Do We Have Any Bernie Sanders Supporters Among Us?

[DC Tom]

As per your request, here is the rest of the spending:

 

 

So we've established that you don't like military spending. So what?

[Chef Jim]

The point of the chart is to illustrate that the United States spends almost as much on its "defense," as the rest of the world combined. That would make it fairly obvious to the average voter that military spending deserves serious attention when it comes to waste in government. I'd also save the taxpayer the expense of the detailed audit that Chef has wastefully proposed upthread. Next question.

 

So you're saying that the only place the government wastes money is the DOD? How on earth can you determine the amount of waste without a detailed (and yes expensive) audit?

[DC Tom]

The point of the chart is to illustrate that the United States spends almost as much on its "defense," as the rest of the world combined. That would make it fairly obvious to the average voter that military spending deserves serious attention when it comes to waste in government.

 

No, it doesn't. We also have a military capability roughly equivalent to the rest of the world combined. The amount of spending relative to everyone else is in line with that.

 

You won't find anyone here arguing for wasteful military spending. But you won't find anyone agreeing with you when you use childishly simplistic arguments like that, either.

[TakeYouToTasker]

As per your request, here is the rest of the spending:

 

And do you know why America's military spending is so much more? It's because we're the last global super power, and we have, over the last 250 years, created history's most complete and expansive economic empire.

 

This juggernaut, built on the backs of history's great capitalists, and made possible by law and policy designed to encourage independent risk taking and innovation, is the reason folks like you are even able to have your fanciful conversations about how you'd like to divvy up someone else's pie. It's the goose that lays the golden eggs. The reason our poor have a well documented obesity problem, as opposed to distended bellies; and indoor plumbing, as opposed to having to **** in the same river they drink from.

 

And the military spending? In the modern world, that's the thing that perpetuates our economic empire. It allows us to project and protect our economic interests around the globe.

 

Our comparative level of prosperity relative to the rest of the world requires empire, and empire requires maintenance.

 

Every single thing you advocate for will put a swift end to both. You can't eat the goose for dinner, and still expect to eat golden omelets for tomorrow's breakfast.

Edited August 19, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[Who is Yuri?]

 

So we've established that you don't like military spending. So what?

So, I want you to go out and register Democrat, if you haven't already, and vote for the one candidate brave and serious enough to stand up to the Military Industrial Complex. Tell your friends too!

 

 

 

So you're saying that the only place the government wastes money is the DOD? How on earth can you determine the amount of waste without a detailed (and yes expensive) audit?

 

You've basically given the readers a choice between my plan to immediately cut military fraud and waste, or your plan to throw more taxpayer money at the problem.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't. We also have a military capability roughly equivalent to the rest of the world combined. The amount of spending relative to everyone else is in line with that.

 

You won't find anyone here arguing for wasteful military spending. But you won't find anyone agreeing with you when you use childishly simplistic arguments like that, either.

 

Well, perhaps my arguments are childishly simplistic. We spend too much on the military. That's the first place that I would look for fraud and waste. If you don't like where this is heading, tell your compadres to stop asking leading questions.

[GG]

 

Well, perhaps my arguments are childishly simplistic. We spend too much on the military. That's the first place that I would look for fraud and waste. If you don't like where this is heading, tell your compadres to stop asking leading questions.

 

And again, what does this have to do with confiscatory tax rates?

[Who is Yuri?]

 

And again, what does this have to do with confiscatory tax rates?

 

If you've lost the plot, that's entirely OK.

 

Here is some remedial reading so that you can understand why we have been discussing government waste. But before we get to that, you should know that, if your country is in debt, decreasing spending is one way to balance your budget. The other way is to increase revenue. Got it?

 

 

 

How about incentives for them to bring it back. That's the problem with the left you demonize vs incentivize.

 

Any thoughts about cutting waste in government or is your only solution to or budget issue is more revenue? Yeah, that always works out well. See CA.

 

And the Socratic Method is not a trick. It's a debate method. Sorry you feel tricked in a debate.

 

 

 

I'd start with a detailed audit of all government agencies to find the real waste not just what the perceived waste is. You know like multi-billion dollar SUCCESSFUL companies do.

 

How much would you cut from the DOD and why?

 

Well actually not. I do it because it makes gatorman cry.

 

 

 

Oh that's a pretty little chart. Where is the rest of the spending?

 

 

 

Cute. And the point of this chart has what to do with regard to the US spending?

 

 

 

So you're saying that the only place the government wastes money is the DOD? How on earth can you determine the amount of waste without a detailed (and yes expensive) audit?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Franz Kafka

[GG]

 

If you've lost the plot, that's entirely OK.

 

Here is some remedial reading so that you can understand why we have been discussing government waste. But before we get to that, you should know that, if your country is in debt, decreasing spending is one way to balance your budget. The other way is to increase revenue. Got it?

 

 

Well, you've still failed to explain how confiscatory tax rates will increase revenues, since the people who are going to be mostly impacted by the high tax rates are the ones with the capability to shelter as much income as possible. Same as the large corporations, who now earn more than 50% of their revenues overseas and will continue to stash profits overseas and worse will continue to incorporate abroad.

 

But yeah, since DoD is the largest discretionary line item that stands out, it can be improved, yet you overlook that the budget as percent of GDP is still much lower than the post war average. But go ahead and think that Bernie's tax plan to roll back time to 1950s, when the US was the only functioning economy in the world, is sound fiscal policy in a global market.

[Who is Yuri?]

 

Well, you've still failed to explain how confiscatory tax rates will increase revenues, since the people who are going to be mostly impacted by the high tax rates are the ones with the capability to shelter as much income as possible. Same as the large corporations, who now earn more than 50% of their revenues overseas and will continue to stash profits overseas and worse will continue to incorporate abroad.

 

But yeah, since DoD is the largest discretionary line item that stands out, it can be improved, yet you overlook that the budget as percent of GDP is still much lower than the post war average. But go ahead and think that Bernie's tax plan to roll back time to 1950s, when the US was the only functioning economy in the world, is sound fiscal policy in a global market.

I won't try to put words in your mouth, because that's a cheap trick, so I'm asking, do you think something should be done about tax shelters? Or are you advocating a race to the lowest tax rate, in competition with these tax shelters? Or, something else?

 

Glad you agree with me about the DoD.

[....lybob]

And do you know why America's military spending is so much more? It's because we're the last global super power, and we have, over the last 250 years, created history's most complete and expansive economic empire.

 

This juggernaut, built on the backs of history's great capitalists, and made possible by law and policy designed to encourage independent risk taking and innovation, is the reason folks like you are even able to have your fanciful conversations about how you'd like to divvy up someone else's pie. It's the goose that lays the golden eggs. The reason our poor have a well documented obesity problem, as opposed to distended bellies; and indoor plumbing, as opposed to having to **** in the same river they drink from.

 

And the military spending? In the modern world, that's the thing that perpetuates our economic empire. It allows us to project and protect our economic interests around the globe.

 

Our comparative level of prosperity relative to the rest of the world requires empire, and empire requires maintenance.

 

Every single thing you advocate for will put a swift end to both. You can't eat the goose for dinner, and still expect to eat golden omelets for tomorrow's breakfast.

The corporations and elites get the lion share of the benefits from our economic empire but they don't want to pay the taxes to support it and since I usually hear that they'll leave and take their ball if you raise their taxes I guess they don't need this economic empire anyways.

[Mikie2times]

GG, I'm saying the exact opposite. I thought I was clear in my point. Perhaps not. I care that a corporation can create a Super PAC and spend unlimited amount of money toward a campaign without even having to put a name down.

 

I want publicly funded elections with low maximum donations. Publicly funded only by citizens and not corporations.

 

How much did the Koch brothers spend in Wisconsin and Michigan to smash unions? Politics about unions aside. If the public doesn't want them fine, if two brothers don't want them and they can make that happen the system is broken. They literally bought two candidates, funded them beyond a competitive playing field and stacked the political system to fit their own personal agenda. That's what they will keep doing. Ya, the people still decide, but sort of hard to compete when your outspent 10 to 1.

[Magox]

GG, I'm saying the exact opposite. I thought I was clear in my point. Perhaps not. I care that a corporation can create a Super PAC and spend unlimited amount of money toward a campaign without even having to put a name down.

 

I want publicly funded elections with low maximum donations. Publicly funded only by citizens and not corporations.

 

How much did the Koch brothers spend in Wisconsin and Michigan to smash unions? Politics about unions aside. If the public doesn't want them fine, if two brothers don't want them and they can make that happen the system is broken. They literally bought two candidates, funded them beyond a competitive playing field and stacked the political system to fit their own personal agenda. That's what they will keep doing. Ya, the people still decide, but sort of hard to compete when your outspent 10 to 1.

 

Were you this outraged when public sector unions were corrupting politicians by financing their campaigns in order to drain public finances that led to numerous municipal bankruptcies, or the ridiculous tenure arrangements that enabled poor teaching at the expense of students?

 

I mean it wasn't that long ago when public sector unions were the #1 corrupting force in money and politics. Surely you were just as passionate about this, Right?

[TakeYouToTasker]

The corporations and elites get the lion share of the benefits from our economic empire but they don't want to pay the taxes to support it and since I usually hear that they'll leave and take their ball if you raise their taxes I guess they don't need this economic empire anyways.

Incorrect. The general population, especially the poor, the working poor, the working class, and the middle class benefit the most.

 

Our economic empire has raised our standard of living immensely. Those closest to the bottom benefit far more from that than those who already would have enjoyed the high standard.

[GG]

GG, I'm saying the exact opposite. I thought I was clear in my point. Perhaps not. I care that a corporation can create a Super PAC and spend unlimited amount of money toward a campaign without even having to put a name down.

 

I want publicly funded elections with low maximum donations. Publicly funded only by citizens and not corporations.

 

How much did the Koch brothers spend in Wisconsin and Michigan to smash unions? Politics about unions aside. If the public doesn't want them fine, if two brothers don't want them and they can make that happen the system is broken. They literally bought two candidates, funded them beyond a competitive playing field and stacked the political system to fit their own personal agenda. That's what they will keep doing. Ya, the people still decide, but sort of hard to compete when your outspent 10 to 1.

 

I take it you don't see the inconsistency in your logic. So you're not fine with Kochs donating through their corporation, but you're fine with them donating as individuals?

[OCinBuffalo]

71% of the ENTIRE budget is spent on entitlements. Medicare/Medicaid/SSI. Fraud, make work jobs, and massive waste is rampant in all 3.

 

....and....we're talking about what to do with the other 29%? How stupid. How literally stupid.

 

The entire military budget fits inside the 29%! So does literally everything else the Feds do. Imagine what could be done if we moved the needle from 71% to 61%? 10% going to everything else == a 25% increase in our "run the country" budget. Imagine all the additional "Smoking is Bad" and "Global Warming" studies that could be funded! Imagine all the Solyndras that could be started! Imagine all the Cash For Clunkers! Free Sex Changes For ALL!

 

The possibilities for wonderfully.....idiotic liberal spending would be nearly limitless. Great.

 

But, clowns in this thread, Bernie Sanders, and almost every D has been unwittingly supporting what the power Ds have been doing since 2006: A mass distraction to avoid entitlement/tax reform. They know it is a losing issue for them. They know they will have to admit that FDR/LBJ were wrong. They know that they will have to admit that creating long term policy, when the rest of the world is still recovering from being bombed to hell, and pretending that it will work long term, will be exposed as either stupidity or deceit.

 

The good news: the left has run out of side issues. #blacklivesmatter isn't doing much. It is the latest distraction, but it is clearly backfiring. Global Warming's relevance has come and gone. Same with Gay Marriage. Entitlement reform, tax reform, and economic growth are all #1 priorities that the left can no longer distract/put off/avoid.

 

It's time to pay the piper. Keynes(where all of this FDR/LBJ crap begins) said: "In the long run, we're all dead", and used that as a central argument. The trouble? While that was a great argument 70 years ago, for them; we are alive, and dealing with their mess. I fail to see how "protecting the legacy" of people who purposefully set out to F us over makes any sense at all.

Edited August 19, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[keepthefaith]

 

 

 

 

Well, perhaps my arguments are childishly simplistic. We spend too much on the military. That's the first place that I would look for fraud and waste. If you don't like where this is heading, tell your compadres to stop asking leading questions.

Agree the military can be looked at for waste but probably not the first place we should look to reduce cost. As for the pie chart, I like the one that shows all US spending by category with a close eye on the slice of the pie consumed for interest on the national debt. Hard to argue that anything is more wasteful than that.

[DC Tom]

 

Well, perhaps my arguments are childishly simplistic. We spend too much on the military. That's the first place that I would look for fraud and waste. If you don't like where this is heading, tell your compadres to stop asking leading questions.

 

And I think I spent too much time and money learning to read Die Verwandlung in German.

 

Define "too much."

[....lybob]

Incorrect. The general population, especially the poor, the working poor, the working class, and the middle class benefit the most.

 

Our economic empire has raised our standard of living immensely. Those closest to the bottom benefit far more from that than those who already would have enjoyed the high standard.

Incorrect, the elite and corporations benefit the most you'd have to be either stupid or disingenuous to write the drivel you come up with.

[GG]

Incorrect, the elite and corporations benefit the most you'd have to be either stupid or disingenuous to write the drivel you come up with.

 

Who really benefits when large corporations benefit? Does the US have the highest living standard in the world?

[Chef Jim]

 

You've basically given the readers a choice between my plan to immediately cut military fraud and waste, or your plan to throw more taxpayer money at the problem.

 

 

 

It's a plan to shine a very bright light on a very dark and covered up problem so we can begin to solve that problem. Wouldn't that be amazing if the government actually spent money to solve a problem that would ultimately save the American taxpayer boatloads of money