how much of the federal budget is now spent on such aid, they say 25 percent. And how much should it be? They say about 10 percent."
By Ken Hackett / March 7, 2011 Published in the Christian Science Monitor
" When WorldPublicOpinion.org asked the public in 2010 to estimate the percentage of the federal budget going to foreign aid, respondents on average reckoned 27 percent—and suggested that a more appropriate percentage might be 13 percent. "
Council on Foreign Relations Publication |
I do wonder how many are lumping military spending and foreign aid. In which case, they'd only be a few percent off. |
|
|
10/11/2013 01:06:34 AM · #560 |
We spend 20% of the federal budget on the military. $2,243.25 per American per year.
We outspend the rest of the world combined. By about twice over.
Our Foreign aid is 0.68% of the budget. $61.06 per American per year.
We commit the lowest percentage of our GDP of any first world nation to foreign aid.
Last year when Gallup asked Americans whether they favor or oppose spending cuts in various government programs, 59 percent want government budget cuts in the area of foreign aid, while 57 percent oppose cuts in military aid and defense. |
|
|
10/11/2013 08:32:40 AM · #561 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB: We spend 20% of the federal budget on the military. $2,243.25 per American per year.
We outspend the rest of the world combined. By about twice over.
Our Foreign aid is 0.68% of the budget. $61.06 per American per year.
We commit the lowest percentage of our GDP of any first world nation to foreign aid.
Last year when Gallup asked Americans whether they favor or oppose spending cuts in various government programs, 59 percent want government budget cuts in the area of foreign aid, while 57 percent oppose cuts in military aid and defense. |
I in no way implied that foreign aid was our biggest expenditure. Howevr with the democrats saying hat there is no more that can be cut...there are alot of programs that could be cut. They could also privatize certain things.
(I know this is on a state level not federal) They could lease / rent roadside parks out to private buisiness. I saw this when I was in Korea. There were restauraunts, hotels, etc. in these rest stops. Again that wouldnt help the feds
|
|
|
10/11/2013 08:50:27 AM · #562 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Well, we'll see everybody in December then. Judith? Paul? Can you guys make it, say, the 5th? |
???? |
|
|
10/11/2013 09:00:08 AM · #563 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB: If we "drastically cut" foreign aid, what will we do with our old military hardware which makes up most of our largess? |
I've got space in my garage for an old tank.......sign me up!
|
|
|
10/11/2013 11:11:23 AM · #564 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
We outspend the rest of the world combined. By about twice over.
|
You aren't usually prone to wild exaggerations, but I gotta say this is a crazily distorted fact. Spell out exactly what you mean to make this statement true. |
|
|
10/11/2013 11:13:00 AM · #565 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977: They could lease / rent roadside parks out to private buisiness. I saw this when I was in Korea. There were restauraunts, hotels, etc. in these rest stops. |
They already do that. Most, if not all, of the concessions and lodging in parks are privately run, which is why those businesses are so hurt by the shutdown. |
|
|
10/11/2013 11:19:22 AM · #566 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: It's not a good idea to confuse these folks with facts, Brennan: they get huffy. |
Pretty much on the money my friend Bear_Music :O)
Reminds me of that old adage: "My mind is made up... don't confuse me with facts"
Ray |
|
|
10/11/2013 11:26:19 AM · #567 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by BrennanOB:
We outspend the rest of the world combined. By about twice over.
|
You aren't usually prone to wild exaggerations, but I gotta say this is a crazily distorted fact. Spell out exactly what you mean to make this statement true. |
I don't have the time to add the numbers up as I am waiting for the nurses to show up, but a quick look at the chart located Here would seem to suggest that the USA is bar far the biggest spender in military budgets.
Ray |
|
|
10/11/2013 11:40:20 AM · #568 |
There are no citations on those tables. The number I found for the UK, for example, was closer to 75 billion, not 60. Purchasing power parity may also be a closer estimate and I doubt we really know what China spends on anything. Still, I will admit the chart makes Brennan's contention, even if not literally true, not as exaggerated as I had initially supposed.
EDIT: Actually now I'm back to thinking the statement is off again. If you look at the chart you see the total global military spending is 1.753 trillion dollars. The US's share is 39%. For the US to spend "twice over" the combined amount of the rest of the world we would have to have 67% of the share. Although nobody is arguing that we spend the most, we don't spend even as much as the rest of the world combined (making the statement an exaggeration). If this is where Brennan got his data, perhaps the error is to overlook that only the top 15 countries are listed. We aren't listing the other 200+.
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 11:49:07. |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:00:38 PM · #569 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: ... If this is where Brennan got his data, perhaps the error is to overlook that only the top 15 countries are listed. We aren't listing the other 200+. |
How about the charts found Here or Here
While it is true that these figures do not represent more than half, they are getting closer.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 12:26:17. |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:03:52 PM · #570 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: The US's share is 39%. For the US to spend "twice over" the combined amount of the rest of the world we would have to have 67% of the share. |
39% is post-budget cuts and sequestration. At the height of the Iraq and Afghan wars we may have well been around 67%, but even now our defense budget dwarfs the rest of the world. The salient point is this:
"one of the fascinating disconnects in American politics today is between the above data and public perceptions of defense spending, which many unfortunately are quick to exploit in our “post truth” era of politics. Only 58% of voters are aware that the US spends more on defense than any other country in the world. And just 33% recognize that America spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined." This same disconnect is why people call for cuts to foreign aid or food stamps first. Their perception of government expenditures is wildly distorted.
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 12:07:37. |
|
|
10/11/2013 12:28:18 PM · #571 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by DrAchoo: The US's share is 39%. For the US to spend "twice over" the combined amount of the rest of the world we would have to have 67% of the share. |
39% is post-budget cuts and sequestration. At the height of the Iraq and Afghan wars we may have well been around 67%, but even now our defense budget dwarfs the rest of the world. The salient point is this:
"one of the fascinating disconnects in American politics today is between the above data and public perceptions of defense spending, which many unfortunately are quick to exploit in our “post truth” era of politics. Only 58% of voters are aware that the US spends more on defense than any other country in the world. And just 33% recognize that America spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined." This same disconnect is why people call for cuts to foreign aid or food stamps first. Their perception of government expenditures is wildly distorted. |
If you just do the math you'll see your first statement is false. We would have to spend another 1 trillion dollars a year on those wars that would be unaccounted on the chart to still only spend 62% of the world's expenditure. ($700 billion plus 1 trillion = $1.7 trillion of a total global cost of 1.753 trillion plus 1 trillion = $2.7 trillion. 1.7/2.7= 63%.)
You aren't saying we spent a trillion dollars a year on the wars and sequestration cuts, are you?
Whatever your stats are on the polls, we know that nobody in this conversation now qualifies as "not knowing"...
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 12:28:33. |
|
|
10/11/2013 01:16:00 PM · #572 |
Somehow the contention that we spend "only" half as much as the rest of the world combined is not that impressive, given that we have about 5% of the world's population and 33% of the world's military expenditures. It certainly seems like something is out of balance somewhere.
Oh yeah, the current estimate is that 25% of the children in the US live in what's officially classified as "poverty." My rough estimate is that the top 100 CEOs average making about $10,000/hour (see previous link). It certainly seems like something is out of balance somewhere.
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 13:16:56. |
|
|
10/11/2013 01:29:13 PM · #573 |
Then take into account that we arguably NEED less "defense" than most of the world, given our geographical situation: we've never been seriously invaded since the War of 1812, and with good reason: who could afford the necessary supply chain?
It certainly seems like something is out of balance somewhere :-) |
|
|
10/11/2013 01:48:19 PM · #574 |
Don't put words in my mouth here Paul. I'm "impressed". I was only commenting on the exaggeration of the original comment (we spend twice as much on military as the rest of the world combined). The truth itself is impressive enough without exaggeration (I think really Brennan was just mistaken rather than purposely trying to "fluff" the numbers).
I'm firmly in the camp of "we need to spend less on defense". There is no way to fiscal responsibility without this as part of the plan.
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 13:48:44. |
|
|
10/11/2013 03:00:30 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by BrennanOB:
We outspend the rest of the world combined. By about twice over.
|
You aren't usually prone to wild exaggerations, but I gotta say this is a crazily distorted fact. Spell out exactly what you mean to make this statement true. |
In my funk over the A's loss to the Tigers I misread a 2010 chart that compared US spending and the next nine biggest spenders and then put "the rest of the world" in one category. Those "not in the top ten" guys spend 25.3% compared to our 42.8% so I used that comparison without really thinking about it. I blame Justin Verlander.
Message edited by author 2013-10-11 15:05:49. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 02:50:53 PM EDT.