Reagan Budget Director Crushes Today's Republican Party

[truth on hold]

Lol @ the bogus percentage "analysis" when the number is 3 quarter of a trillion dollars, accounting for more than half the deficit of a country thats going bankrupt. .

 

Who falls for that BS? Defense Contractor Tom? Lol

Edited August 16, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

Lol @ the bogus percentage "analysis" when the number is 3 quarter of a trillion dollars, accounting for more than half the deficit of a country thats going bankrupt annual deficit.

 

Who falls for that BS? Defense Contractor Tom? Lol

 

You are aware that I want DoD's budget slashed, right? Of course you're not...

 

By the way...the biggest portion of DoD's budget? HR - training, pay, health care, retirement, expenses (e.g. relocation, housing). Easily $200B/year, more likely $250B - a third the total budget. If you cut all procurement and research, you'd still be running a $400B budget, which is about a third the deficit and still too goddamn big.

[dayman]

Lol @ the bogus percentage "analysis" when the number is 3 quarter of a trillion dollars, accounting for more than half the deficit of a country thats going bankrupt. .

 

Who falls for that BS? Defense Contractor Tom? Lol

 

Which is why as I said you compare the DoD to other federal spending not GDP

[OCinBuffalo]

You are aware that I want DoD's budget slashed, right? Of course you're not...

 

By the way...the biggest portion of DoD's budget? HR - training, pay, health care, retirement, expenses (e.g. relocation, housing). Easily $200B/year, more likely $250B - a third the total budget. If you cut all procurement and research, you'd still be running a $400B budget, which is about a third the deficit and still too goddamn big.

Again, is the Army an agressive combat command....or a jobs/jobs training program? Nobody wants to answer that question.

 

Reality, with an all-volunteer force is you have to attract volunteers. You have to recruit and retain soldiers, and officers too, by giving them skills that they can use in the real world. You also have to provide services, at least at a somewhat comparable level, and in some cases better, to what they would get as a civillian, otherwise...not enough will sign up, and even fewer will stay singed up.

 

If we want the volunteer force we have, and we want that force to be elite...when compared to the rest of the world, with elite literally meaning: one of our brigades can destroy 2 of their divisions, we have to pay for it.

 

You can't look at all of this...and ignore all of the dependencies and assumptions that are built into it, like the requirement that our smaller units are able to wipe out their much larger ones, no draft, etc., and just talk money.

 

But who knows? Perhaps Joe six pack would have been more comfortable being drafted into the infantry(that's where he'd be, given his posts), and being Private Joe Six Pack who cleans latrines, and does push-ups, until I order otherwise, rather than spending the $? After all, that was the reality before the "Army of Reagan".

Edited August 17, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

Which is why as I said you compare the DoD to other federal spending not GDP

 

The federal budget is a derivation of GDP, since the federal revenues come from taxing the country's output.

[Jauronimo]

When you're countrys going bankrupt and you're spending 3/4 quarters of a trillion on "defense" the burden of proof of is very much on the big spenders to provide a "threats" analysis. And Something a lot better than jailbird "Judy miller has the smokin gun on that Moslem dude having WMDs "

Oh. Now could you please quantify threats? I'd like to see a graph of defense spending to threats covering 1900 to 2012.

 

Once you've completed this task then we can really talk about "bogus" percentage analysis.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Jauronimo

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

The federal budget is a derivation of GDP, since the federal revenues come from taxing the country's output.

If this were actually true, our government wouldn't have such a spending problem, and your last response wasn't nearly sufficient for justifying indexing government expansion to economic growth, and failed to address most of my points outright. Edited August 17, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

Again, is the Army an agressive combat command....or a jobs/jobs training program? Nobody wants to answer that question.

 

It's a social program. Ever since "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[GG]

If this were actually true, our government wouldn't have such a spending problem, and your last response wasn't nearly sufficient for justifying indexing government expansion to economic growth, and failed to address most of my points outright.

 

Stop arguing two separate points, it's not that hard of a concept.

 

US federal government is funded through taxation of earnings and production. So tell me how the government's revenues are not tied to GDP? Government expenditures should be indexed to GDP, because many government programs should expand with the growth in population, wealth and standards of living.

 

You are making a completely irrelevantly tangential point that government can't control its spending, which is an argument about government spending taking an ever increasing share of GDP, rather than staying at a static % of GDP. I think it's a nonsensical argument to think that government expenditures should be flat, despite what happens in GDP.

 

Don't have TPS come out to support my argument.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Stop arguing two separate points, it's not that hard of a concept.

If you're too thick to see the direct corolation that has the points I'm discussing so completely intertwined as to be unextractable from each other, that's not my problem. Just try to keep up.

 

US federal government is funded through taxation of earnings and production. So tell me how the government's revenues are not tied to GDP?

Tied =/ Indexed

 

Government expenditures should be indexed to GDP, because many government programs should expand with the growth in population, wealth and standards of living.

Horseshit. I'm not going to have this discussion limited to the framework of your, apparently, narrow ideology.

 

You are making a completely irrelevantly tangential point that government can't control its spending, which is an argument about government spending taking an ever increasing share of GDP, rather than staying at a static % of GDP.

No, it really isn't. If we begin with the expectation that government expedature should be indexed directly to the growth of our economy we establish an ingrained expectation that the government should grow every single year. You don't get to begin your argument here with some sort of intellectually vacant fiat declarations dismissing economics in favor of lazy budget making and neo-conservative imperialism.

 

I think it's a nonsensical argument to think that government expenditures should be flat, despite what happens in GDP.

More fiat declarations. What's nonsensical is the notion that government funding should always increase. Markets dictate that time and competition increase efficiency and drive down costs; given that, government costs for essential services should decrease every year. The reason they don't is because our spending, indexed to inflation, creates systematic price fixing in the government sector preventing market forces to take hold. And even if costs were to remain flat, indexing to growth creates the expectation of more spending, and hence more programs. Congratulations, you've created the welfare/nanny state. Go you.

Edited August 17, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

If you're too thick to see the direct corolation that has the points I'm discussing so completely intertwined as to be unextractable from each other, that's not my problem. Just try to keep up.

 

Tied =/ Indexed

 

Horseshit. I'm not going to being the discussion limited to the framework of your apparently narrow ideology.

 

 

No, it really isn't. If we begin with the expectation that government expedature should be indexed directly to the growth of our economy we establish an ingrained expectation that the government should grow every single year. You don't get to begin your argument here with some sort of intellectually vacant fiat declarations dismissing economics in favor of lazy budget making and neo-conservative imperialism.

 

 

More fiat declarations. What's nonsensical is the notion that government funding should always increase. Markets dictate that time and competition increase efficiency and drive down costs; given that, government costs for essential services should decrease every year. The reason they don't is because our spending, indexed to inflation, creates systematic price fixing in the government sector preventing market forces to take hold. And even if costs were to remain flat, indexing to growth creates the expectation of more spending, and hence more programs. Congratulations, you've created the welfare/nanny state. Go you.

 

This is precisely why fiscal absolutists lose any credibility and give Krugmans of the world limitless ammunition.

 

Forget government. Show me any enterprise that keeps expenses constant as revenues grow. I cannot think of a single one. Hell, even in a highly scalable business with infinite operating leverage like software, costs rise. In these companies, expenses as % of revenues remain constant because the company needs to spend more to support the revenue base, otherwise it will collapse. It's no different than a government that is presiding over a $1 trillion economy with 100 million people than a $15 trillion economy with 300 million people.

 

Your ideological dogma won't work with people who can read right through your gobbledygook economic terms. It's insane to think that government expenditures should be fixed dollar amounts. The welfare nanny state gets created when expenditures rise at a much faster rate than GDP grows, which is NOT what I am advocating.

 

But having government spending be within a 3% range of the realistic 19%-20% tax revenue take is a reasonable target that will keep the nation in a solid growth state.

[TakeYouToTasker]

This is precisely why fiscal absolutists lose any credibility and give Krugmans of the world limitless ammunition.

Poisoning the well, Strawman, Fiat declaration... wow... three logical fallacies for the price of one, and it only took you seventeen words... that's "impressively unimpressive".

 

Forget government.

Oh, yes. Let's just go ahead and forget the subject we're discussing, and shift the goal posts waaaaaaaaaaaay over there ------>, and talk about something irrelevant and completely unrelated.

 

Show me any enterprise that keeps expenses constant as revenues grow. I cannot think of a single one. Hell, even in a highly scalable business with infinite operating leverage like software, costs rise. In these companies, expenses as % of revenues remain constant because the company needs to spend more to support the revenue base, otherwise it will collapse.

Costs rise in business for a variety of reasons. None of them are tied to intentionally fixing expenses to profits. Businesses try to minimize expenses and increase profits. They remain flexible, and unindexed, staying innovative and responsive. Your assertion here is completely absurd.

 

It's no different than a government that is presiding over a $1 trillion economy with 100 million people than a $15 trillion economy with 300 million people.

WTF is this ****? This doesn't even make sense.

 

Your ideological dogma won't work with people who can read right through your gobbledygook economic terms.

No, they don't work with people like Park, Duck_Dodgers, and apparently yourself who don't understand the fundamental economic argument I'm making. There is no politics or ideology, just cause, effect, and human motivation. The only one in this thread blindly adhereing to an ideology is you.

 

It's insane to think that government expenditures should be fixed dollar amounts.

I agree, however it's equally insane to index those expenditures to economic growth. Each budget, and the individual items comprising it, should be debated on it's owns merits and it's cost benefit. Just because our economy grows 5% in a given year doesn't mean our government should match it in stride, and you've given no evidence other than your own feelings on the matter that it should. I remain unmoved.

 

The welfare nanny state gets created when expenditures rise at a much faster rate than GDP grows, which is NOT what I am advocating.

No, it gets created when revenues grow faster than nessecary due to indexed taxation, creating a surplus which gets spent on programs by parndering politicians. It becomes worse when indexed inflation creates an enviroment where these excess revenues drive new social spending, and that social spending becomes the norm over the course of 75 years. You don't live in a vacuum, stop thinking as if you do.

But having government spending be within a 3% range of the realistic 19%-20% tax revenue take is a reasonable target that will keep the nation in a solid growth state.

Fiat declaration. What does government spending have to do with positive economic growth? Why is that % reasonable? Why is that realistic? Edited August 18, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

Great another verbose narcissist.

 

Yes we all bow to your words and superfluous tangents. Say hi to your gilded mirror.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Great another verbose narcissist.

 

Yes we all bow to your words and superfluous tangents. Say hi to your gilded mirror.

And for good measure, lets just wrap things up with an Ad Hom attack? Atleast you covered all your bases. Good argument.

 

/golfclap

[OCinBuffalo]

You're both being silly.

 

GG is too wrapped up in his usual affrontery ...to unsderstand that Tasker is merely suggesting(I think) that we take a cost accountant's approach to the budget, every time, and in real time. That doesn't preclude keeping spending on pace with revenue, but it does preclude idiocy like Solyndra.

 

Tasker is stuck at the 10 ft level, unwilling, or unable to elvate his thinking and see the 10k ft points GG is making. The reality is that the government does demand things, a lot of things, and that demand...is demand.

 

The moronic? The positions that Indignant and Butthurt( ) have taken here are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite: the only way to ensure that we are "having government spending be within a 3% range of the realistic 19%-20% tax revenue take"(GG) IS to "debate" each item "on it's owns merits and it's cost benefit"(Tasker). Otherwise, we don't know that the hell we are spending, or why, this year.

 

More importantly, Federal budget items are rarely one year thing; they tend to extend multiple years. So, if we don't proceed as Tasker suggests, good luck meeting GG's 3% range...next year. Right?

 

Consider: if we have 20 new multiple-year items, how are we supposed to "guarantee a 3% range"(GG) next year....if we aren't looking at each one..."on it's own mertis and (ongoing) cost benefit"(Tasker) in real time?. Tasker's problem: What happens if all of them are meritorious( )...GG's problem: but continuing all of them means not "guaranteeing a 3% range" and running a deficit?

 

GG's business rule says we must cut away the least of them to maintain the 3% thing(absolutist?) If that holds, then we have to KNOW which ones are better than others(Tasker) in real time. However, Tasker's false assumption is that there will always be clearly cut "bad" programs for him to easily cut(10 ft lvl thinking). What happens if that isn't the case/crisis, etc.? And, how do we replace the lost demand? Remember...from above? GG's rule means we have to have replacement, meritorious programs at the ready....to meet 3%.

 

The false assumption for GG is that all spending = good spending, if it gets us to the 3% range. That requires that we look at Solyndra...and say "good". (I don't think this is what GG is advocating, but he hasn't done much in this thread to say otherwise. All this because of Krugman, GG? Why do you give him that power? )

 

If the goal is to maintain a 3% range, both this year, and next., then we must be a lot wiser than we are in terms of what is funded.

 

That's because both GG and Tasker combined creates a set of constrainsts that demand that we are able to shut down any of these programs, and/or add new ones, without doing too much damage, at any time...in order to maintain both the 3% and the "merit".

 

So, it's as I said: you're both being silly, or...narcissists ...and I sound like the Sicilian in "The Princess Bride".

Edited August 18, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[WorldTraveller]

I happen to be a big believer in relativity. Indexing the rate of growth or reduction of the military to GDP makes a lot of sense. I don't see how anyone can make a solid argument based on a static concept.

 

That doesn't make sense, nor is it realistic

Edited August 18, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[TakeYouToTasker]

You're both being silly.

 

GG is too wrapped up in his usual affrontery ...to unsderstand that Tasker is merely suggesting(I think) that we take a cost accountant's approach to the budget, every time, and in real time. That doesn't preclude keeping spending on pace with revenue, but it does preclude idiocy like Solyndra.

 

Tasker is stuck at the 10 ft level, unwilling, or unable to elvate his thinking and see the 10k ft points GG is making. The reality is that the government does demand things, a lot of things, and that demand...is demand.

 

The moronic? The positions that Indignant and Butthurt( ) have taken here are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite: the only way to ensure that we are "having government spending be within a 3% range of the realistic 19%-20% tax revenue take"(GG) IS to "debate" each item "on it's owns merits and it's cost benefit"(Tasker). Otherwise, we don't know that the hell we are spending, or why, this year.

 

More importantly, Federal budget items are rarely one year thing; they tend to extend multiple years. So, if we don't proceed as Tasker suggests, good luck meeting GG's 3% range...next year. Right?

 

Consider: if we have 20 new multiple-year items, how are we supposed to "guarantee a 3% range"(GG) next year....if we aren't looking at each one..."on it's own mertis and (ongoing) cost benefit"(Tasker) in real time?. Tasker's problem: What happens if all of them are meritorious( )...GG's problem: but continuing all of them means not "guaranteeing a 3% range" and running a deficit?

 

GG's business rule says we must cut away the least of them to maintain the 3% thing(absolutist?) If that holds, then we have to KNOW which ones are better than others(Tasker) in real time. However, Tasker's false assumption is that there will always be clearly cut "bad" programs for him to easily cut(10 ft lvl thinking). What happens if that isn't the case/crisis, etc.? And, how do we replace the lost demand? Remember...from above? GG's rule means we have to have replacement, meritorious programs at the ready....to meet 3%.

 

The false assumption for GG is that all spending = good spending, if it gets us to the 3% range. That requires that we look at Solyndra...and say "good". (I don't think this is what GG is advocating, but he hasn't done much in this thread to say otherwise. All this because of Krugman, GG? Why do you give him that power? )

 

If the goal is to maintain a 3% range, both this year, and next., then we must be a lot wiser than we are in terms of what is funded.

 

That's because both GG and Tasker combined creates a set of constrainsts that demand that we are able to shut down any of these programs, and/or add new ones, without doing too much damage, at any time...in order to maintain both the 3% and the "merit".

 

So, it's as I said: you're both being silly, or...narcissists ...and I sound like the Sicilian in "The Princess Bride".

Again, I am asking why government expansion should be indexed to economic growth, and I haven't received an answer. Additionally, stop making assumptions about my position. If I didn't say something don't assume I've intended it. Unless, of course, you enjoy being wrong. Edited August 18, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker