US Federal budget
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:03 am
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?Picard wrote:Read what is written in yellow part...
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.Second, defense spending should be governed by actual defense need, not by what Lockheed Martin's wallet wants.
The goverment's job is to maintain the stable enviroment for which citizens may freely interact and exchange goods and services.Third, task of government is to govern, not to provide contracts for MIC.
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.And health care should be responsibility of government as much as defense... sick people don't work very well.
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: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.
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.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:
Only thing US maintain is instability in certain regions, for sake of their military budget.sonofccn wrote:No military spending is governed by the fact we are the, for the moment, hyperpower incharged with maintaining world stability
...and causes social debacles over Mid East.The US military for instance typically leads reflief missions to places which suffered natural debacles such and the like.
Really? I think I have provided evidence before...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.
Which is NOT environment in which several super-large companies hold monopoly on certain products.The goverment's job is to maintain the stable enviroment for which citizens may freely interact and exchange goods and services.
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.Picard wrote:Only thing US maintain is instability in certain regions, for sake of their military budget.
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....and causes social debacles over Mid East.
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.Really? I think I have provided evidence before...
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.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.
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.They also put F35 into production WHILE AIRCRAFT WAS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT. It is still in develpment today, as matter of fact.
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.Take a look at this:
http://contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm
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.http://contractormisconduct.org/ass/con ... plaint.pdf
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.Which is NOT environment in which several super-large companies hold monopoly on certain products.
That was 30 years ago.sonofccn wrote:You mean besides NATO defending against the Russian bear
That I have no problem with.Taiwan/Asia as a check against China,
Hell Holes, Made in USA. Only today! Highest US quality! just few billion USD per hole!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.
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 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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
The light... of a nuclear bomb?You of course are unlikely to see the light and we can spend page after page repeating words at each other to no avail.
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.Picard wrote:That was 30 years ago.
No it was a brutal police hell hole before the first Gulf War. LinkIraq was a hell hole since US imposed sanctions on Iraq.
They say 117,080 civvies. In comparison here Lists:1.2 million people have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion,
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.
No. She appears to be the dutifully elected Chancellor of Germany I see no reason why you would think I would mean her.And killing a few tyrants... such as Angela Merkel?
Here from 1992-1996 Military spending dropped from 4.9 to 3.5 so military budgets did change since the time of Reagan.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.
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.Problem is that my and your view of "Respected and reliable sources" apparently contradict.I don't think Lockheed Martin and USAF are reliable.
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.The light... of a nuclear bomb?
... because "missile defense system" is direct threat to themNo 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.
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)...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.
I wasn't talking about that...No it was a brutal police hell hole before the first Gulf War.
Because she is destroying european economies?No. She appears to be the dutifully elected Chancellor of Germany I see no reason why you would think I would mean her.
And then come this.Here from 1992-1996 Military spending dropped from 4.9 to 3.5 so military budgets did change since the time of Reagan.
And how can you be sure your sorces don't have bias?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.
It was joke aimed at US foreign policies... I hate when I have to explain my own jokes.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.