On October 10 2012 08:27 RaspberrySC2 wrote: Am I the only one who has thought that the reason that the USA spends so much on "defense" is because... we actually need it?
Like, the USA really is under constant threat of attack and this is how much money is needed to deter attack?
It's a pretty scary idea, but maybe there really are that many people out there that are eager to jump at any sign of weakness.
I just wonder if the USA has established itself as that much of a global bully and this is now what's necessary to maintain military dominance.
lol
You're delusional if you think any country would ever attack the US.
The last time that happened (excluding Pearl Harbor) was two hundred years ago, by Canada.
If geopolitical threat should be proportional to spending, China should spend 20x more than the US.
yea what if the japanese navy attacks them. oh the horror
China is surrounded by Russia, India, Japan and the US (from Japan to Taiwan and SEA, even Afghanistan in the west). All are strong and unfriendly.
I think it's safe to say that the possibility of war between Japan and China is far greater than between Canada and the US.
You can be as condescending as you want towards Chinese interests, but you can't say that they are wrong to want to defend themselves vs a country that tried to conquer them twice.
yea, no.
i'm not sure what you are thinking. strong = war risk? this is not civ 5
Do remember the context that stems from that comment about the US military spending for defense.
Today's world is different than 100 years ago, but you are still ignorant to say that strong, ambitious, proud countries sitting beside each other competing for the same resources doesn't generate any tension.
Whatever, let's not derail this thread any further. I have a good idea of where you stand on this issue already.
the estate tax pales in comparison to all the tax sheltering corporate arrangements anyway, that and offshore shelters. it's an open secret really, if you get caught with the estate tax you are pretty dumb or not rich enough.
On October 10 2012 09:06 RavenLoud wrote:etc. Whatever, let's not derail this thread any further. I have a good idea of where you stand on this issue already.
i know. i just prefer to make fun of your positions as a proxy for criticizing various things too time consuming to point out. if you want an indepth discussion i don't have time right now.
On October 10 2012 09:07 oneofthem wrote: the estate tax pales in comparison to all the tax sheltering corporate arrangements anyway, that and shelters. it's an open secret really, if you get caught with the estate tax you are pretty dumb or not rich enough.
that makes sense, thanks
What is the best way for government to raise revenue? this is a question that I've been thinking about a lot recently. Sales tax is regressive. Income tax is hard to enforce. Estate tax is hard to enforce. Nationalized industries are unpopular for ideological reasons (and maybe for economic reasons, don't want to open that can of worms atm so we can write off nationalized industry for the moment). I feel like property tax is nice - it's hard to hide land and property tax encourages urban density, right?
thoughts anybody? How should taxes work? (please don't say "taxes are stealing" there's already a thread about that and it's a stupid position)
I never argued the statistics were real I simply stated "Be a dear and find x money" when someone gives you a percentile that is supposed to match up is redundant, if you have a complaint or rebut just state it.
A better way would have been to show his numbers were off.
On October 10 2012 09:04 sam!zdat wrote: Why does he want to repeal the estate tax? Or I guess why does he say he wants to repeal the estate tax, because it's obvious WHY he wants to repeal the estate tax
I rather like estate tax
I used to be for a really high estate tax, then I heard Friedman make a good argument against it and now I have mixed feelings about it. Life's complicated like that sometimes
On October 10 2012 09:06 RavenLoud wrote:etc. Whatever, let's not derail this thread any further. I have a good idea of where you stand on this issue already.
i know. i just prefer to make fun of your positions as a proxy for criticizing various things too time consuming to point out. if you want an indepth discussion i don't have time right now.
Well hey, it's not rocket science that China is in a more dangerous geopolitical area than the US. Maybe I should have used Israel or something as example instead.
Just to be clear, I have no more sympathy for nationalism than you do. I just don't like to judge things while looking at them in a vacuum.
On October 10 2012 09:04 sam!zdat wrote: Why does he want to repeal the estate tax? Or I guess why does he say he wants to repeal the estate tax, because it's obvious WHY he wants to repeal the estate tax
I rather like estate tax
I used to be for a really high estate tax, then I heard Friedman make a good argument against it and now I have mixed feelings about it. Life's complicated like that sometimes
Are you kidding? life is simple. I just became a Stalinist and then I knew everything. Ask dvorak
edit: in that video he's responding to the terrible idea of a 100% estate tax so I don't know how relevant it is (and in full disclosure Milton Friedman gives me the fucking willies so I'm biased against whatever he says)
On October 10 2012 06:35 sunprince wrote: Spreading democracy is a means to an end with the tangible benefit of security for us. You may have noticed that we selectively support dictators when it benefits us.
Um
you may have noticed that we overthrow democratically elected rulers and install dictators when it benefits us
I think is what you meant to say
Or, to be more succinct, (potential/future) dictators.
But regardless, the point is that we don't actually care that much about spreading democracy.
On October 10 2012 06:52 oneofthem wrote: not really.
there is really no need to argue for such things anyway. when you do not respond to very basic principles like respecting other people on a grand scale, what's there to do. i have no interest in convincing the guy.
Then why are you posting?
Also, try not to conflate empirical statements with normative ones. I'm merely stating what our foreign policy is, not whether it's right or wrong.
I never argued the statistics were real I simply stated "Be a dear and find x money" when someone gives you a percentile that is supposed to match up is redundant, if you have a complaint or rebut just state it.
A better way would have been to show his numbers were off.
Yeah, I meant to be critical of the guy that brought up the 4% / 22% numbers. My bad
On October 10 2012 09:04 sam!zdat wrote: Why does he want to repeal the estate tax? Or I guess why does he say he wants to repeal the estate tax, because it's obvious WHY he wants to repeal the estate tax
I rather like estate tax
I used to be for a really high estate tax, then I heard Friedman make a good argument against it and now I have mixed feelings about it. Life's complicated like that sometimes
yes, taxes are behavioral altering, but how much it alters depends on the rate as well as people's expectations. a 100% rate obviously will alter things a great deal, but you could well observe that the desire to provide for one's offspring is strong enough so that even if the tax rate is 70-80%, you still retain most of the incentive to build up wealth. the stronger a need/desire, the more inelastic the behavior.
expectations is also key here. in the sense that it is not the absolute amount of gain that drives behavior, but the relative gain to population, and your present situation. both are suffering high diminishing returns. so cutting taxes on the very high end do not alter behavior much at all.
these concerns apply to taxes in general, but the estate tax also has another thing against it in that people's instinct to accumulate wealth isn't necessarily affected by the end of life. just as the fear of death does not care if, on the event of death, you no longer fear or indeed feel any negative impact. it's blind to rational consideration due to its instinctive nature, selected for by evolution.
anyways, behavior is not rational in the way of a utility function. (that's admittedly to be an instrumentalist device anyway, i.e. the utility must fit the observed behavior) humans are animals with very distinct instincts and also intellectual capacities. you can even say this differs across individuals in a population.
there are various cultural factors and invisible social costs, which are very strong evolutionary enforcement mechanisms for behavior over and above the individual model common in economics. for instance, people will look down on you for being unproductive, and you won't find a good mate. etc
rationalistic models are good for predicting and understanding strategic actions by other people, but they don't "come online" constantly.
Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy.
In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy.
In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
True that's a given.
The tough part is that America is so invested in it's war games that cutting that would be immensly difficult, you'd most likely have to pull out of an entire region (would be nice) but that affects your political standing.
Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy.
In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
The federal budget allocates 4% to education, and 22% to defense. Check my link earlier. States and local governments pay the lion's share of education, though the overall amount of education spending is decreasing.
Unfortunately, one of Romney's campaign promises is to increase military spending to 4% of GDP. This is where Obama gets his figure of $2 trillion over the next five years.
Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy.
In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
Do we honestly think the right is serious about cutting the deficit? While we may argue about whether it's possible to not raise taxes on the middle-class and remain revenue-neutral if we cut taxes by $4.8 trillion, it's a much tougher feat when we're also planning on raising defense spending by $2 trillion. And don't forget the repeal of Obamacare would add another $100 billion to the deficit.
If we were really serious about decreasing the deficit, we'd nationalize the healthcare system so Medicare wouldn't bite us in the ass. It also helps when employers don't have to worry about shelling out money for health insurance.
Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy.
In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
The federal budget allocates 4% to education, and 22% to defense. Check my link earlier. States and local governments pay the lion's share of education, though the overall amount of education spending is decreasing.
Unfortunately, one of Romney's campaign promises is to increase military spending to 4% of GDP. This is where Obama gets his figure of $2 trillion over the next five years.
Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy.
In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
Do we honestly think the right is serious about cutting the deficit? While we may argue about whether it's possible to remain revenue-neutral without raising taxes on the middle-class if we cut taxes by $4.8 billion, it's a much tougher feat when we're also planning on raising defense spending by $2 billion. And don't forget the repeal of Obamacare would add another $100 billion to the deficit.
If we were really serious about decreasing the deficit, we'd nationalize the healthcare system so Medicare wouldn't bite us in the ass. It also helps when employers don't have to worry about shelling out money for health insurance.
4% of GDP on defense is way, way more than 2 billion.
Thank you for this. When I read the ridiculous 4% 22% I was gonna look up the real numbers but I either forgot or got lazy.
In any case, regardless of the actual numbers, I don't think anyone on the right or the left can make the case that we aren't spending too much on military. If the right is serious about cutting the deficit, then that is the first place to start.
Do we honestly think the right is serious about cutting the deficit? While we may argue about whether it's possible to remain revenue-neutral without raising taxes on the middle-class if we cut taxes by $4.8 trillion, it's a much tougher feat when we're also planning on raising defense spending by $2 trillion. And don't forget the repeal of Obamacare would add another $100 billion to the deficit.
If we were really serious about decreasing the deficit, we'd nationalize the healthcare system so Medicare wouldn't bite us in the ass. It also helps when employers don't have to worry about shelling out money for health insurance.
2 trillion* Romney wants to put 2trillion more into defense, not billion :D over a decade, so 100 billion extra per year increasing the spending to 1trillion per year.
EPT
