In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 04 2013 17:43 Introvert wrote: When I talk about cuts, I mean real cuts, no new spending. We ran a deficit that got worse every year, except for this one (thanks tax increases!). But it's still a deficit. His budgets were so bad the Senate rejected them. There have been no real spending cuts... We are in dire straights and need more than a penny here or penny there. As well as real welfare reform. When the government itself says the path is unsustainable, you have a problem. Obama doesn't treat it as a serious problem.
And Reagan tried to cut domestic spending, but when the Democrats held him up, he negotiated with them to get much of what he wanted in other areas (but overall, domestic spending was pretty much flat during his time in office). His biggest regret was the debt that was left when he was done. Obama shows no real penchant for even wanting to cut (besides the military, of course.)
To be fair, military spending is more than all other forms of discretionary spending *combined*.
This might help put things in perspective. Sure, he *could* start by reducing Veterans' benefits, Science, Energy and Environment, etc. but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the military. If you're actually serious about making cuts, the military certainly shouldn't be the only target, but it must be on the table, which is something the Republicans have been rather hypocritical about.
In addition, I think it's reasonable to think that the military could survive cuts more than other aspects of government could. I think most people agree that we don't actually need hundreds of military bases around the world, for example. If you think it's a fair price to pay for global military dominance, that has some validity to it, but you can't at the same time claim you're about "small government" and "reducing spending". (not to say that I approve of Democratic ideals all the time, but definitely more than the Republican stance on balancing the budget)
Entitlement form is really the only way we are going to fix our fiscal house. Unfortunately, politically speaking, it's impossible, as the program is considered "sacred" by Democrats and older Republicans. It will only get worse with more people going on Social Security every day.
Social security is OK though. They just need to adjust the start age, remove the SS cap, and it's fine. Of course, that sounds easy but any changes will be met with a lot of resistance, but SS is easily fixable. The bigger problem is/was medicare/medicaid because of the way costs were increasing. Have to see if the ACA does anything to slow that down.
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Roughly half the US budget is spent on the military. And the US accounts for nearly half of the world's total military spending... the military industrial complex is alive and well.
This is a great film on the military industrial complex, watch the first minute or so and you'll hear Eisenhower's dire warning to America about the MIC.
If anyone is still thinking that what the Republicans are doing regarding the shutdown is correct... imagine this...
...imagine that there was a law that passed through the House, Senate and Presidency that reformed welfare. Democrats disagreed with it, but didn't have the votes to stop it, so they took it to the Supreme Court. Democrats lost in the Supreme Court. But the Democrats held a majority in the House, even though they lost the popular vote in the last election where every seat was up for grabs (gerrymandering allowed them to win).
And so 40 Democratic representatives including the Speaker of the House demand that the President, the Senate and the American people repeal the welfare reform, or they won't fund the government. The President refuses, so the government shuts down. And this happens despite the fact that the moderate wing of the Democratic party would vote to fund the government without seeking a repeal of the welfare, but because the only Speaker decides what comes up for vote, he doesn't allow it.
Suddenly, this whole idea doesn't look so good, does it conservatives? Suddenly everyone can see how unreasonable the Tea Party is being, and why our Democracy cannot survive if that kind of behavior isn't condoned.
On October 04 2013 18:55 Funnytoss wrote: "he won't allow the United States to default"
... kind of obscures the fact that he's largely responsible for this mess. Seriously, just bring up the clean CR and let Congress vote. The only reason he hasn't done it yet is that he's in it for himself. It's really not that hard - practically speaking he's not really Speaker at all anyway, at this point.
Well he can force a vote and that's what is most important at this point. Obama will give him something, maybe medical device tax but more likely things not related to the PPACA more like the Pipeline, Maybe some more spending cuts, or whatever it is the Republicans want nowadays.
Obama can't give him anything. We have to condone this behavior. Small fringe elements from either party should not be allowed to dictate policy to everyone else, especially after they lose the debate, lose the vote, and lose in the Supreme Court.
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Half the US budget is spent on the military. And the US accounts for nearly 50% of the worlds total military spending...
That chart only shows discretionary spending, which is half of the budget. What you're not seeing is the other half of the federal budget that is made up of various entitlement programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It should be noted that those are the components of the budget that are growing most quickly.
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Half the US budget is spent on the military. And the US accounts for nearly 50% of the worlds total military spending...
That chart only shows discretionary spending, which is half of the budget. What you're not seeing is the other half of the federal budget that is made up of various entitlement programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It should be noted that those are the components of the budget that are growing most quickly.
It should be also be noted, that the money that goes into Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid comes back to the people. I put money in SS and Medicare, and I will get it back.
And they are growing due to demographics, not because of any politicians desire to grow these programs. So yes, when politicians can decide where money goes, most of it goes to the military.
Finally, you are wrong what is growing the fastest, it is the military. Check it out:
Major components of FY2009 budget (Pres. Bush's last budget)
Spending in FY2008's $2.9 trillion budget Non-discretionary spending: $610 billion (21%) Social Security payments $602 billion (21%) Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP payments $244 billion ( 8%) interest on the National Debt $302 billion (10%) other ‘mandatory’ payments
Discretionary spending: $550 billion (19%) national defense $392 billion (14%) other ‘discretionary spending’ $192 billion ( 7%) War on Terror ‘supplemental spending’
Major components of FY2000 budget (Pres. Clinton's last budget)
Spending in FY2000's $1.8 trillion budget $405 billion (23%) Social Security payments $328 billion (18%) Medicare/Medicaid payments $215 billion (12%) interest on the National Debt $226 billion (13%) other ‘mandatory’ payments
Discretionary spending: $262 billion (15%) national defense $330 billion (19%) other ‘discretionary spending’.
Look at that, and tell me where the growth is... military spending more than doubled. Nothing else doubled. The Military didn't used to consume so much discretionary spending. Note also, there was no budget deficit in Clinton's budget as well. The idea that conservatives are better with money, is a myth.
On October 04 2013 17:59 sc4k wrote: That spending division is unreal. I really can't get my head around it! 6% education, 5% health, 3% transportation, 57% military. Wow!!
Half the US budget is spent on the military. And the US accounts for nearly 50% of the worlds total military spending...
That chart only shows discretionary spending, which is half of the budget. What you're not seeing is the other half of the federal budget that is made up of various entitlement programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It should be noted that those are the components of the budget that are growing most quickly.
It should be also be noted, that the money that goes into Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid comes back to the people. I put money in SS and Medicare, and I will get it back.
And they are growing due to demographics, not because of any politicians desire to grow these programs. So yes, when politicians can decide where money goes, most of it goes to the military.
You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Spending is spending.
Finally, you are wrong what is growing the fastest, it is the military. Check it out:
Major components of FY2009 budget (Pres. Bush's last budget)
Spending in FY2008's $2.9 trillion budget Federal revenue sources Non-discretionary spending: $610 billion (21%) Social Security payments $602 billion (21%) Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP payments $244 billion ( 8%) interest on the National Debt $302 billion (10%) other ‘mandatory’ payments Discretionary spending: $550 billion (19%) national defense $392 billion (14%) other ‘discretionary spending’ $192 billion ( 7%) War on Terror ‘supplemental spending’ $1,220 billion (42%) individual income taxes $910 billion (31%) social insurance (FICA/Medicare) $345 billion (12%) corporate income taxes $171 billion ( 6%) other taxes & duties $246 billion (9%) budget deficit
Major components of FY2000 budget (Pres. Clinton's last budget)
Spending in FY2000's $1.8 trillion budget Federal revenue sources $405 billion (23%) Social Security payments $328 billion (18%) Medicare/Medicaid payments $215 billion (12%) interest on the National Debt $226 billion (13%) other ‘mandatory’ payments Discretionary spending: $262 billion (15%) national defense $330 billion (19%) other ‘discretionary spending’. $900 billion (48%) individual income taxes $637 billion (34%) social insurance (FICA) $189 billion (10%) corporate income taxes $157 billion (8%) other taxes & duties
Look at that, and tell me where the growth is...
Let's bring some of those numbers forward to 2012:
Medicare/Medicaid: $802 billion Social Security: $768 billion DoD: $670 billion
The military spending is going to take care of itself as the wars wind down. Medicare and social security are going to continue to balloon until they are reformed due to demographic problems.
On October 04 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote: You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Spending is spending.
Uhh... my money isn't being spent. It is being saved in Medicare and SS. Think of it that way. Sure it is being spent for today's elderly, but when I'm elderly, tomorrows youth will pay for me.
And you think when wars wind down, the military spending gets reduced? Did you miss the Bush years? Did you forget "Mission Accomplished" and the subsequent massive spending increase?
That wasn't a war. It was an occupation, for the purpose of getting American companies oil contracts....
On October 04 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote: You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Spending is spending.
Uhh... my money isn't being spent. It is being saved.
I really, really hope that you're not relying upon those programs existing in their current form by the time that you hit retirement age.
And you think when wars wind down, the military spending gets reduced? Did you miss the Bush years? Did you forget "Mission Accomplished" and the subsequent massive spending increase?
That wasn't a war. It was an occupation, for the purpose of getting American companies oil contracts....
The mission obviously wasn't "accomplished" given that we increased military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq after that statement was made.
And about those oil contracts .... if only they went to American companies. Most of the contracts went to European and Asian companies, who then may have subcontracted to American companies for extraction.
And you think when wars wind down, the military spending gets reduced? Did you miss the Bush years? Did you forget "Mission Accomplished" and the subsequent massive spending increase?
That wasn't a war. It was an occupation, for the purpose of getting American companies oil contracts....
The mission obviously wasn't "accomplished" given that we increased military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq after that statement was made.
And about those oil contracts .... if only they went to American companies. Most of the contracts went to European and Asian companies, who then may have subcontracted to American companies for extraction.
On October 04 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote: You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Spending is spending.
Uhh... my money isn't being spent. It is being saved.
I really, really hope that you're not relying upon those programs existing in their current form by the time that you hit retirement age.
And you think when wars wind down, the military spending gets reduced? Did you miss the Bush years? Did you forget "Mission Accomplished" and the subsequent massive spending increase?
That wasn't a war. It was an occupation, for the purpose of getting American companies oil contracts....
The mission obviously wasn't "accomplished" given that we increased military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq after that statement was made.
And about those oil contracts .... if only they went to American companies. Most of the contracts went to European and Asian companies, who then may have subcontracted to American companies for extraction.
On October 04 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote: You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Spending is spending.
Uhh... my money isn't being spent. It is being saved.
I really, really hope that you're not relying upon those programs existing in their current form by the time that you hit retirement age.
And you think when wars wind down, the military spending gets reduced? Did you miss the Bush years? Did you forget "Mission Accomplished" and the subsequent massive spending increase?
That wasn't a war. It was an occupation, for the purpose of getting American companies oil contracts....
The mission obviously wasn't "accomplished" given that we increased military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq after that statement was made.
And about those oil contracts .... if only they went to American companies. Most of the contracts went to European and Asian companies, who then may have subcontracted to American companies for extraction.
That's okay, I'll stick to the New York Times rather than outright propaganda.
Back way up. 2011? The war began in 2003.
What happened the oil fields inbetween? The government of Iraq ceased to exist, and the US occupied the fields... you think they were let go for free? No. You don't think US companies made money selling them? Are you that naive?
On October 04 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote: You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Spending is spending.
Uhh... my money isn't being spent. It is being saved.
I really, really hope that you're not relying upon those programs existing in their current form by the time that you hit retirement age.
And you think when wars wind down, the military spending gets reduced? Did you miss the Bush years? Did you forget "Mission Accomplished" and the subsequent massive spending increase?
That wasn't a war. It was an occupation, for the purpose of getting American companies oil contracts....
The mission obviously wasn't "accomplished" given that we increased military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq after that statement was made.
And about those oil contracts .... if only they went to American companies. Most of the contracts went to European and Asian companies, who then may have subcontracted to American companies for extraction.
That's okay, I'll stick to the New York Times rather than outright propaganda.
Back way up. 2011? The war began in 2003.
What happened the oil fields inbetween?
Dude, the article summarizes all of that. Obviously we were fighting a war. Also, oil contracts aren't given out in a day. It took a while for all of that to be sorted out. It wasn't done in 2003.
On October 04 2013 23:13 xDaunt wrote: You're drawing a distinction without a difference. Spending is spending.
Uhh... my money isn't being spent. It is being saved.
I really, really hope that you're not relying upon those programs existing in their current form by the time that you hit retirement age.
And you think when wars wind down, the military spending gets reduced? Did you miss the Bush years? Did you forget "Mission Accomplished" and the subsequent massive spending increase?
That wasn't a war. It was an occupation, for the purpose of getting American companies oil contracts....
The mission obviously wasn't "accomplished" given that we increased military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq after that statement was made.
And about those oil contracts .... if only they went to American companies. Most of the contracts went to European and Asian companies, who then may have subcontracted to American companies for extraction.
That's okay, I'll stick to the New York Times rather than outright propaganda.
Back way up. 2011? The war began in 2003.
What happened the oil fields inbetween?
Dude, the article summarizes all of that. Obviously we were fighting a war. Also, oil contracts aren't given out in a day. It took a while for all of that to be sorted out. It wasn't done in 2003.
My point exactly!
The oil wells needed to be prepared for contracts, it all had to be "sorted out" and it wasn't done in 2003. It took years.
And who did the work?
Who made the money from the work?
Halliburton and US contractors.
They made the money, and took bids for the wells. How do you think Cheney became a millionaire as Vice President? It wasn't the salary he got from the US government.
On October 04 2013 23:29 BronzeKnee wrote: What happened the oil fields inbetween? The government of Iraq ceased to exist, and the US occupied the fields... you think they were let go for free? No. You don't think US companies made money selling them? Are you that naive?
This isn't about extraction, this is about initial ownership and who made the money from selling em off.
No, YOU are missing the point. The major contracts went to foreign companies. Only ONE major contract went to an American company -- Exxon. Most of the money to American companies came from the subcontracts. Go read the NY Times article and quit citing uninformed opinion pieces.
I am under no delusions that the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Frankly, I think that securing strategic resources is a perfectly legitimate basis for war. However, let's not pretend that the Americans stole all of the Iraqi oil. They clearly didn't, because most of the contracts went to non-American firms.
On October 04 2013 23:29 BronzeKnee wrote: What happened the oil fields inbetween? The government of Iraq ceased to exist, and the US occupied the fields... you think they were let go for free? No. You don't think US companies made money selling them? Are you that naive?
This isn't about extraction, this is about initial ownership and who made the money from selling em off.
No, YOU are missing the point. The major contracts went to foreign companies. Only ONE major contract went to an American company -- Exxon. Most of the money to American companies came from the subcontracts. Go read the NY Times article and quit citing uninformed opinion pieces.
I am under no delusions that the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Frankly, I think that securing strategic resources is a perfectly legitimate basis for war. However, let's not pretend that the Americans stole all of the Iraqi oil. They clearly didn't, because most of the contracts went to non-American firms.
You're skipping over years of history and contract awards.
American companies "stole" the Iraq oil and then sold it to the highest bidder for extraction. Many weren't American.
Why? Because many American companies haven't cared about helping or reinvesting in America since the end of the Cold War. All about the dollar bill.
"Oh, labor is cheaper in China, what the hell am I doing with a factory in the US, lay all of my American workers and let's get to China!"
On October 04 2013 23:29 BronzeKnee wrote: What happened the oil fields inbetween? The government of Iraq ceased to exist, and the US occupied the fields... you think they were let go for free? No. You don't think US companies made money selling them? Are you that naive?
This isn't about extraction, this is about initial ownership and who made the money from selling em off.
No, YOU are missing the point. The major contracts went to foreign companies. Only ONE major contract went to an American company -- Exxon. Most of the money to American companies came from the subcontracts. Go read the NY Times article and quit citing uninformed opinion pieces.
I am under no delusions that the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Frankly, I think that securing strategic resources is a perfectly legitimate basis for war. However, let's not pretend that the Americans stole all of the Iraqi oil. They clearly didn't, because most of the contracts went to non-American firms.
You're skipping over years of history and contract awards.
American companies stole the Iraq oil and then told it to the highest bidder for extraction. Many weren't American.
Why? Because many American companies haven't cared about helping or reinvesting in America since the end of the Cold War. All about the dollar bill.
"Oh, labor is cheaper in China, see ya US!"
What in the world are you talking about? The post-war drilling contracts were awarded by the Iraqi government -- not by an American company. America and American companies never took title and possession of the oil fields. Insisting otherwise is simply crazy and something that only fringe lunatics believe.
On October 04 2013 23:29 BronzeKnee wrote: What happened the oil fields inbetween? The government of Iraq ceased to exist, and the US occupied the fields... you think they were let go for free? No. You don't think US companies made money selling them? Are you that naive?
This isn't about extraction, this is about initial ownership and who made the money from selling em off.
No, YOU are missing the point. The major contracts went to foreign companies. Only ONE major contract went to an American company -- Exxon. Most of the money to American companies came from the subcontracts. Go read the NY Times article and quit citing uninformed opinion pieces.
I am under no delusions that the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Frankly, I think that securing strategic resources is a perfectly legitimate basis for war. However, let's not pretend that the Americans stole all of the Iraqi oil. They clearly didn't, because most of the contracts went to non-American firms.
You're skipping over years of history and contract awards.
American companies stole the Iraq oil and then told it to the highest bidder for extraction. Many weren't American.
Why? Because many American companies haven't cared about helping or reinvesting in America since the end of the Cold War. All about the dollar bill.
"Oh, labor is cheaper in China, see ya US!"
What in the world are you talking about? The post-war drilling contracts were awarded by the Iraqi government -- not by an American company. America and American companies never took title and possession of the oil fields. Insisting otherwise is simply crazy and something that only fringe lunatics believe.
You need to understand how the military industrial complex works.
The US invades Iraq and then occupies it. The US decides to contract out control of the oil wells, it is outside their expertise. So who owns the oil wells, technically? The US. But who profits from controlling them? US companies, like Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, who got a no-bid contract in 2003 to do just that, profit from controlling wells.
Vice President Cheney as you may know, happened to have strong ties to Halliburton. And he happened to be involved in the process of awarding that no-bid contract. And he happened to become a millionaire afterwards.
So to go back to what started this conversation, this is why the US kept spending more money, even after "Mission Accomplished." They had to retain possession of the wells, which were contracted out to KBR and other US companies. We had no other reason to remain in Iraq. Remember, Cheney said we weren't in the business of nation building! The point here is, US spending on the military is in no way related to warfare, it is related to business, that is how the MCI works. I can fully explain the MCI here, or you can look it up. John McCain has spoken at length about the dangers of the MCI. As did Dwight Eisenhower.
You are the kind of person who needs to see the guy pull the gun, see him demand the cashier to open the register, and watch him take the money before you realize a crime has taken place. It doesn't' always work that way. People try to muddy the waters, try to hide their actions. People aren't dumb. By definition, only dumb criminals get caught. Don't let people pull the wool over your eyes.
So yes, technically, the companies didn't "own" the wells, or steal the oil. Doing so would look bad. So they just took all the money instead. And then the US transferred ownership to the Iraqi government, who sold the wells, which is what you are referring too.
But don't forget who the US government was made up of. Don't forget who Cheney was affiliated with. He was working for the US government and Halliburton. So you tell me, who really owned the wells in 2003?
Casey Mulligan: How ObamaCare Wrecks the Work Ethic The health-care law, starting Jan. 1, will begin driving up marginal tax rates—well above 50% for many.
I suppose one remedy would be to tweak payroll taxes.
Tax rates include forgone subsidies? WTF is that? Mulligan is god-tier for dishonest economists. From a more honest source that doesn't magic asterisk away his whole argument check out tax policy center. We can see that the federal tax take, as a function of GDP, was at its lowest in decades in 2009 at 15.1% of GDP. (see bottom right of chart) There is just no way to say that tax rates jumped when the actual tax take as a percentage of GDP had fallen that low. Mulligan is just talking out his ass trying to bring in forgoing cash-for-clunkers as a marginal tax rate increase.
It's a way to view the affects of taxes and subsidies on the labor market. CBO does the same thing (example). It's not a measure of the tax burden, it's a measure of incentives for work.
On October 04 2013 23:29 BronzeKnee wrote: What happened the oil fields inbetween? The government of Iraq ceased to exist, and the US occupied the fields... you think they were let go for free? No. You don't think US companies made money selling them? Are you that naive?
This isn't about extraction, this is about initial ownership and who made the money from selling em off.
No, YOU are missing the point. The major contracts went to foreign companies. Only ONE major contract went to an American company -- Exxon. Most of the money to American companies came from the subcontracts. Go read the NY Times article and quit citing uninformed opinion pieces.
I am under no delusions that the Iraq war wasn't about oil. Frankly, I think that securing strategic resources is a perfectly legitimate basis for war. However, let's not pretend that the Americans stole all of the Iraqi oil. They clearly didn't, because most of the contracts went to non-American firms.
You're skipping over years of history and contract awards.
American companies "stole" the Iraq oil and then sold it to the highest bidder for extraction. Many weren't American.
Why? Because many American companies haven't cared about helping or reinvesting in America since the end of the Cold War. All about the dollar bill.
"Oh, labor is cheaper in China, what the hell am I doing with a factory in the US, lay all of my American workers and let's get to China!"
Iraq owns the oil in Iraq. The government can contract out servicing / operating the wells to foreign companies if it wants. The government of Iraq didn't have to buy the oil from Americans.
Edit: The fees for operating / servicing the wells are low:
On June 30 and December 11, 2009, the Iraqi ministry of oil awarded contracts to international oil companies for some of Iraq's many oil fields. The winning oil companies enter joint ventures with the Iraqi ministry of oil, and the terms of the awarded contracts include extraction of oil for a fixed fee of circa $1.40 per barrel. The fees will only be paid once a production threshold set by the Iraqi ministry of oil is reached.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k548Uj0.png)
![[image loading]](http://nationalpriorities.org/media/uploads/peoples_budget/mandatory_discretionary_deb_interest_funding.png)
![[image loading]](http://nationalpriorities.org/media/uploads/peoples_budget/proposed_fy2012_mandatory_spending.png)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IPH7h3BsEI4/Uk0cigkb2EI/AAAAAAAABlY/2hETH85ABY0/s400/marginal+tax+rate+under+obamacare.jpg)
