CDZ Liberals don't understand how diverse the conservative movement is, and they think we're all the sam

[Correll]

Well, if given a choice between feeding, clothing, and sheltering our own elderly, disabled, and children, or building $300,000,000 per copy aircraft that we don't need, I would choose the former, but I know that upsets the Right, General Dynamics, Boeing, the military, and the Electric Boat Company, so I guess that we will just go on building 3 hundred million dollar aircraft, which, BTW have a life expectancy of about 15 to 20 years, max.

Too bad for you that isn't the choice you will be given.

At some point, we wont' be able to fund all the social programs that are growing unsustainably.


YOu can cut the military to the point that it guarantees a war, and we still won't be able to.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, if given a choice between feeding, clothing, and sheltering our own elderly, disabled, and children, or building $300,000,000 per copy aircraft that we don't need, I would choose the former, but I know that upsets the Right, General Dynamics, Boeing, the military, and the Electric Boat Company, so I guess that we will just go on building 3 hundred million dollar aircraft, which, BTW have a life expectancy of about 15 to 20 years, max.

Too bad for you that isn't the choice you will be given.

At some point, we wont' be able to fund all the social programs that are growing unsustainably.


YOu can cut the military to the point that it guarantees a war, and we still won't be able to.

Since the military spending isn't going to be cut at all, and, in fact, Trump's GOP platform includes a plank to dramatically INCREASE spending on the bloated military, I guess we will never know if your assertion is true, or not, will we?

 

[Correll]

Well, if given a choice between feeding, clothing, and sheltering our own elderly, disabled, and children, or building $300,000,000 per copy aircraft that we don't need, I would choose the former, but I know that upsets the Right, General Dynamics, Boeing, the military, and the Electric Boat Company, so I guess that we will just go on building 3 hundred million dollar aircraft, which, BTW have a life expectancy of about 15 to 20 years, max.

Too bad for you that isn't the choice you will be given.

At some point, we wont' be able to fund all the social programs that are growing unsustainably.


YOu can cut the military to the point that it guarantees a war, and we still won't be able to.

Since the military spending isn't going to be cut at all, and, in fact, Trump's GOP platform includes a plank to dramatically INCREASE spending on the bloated military, I guess we will never know if your assertion is true, or not, will we?

Only if you are unable to read and understand a budget forecast.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, if given a choice between feeding, clothing, and sheltering our own elderly, disabled, and children, or building $300,000,000 per copy aircraft that we don't need, I would choose the former, but I know that upsets the Right, General Dynamics, Boeing, the military, and the Electric Boat Company, so I guess that we will just go on building 3 hundred million dollar aircraft, which, BTW have a life expectancy of about 15 to 20 years, max.

Too bad for you that isn't the choice you will be given.

At some point, we wont' be able to fund all the social programs that are growing unsustainably.


YOu can cut the military to the point that it guarantees a war, and we still won't be able to.

Since the military spending isn't going to be cut at all, and, in fact, Trump's GOP platform includes a plank to dramatically INCREASE spending on the bloated military, I guess we will never know if your assertion is true, or not, will we?

Only if you are unable to read and understand a budget forecast.

As the only industrialized nation on earth that does not provide some form of universal health insurance for all citizens, I suspect that our social spending is too far away from the norm. In fact, if you were to compare it with Germany, as a percent of GNP, I suspect that you will find that we are not even in the social spending big league.

On the other hand, if you compare US military spending to other nations, we spend more per year than the next 7 nations combined.

 

[Correll]

Well, if given a choice between feeding, clothing, and sheltering our own elderly, disabled, and children, or building $300,000,000 per copy aircraft that we don't need, I would choose the former, but I know that upsets the Right, General Dynamics, Boeing, the military, and the Electric Boat Company, so I guess that we will just go on building 3 hundred million dollar aircraft, which, BTW have a life expectancy of about 15 to 20 years, max.

Too bad for you that isn't the choice you will be given.

At some point, we wont' be able to fund all the social programs that are growing unsustainably.


YOu can cut the military to the point that it guarantees a war, and we still won't be able to.

Since the military spending isn't going to be cut at all, and, in fact, Trump's GOP platform includes a plank to dramatically INCREASE spending on the bloated military, I guess we will never know if your assertion is true, or not, will we?

Only if you are unable to read and understand a budget forecast.

As the only industrialized nation on earth that does not provide some form of universal health insurance for all citizens, I suspect that our social spending is too far away from the norm. In fact, if you were to compare it with Germany, as a percent of GNP, I suspect that you will find that we are not even in the social spending big league.

On the other hand, if you compare US military spending to other nations, we spend more per year than the next 7 nations combined.

1. I like that you admit that you are just guessing with regard to our social spending. THat indicates an awareness that is generally lacking among liberals. Kudos for you.

1b But I believe you are wrong. It has been a while since I looked up such numbers, but I believe we were in the big leagues as a percentage of gdp.


2. Comparing our military spending to other nations who are A. much smaller than US, and/or B, who's spending is subdued by our existence is extremely misleading.


2b and irrelevant since the military spending is generally contained within a general range of percent of gdp, while social spending is growing at an unsustainable rate with no end in sight.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, if given a choice between feeding, clothing, and sheltering our own elderly, disabled, and children, or building $300,000,000 per copy aircraft that we don't need, I would choose the former, but I know that upsets the Right, General Dynamics, Boeing, the military, and the Electric Boat Company, so I guess that we will just go on building 3 hundred million dollar aircraft, which, BTW have a life expectancy of about 15 to 20 years, max.

Too bad for you that isn't the choice you will be given.

At some point, we wont' be able to fund all the social programs that are growing unsustainably.


YOu can cut the military to the point that it guarantees a war, and we still won't be able to.

Since the military spending isn't going to be cut at all, and, in fact, Trump's GOP platform includes a plank to dramatically INCREASE spending on the bloated military, I guess we will never know if your assertion is true, or not, will we?

Only if you are unable to read and understand a budget forecast.

As the only industrialized nation on earth that does not provide some form of universal health insurance for all citizens, I suspect that our social spending is too far away from the norm. In fact, if you were to compare it with Germany, as a percent of GNP, I suspect that you will find that we are not even in the social spending big league.

On the other hand, if you compare US military spending to other nations, we spend more per year than the next 7 nations combined.

1. I like that you admit that you are just guessing with regard to our social spending. THat indicates an awareness that is generally lacking among liberals. Kudos for you.

1b But I believe you are wrong. It has been a while since I looked up such numbers, but I believe we were in the big leagues as a percentage of gdp.


2. Comparing our military spending to other nations who are A. much smaller than US, and/or B, who's spending is subdued by our existence is extremely misleading.


2b and irrelevant since the military spending is generally contained within a general range of percent of gdp, while social spending is growing at an unsustainable rate with no end in sight.

So, if providing universal health insurance for all citizens does not raise other nations' social spending to much higher levels, then there is no particular reason why we shouldn't do the same, is there?

And China and Russia are "small nations"?

 

[Correll]

Too bad for you that isn't the choice you will be given.

At some point, we wont' be able to fund all the social programs that are growing unsustainably.


YOu can cut the military to the point that it guarantees a war, and we still won't be able to.

Since the military spending isn't going to be cut at all, and, in fact, Trump's GOP platform includes a plank to dramatically INCREASE spending on the bloated military, I guess we will never know if your assertion is true, or not, will we?

Only if you are unable to read and understand a budget forecast.

As the only industrialized nation on earth that does not provide some form of universal health insurance for all citizens, I suspect that our social spending is too far away from the norm. In fact, if you were to compare it with Germany, as a percent of GNP, I suspect that you will find that we are not even in the social spending big league.

On the other hand, if you compare US military spending to other nations, we spend more per year than the next 7 nations combined.

1. I like that you admit that you are just guessing with regard to our social spending. THat indicates an awareness that is generally lacking among liberals. Kudos for you.

1b But I believe you are wrong. It has been a while since I looked up such numbers, but I believe we were in the big leagues as a percentage of gdp.


2. Comparing our military spending to other nations who are A. much smaller than US, and/or B, who's spending is subdued by our existence is extremely misleading.


2b and irrelevant since the military spending is generally contained within a general range of percent of gdp, while social spending is growing at an unsustainable rate with no end in sight.

So, if providing universal health insurance for all citizens does not raise other nations' social spending to much higher levels, then there is no particular reason why we shouldn't do the same, is there?

How the U.S. spends more helping its citizens than other rich countries, but gets way less



"As the chart below shows, the U.S. government spends only about 19 percent of GDP on this kind of social spending, compared with around 20-31 percent for various European countries. But even when the U.S. government lets the private sector provide certain social benefits, like health insurance, it still “pays” for it in a certain sense through tax breaks, Kirkegaard argues."





19% compared to 20 to 31 percent.


LIke I said, same league.




And of course, all of them are growing their social spending at unsustainable rates.


It is part of the Greying of the First World.