US Federal budget

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

US Federal budget

Post by Picard » Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:03 am


sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: US Federal budget

Post by sonofccn » Sun Jul 01, 2012 3:00 am

Two things.

1) Perhaps most imporantly as one of the few valid obligations of the goverment military spending should be the largest slice of the budget. "Human needs" is at best an indulgence not an actual goverment task.

2) Discarding such non-discretionary spending such as Social Security because it is a "Trust Fund" is blatantly dishonest. Money paid in is doled out to current recipents which makes it a tax albeit a specific one set for a specific cause. But it is still taking money from the private sector to be distrubted by goverment and it is by no means unfair or dishonest to include that along with all the other money the goverment spends.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: US Federal budget

Post by Picard » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:27 pm

Read what is written in yellow part...

Second, defense spending should be governed by actual defense need, not by what Lockheed Martin's wallet wants.

Third, task of government is to govern, not to provide contracts for MIC. And health care should be responsibility of government as much as defense... sick people don't work very well.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: US Federal budget

Post by sonofccn » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:24 pm

Picard wrote:Read what is written in yellow part...
I see nothing there addressing the argument I made. Social Security is not a trust fund, as the yellow box seems to imply, but a tax. That is is a specific tax for a specifc cause does not make the money it takes from you any less taken or change that fact that it could be utilized in other ways. Or if the military was funded, at the exact same levels, via a "National Security tax" the same as Social Security would you consider that not goverment spending?
Second, defense spending should be governed by actual defense need, not by what Lockheed Martin's wallet wants.
No military spending is governed by the fact we are the, for the moment, hyperpower incharged with maintaining world stability , such as it is, on this backwater planet. The US military for instance typically leads reflief missions to places which suffered natural debacles such and the like. That takes money and time to perform and requires massive infastructure to do timely which also comes with its own costs.

As to your belief regarding Lockheed Martin you are entilted to them but since you have provided no supporting evidence I ask you not to bring such beliefs up as evidence for your position.
Third, task of government is to govern, not to provide contracts for MIC.
The goverment's job is to maintain the stable enviroment for which citizens may freely interact and exchange goods and services.
And health care should be responsibility of government as much as defense... sick people don't work very well.
1) You are free to argue that it should be but the US Consitution does not list or state anything concerning Health Care, and states clearly that any power it is not stated to posses is withheld to either the states or the citizens thereof, it does mention war making powers. Therefore barring an admendment military is a constitutional task and health care isn't.

2) Speaking my opinion it is most certainly not the goverments job to maintain health care. It is not the goverment job to make sure I am happy, in good health or do anything for me but maintain the arena in which I may seek the pursuit of happiness capturing it or failing to by my own hand. To be blunt once the goverment is in the buisness of your health it has every incentive and right to regulate it at which point one ceases to be a citizen but a subject.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: US Federal budget

Post by Cocytus » Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:12 am

sonofccn wrote:1) You are free to argue that it should be but the US Consitution does not list or state anything concerning Health Care, and states clearly that any power it is not stated to posses is withheld to either the states or the citizens thereof, it does mention war making powers. Therefore barring an admendment military is a constitutional task and health care isn't.

2) Speaking my opinion it is most certainly not the goverments job to maintain health care. It is not the goverment job to make sure I am happy, in good health or do anything for me but maintain the arena in which I may seek the pursuit of happiness capturing it or failing to by my own hand. To be blunt once the goverment is in the buisness of your health it has every incentive and right to regulate it at which point one ceases to be a citizen but a subject.
The US Constitution contains two references to "the general welfare," the first being in the Preamble, and the second being in Article 1, Section 8 as follows:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The Supreme Court has held, ever since 1937, (when it upheld the constitutionality of Social Security) that the power described above is not dependent on any of the more specific powers enumerated in the rest of Section 8. Taxing and spending for the general welfare is an enumerated power of the Congress, provided it is applied evenly across the nation.

There has been a dichotomy regarding the welfare clause all the way back to the founding of the nation. The restrictive view would be that of Madison, while the more expansive view would be that of Hamilton. Like it or not, the Hamiltonian view has been predominant throughout the 20th century and continues to be now. You can argue for the narrow interpretation, but we've both got Founding Fathers on our side. Which of us is wrong? The restrictive view might become predominant again in the future, who knows. Stare Decisis is a formality for SCOTUS, not a law after all.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: US Federal budget

Post by sonofccn » Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:24 am

Cocytus wrote:The US Constitution contains two references to "the general welfare," the first being in the Preamble, and the second being in Article 1, Section 8 as follows:
True but even Hamiliton essentially argued that it was for the Federal goverment to do what was necessary and proper such as stated here talking about manufacturing and the education thereof. Now accepting his point of view the best one could argue is that National Health Care, or Social Security, is not UnConstitutional but that is different from the general defense or how the Federal goverment is divided between the Legislative branch, Executive branch, and Judical and such which spells out what the Federal goverment duties and responsibilites are.

So I would contend that my previous statement that "war powers" is a mandanted responsibility of the goverment and "Human needs" isn't is still correct. Or to be more clear Social Security can be discontinued tommorow, there is nothing demanding that the US perform that function, however unlikely that is but Congress couldn't pass a law and say nullify the third adment and start quartering US troops in your backyard.

Lastly I do thank you for putting the time and effort to construct a good argument, even if it is not one I agree with, I know from my own experiance how politics can make one's blood boil.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: US Federal budget

Post by Picard » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:47 am

sonofccn wrote:No military spending is governed by the fact we are the, for the moment, hyperpower incharged with maintaining world stability
Only thing US maintain is instability in certain regions, for sake of their military budget.
The US military for instance typically leads reflief missions to places which suffered natural debacles such and the like.
...and causes social debacles over Mid East.
As to your belief regarding Lockheed Martin you are entilted to them but since you have provided no supporting evidence I ask you not to bring such beliefs up as evidence for your position.
Really? I think I have provided evidence before...

Anyway, they LIED about costs of all their new projects (F22, F35) - remember F22 per-unit cost of 350 million USD? Well, it is 490 million USD now. They lied and still do about F22s performance.

They also put F35 into production WHILE AIRCRAFT WAS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT. It is still in develpment today, as matter of fact.

Take a look at this:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm

http://contractormisconduct.org/ass/con ... plaint.pdf
The goverment's job is to maintain the stable enviroment for which citizens may freely interact and exchange goods and services.
Which is NOT environment in which several super-large companies hold monopoly on certain products.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: US Federal budget

Post by sonofccn » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:37 pm

First and foremost I need to know if you agree with me on that Social Security is a tax and therefore the site you linked to is blantantly dishonest and playing with figures in an attempt to reach a predetermined outcome. I feel it is vital that we conclude this rather simplistic argument before we move on to the more rough hewn types.
Picard wrote:Only thing US maintain is instability in certain regions, for sake of their military budget.
You mean besides NATO defending against the Russian bear, Taiwan/Asia as a check against China, S. Korea against N. Korea and those humanitarian missions you implicitly agree with me in the next post which would technically make your first statment and second statement in conflict with each other.
...and causes social debacles over Mid East.
No. Agree or disagree with our actions over there the Middle East was a hell hole long before the US went in. And of course, speaking for myself, I don't see any conflict in maintaining stability and going in a killing a few tyrants but admitedly I am a lone voice in the wilderness on that subject.
Really? I think I have provided evidence before...
Your evidence was of the caliber that the F-22 was a bad fighter and that the only reason why anyone would want it is if Lockheed Martin controls them which is patently simplistic in thought and argument.
Anyway, they LIED about costs of all their new projects (F22, F35) - remember F22 per-unit cost of 350 million USD? Well, it is 490 million USD now. They lied and still do about F22s performance.
Your talking about them claiming X per fighter while hiding an additional Y under various umbrella terms like R&D or training right? Or do you mean something else.
They also put F35 into production WHILE AIRCRAFT WAS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT. It is still in develpment today, as matter of fact.
And if you have evidence they put the F-35 knowingly out as unfinished to soak the military later, as you claimed IIRC with the F-22, you may provide it. I simply demand clear, concise evidence from respected and respectable sources.
Appears to be a site listing the alleged conducts of misbehavior and the dollar amounts of contracts awarded to them. Off hand it appears doubtful that this would be an impartial site and indeed may have an ax to grind against military contracts making its argument potentinally invalid. Second that in and of itself of data provided does not demostrate or support your position that LockHeed Martin controls the military or that military generates instability to validate its budget. Further still this is increasingly distant and distracted from the primary argument we engaged which was why I requested that whatever your feelings on the matter you do not use your unproven and debateable positions as evidence for your other debateable positions.
This appears, and I apologize if I misconstrued the statement, to be merely a request for trial. It is in sense merely one person's accusation against another with Lockheed Martin's being just as good as Olsen. Indeed since Olsen is a terminated employee and could possibly have a grudge against his old company one could argue his word, without backing of evidence, is worth less than LockHeed Martin.
Which is NOT environment in which several super-large companies hold monopoly on certain products.
Firstly this is one more step removed from the primary argument moving beyond the role of goverment into a critique of its effectiveness. Second this invites further disagreement and arguing because I will argue that corporatism, syndicalism, and general public-private interactions which fall under the rubic you champion of goverment meddling in the private market, I instead advocating laissez faire free-markets where the goverment can't get into bed with corporations because it can't interact in their enviroment, are far more likely to lead to unbreakable monolopies. That they disproportionatly hinder the "little guy" who can't soak up the cost of compliance as well as Big Buisness. You of course are unlikely to see the light and we can spend page after page repeating words at each other to no avail.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: US Federal budget

Post by Picard » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:57 am

sonofccn wrote:You mean besides NATO defending against the Russian bear
That was 30 years ago.
Taiwan/Asia as a check against China,
That I have no problem with.
No. Agree or disagree with our actions over there the Middle East was a hell hole long before the US went in. And of course, speaking for myself, I don't see any conflict in maintaining stability and going in a killing a few tyrants but admitedly I am a lone voice in the wilderness on that subject.
Hell Holes, Made in USA. Only today! Highest US quality! just few billion USD per hole!

----------

Iraq was a hell hole since US imposed sanctions on Iraq.

1.2 million people have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion, in addition to some 1.5 million killed earlier through starvation sanctions under the aegis of the UN.

And killing a few tyrants... such as Angela Merkel?
Your evidence was of the caliber that the F-22 was a bad fighter and that the only reason why anyone would want it is if Lockheed Martin controls them which is patently simplistic in thought and argument.
It's not only that. US defense spending has not changed since Reagan, despite the fact that Cold War has ended over two decades ago.
Your talking about them claiming X per fighter while hiding an additional Y under various umbrella terms like R&D or training right? Or do you mean something else.
No, I'm talking about cost distortions. As in, officially, building aircraft costs X, R&D has cost Y, there is N of units, therefore per-unit cost is X+(Y/N)=Q; but in reality, building aircraft costs 2X+A, R&D has cost Y+B, meaning that real cost is 2X+A+(Y+B)/N.
And if you have evidence they put the F-35 knowingly out as unfinished to soak the military later, as you claimed IIRC with the F-22, you may provide it. I simply demand clear, concise evidence from respected and respectable sources.
Problem is that my and your view of "Respected and reliable sources" apparently contradict. I don't think Lockheed Martin and USAF are reliable. For example, Lockheed Martin has underestimated development time and costs of both F22 and F35 so insanely that it cannot possibly be a mistake.

And as for putting aircraft out unfinished, it even has official names: "Low Rate Initial Production", "Concurrency" and "Buy before you fly".
This appears, and I apologize if I misconstrued the statement, to be merely a request for trial. It is in sense merely one person's accusation against another with Lockheed Martin's being just as good as Olsen. Indeed since Olsen is a terminated employee and could possibly have a grudge against his old company one could argue his word, without backing of evidence, is worth less than LockHeed Martin.
It's hard to argue that his word is less worth than a company whose trillions of USD of profit rest on ability to convice Government it is delivering on its own outlandish promises and Governments own outlandish requirements.
You of course are unlikely to see the light and we can spend page after page repeating words at each other to no avail.
The light... of a nuclear bomb?

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: US Federal budget

Post by sonofccn » Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:04 pm

Firstly that you still have not answered or indeed made comment on the primary argument I have presented I can only assume you have no desire to do so and as such as I can expect similar responses to other questions I pose to you I do not see it as a profitable venture to continue this line of discussion at this time. Suffice it to say I will attempt to use the remainder of this post to correct misconceptions you deliberatly or accidently made in regard to my responses.
Picard wrote:That was 30 years ago.
No unless I missed something the Russian Federation is still in existence. Indeed they were threatening NATO regarding a missile defense system not terribly long ago. Then there was that little spat with Georgia, not the State, a few years back. Now we can argue until the cows come home who was justified and who had cause but simply put a world without the US will see more like the above from state actors not less. Ultimatly returning to a more 19th century world with all of its vendettas and proxy wars.
Iraq was a hell hole since US imposed sanctions on Iraq.
No it was a brutal police hell hole before the first Gulf War. Link
1.2 million people have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion,
They say 117,080 civvies. In comparison here Lists:
3. The Anfal campaigns. Beginning in 1987 and accelerating in early
1988, Saddam Hussein ordered the "Anfal" campaign against the Iraqi
Kurdish people. By any measure, this constituted a crime against
humanity and a war crime. Chemical Ali has admitted to witnesses that
he carried out this campaign "under orders." In 1995, Human Rights
Watch published a compilation of their reports in the book Iraq's
Crime of Genocide, which is now out of print. Human Rights Watch needs
to reprint this book. Human Rights Watch estimated that between 50,000
and 100,000 Kurds were killed.


As a point of comparison among various other atrocities.
And killing a few tyrants... such as Angela Merkel?
No. She appears to be the dutifully elected Chancellor of Germany I see no reason why you would think I would mean her.
It's not only that. US defense spending has not changed since Reagan, despite the fact that Cold War has ended over two decades ago.
Here from 1992-1996 Military spending dropped from 4.9 to 3.5 so military budgets did change since the time of Reagan.
Problem is that my and your view of "Respected and reliable sources" apparently contradict.I don't think Lockheed Martin and USAF are reliable.
Those are far from the only sources I link to. Conversely you link to sites like War resiesters who have a clear and present bias and whom I have fairly demostrated played with figures to reach the end they desired.
The light... of a nuclear bomb?
No. I have at no point in this entire thread advocated or suggested using nuclear weapons on your person, your country or even your peer-group. "To see the light" is a turn of phrase, essientally I was saying you would not see or agree with my point of view which I can safely say you don't.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: US Federal budget

Post by Picard » Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:49 am

No unless I missed something the Russian Federation is still in existence. Indeed they were threatening NATO regarding a missile defense system not terribly long ago.
... because "missile defense system" is direct threat to them
Then there was that little spat with Georgia, not the State, a few years back. Now we can argue until the cows come home who was justified and who had cause but simply put a world without the US will see more like the above from state actors not less. Ultimatly returning to a more 19th century world with all of its vendettas and proxy wars.
Considering US spends more than 28 times as much on defense as Russia does... (US annual defense budget is 600 billion basic, over 1 trillion total; Russian defense budget was cca 21 billion USD per year few years ago)...
No it was a brutal police hell hole before the first Gulf War.
I wasn't talking about that...

http://www.progressive.org/mag/nagy0901.html
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0711d.asp
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=7&sec ... m=8&y=2005
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/22/ ... on-system/
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/0819-Sanctions.html
No. She appears to be the dutifully elected Chancellor of Germany I see no reason why you would think I would mean her.
Because she is destroying european economies?

Besides, I wonder how many of her voters were dead... over here, we have one million more voters than we should have.
Here from 1992-1996 Military spending dropped from 4.9 to 3.5 so military budgets did change since the time of Reagan.
And then come this.
Those are far from the only sources I link to. Conversely you link to sites like War resiesters who have a clear and present bias and whom I have fairly demostrated played with figures to reach the end they desired.
And how can you be sure your sorces don't have bias?

Besides, defense spending is far more than just direct military budget... which is what many conveniently forget.
No. I have at no point in this entire thread advocated or suggested using nuclear weapons on your person, your country or even your peer-group. "To see the light" is a turn of phrase, essientally I was saying you would not see or agree with my point of view which I can safely say you don't.
It was joke aimed at US foreign policies... I hate when I have to explain my own jokes.

Post Reply