BF2S Forums True Majority. US Budget Spending. A Must See!

*shrugs*  That was a great link and a cool explanation.  Still, the people who fight to keep most of our budget in the military don't respond well to logic.  Paranoia and patriotism are an unholy alliance that keep about half our population war-hungry.

Besides, as long as our government is more concerned about dollar hegemony in the oil trade than about rising crime in our inner cities, we're sure to spend more on nation-building than on our own domestic issues.

This isn't really a War on Terror....  It's a war for military accumulation and currency dominance.  Terrorists just provide an easy scapegoat to rationalize unrestrained interventionism....

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

most education is handled by the citizen's respective states, how convenient for ben to leave that part out

and downy, you don't really think they spend 5000 on office chairs do you? how do you think the f117 and b2 got financed?

If you're trying to prove the Pentagon don't waste money, the F117 and B2 are not the best things to use as examples.

I think thats our first strike aircraft. They were used extensively in the first gulf war. Not to say I am arguing they don't waste money. The entire government does.. no secret there.

No they weren't. The B2 first saw action in Kosovo. I think an F117 got shot down in Kosovo too, as well as the embarassing debacle of the debut of the F117 (in the first Gulf war), where the US were worried about it being picked up by radar so they jammed the Iraqi radar, rendering all stealth capabilities useless.

Neither aircraft has proved to be anything even resembling value for money. Especially since there is not a lot of call for first strike aircraft these days. What's the point of them? Just like the Commanche, a huge waste of money.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-12 16:01:53)

Turquoise wrote:

Essentially, Afghanistan was a more valid conflict than most, but the Taliban wouldn't have even been an issue if we had never supported the groups that fought against the Soviets.

Most of the extremism we see in the Middle East today arose from movements we supported against the Soviets.  Through our meddling, we inadvertently created our own worst enemies.

You can thank Jimmy Carter for that decision.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Essentially, Afghanistan was a more valid conflict than most, but the Taliban wouldn't have even been an issue if we had never supported the groups that fought against the Soviets.

Most of the extremism we see in the Middle East today arose from movements we supported against the Soviets.  Through our meddling, we inadvertently created our own worst enemies.

You can thank Jimmy Carter for that decision.

At least he's trying to make amends these days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle … 169107.stm

thanks_champ wrote:

I can't believe they didn't even mention the 40 oreo cookies ($400 billion) spent to pay interest on the national debt. Who is that money going to? Why is the worlds super power so in debt?

Instead of taking money away from defence, perhaps people should investigate ways of eliminating that debt, and hence those interest payments.

What about what we spend on welfare?  All the fat fucks sitting around eating his ice cream not doing shit.

thanks_champ wrote:

I can't believe they didn't even mention the 40 oreo cookies ($400 billion) spent to pay interest on the national debt. Who is that money going to?

Mostly China.

thanks_champ wrote:

Why is the worlds super power so in debt?

Because the US traditionally spends more than money than they have. Lots more. Especially under Bush who has had some of the largest deficits ever. In fact he broke his own record for the largest deficit of any nation in history. The US is a nation that lives constantly in debt, lots of it.

thanks_champ wrote:

Instead of taking money away from defence, perhaps people should investigate ways of eliminating that debt, and hence those interest payments.

Do you have any idea how much that would cost? If the US eliminated defence spending for the next 5 years, that wouldn't be enough to pay off the US's debts.

usmarine2007 wrote:

thanks_champ wrote:

I can't believe they didn't even mention the 40 oreo cookies ($400 billion) spent to pay interest on the national debt. Who is that money going to? Why is the worlds super power so in debt?

Instead of taking money away from defence, perhaps people should investigate ways of eliminating that debt, and hence those interest payments.

What about what we spend on welfare?  All the fat fucks sitting around eating his ice cream not doing shit.

Well, that part of the budget is still dwarfed by the military budget, but yes, we should move away from that too.  Ultimately, welfare should be a state budget issue, not a federal one.  The federal system is just wasteful.

We need to conquer Canada. They have our oil.

thanks_champ wrote:

So if you think of the US in business terms, it is running at a loss with an unpayable debt. How exactly is that not going to lead to bankruptcy?

Because you could pay it off. You'd just need to drastically cut spending and/or raise taxes. No administration will be prepared to do that though, because of the huge hit in popularity their party will take.

It is a slippery slope that the US is on. It's not just the country either, personal debt in the US is also at record levels, everyone buys stuff on finance instead of waiting till they can afford it. The only purchase that justifies a loan, in my opinion, is a house.

I think US national debt stands at around $35000 per person in the US. Good luck paying that off.

Although under Clinton the US had record budget surpluses. So it can be fixed. Bush's tax cuts were just really irresponsible.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-12 16:31:01)

Bertster7 wrote:

thanks_champ wrote:

So if you think of the US in business terms, it is running at a loss with an unpayable debt. How exactly is that not going to lead to bankruptcy?

Because you could pay it off. You'd just need to drastically cut spending and/or raise taxes. No administration will be prepared to do that though, because of the huge hit in popularity their party will take.

It is a slippery slope that the US is on. It's not just the country either, personal debt in the US is also at record levels, everyone buys stuff on finance instead of waiting till they can afford it. The only purchase that justifies a loan, in my opinion, is a house.

I think US national debt stands at around $35000 per person in the US. Good luck paying that off.

Although under Clinton the US had record budget surpluses. So it can be fixed. Bush's tax cuts were just really irresponsible.

28,839.38 ^^
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

thanks_champ wrote:

So if you think of the US in business terms, it is running at a loss with an unpayable debt. How exactly is that not going to lead to bankruptcy?

Because you could pay it off. You'd just need to drastically cut spending and/or raise taxes. No administration will be prepared to do that though, because of the huge hit in popularity their party will take.

It is a slippery slope that the US is on. It's not just the country either, personal debt in the US is also at record levels, everyone buys stuff on finance instead of waiting till they can afford it. The only purchase that justifies a loan, in my opinion, is a house.

I think US national debt stands at around $35000 per person in the US. Good luck paying that off.

Although under Clinton the US had record budget surpluses. So it can be fixed. Bush's tax cuts were just really irresponsible.

28,839.38 ^^
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

D'oh. I had the US population too small (1/4 billion) and I had $9 trillion in my head as the figure for debt - just got the figure for the new debt ceiling stuck in my head.

Still I wasn't too far off.

Nice site.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-12 16:48:45)

thanks_champ wrote:

I can't believe they didn't even mention the 40 oreo cookies ($400 billion) spent to pay interest on the national debt. Who is that money going to? Why is the worlds super power so in debt?

Instead of taking money away from defence, perhaps people should investigate ways of eliminating that debt, and hence those interest payments.

Keeping with the whole oreo cookie theme, heres a little look at the interest payments over time:

1990 - 20 oreos (~ $200 billion)
1995 - 30 oreos (~ $300 billion)
2005 - 35 oreos (~ $350 billion)
2006 - 40 oreos (~ $400 billion)

What a coincidence, the military budget could completely reconcile those payments alone. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

thanks_champ wrote:

So if you think of the US in business terms, it is running at a loss with an unpayable debt. How exactly is that not going to lead to bankruptcy?

Because our currency is backed by oil. Effectively, the US has a monopoly on oil as a comodity money, because the only way to get oil is with our money (or trading doctors to Chavez). As long as oil can only be purchased in US dollars, the US dollar shall prolong the looming deflationary depression it has coming.

jonsimon wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

bush tax cuts= increased tax revenue

almost as if leaving money in the private sector allows the private sector to grow more taxable business

You, sir, are fucking dumb.

Tax cuts lead to decreases in tax revenues. Shut the fuck up, don't even try to argue that point, it is a fact.

jonsimon, I think you need to educate yourself:

in recent decades, most "supply-siders" have been Republicans (though the largest individual tax cut was initially proposed by President Kennedy), and President Ronald Reagan signed tax cuts into law, in the belief that cutting the tax rate would stimulate investment and spending, with overall beneficial effects -- including increased tax revenues. While it took some time, these tax cuts arguably stimulated a doubling in total tax revenues, from five hundred billion to one trillion dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_cut

jonsimon, If you're going to insult someone, at least be right about what you're bitching about. I think you owe all of us, especially kr@cker, an apology for your childish, misinformed, and immature display.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-12-12 18:34:44)