Typical hot air response from you....totally detached from reality
You are the one making the proposals....not me, it's not on me to backup your arguments
Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Typical hot air response from you....totally detached from reality
You are the one making the proposals....not me, it's not on me to backup your arguments
You changed your question there 2002.
Given you seem to be mentally lazy I'll help you out:
Business Subsidies
America's $1T Defense Cost
$1T In Tax Loopholes | NPR
before we get to the trillions held in tax havens to keep from paying taxes on those monies.
Last edited:
Oh, I'd say the credibility of somebody wanting to be president is a very legitimate issue. And, lest we forget, the email investigation is being headed up by the FBI and directed by a (Bill) Clinton appointed federal judge...not Congressional Republicans.
To be sure, I don't blame Hillary one bit for trying to say it's not an issue, nothing to see here, let's focus on issues that matter to Americans, etc. But, judging by her tanking polling numbers, I'd say it's an issue that matters to Americans. And it should be.
As for "Black Lives Matter vs. All Lives Matter", what I think is just comically absurd is the framing of this particular question. If, like Martin O'Malley did (to his dismay), you say that "All Lives Matter," well you're dissing black people, according to the blacktivists (who, I guess, don't consider their lives to be a part of "all lives"? I dunno.). Well, boy, have these pols learned their lesson.
Bernie Sanders didn't miss a beat when asked to make his fateful choice. He remembered having his microphone commandeered from him on stage by a couple of separatist nutcases. And he wasn't about to cross them again. So, when asked to choose between "Black Lives" and "All Lives", without a moment's hesitation he answered "Black Lives Matter" -- which, I guess one could take to mean that lives which are merely brown (let alone white...there, we shall not go) do not.
You see, my curmudgeonly friend, I am not saying that "systemic issues with our justice system" are not an important political issue. That is not what I find so pathetic about this spectacle. What I find pathetic is that those seeking to be our next president are being asked -- with straight faces -- to choose between "Black Lives" and "All Lives."
And they had better choose wisely, or else.
The college loan forgiveness crowd on Facebook loves Bernie. Though technically, I believe he's only proposed all college be free (i.e. the rest of us pay for it) going forward, if that were to happen college loan forgiveness would be inevitably be next - for "fairness." I think those people, for the most part, are selfish deadbeats. No one forced them to take on college loan debt and it's irresponsible and selfish of them to expect the rest of us to pay it off for them. It took me 7 years, but I paid mine off and never once complained about the debt - I only appreciated the fact that I was given money I needed in exchange for a promise to pay later. That's how loans work.
This is a chart that Paul Krugman put up a few years ago in response to this argument:
By this measure -- which is as a percentage of all federal outlays -- we actually have cut defense spending in half in the past 50 years.
That said, I don't disagree that the defense budget is bloated -- and could and should, along with virtually all of the rest of the federal budget items, be cut. But, considering this chart, what does it say about federal outlays overall if the bloated defense budget you're kvetching over has gone from over 50% of federal outlays in the 50s and 60s to just around 20% today?
Maybe but little found so far and it's under investigation and has no effect on public policy.
Frankly I'd say it's more of an indictment of the right and their own obsessive nature with her. GIven all the investigations and things claimed w/o any proof being found over all this time.
They have less integrity than she does. The right just needs to butt out and let the proper authorities investigate.
What's the obsession about slashing the defense budget? Anyone that's looked at it knows that is really just a massive govt jobs program....the biggest form of socialism we have in the country, besides Medicare.
I've pointed out before, approx 5 million people have jobs directly funded by the DoD. Millions more have economic dependency on it indirectly ( think business owners in military towns). Boeing is mentioned in one your links about subsidies, Boeing employs tens of thousands of Americans in high paying jobs, in engineering, r&d, etc....the kind of jobs every politician says we need more of. But your budget ideas are to take a massive axe to them.
Changing the goalpost again... if you're here just to pleasure yourself do it elsewhere.
Moving it how? You were the one who brought up slashing the DoD budget. I was simply responding to your proposal
First, who is "they"? I'd say, when it comes to matters of character, we all deserve to be judge on our individual merits....not as a member of some amorphous collective. At least, that's what Martin Luther King said -- and I happen to think he was correct. You might not, I don't know.
Clearly, there are people of all political stripes who lack integrity. We know for a fact, in fact, that Hillary Clinton is (technically, anyway) married to one. It's not hard to name well-known people, including plenty in politics, who have poor character. But that doesn't mean all well-known people deserve to be painted with that brush.
That said, I'd just once again repeat that the email issue is not being driven by Congressional Republicans. Of course, that doesn't mean Republicans aren't out there touting it and using it to their political advantage. You don't think Democrats would be doing the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot? If you don't, then you're deluded. But, ultimately, so far as the investigation goes, it's a matter that pretty much entirely involves a federal court, the FBI, and the State Department.
And it does matter to the American people. If it didn't, her numbers wouldn't be cratering as they have been.
"Federal outlays" in that graph includes entitlements, right?This is a chart that Paul Krugman put up a few years ago in response to this argument:
By this measure -- which is as a percentage of all federal outlays -- we actually have cut defense spending in half in the past 50 years.
That said, I don't disagree that the defense budget is bloated -- and could and should, along with virtually all of the rest of the federal budget items, be cut. But, considering this chart, what does it say about federal outlays overall if the bloated defense budget you're kvetching over has gone from over 50% of federal outlays in the 50s and 60s to just around 20% today?
I ask because I think a more accurate measure of defense spending is in relation to other discretionary spending. Increases in Medicare and SS payments make all other spending look like it's shrinking in comparison.
All lives matter, but all lives are not equally at risk. In fact, black lives are disproportionately at risk, and it's precisely this point that the BLM crowd are trying to make. When O'Malley blithely responded to them that "All lives matter," he seemed to reject their fundamental point -- or at least he seemed clueless about their overriding concern.
Unlike Republicans, who've written off the black vote, Democratic politicians must understand and care about the concerns of black people. O'Malley and Sanders have been reminded of that political reality. This seems silly to you because you're a Republican.
Looking at defense spending as % of GDP historically is a much better barometer...
He attacked the monstrosity our capitalism has become. A rigged game that is nothing more than socialism for the wealthy. If that is our inherent culture, then America indeed used to be a great country. But keep defending the millionaires and billionaires who's greed has driven this country into shit. Maybe they'll send you a card for your effort. Heck, they might even let you clean their toilet one day if you're lucky.
Is there anything in the world that isn't the fault of wealthy people? So which rich fat cat fired you?
I'm doing just fine in our evil capitalist country, thank you though for caring.
Over 80 percent of federal spending is consumed by health care (24 percent), Social Security (24 percent), defense (18 percent), safety net programs (11 percent), and interest (7 percent).
Defense spending is a smaller portion of total federal spending than it used to be, but as you say, it accounts for most of the federal government's discretionary spending.
You don't happen to be a strong supporter of Sanders, are you?
I happen to be one of his supporters, but his performance today was not one of his best. However, I must give him credit for sticking out for Hilary on the email thing. Sorry, Aloha!
All Hillary did was not shut up. She talked over the moderator and the other candidates. She went past her allotted time, significantly, every time she opened her mouth. I guess in America whoever talks the loudest and the longest = leader/winner. That's just sad.
Why is that a more accurate measure of defense spending in relation to everything else, Goat? Spending is spending -- dollars, as they're taxed away from those who earned them and then spent by governmental entities, don't stop and ask: am I discretionary or non-discretionary?
Let me put it this way: you think monetary influences care if public budgets are, by statute, discretionary or non-discretionary? You think credit ratings agencies do?
Granted, I can fully understand why you'd like to downplay entitlement spending. I would too, given what it's done (not to mention what it's on the verge of doing). But, yes, of course the chart includes entitlement spending....which, I'm sure, goes a long to way to explaining why this particular chart shows defense spending, as a percentage of all federal outlays, plunging.
Still, I don't want to inadvertently cast myself as a staunch defender of the defense budget. I'm all for cutting it. In fact, I think about the only politically feasible way to get the long-term budget under control is to do across-the-board cuts of some fashion. I totally understand why many people find this suboptimal. I do too, truth be told. The problem is that you can't separate politics from spending. As soon as one line item escapes the axe at the expense of another line item, you have intractable political loggerheads. I'd love it if we could do this in a more rational way -- but I don't think we're up for it.
It's not about downplaying anything. It's about the fact that the increase in entitlement spending over the decades gives us a distorted view of everything else. Anything that's not SS or Medicare probably can't be examine accurately if it's being looked at in comparison to SS and Medicare.
No, it seems silly to me because it is silly -- and I'm not a fan of identity politics, in any way, shape, or form. And this silly formulation is identity politics on steroids. I get that this is a political reality that Democratic candidates have to embrace, or else. What I'm decrying, Rock, is that this is the case. It's absurd.
Again, consider Bernie Sanders' answer last night. No equivocation whatsoever: Black Lives Matter. Could that not be construed by, say, Asians, that their lives don't matter? Granted, I think it would be silly for Asian people to infer that. But the silliness begins with the very question itself: Black Lives....or All Lives?
What if Sanders would've answered the question as you did? All Lives Matter, but..... He'd have caught hell, regardless of what came after the "but...." And there is no defense of that. They're politically trapped into taking sides in a no-third-option question of "Blacks or Everybody" -- and they're actually up there on national television taking sides against "Everybody."
One of the positive aspects of Republicans having written off the black vote is that it frees us up to be more bluntly honest and not having to pander in such a shameless fashion. The biggest problems facing black people in America reside within the community itself. The answers to these problems, similarly, lie within. So long as they continue laying blame externally, those problems will not only continue, but probably worsen.
An answer like that probably wouldn't garner much applause at events like last night's debate. And that is why the problems persist.
I hope that's not politically feasible, because it would be a destructive response to the problems we're projected to have in future decades.
As I explain every time this subject comes up, discretionary and safety net spending are under control and are projected to stay that way. We do need a one-time fix for Social Security, which would then be fine for as long as the trustees claim they can project. But much more importantly, we need to bend the cost curve on health care, the cost of which is projected to keep rising forever. That's why straight line projections of future deficits look unsustainable. You fix that problem by fixing that problem -- and not by hacking away at the federal government as Republican ideologues always prefer regardless of the circumstances. And you certainly don't fix that problem by enacting enormous new tax cuts for the wealthy while increasing defense spending, as every Republican presidential candidate proposes to do.
Since the abolition of slavery, black people have seldom suffered more than they have under Obama. The only real concern Democrats have for black people is for their votes.
SS a different t, we pay for it our entire lives from our pockets. Blame mgt for screwing it up and that's a decades long, multigenerational both parties thing.
Oh please expand on this and how Obama is responsible for that.
You know, since he doesn't make any legislation so you'll have to show it with his executive orders.
Oh please expand on this and how Obama is responsible for that.
You know, since he doesn't make any legislation so you'll have to show it with his executive orders.
It doesn't give a distorted view at all, Goat. There are only so many dollars to go around -- and why should dollars spent on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid be ignored? A dollar spent there is a dollar that cannot be spent elsewhere, right? How is that different from any other dollar?
In fact, if anything were to give a distorted view of our public sector reality as it exists, it would be to ignore these proverbial elephants in the living room. Again, I understand why you'd want to ignore them -- you consider them sacrosanct and, as such, off the table of any discussion how our dollars are allocated. But that's like a broke person examining their own personal budget and exempting the mortgage. It may be their single largest budget item...but everybody needs a place to live, right?
The entire reasoning behind making certain things "discretionary" and certain things "non-discretionary" was to remove the annually recurring politics from those. I get it. But we're on the verge of doing some more long-term budgetary remodeling -- and they have to be taken into account, they're the biggest line items we have.....and, yes, their growth in the past 6 decades is amplified by Krugman's chart.
Good lord, crazed. Settle down, and listen to what I'm actually saying instead of reading into it. Medicare and SS spending has expanded dramatically over time. Therefore, when examining any other federal outlay over time, it will always look small in comparison.
This isn't about any grand philosophy on budgeting. It's about the fact that Krugman's graph is meaningless. Nothing can be accurately looked at as a percentage of total outlays over that time period, because Medicare and SS breaks the curve. That's it.
It is a matter of fact that black lives are disproportionately at risk. You can't wave away that fact by labeling it as "identity politics".
Yes, it could be construed that way -- by people who either don't know what they're talking about or are dishonestly misrepresenting what's actually being discussed.
The BLM people aren't being reasonable. They're being purposely confrontational. But Democratic politicians have to be able to handle obstreperous members of their own coalition, just as Republican politicians must be able to handle insurgent Tea Partiers. It only becomes inexplicable to you when it's The Other Guys doing it to placate a constituency you don't care about.
Spoken like a Republican, whose party is doing everything in its power to alienate every non-white segment of the electorate.
I hate to say it Aloha, but the only think missing there is the "walked 15 miles in the snow uphill both ways" part. How long ago was that? What was your total debt? What was the under/unemployment rate when you finished? Did your military career help in paying off the debt in any way?
There are a lot of variables here. As has been stated so often and never once even an attempt at a serious rebuttal, wages are not keeping pace in America. That means the wages for parents to pay for college are falling behind, the wages people make after graduating are behind. I had student loans that seemed painful to pay off at the time but are a drop in the bucket today. I know a lot of people who even then (late 70s/early 80s) who couldn't afford college. We are strengthened by more people getting educated. I don't have any problem with people receiving something I didn't get. I also won't be bothered if they don't have to walk 15 miles uphill in the snow to college.
Edit as unintended reply stored from previous thought session was added. I hate that autosave feature.
You just need to relate that to Obama now.
You know, instead of the courts ruling regarding affirmative action and the immediate effect of that ruling.
Last edited:
I'm sure black folks today long for the days of Jim Crow.
Jesus Christ, dude. If I were black, I would be demanding an apology from you. There is no excuse for that kind of comment, and there is absolutely no excuse for the fact that you were apparently serious. You should be goddamned ashamed of yourself.
As an aside, this day/time should be memorialized - "[K]rugman's graph is meaningless"
Given Krugman's near God-like status here I would have expected it more likely the denizens of the AOTF to jointly agree that CTC is the best-ever collegiate basketball coach and that the Patriots are the cleanest NFL organization ever before reading those four words. Whew ....
This calls for several drinks, before lunch.
We now return you to your regular program ....
I meant seldom fared worse economically and should have phrased it that way.
Speaking of "identity politics", Matt Yglesias gets this exactly right.
This is, I think, the problem with idea of "identity politics" as a shorthand for talking about feminism or anti-racism. . . The implication of this usage . . . is that somehow an identity is something only women or African-Americans or perhaps LGBT people have. White men just have ideas about politics that spring from a realm of pure reason, with concerns that are by definition universal.
You see something similar in Noam Scheiber's argument that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio went astray by emphasizing an "identity group agenda" of police reform at the expense of a (presumably identity-free) agenda of populist economics. For starters, it is actually inevitable that a New York City mayor would end up spending more time on his police department management agenda (something that is actually under the mayor's control) than on tax policy, which is set by the State Legislature in Albany.
But beyond that, not addressing a racially discriminatory status quo in policing is itself a choice. Indeed, it's a kind of identity group appeal — to white people, whose preferred means of striking the balance between liberty and security, in many contexts, is that security should be achieved by depriving other people of their civil liberties.
This is where the at-times tiresome concept of privilege becomes very useful. The truth is that almost all politics is, on some level, about identity. But those with the right identities have the privilege of simply calling it politics while labeling other people's agendas "identity."
. . . All politics is, on some level, identity politics. The idea that it's some special attribute of black politics or feminist politics is just blindness. And while identity politics can be practiced in bad ways or in pursuit of bad goals, that's simply to say that politics can be practiced both for good and for ill. The idea that gendered or ethnic claims are despoiling a liberalism of pure selves and neutral rationality is little more than an unselfconscious form of identity politics. Politics is about collective decisions. This necessarily implicates individuals' identities by defining who is inside and who is outside the community of concern and under what terms.
You see something similar in Noam Scheiber's argument that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio went astray by emphasizing an "identity group agenda" of police reform at the expense of a (presumably identity-free) agenda of populist economics. For starters, it is actually inevitable that a New York City mayor would end up spending more time on his police department management agenda (something that is actually under the mayor's control) than on tax policy, which is set by the State Legislature in Albany.
But beyond that, not addressing a racially discriminatory status quo in policing is itself a choice. Indeed, it's a kind of identity group appeal — to white people, whose preferred means of striking the balance between liberty and security, in many contexts, is that security should be achieved by depriving other people of their civil liberties.
This is where the at-times tiresome concept of privilege becomes very useful. The truth is that almost all politics is, on some level, about identity. But those with the right identities have the privilege of simply calling it politics while labeling other people's agendas "identity."
. . . All politics is, on some level, identity politics. The idea that it's some special attribute of black politics or feminist politics is just blindness. And while identity politics can be practiced in bad ways or in pursuit of bad goals, that's simply to say that politics can be practiced both for good and for ill. The idea that gendered or ethnic claims are despoiling a liberalism of pure selves and neutral rationality is little more than an unselfconscious form of identity politics. Politics is about collective decisions. This necessarily implicates individuals' identities by defining who is inside and who is outside the community of concern and under what terms.
Why segregate the spending this way?
There comes a time when we must decide whether to spend a federal dollar on a new bridge, on ECE, on supplemental nutrition for an illegal entrant, on a weapon, on a new regulatory effort for a particular species of reptile, or on the latest linear accelerator to treat cancer. Our public officials are a bunch of chickenshits because they haven't for decades made difficult spending choices. They no longer consider a unified budget but instead pass a bunch of spending resolutions that serve only to stove-pipe spending. The consequence of this approach is to give more power and influence to K-Street lobbyists and to abandon all control of the budget and to ensure re-election by avoiding hard decisions.
To isolate our spending "curve" to one sector while telling ourselves that all the rest of the spending is in order is not a way to run the government.
Lest you think I am taking shots at the liberals I am not. This is not a partisan problem. This is a government problem. This is a problem that results from too much campaigning and too little governing.
Last edited:
Well, I certainly don't think going across-the-board is the optimal way to wield a budget axe. I hope I've been clear about that. I just suspect it's the only politically feasible way we're going to get the long-term budget under control.
Granted, I was heartened that the Bowles-Simpson commission was able to find enough common ground to win the support of sitting politicians as varied as Tom Coburn and Dick Durbin (and the emphasis on "sitting" is intentional....it's far easier to take stands that are bound to be unpopular when you're safely out of office). True, it didn't win the support of the Jan Schakowskis and Paul Ryans on the commission. But it did win a bipartisan majority -- which gives hope that we might be able to successfully tackle this with a coalition nearer the middle.
But, sadly, the commission's work exists only as a fading memory at this point. But that it's faded from memory has not made the underlying problem go away.
I see. I think that's arguable but not offensive. I hope you understand why I took "since slavery" the way I did. Sorry for flipping out.
Similar threads
