• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Military Spending

jhmd2000 said:
If this is intended to be a synopisis of my position outlined in my posts, this would be a textbook example of the ad hominem, deliberate mischaracterizations I was referring to earlier in my post to W&B.

Promoting sustainable, efficient solutions funded by stake-holding consumers as an alternative to another albatross, unsustainable entitlement program administered by an unaccountable bureaucracy on a collision course with insolvency---isn't "anti-healthcare." It's perhaps the most "pro-health care" position one could have, if you desire a health care system we can actually sustain. What I'm "anti'-" is the insincere fable that the entitlement-fairy will just provide for all of us, happily ever after.

I won't even address the insinuation that anyone could have "no problem sending young men and women into harms way....[costs]....irrelevant." If you want to claim a baseless, ad hominem, exhausted refrain as a serious argument, then I can't debate with you.
Click to expand...

how was my post an ad hominem attack? I attacked your vision and position, not you personally.
 
one of the main reasons the entitlement programs are an albatross is that Americans don't want to pay for them. they want them, love them in fact, but don;t want to pay for them.

Even the wealthiest of the wealthy want them but do not want to pay for them. If you think for one second that the section of America that has benefited the most from debt-fueled expansion isn't fine with the status quo - then I have a bridge i want to sell you. They have become richer with medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps etc. in place than they have ever become in the history of America.

The problem is not programs that take care of our elderly and our innocent children, the problem is that no one wants to pay for them.
 
I might be one of the few, but I don't see the US spending less than 5% of our GDP on national defense as a major problem. The primary role of government in my mind is to protect us. If we are spending a nickle out of every tax dollar on government defense I am fine with that. Obviously there is no need to waste money on defense by using that nickle inefficiently or by incorrectly targeting that nickle, but the amount seems very reasonable to me.
 
Wrangor said:
I might be one of the few, but I don't see the US spending less than 5% of our GDP on national defense as a major problem. The primary role of government in my mind is to protect us. If we are spending a nickle out of every tax dollar on government defense I am fine with that. Obviously there is no need to waste money on defense by using that nickle inefficiently or by incorrectly targeting that nickle, but the amount seems very reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Guessing these are two very different numbers.
 
jhmd2000 said:
There are of course reasons why this analogy is flawed. We spend 2.0B on a B-2 and it provides intercontinental, direct, strategic attack capabilities (at a tremendous cost savings by eliminating the need for basing the ops overseas---they operate from the Democratic People's Republic of Missouri); whereas we spend 70% of the costs for health care in the last 18 months of life.

Returns on investment are a bit skewed.
Click to expand...
Way to let the debate become something it shouldn't be...an argument over funding old people's health. That's why no one can discuss this seriously.

The analogy is flawed because it's comparing the costs of better and better healthcare with the status quo of being defended.

You can not be better defended than you are if you're safe from enemies so the pressures are for better efficiencies at being defended which is where real cost reductions occur. Costs go up with the perception that we aren't as well defended like what has happened recently...and rightfully so...but will go down over time. Moreover the effort required to defend one nation of 150m in 1960 vs 300m today is roughly the same due to the nature of conflict. The per citizen cost of defense has dropped a lot. There are bureaucratic efficiency pressures as well because the military has to respond quickly. All of that keeps defense spending relatively efficient and under constant cost reduction pressure.

Meanwhile, the costs of health are caused by better care for each of a growing # of citizens and a burgeoning bureaucracy to run it due to regulation that has no pressures to reduce. The more government is involved, the less pressure exists to reduce it. And when faced with a choice of less government involvement/workers or less health, the system chooses less health...ie rationing.

The bottom line is, defense spending goes down a lot over time when not needed and social spending goes in the opposite direction needed or not. Government will find a way to "need" it. So blaming our spending issues on defense is pretty much a red herring. The left have pointed fingers non-stop at the MIC threat that never materialized while ignoring the massive health-industrial complex that exploded under a no-cost pressure environment.
 
Last edited:
I just can't fathom this vision of America that people have. This notion that pulling services that American's want will 'teach them to get back to what made this country great - hard work and personal responsibility - and small government that is off American's backs' doesn't ring true. When was this time? pre New Deal? How does that square with the modern world we live in now. Who are we competing against in the world to sustain our way of life and prosper - and how can we compete?
 
jhmd, while I respect your Constitutional position, it's kind of pointless to debate the legality of federal assistance programs because your interpretation has been firmly rejected by over 50 years of SC decisions. The legality of federal spending on government programs is utterly settled law. To rehash such a baseline disagreement -- one that is no longer seriously debated -- is not really an interesting a topic outside the confines of a Con Law I class.

Regarding the chart that began the thread, it would be eye-opening if that spending was broken down by where the money then goes, and how much of it actually turns into military hardware, pay, or some tangible defensive benefit versus how much is simply funneled back to corporate interests without public oversight or any eventual public utility.

And that chart likely does not include discretionary war spending -- the congressional blank checks we use to fund things like the Iraq War, covert intelligence initiatives, and the War of Terror.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
jhmd, while I respect your Constitutional position, it's kind of pointless to debate the legality of federal assistance programs because your interpretation has been firmly rejected by over 50 years of SC decisions. The legality of federal spending on government programs is utterly settled law. To rehash such a baseline disagreement -- one that is no longer seriously debated -- is not really an interesting a topic outside the confines of a Con Law I class.

Regarding the chart that began the thread, it would be eye-opening if that spending was broken down by where the money then goes, and how much of it actually turns into military hardware, pay, or some tangible defensive benefit versus how much is simply funneled back to corporate interests without public oversight or any eventual public utility.

And that chart likely does not include discretionary war spending -- the congressional blank checks we use to fund things like the Iraq War, covert intelligence initiatives, and the War of Terror.
Click to expand...

I'd be very curious to see how much of that money goes to companies like Halliburton and Mantech to provide mechanics and cooks for the bases in Afghanistan while paying them $150k+.
 
WakeandBake said:
I just can't fathom this vision of America that people have. This notion that pulling services that American's want will 'teach them to get back to what made this country great - hard work and personal responsibility - and small government that is off American's backs' doesn't ring true. When was this time? pre New Deal? How does that square with the modern world we live in now. Who are we competing against in the world to sustain our way of life and prosper - and how can we compete?
Click to expand...
Ummm...China for starters. But your premise is what's flawed which is why you can't fathom the vision others have.

It's not a matter of one or the other, it's moving forward. As a nation we bought into new deal progressivism in the 1920s and 1930s and for good reason..which is exactly the time frame you reference. But as a blog I read recently suggested, New Deal progressivism has "jumped the shark". Fewer people believe it it, but the remaining ones now invent ways for that dogma to continue (validated by 'experts'), finding racism under every Obama criticism for example. The change is basically driven by generational pressures where a given dogma prevails for ~80 years at which it outlives it's effectiveness and is replaced by one that addresses the new emerging problems.

We are at the end of the new deal progressive cycle. It will not be replaced by going back to the previous one dominated by manifest destiny thinking, it will move forward to a newer way of thinking. Read "the 4th turning". It changed my perspective totally. Now I look for the Crisis moment that will usher in the next dogma. You might change as well because change is inevitable.

http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/fourthturning.html

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/
 
pourdeac said:
Ummm...China for starters. But your premise is what's flawed which is why you can't fathom the vision others have.

It's not a matter of one or the other, it's moving forward. As a nation we bought into new deal progressivism in the 1920s and 1930s and for good reason..which is exactly the time frame you reference. But as a blog I read recently suggested, New Deal progressivism has "jumped the shark". Fewer people believe it it, but the remaining ones now invent ways for that dogma to continue (validated by 'experts'), finding racism under every Obama criticism for example. The change is basically driven by generational pressures where a given dogma prevails for ~80 years at which it outlives it's effectiveness and is replaced by one that addresses the new emerging problems.

We are at the end of the new deal progressive cycle. It will not be replaced by going back to the previous one dominated by manifest destiny thinking, it will move forward to a newer way of thinking. Read "the 4th turning". It changed my perspective totally. Now I look for the Crisis moment that will usher in the next dogma. You might change as well because change is inevitable.

http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/fourthturning.html

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/
Click to expand...

my questions were rhetorical.

I appreciate your response
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
jhmd, while I respect your Constitutional position, it's kind of pointless to debate the legality of federal assistance programs because your interpretation has been firmly rejected by over 50 years of SC decisions. The legality of federal spending on government programs is utterly settled law. To rehash such a baseline disagreement -- one that is no longer seriously debated -- is not really an interesting a topic outside the confines of a Con Law I class.

Regarding the chart that began the thread, it would be eye-opening if that spending was broken down by where the money then goes, and how much of it actually turns into military hardware, pay, or some tangible defensive benefit versus how much is simply funneled back to corporate interests without public oversight or any eventual public utility.

And that chart likely does not include discretionary war spending -- the congressional blank checks we use to fund things like the Iraq War, covert intelligence initiatives, and the War of Terror.
Click to expand...

I understand the precedent, but it's important to remember from a theoretical perspective that we created a federal government with limited, enumerate powers. If we all collectively, conveniently forget that we need a reason TO spend federal money, we end up trillions of dollars in debt...just like we are now.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I understand the precedent, but it's important to remember from a theoretical perspective that we created a federal government with limited, enumerate powers. If we all collectively, conveniently forget that we need a reason TO spend federal money, we end up trillions of dollars in debt...just like we are now.
Click to expand...

that's not why. We are trillion in debt because we all wanted shit but didn;t want to pay the tax on it.
 
jhmd...who is getting the best go of it in America? Who has had it the best and why?
 
pourdeac said:
Ummm...China for starters. But your premise is what's flawed which is why you can't fathom the vision others have.

It's not a matter of one or the other, it's moving forward. As a nation we bought into new deal progressivism in the 1920s and 1930s and for good reason..which is exactly the time frame you reference. But as a blog I read recently suggested, New Deal progressivism has "jumped the shark". Fewer people believe it it, but the remaining ones now invent ways for that dogma to continue (validated by 'experts'), finding racism under every Obama criticism for example. The change is basically driven by generational pressures where a given dogma prevails for ~80 years at which it outlives it's effectiveness and is replaced by one that addresses the new emerging problems.

We are at the end of the new deal progressive cycle. It will not be replaced by going back to the previous one dominated by manifest destiny thinking, it will move forward to a newer way of thinking. Read "the 4th turning". It changed my perspective totally. Now I look for the Crisis moment that will usher in the next dogma. You might change as well because change is inevitable.

http://www.angelfire.com/or/truthfinder/fourthturning.html

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you're in a cult, Pour.
 
WakeandBake said:
that's not why. We are trillion in debt because we all wanted shit but didn;t want to pay the tax on it.
Click to expand...

Our fiscal woes bear almost no relation to a failure to tax. There is a parade of horribles of waste.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Our fiscal woes bear almost no relation to a failure to tax. There is a parade of horribles of waste.
Click to expand...

huh?

no, Americans wanted services and energy wars and space programs and to be numero uno on every damn thing but they also wanted low taxes
 
WakeandBake said:
jhmd...who is getting the best go of it in America? Who has had it the best and why?
Click to expand...

The answer to that question is irrelevant to how much revenue our country needs. It is not the goal (or even authority) of tax policy to sort out winners and losers. That's the free market's job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top