Ross Perot's website is very informative.

[Kidlicious]

If you cut spending on items that benefit people you don't really cut spending. You just shift it on to individuals. Cutting defense however is actually cutting spending.

[Arrian]

Seems to me that the overriding issue is living within our means. There are many people, apparently such as Ben and Patrolklos, who are happy to apply that maxim to things like social security, healthcare, welfare, ect., but NOT to the military (to be fair to Patroklos, he has said he's ok with cuts in military spending).

Why?

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

If you cut spending on items that benefit people you don't really cut spending. You just shift it on to individuals. Cutting defense however is actually cutting spending.

Hardly, welfare is spending that doesn't generate wealth of investment. It is in effect throwing money away in most cases.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If you look at the increas in spending over the last few years, mandatory spending outpaced military spending increases even with two wars.

Perhaps insignificant was a but of an exaggeration, but the effort to reign in spending will not hinge on defense spending.

I understand that. I'm fine with that. My point, and I think it's important, is that no area of the budget should be off-limits. The military budget is a very significant part of the budget, and cannot be ignored when considering cuts. That's all.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The relevant chart...

But this does not include the wars?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos




Hardly, welfare is spending that doesn't generate wealth of investment. It is in effect throwing money away in most cases.

There's plenty of money for investment. Your statement seems quite ridiculous to me.

[Patroklos]

understand that. I'm fine with that. My point, and I think it's important, is that no area of the budget should be off-limits. The military budget is a very significant part of the budget, and cannot be ignored when considering cuts. That's all.

I agree with you for all intents and purposes.

[Patroklos]

There's plenty of money for investment. Your statement seems quite ridiculous to me.

I totally understand why reality might seem ridiculous to you

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I totally understand why reality might seem ridiculous to you

If supply side economics ever has anything to do with reality I'll get back to you.

[Elok]

Don't forget the recent farm bill. Elok's first rule of fiscal responsibility is "Screw the farmers." When I come up with a second rule, I'll get back to you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If you look at the increas in spending over the last few years, mandatory spending outpaced military spending increases even with two wars.

Perhaps insignificant was a but of an exaggeration, but the effort to reign in spending will not hinge on defense spending.

Of course what you're ignoring is that Social Security actually turns a profit, unfortunately, greedy politicians have been stealing that profit for almost 30 years and giving Social Security IOUs to hold on to instead.

The solution for social security is pretty damn simple. First you increase the retirement age to 70 to reflect how people are living longer, next you actually prevent politicians from stealing social security money, and thirdly you allow SSI to seek higher rates of return by making it a real Sovereign Wealth Fund like Norway or Alaska's oil funds. Much lower over head then 300 million tiny accounts and the economies of scale to really go after the big deals.

It wouldn't hurt if they increased revenues by closing loop holes like the one which allows people making over $120k per year to not pay any SSI taxes on their upper earnings.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


But this does not include the wars?

Nope, those are off budget appropriations. To the tune of $200 billion to $300 billion per year. In other words when you actually count the costs of those two wars Defense is the single largest item in the entire Federal budget. And we haven't even counted the cost of the "War on Terror" which is another major budgetary item.

Arrian is right. We need across the board cuts. The only thing I wouldn't cut is Social Security though I would reform that item as I said above.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Elok
Don't forget the recent farm bill. Elok's first rule of fiscal responsibility is "Screw the farmers." When I come up with a second rule, I'll get back to you.

There are very few farmers left as mostly its all corporations in the agrobusiness. They should be like every other corporation and actually make a living without corporate welfare. Negotiate a treaty with the EU where we both get rid of farm subsidies and be done with it.

[Seeker]

"Politithreadi "

I just felt it was my civic duty to point out that the above word contains, within itself, the word 'tit'.

That is all.