User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 91

  1. #71
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    but I ask, can the US afford to not have these programs in place? Really?
    Yes.

    But you mistake the difference between changing the programs and getting rid of them.


    The US continually makes choices to secure their own interests. Did the world expect the US to do this?
    We are contractually obligated to protect much of the rest of the world via treaty, so yes the world does expect us to do this.

    You might want to bone up on your history.

  2. #72
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security account for 40% of gov't spending.
    1) Its 40%. Why is 40% an amazing number? Do you have a reference point? What are you anchoring against? I spend 40% on housing and food. I spend 40% on a set of other things. Many sets of things. And I tend to spend a little more all the time. I'm still not broke.

    2) As mentioned above, 40% rests on a false argument: affordability.


    Nothing you have said is a logical chain to your conclusion, especially since you are still using a false premise: affordability.

  3. #73
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    1) Its 40%. Why is 40% an amazing number? Do you have a reference point? What are you anchoring against? I spend 40% on housing and food. I spend 40% on a set of other things. Many sets of things. And I tend to spend a little more all the time. I'm still not broke.

    2) As mentioned above, 40% rests on a false argument: affordability.


    Nothing you have said is a logical chain to your conclusion, especially since you are still using a false premise: affordability.
    Mandatory Spending Since 1962

    Mandatory Spending Beyond FY2022
    CBO baseline projections, which extend 10 years forward, do not reflect the full force of the pressures the impending retirement of the large baby boom generation will exert on the federal budget. The first baby boomers reached age 65 in 2011, and most will not reach age 65 until after 2015. Extended baseline projections suggest that Social Security spending could amount to 6.4% of GDP by FY2085—an increase of 1.6 percentage points of GDP from its FY2011 level. According to CBO extended baseline projections, federal mandatory spending on health care, in large part due to rising costs, is projected to reach 17.2% of GDP by FY2085. However, under an alternative scenario in which health care cost growth does not slow down, spending on these programs could reach 19.4% of GDP by FY2085. By contrast, total federal spending on these health programs in FY2011 was 5.7% of GDP.

    Most fiscal experts assert that avoiding the accumulation of large, unsustainable debts will require cuts in entitlement benefits, large increases in federal revenues, a significant reduction in discretionary spending, or some mix of those policies. Because federal deficits and debts have adverse economic consequences, including lower economic growth, the longer such adjustments are delayed, the more difficult it will be to make adjustments.

  4. #74
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We are contractually obligated to protect much of the rest of the world via treaty, so yes the world does expect us to do this.
    Well, what's to argue? Since WW2 the US has chosen to be an active participant in worldwide security, as have many other nations, to their own best interests too. That is different than saying the world expected the US to do so, however. Maybe the evolution of that is a moot point.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  5. #75
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    Well, what's to argue?
    Nothing.

    The US is obligated to protect ally nations... end of story.

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Most of the world also expected - or hoped is maybe a better word - for the US not to invade Iraq in 2003 (which would have saved a lot of money too), but they did it anyway. So in these foreign policy considerations, nothing except self-interest tends to matter.

    (Which is not to say that the invasion of Iraq served "US" interests in a generic sense, but it did serve the sector of business which was at the time closest to the White House).

  7. #77
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Most of the world also expected - or hoped is maybe a better word - for the US not to invade Iraq in 2003 (which would have saved a lot of money too), but they did it anyway. So in these foreign policy considerations, nothing except self-interest tends to matter.

    (Which is not to say that the invasion of Iraq served "US" interests in a generic sense, but it did serve the sector of business which was at the time closest to the White House).
    That's a rather facile understanding of our Foreign Policy.

    Why get involved in Libya, or Kosovo, etc...

    We're on the same page as far as expeditionary wars are concerned, insofar as I would prefer to avoid war where at all possible.

    We are however, expected to subsidize the security of much of the first world in a way that no other nations are, and in a way that presents unique economic burdens to the US tax payer.

  8. #78
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default



    Call me crazy, but I think we might have gone just a little overboard.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  9. #79
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post


    Call me crazy, but I think we might have gone just a little overboard.
    Yea I'm not arguing this.

    I agree that defense spending must absolutely be cut, although I suspect we disagree on how much.

    Even with reasonable reductions in defense spending and revenue increases, entitlement spending will still have to be dealt with.

  10. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    That's a rather facile understanding of our Foreign Policy.

    Why get involved in Libya, or Kosovo, etc...

    We're on the same page as far as expeditionary wars are concerned, insofar as I would prefer to avoid war where at all possible.

    We are however, expected to subsidize the security of much of the first world in a way that no other nations are, and in a way that presents unique economic burdens to the US tax payer.
    I believe that the dominant thinking of US strategists, is that this is in the long-term interests of the nation.

    To give one example, if the Libyan situation had ended up with an anti-US movement overthrowing Gadaffi and identifying him as pro-US, it could have been very damaging to western eocnomic interests int he region.

    This leads me onto the fact that there is some truth in what you are syaing: the US has traditionally taken a disproportionate burden for defending western interests - which includes but is not exclusively limited to, its own interests.

    Now, suddenly, American and European interests are diverging...see approaches to Russia for example.

    You could say that the answer is to ask the Europeans to share more of the burden for the defence of common interests with the US. However, try convincing the average Pentagon strategist that it would be convenient to surrender military hegemony to the expense of more independent action on behalf of the Europeans...quite a "risky" gamble you must admit!

Similar Threads

  1. Which is the True Opposite?
    By heart in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-29-2009, 08:49 AM
  2. The presentation of true political horror
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 08:10 AM
  3. The True Face of "Beauty"
    By Totenkindly in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 04:11 PM
  4. Internal safety mechanisms
    By snegledmaca in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2007, 03:55 AM
  5. How do you decide what you call "True"?
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 04:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO