120 replies to this topic

[F3SS]

They get plenty of revenue. If they spent less they wouldn't have to 'get' more revenue.
Anytime they get more they always spend more and then they don't do the right things with half of it and the right things that they actually do they pay more than double what they should and they never pay down the debt that they use as some kind of guilt trip telling everybody they need to pay down the debt and its always a minuscule amount paid over several years and then they ask for more, repeat all of the above.

[ninjadude]

-Mr_Fess-, on 15 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

If they spent less

Yep, let's start by cutting military spending by 50%

[F3SS]

ninjadude, on 15 December 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Yep, let's start by cutting military spending by 50%

Entitlements first. We need the military more than affirmative action.

[Gromdor]

Heck cut both.  It would probably do good for our values if grandma was forced to move in and be taken care of.  And when was the last time an army marched towards our borders?

[F3SS]

Gromdor, on 16 December 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Heck cut both.  It would probably do good for our values if grandma was forced to move in and be taken care of.  And when was the last time an army marched towards our borders?

If our military was slashed it might not be so long before one tries.

[Tiggs]

-Mr_Fess-, on 15 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

They get plenty of revenue. If they spent less they wouldn't have to 'get' more revenue.

If you can stop that population growth curve - then sure. Otherwise -  government revenue needs to increase, on a continual basis, to provide the same level of services to everyone.

[Gromdor]

-Mr_Fess-, on 16 December 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

If our military was slashed it might not be so long before one tries.

Why would anyone bother to invade the US when they can just buy it?

[RavenHawk]

Tiggs, on 16 December 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

If you can stop that population growth curve - then sure. Otherwise -  government revenue needs to increase, on a continual basis, to provide the same level of services to everyone.

Of course.  And how will that work?  A Socialist will look at the curve and only see an increasing number of dependency.  And that means only one thing, you got to confiscate all the money you can from those who earned it up front to redistribute.  A Conservative will see new opportunities and new business and entrepreneurs which means a broadening of the tax base which means more money all the way around and perhaps a lowering of taxes.  The thing that gets me is that nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the purpose of this government is to provide dole for the people.  The five charges of this government are to assist everyone to follow their own path; to build their own future on their own, with their own two hands.

[F3SS]

Tiggs, on 16 December 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

If you can stop that population growth curve - then sure. Otherwise -  government revenue needs to increase, on a continual basis, to provide the same level of services to everyone.

Well unless job growth is on par with or greater than birth rates, job losses and immigrants entering without jobs getting gov assistance I can't see how the working class doesn't keep getting hit harder and harder. The death rate doesn't level that out because there are almost twice as many people born every year than how many die.
Edit: what that means is that tax revenues can never keep up with what you deem as necessary spending if job growth can't keep up with all those factors.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 16 December 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[Tiggs]

-Mr_Fess-, on 16 December 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Well unless job growth is on par with or greater than birth rates, job losses and immigrants entering without jobs getting gov assistance I can't see how the working class doesn't keep getting hit harder and harder. The death rate doesn't level that out because there are almost twice as many people born every year than how many die.
Edit: what that means is that tax revenues can never keep up with what you deem as necessary spending if job growth can't keep up with all those factors.

Correct.

[ninjadude]

-Mr_Fess-, on 16 December 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

Entitlements first. We need the military more than affirmative action.

Affirmative action is not an "entitlement". And we don't need a military where we spend nearly as much as all other nations on earth COMBINED.

[ninjadude]

Gromdor, on 16 December 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

It would probably do good for our values if grandma was forced to move in and be taken care of.

Assuming you're referring to Social Security. That is not an "entitlement" but paid for directly. And does NOT contribute to debt.

[questionmark]

ninjadude, on 16 December 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Affirmative action is not an "entitlement". And we don't need a military where we spend nearly as much as all other nations on earth COMBINED.

So, you are advocating another 15% unemployed?

Fact remains that there are very few healthy industries left in the country, one of them carters to the military. Reduce the military budget in half and half of those people will be unemployed.

First you have to make it possible to pay the current bills and then you can think about economical restructuring, like reducing the military complex. And the only way to do that is increase taxes.

[ninjadude]

questionmark, on 16 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

So, you are advocating another 15% unemployed?

Fact remains that there are very few healthy industries left in the country, one of them carters to the military. Reduce the military budget in half and half of those people will be unemployed.

First you have to make it possible to pay the current bills and then you can think about economical restructuring, like reducing the military complex. And the only way to do that is increase taxes.

guns or butter? I would choose butter. invest in green energy, infrastructure.

[questionmark]

ninjadude, on 16 December 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

guns or butter? I would choose butter. invest in green energy, infrastructure.

Your problem still is that you won't have that money by just cutting down the military. You might not need to spend that money and it might make a considerable dent in the deficit, but you still don't have money to invest in green energy.