Republicans don't want to cut the Defense budget

[Douger]

Defense of what ? Brown people with box cutters ?
The only thing you've had for the lat 60 years is an offence-control-steal resource budget.

 

[eflatminor]

You cannot balance the budget without either raising taxes or cutting spending that includes cutting defense.

While I support the idea of cutting defense spending, you are incorrect about that being required to balance the budget. Defense makes up about 20% of federal spending. 61% of the federal budget is spent on SS, Medicare, Medicade, education, transportation, research and other safety net programs. I'd argue all of those programs are for states to consider, not the federal government. Those enumerated powers and all...

Anyone who argues for keeping defense and taxes where they are, or worse yet, argues for cutting taxes and increasing defense spending, is arguing for increasing the deficit.

Not necessarily so. As we've argued on this board many times, nobody really knows what will happen to revenues following an increase or decrease in tax rates. We have cut rates in the past and saw an increase in revenue...other times, we've seen the opposite. There are many factors that determine the amount of revenue realized, not just rates.

You do know that social security was never in the federal budget until pres johnson put it in there...and do you know why he put it in the budget and did not keep it in the separate account that it once had? He added it to the budget so he COULD MASK THE PERCENTAGE OF discretionary money that was being used on Defense...he didn't want the public to know the true percentage of our income tax monies that was being used on defense, the vietnam war.

social security is not paid for with income tax monies and should not be in the budget, as was the case before Johnson...and if you look at what the federal gvt spends in discretionary income tax monies on.... almost 90% is the defense budget.

Well if we're going to look at the history of SS...you do know that it was originally intended only for widows that had lived beyond average life expectancy. If we're going to point fingers at what politicians in the past have done to SS, we should start at the beginning.

That said, I agree Johnson should not have put SS in the federal budget. Nor should he and subsequent administrations raided those coffers. There is no money in SS, only IOUs. That would be criminal in any private retirement scheme. Come to think of it, the entire idea of SS would be considered a Ponzi scheme in any private investment company...but I digress.

Lastly, just to be clear, you're not suggesting 90% of the federal budget (ex SS) is spent on defense...I hope. Perhaps 90% of discretionary spending is (you'd have to show me a link to support that figure) but that's a small percentage of the overall budget.

 

[Billo_Really]

[ Defense makes up about 20% of federal spending.

No it doesn't, try 58% of all discretionary spending.






When you add in the cost of the wars and all the ancillary expenditures related to military logistics, we get over $1 trillion a year of taxpayer dollars going to the Pentagon.

More than 50% of US Government Spending Goes to the Military

discretionary spending is most relevant to ordinary citizens, as we continue to suffer under rising unemployment, increased foreclosures, bankster bailouts, million dollar industry bonuses while the minimum wage remains below poverty, all amid a global financial crisis.

And what does that 58% of discretionary spending amount to? In 2010: $1,027.8 billion, or over a trillion dollars, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, at Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think: more than $1Trillion a year.

 

[GoneBezerk]

go find some more worthless charts.

Hell, LA spends 100X more on police than Bumfuck MS....I guess that means LA is wasting their money and they should cut their police budget to pieces. Go find that chart, idiot.

Typical idiot chart.

China is full of shit with their numbers since they are covering up what they actually spend on defense.

As for the US compared to the rest of the world, World War II woke the US up to the FACT that we have to be the big dog on the planet or else millions of people die and the future of the US is put in danger.

Now go fuck yourself.

Your pretty good at shit talking but not much else.

 

[Billo_Really]

go find some more worthless charts.

Hell, LA spends 100X more on police than Bumfuck MS....I guess that means LA is wasting their money and they should cut their police budget to pieces. Go find that chart, idiot.

You are some American, aren't you?

You support spending over a trillion taxpayer dollars in someone else's god-damn country with no direct benefit for average American's.

Yeah, you really support this country, doncha, fuckhead?

 

[Dissent]

go find some more worthless charts.

Hell, LA spends 100X more on police than Bumfuck MS....I guess that means LA is wasting their money and they should cut their police budget to pieces. Go find that chart, idiot.

Typical idiot chart.

China is full of shit with their numbers since they are covering up what they actually spend on defense.

As for the US compared to the rest of the world, World War II woke the US up to the FACT that we have to be the big dog on the planet or else millions of people die and the future of the US is put in danger.

Now go fuck yourself.

Your pretty good at shit talking but not much else.

Awww another whining ****.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Wrong idiot on everything you post.

Oh, Syria was thought to be like Libya by the Obamabots in DC until they were told otherwise by CENTCOM, I was there.

So you don't have a clue why Syria is different than Libya, but of course YOU know we can just pull out of middle east bases based on your vast knowledge reading coloring books.

This why removing bases from middle east will help a lot, let the middle east handle it's affairs but based off oil America has to get involved, but leave political affairs alone. It's all about interests, when gaddafi was killing Libyans Obama condemned and international world sent NATO but what about when Saudi Arabia killed Bahrain protestors? Nothing said and Syria is left alone. Someone explain why Syria was left like that?

I know why it's Israel who decides what can be done to Syria, and I already know who's supporting rebels it's not america or Europe

 

[eflatminor]

[ Defense makes up about 20% of federal spending.

No it doesn't, try 58% of all discretionary spending.






When you add in the cost of the wars and all the ancillary expenditures related to military logistics, we get over $1 trillion a year of taxpayer dollars going to the Pentagon.

More than 50% of US Government Spending Goes to the Military

discretionary spending is most relevant to ordinary citizens, as we continue to suffer under rising unemployment, increased foreclosures, bankster bailouts, million dollar industry bonuses while the minimum wage remains below poverty, all amid a global financial crisis.

And what does that 58% of discretionary spending amount to? In 2010: $1,027.8 billion, or over a trillion dollars, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, at Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think: more than $1Trillion a year.

Just to be clear, I support less spending on defense.

So you say 58% of discretionary spending. Care4all says it's 90%. Whatever the truth, don't confuse discretionary with the overall budget, which is what really matters. No matter how it's categorized, we're spending about over a tillion more than we take in every year. THERE in lies the problem.

Cut it all, live within our means I say.

 

[Care4all]

While I support the idea of cutting defense spending, you are incorrect about that being required to balance the budget. Defense makes up about 20% of federal spending. 61% of the federal budget is spent on SS, Medicare, Medicade, education, transportation, research and other safety net programs. I'd argue all of those programs are for states to consider, not the federal government. Those enumerated powers and all...

Not necessarily so. As we've argued on this board many times, nobody really knows what will happen to revenues following an increase or decrease in tax rates. We have cut rates in the past and saw an increase in revenue...other times, we've seen the opposite. There are many factors that determine the amount of revenue realized, not just rates.

You do know that social security was never in the federal budget until pres johnson put it in there...and do you know why he put it in the budget and did not keep it in the separate account that it once had? He added it to the budget so he COULD MASK THE PERCENTAGE OF discretionary money that was being used on Defense...he didn't want the public to know the true percentage of our income tax monies that was being used on defense, the vietnam war.

social security is not paid for with income tax monies and should not be in the budget, as was the case before Johnson...and if you look at what the federal gvt spends in discretionary income tax monies on.... almost 90% is the defense budget.

Well if we're going to look at the history of SS...you do know that it was originally intended only for widows that had lived beyond average life expectancy. If we're going to point fingers at what politicians in the past have done to SS, we should start at the beginning.

That said, I agree Johnson should not have put SS in the federal budget. Nor should he and subsequent administrations raided those coffers. There is no money in SS, only IOUs. That would be criminal in any private retirement scheme. Come to think of it, the entire idea of SS would be considered a Ponzi scheme in any private investment company...but I digress.

Lastly, just to be clear, you're not suggesting 90% of the federal budget (ex SS) is spent on defense...I hope. Perhaps 90% of discretionary spending is (you'd have to show me a link to support that figure) but that's a small percentage of the overall budget.

let me clarify and say TOTAL Defense spending, which includes military retirements, veteran Disability, Homeland Security, foreign affairs, the Pentegon, *fbi, cia, nsa etc and the Military plus war spending that may be supplemental spending.

Note! Homeland security was in the defense dept but was moved in to it's own dept during bush.

And I might add that even though Johnson did move social security in to the budget to mask the amount being spent on the total defense of this country, he didn't spend any of the SS money collected because at that time we collected ONLY 3% from individuals and 3% from employers and we never had a surplus to use, it was only after Reagan gave us a more than 100% increase in social security taxes back in the 80's that the government had surplus SS to spend...so thank Reagan for that one, and Greenspan who suggested more than doubling the every day workers SS tax.

Love to see a link about only wives were suppose to receive SS.....I have NEVER read this....???

 

[eflatminor]

You do know that social security was never in the federal budget until pres johnson put it in there...and do you know why he put it in the budget and did not keep it in the separate account that it once had? He added it to the budget so he COULD MASK THE PERCENTAGE OF discretionary money that was being used on Defense...he didn't want the public to know the true percentage of our income tax monies that was being used on defense, the vietnam war.

social security is not paid for with income tax monies and should not be in the budget, as was the case before Johnson...and if you look at what the federal gvt spends in discretionary income tax monies on.... almost 90% is the defense budget.

Well if we're going to look at the history of SS...you do know that it was originally intended only for widows that had lived beyond average life expectancy. If we're going to point fingers at what politicians in the past have done to SS, we should start at the beginning.

That said, I agree Johnson should not have put SS in the federal budget. Nor should he and subsequent administrations raided those coffers. There is no money in SS, only IOUs. That would be criminal in any private retirement scheme. Come to think of it, the entire idea of SS would be considered a Ponzi scheme in any private investment company...but I digress.

Lastly, just to be clear, you're not suggesting 90% of the federal budget (ex SS) is spent on defense...I hope. Perhaps 90% of discretionary spending is (you'd have to show me a link to support that figure) but that's a small percentage of the overall budget.

let me clarify and say TOTAL Defense spending, which includes military retirements, veteran Disability, Homeland Security, foreign affairs, the Pentegon, *fbi, cia, nsa etc and the Military plus war spending that may be supplemental spending.

Note! Homeland security was in the defense dept but was moved in to it's own dept during bush.

And I might add that even though Johnson did move social security in to the budget to mask the amount being spent on the total defense of this country, he didn't spend any of the SS money collected because at that time we collected ONLY 3% from individuals and 3% from employers and we never had a surplus to use, it was only after Reagan gave us a more than 100% increase in social security taxes back in the 80's that the government had surplus SS to spend...so thank Reagan for that one, and Greenspan who suggested more than doubling the every day workers SS tax.

Love to see a link about only wives were suppose to receive SS.....I have NEVER read this....???

I may have been wrong about who qualified to receive SS in the beginning. When I looked for a source, I found info contrary to what I thought was the case. My mistake.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[ Defense makes up about 20% of federal spending.

No it doesn't, try 58% of all discretionary spending.






When you add in the cost of the wars and all the ancillary expenditures related to military logistics, we get over $1 trillion a year of taxpayer dollars going to the Pentagon.

More than 50% of US Government Spending Goes to the Military

discretionary spending is most relevant to ordinary citizens, as we continue to suffer under rising unemployment, increased foreclosures, bankster bailouts, million dollar industry bonuses while the minimum wage remains below poverty, all amid a global financial crisis.

And what does that 58% of discretionary spending amount to? In 2010: $1,027.8 billion, or over a trillion dollars, according to Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute, at Defense Spending Is Much Greater than You Think: more than $1Trillion a year.

Would you care to tell us how you think "58% of discretionary spending" contradicts "20% of federal spending"? Do you even know what "discretionary" and "mandatory" spending categories ARE in the federal budget, Mensa Boy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Taxes under republican plan I meant

Liberals don't seem to be able to grasp certain things. For the 1000th time, letting a tax cut (which is an actual cut) expire asscheduled is not a cut anymore than not increasing funding to a particular program is (Yes they call that a cut too).

We don't want tax cuts for the rich

"We"? I don't recall soliciting votes from the mouse in your pocket.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I apologize but I dont have time to go back what specific country or countries were you talking about

If you don't have time to understand the posts you're responding to, don't respond.

It's a bit hard when all these republicans are teaming up on me haha

Whine to someone else. The rest of us manage it; if you can't, you shouldn't be here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Military spending disaster - YouTube

They will keep denying or change the topic, amnesty international posted our spending compared to others they have a legit chart

Yeah, 'cause Amnesty International is totally unbiased and lacking an axe to grind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm sure there are loads of things that can be cut in defense without harming our men and women in the field.

Everything should be on the table for cutting. Everything.

Then why don't we start with some of the social programs that make up the bulk of the federal budget? Why is it that leftists can never think of anything to cut but public safety/national defense?

 

[squeeze berry]

I didn't see that coming, but anyways republicans are angry about the defense cut of 500 billion if I am correct but are find with cutting budget of middle class and poor, McCain went on CNN with another lady crying about it, we all know the real reason is to keep their defense contractors rich, what's your things should we cut the defense budget or not? Keep in my mind this is my first thread so correct me if something is wrong or if this thread already exists...

Republicans don't want to cut shit except help for the weak.

no more government cheese for you limp wristed liberals?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Military spending disaster - YouTube

They will keep denying or change the topic, amnesty international posted our spending compared to others they have a legit chart

Yeah, 'cause Amnesty International is totally unbiased and lacking an axe to grind.

Wow what other links are you gonna deny? Where do you get your facts, fox news?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

I didn't see that coming, but anyways republicans are angry about the defense cut of 500 billion if I am correct but are find with cutting budget of middle class and poor, McCain went on CNN with another lady crying about it, we all know the real reason is to keep their defense contractors rich, what's your things should we cut the defense budget or not? Keep in my mind this is my first thread so correct me if something is wrong or if this thread already exists...

Republicans don't want to cut shit except help for the weak.

no more government cheese for you limp wristed liberals?

Awww republicans want more wars again and profit off dead amemrican soldiers, cut the defense budget and get more strict gun laws you see what happens when white conservatives/supremacists attain assualt rifles?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oooo, I'm not an American now....strange I know more inside info about America than you.

The US military is used for the protection and desires of the US. We didn't do shit in Rwanda because there was little interest in it for the US, try to figure that out idiot.

It is in our interest that Russia, China, and Iran don't use their militaries to blackmail their neighbors into actions that are counter to world peace and US interests. So idiot, we put our military in their backyards to scare them from doing anything unlike what we did prior to WWII allowing Germany, Italy and Japan to invade country after country after counter until it was a world war.

Our military is the police walking around the world's streets making sure idiots like you don't try shit or else we shoot you dead.

go find some more worthless charts.

Hell, LA spends 100X more on police than Bumfuck MS....I guess that means LA is wasting their money and they should cut their police budget to pieces. Go find that chart, idiot.

You are some American, aren't you?

You support spending over a trillion taxpayer dollars in someone else's god-damn country with no direct benefit for average American's.

Yeah, you really support this country, doncha, fuckhead?

 

[Unkotare]

oh wait Americans don't want republicans in office that must tell you something

Did you forget the 2010 mid-term elections?

Yeah whatever

"Yeah whatever"? Are you 13 years old or something?