patrick.net

zzyzzx says

We spend much more on the war on poverty. Seeing how it's been an utter failure, it should also be discontinued.

We spend $830 billion on warfare. We spend $390 billion on the war on poverty. That's over twice as much on unproductive murder than on saving American's lives.

So, which did you get wrong, the facts or the math?

Call it Crazy says

Just think, you have all the solutions but you're just rotting away in Boca.... Maybe you should move to D.C.??

The problem is not that the solutions are difficult to find or implement. The problem is that the population keeps voting for corrupt politicians who make sure the problems do not get solved. An honest person like me would never get elected. I'd get kicked out of D.C the first time some dumb ass asked me what makes the U.S. the greatest country in the world and I said it isn't.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/q49NOyJ8fNA

Entitlemented says

After WW2, the DOD budget was nearly 70% of budget.

During WW2 we were fighting a superpower that was just as advanced as we are. After WW2, defense spending should have dropped dramatically.

It was the war profiteers who made the Cold War into a revenue stream. When the Cold War ended, the war profiteers had to find some other boogie man to keep the revenue stream flowing. That is the primary reason terrorism even exists today. War profiteers make the world less safe in order to keep their profits high. For the world to be truly safe, these parasites must starve.

Entitlemented says

Not sure if many were complaining - since we were still here, and since so many people gave all in Hawaii and Normandy.

Yes, all our soldiers give their lives to keep military spending high. As soon as a grunt steps on a land mine and ascends to heaven, he becomes an ardent supporter of the Pentagon.

All our war dead are a tribute to the military spending and a rebuke to spineless liberals who would cheerfully give our wives and children to be raped by the dirty Japanese Communist Muslims.

We are entitled to be exceptional, and no sacrifices are needed. The war would have tapered out with no ill effect on other nations. No intervention was needed.

In fact liberty and freedom has always been advocated by every government in the world. Why have a military at all?

Dan8267 says

We spend $830 billion on warfare. We spend $390 billion on the war on poverty. That's over twice as much on unproductive murder than on saving American's lives.

So, which did you get wrong, the facts or the math?

Let's see
1.27B in healthcare
.5B on "welfare"
Add in costs for Obamaphones, and all the deadbeats on Social Security "disability" (probably 1/2 of all "disability) and it's probably close to 2B

"Deficit: $740 billion ; Warfare Spending: $830 billion"

I would say take a look at both statutory and discretionary at the same time here. Unfunded liabilities, interest on debt, discretionary and statutory obligations makes it very unlikely the money printing will ever stop nor the budget ever under control again. We are going to eventually end up in a jubilee-over-time scenario.

I wish it were this simple. Its a start, if you can convince others to shutdown welfare please do, but Im fairly certain the banking cabal, the pan national oligarchs and the corrupted will blow what is saved on other things.

Mick Russom says

you can convince others to shutdown welfare please do,

welfare ≠ warfare

The first involves feeding children. The second involves blowing them up.

zzyzzx says

Let's see

1.27B in healthcare

.5B on "welfare"

Add in costs for Obamaphones, and all the deadbeats on Social Security "disability" (probably 1/2 of all "disability) and it's probably close to 2B

Your numbers are way off. And you don't have to guess at them.

Simply go to the site I referenced, www.usgovernmentspending.com. It has done all the hard work for you finding out the accurate numbers and how they break down into subcategories.

Dan8267 says

If we nationalize health care, we'd eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid, saving $717 billion/yr. The nationalized health care would be paid for by the income tax.

So nationalizing healthcare would be free?

turtledove says

Dan8267 says

If we nationalize health care, we'd eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid, saving $717 billion/yr. The nationalized health care would be paid for by the income tax.

So nationalizing healthcare would be free?

Nothing is free. However, all empirical data indicates that a nationalized healthcare system would be far more cost effective than a private one.

Dan8267 says

The problem is not that the solutions are difficult to find or implement. The problem is that the population keeps voting for corrupt politicians who make sure the problems do not get solved. An honest person like me would never get elected. I'd get kicked out of D.C the first time some dumb ass asked me what makes the U.S. the greatest country in the world and I said it isn't.

The epitome of irony, with the arrogance that is only possible with extreme ignorance.

Dan8267 says

How to eliminate our national debt

There's no need. We have most if not all the resources we need in abundance, and use a sovereign currency for all of our needs, which can be printed as needed.

Next problem...

JodyChunder says

Dan8267 says

How to eliminate our national debt

There's no need. We have most if not all the resources we need in abundance, and use a sovereign currency for all of our needs, which can be printed as needed.

Next problem...

That would be inflation of course it would be deflation but the quotas don't quite work out with deflation...

Dan8267 says

If they break the law, jail them. Better than having pot smokers in jail.

To do which you depend on those same thuggy cops you lambast in so many of your posts.

Dan8267 says

Don't let Lockheed Martin and Boeing sell arms to others. They'll have to survive on making commercial products. Last time I checked, our airplanes still have wings. That's so 20th century. We should be using aircraft with lifting bodies. Far more fuel efficient and can carry many more passengers in comfort.

Both would immediately relocate to China and sell to anyone with enough money.

Don't like it America? Whattya gonna do about it?

indigenous says

The epitome of irony, with the arrogance that is only possible with extreme ignorance.

You pulled that straight out of your ass?

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

If they break the law, jail them. Better than having pot smokers in jail.

To do which you depend on those same thuggy cops you lambast in so many of your posts.

Fire them. Hire honest ones. Last time I checked, there's no shortage of people looking for jobs.

New Renter says

Both would immediately relocate to China and sell to anyone with enough money.

Don't like it America? Whattya gonna do about it?

If the U.S. government can cease any person's assets anywhere in the world for something as little as growing pot, it can do so for selling weapons to enemy states.

So have you calculated the job losses yet, both military and civilian, their impact on revenue, and the additional cost of the jobless on the nanny state?
Complete the puzzle.

Dan8267 says

So there is no need for Grandma to eat cat food. Simply stop war-for-profit, illegal spying and wiretapping, TSA rapists, the evil war on people (er, drugs), and nationalize healthcare and our nation can be debt free and have a surplus of over $1.3 trillion/yr in as little as 17 years.

SoftShell says

So have you calculated the job losses yet, both military and civilian, their impact on revenue, and the additional cost of the jobless on the nanny state?

Complete the puzzle.

War profiteering is worse than putting everyone on Food Stamps and Section 8 housing. At least in the later case, you are just paying people to be idle. With war profiteering, you are paying people to actively destroy wealth and create enemies.

Besides, aren't you conservatives for small government, getting rid of public sector employees, and for moving employment to the private sector? If you fight my proposal, you are contradicting everything you said you are for.

Over the decades the majority of the time the military is keeping the peace, not war profiteering.

So with your plan, during peace keeping times, tens of millions are jobless forcing the government to borrow/tax/print their way to fund endless social net cash distribution with all the accompanying maladies.

Greece redux...

Dan8267 says

War profiteering is worse than putting everyone on Food Stamps and Section 8 housing. At least in the later case, you are just paying people to be idle.

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

The epitome of irony, with the arrogance that is only possible with extreme ignorance.

You pulled that straight out of your ass?

No straight out of Hollywoods ass. I take exception to Actors who proselytize on economic matters as they DON'T know what they are talking about.

The actual rant was probably not that much off the mark but I don't consider anything Hollywood has to say about economics worth listening to, in fact they are a liability to listen to because they spread memes.

I will lay you odds that they will never talk about how the growth in government has contributed the country not being great anymore or that the FED (whoops) has a lot to do with the currency value and the fact that we have allowed there to be a huge current account deficit for 30 fucking years. Yet when the assholes want to make a movie they head up to Vancouver to avoid Calif prices. Or the biggest asshole of them all Cameron, who does a swell job of portraying big evil business in his movies, yet moves to NZ to avoid taxes and any fallout from the potential SHTF.

They don't realize it but they portray the public servant as noble and selfless where as the business owner is portrayed as a derelict. They do the same for conservative politics let alone not making a book, that is one of the best sellers of all time, into a movie. They just further the mafia state of mind, they do not know the water they swim in. Maybe they are not as aware as they think they are?

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/mafia-mind2-14.html

Dan8267 says

turtledove says

Dan8267 says

If we nationalize health care, we'd eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid, saving $717 billion/yr. The nationalized health care would be paid for by the income tax.

So nationalizing healthcare would be free?

Nothing is free. However, all empirical data indicates that a nationalized healthcare system would be far more cost effective than a private one.

Even simpler: replace Medicare and Medicaid with coverage for true emergencies (basically, fund EMTALA) and vaccines for all, and repeal the Rx mandate and the re-importation ban, so ordinary medical care becomes as affordable here as it is in Mexico. The savings would balance the budget and eventually eliminate the debt without even needing any other cuts. If Homefool wants more SSRI placebos ("As Seen on TV!") and paid validation, let him pay for them himself instead of shifting the cost onto everyone else via subsidies.

Dan8267 says

Besides, aren't you conservatives for small government, getting rid of public
sector employees, and for moving employment to the private sector? If you fight
my proposal, you are contradicting everything you said you are for.

Besides, aren't you liberals for big, benevolent government that provides a big safety net for the unemployed, etc.? If you don't address the major unemployment issue that would result from your plan (i.e., if you dismiss it the way you are currently doing), you are contradicting everything you said you are for.

Dan8267 says

Besides, aren't you conservatives for small government, getting rid of public sector employees, and for moving employment to the private sector? If you fight my proposal, you are contradicting everything you said you are for.

No. Because paying people to work is always better then paying them not to work.

Actually imposing stiff import duties, while eliminating all immigration would cause nearly full employment, and that could easily balance the budget with no cuts.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Besides, aren't you conservatives for small government, getting rid of public sector employees, and for moving employment to the private sector? If you fight my proposal, you are contradicting everything you said you are for.

No. Because paying people to work is always better then paying them not to work.

Not sure I agree. Paying hitmen to go around killing innocent folks would be worse, IMO, then paying them to do nothing.

4 hour minimum response time limit has expired.
Looks like I can book this one in the win column.........yawwwn........

SoftShell says

Over the decades the majority of the time the military is keeping the peace, not war profiteering.

So with your plan, during peace keeping times, tens of millions are jobless forcing the government to borrow/tax/print their way to fund endless social net cash distribution with all the accompanying maladies.

Greece redux...

Dan8267 says

War profiteering is worse than putting everyone on Food Stamps and Section 8 housing. At least in the later case, you are just paying people to be idle.

Hitmen? Jeez...you's livin in the olden daze....

tatupu70 says

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Besides, aren't you conservatives for small government, getting rid of public sector employees, and for moving employment to the private sector? If you fight my proposal, you are contradicting everything you said you are for.

No. Because paying people to work is always better then paying them not to work.

Not sure I agree. Paying hitmen to go around killing innocent folks would be worse, IMO, then paying them to do nothing.

zzyzzx says

This looks incorrect. Gov spending is less than 3600 billions against a GDP of 16,800. That's less than 22%.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=M318191A027NBEA

zzyzzx says

Actually imposing stiff import duties, while eliminating all immigration would cause nearly full employment, and that could easily balance the budget with no cuts.

Actually duties are a lose lose as other countries will impose tariffs as well. Smoot Hawley was an example of this.

The US is going to have a labor shortage. Since many of China's jobs are going to go to other countries like Mexico. The immigrant problem won't be a problem.

indigenous says

The US is going to have a labor shortage.

The whole problem we have now is the worldwide labor excess. This keeps inflation low. This creates huge inequalities in wages. This requires a 'permanent' stimulus to force spending in the US without revenues.

At the root of this situation is trade. At least this is one of the root.

And obviously there are those who profit from it, but that's not the US population.

Heraclitusstudent says

The whole problem we have now is the worldwide labor excess. This keeps inflation low. This creates huge inequalities in wages. This requires a 'permanent' stimulus to force spending in the US without revenues.

At the root of this situation is trade. At least this is one of the root.

And obviously there are those who profit from it, but that's not the US population.

That is not my understanding.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas-skilled-trades-dilemma-shortages-loom-as-most-in-demand-group-of-workers-ages/

In addition to this there is going to be rebalancing in trade which will turn the US into a producer country with a trade surplus.

Deflation is caused by a decline in demand and technology that makes things cheaper.

The surplus in labor is world wide as you say which will create growth and a middle class world wide.

indigenous says

The US is going to have a labor shortage.

Doubt it. They've been saying it forever, and just used it as an excuse to fire Americans and replace them with cheaper labor overseas.

Machinery is getting a lot better, you need a lot less people to do physical labor these days. It simply makes no sense to me that there even might be a labor shortage.

FortWayne says

Machinery is getting a lot better, you need a lot less people to do physical labor these days. It simply makes no sense to me that there even might be a labor shortage.

Yea I hear you it is counter intuitive. To me the best predictor of the future (is that a tautology?) is demographics.

The baby boom predicts a lot. As they retire there are going to be shortages in the occupations they now have.

Secondly there is going to be a rebalancing, transforming the US into a surplus trade country. It has been going on so long that it seem inconceivable that this will happen.

When a country trades with other countries it cannot trade it's currency in perpetuity. China cannot invest and produce in perpetuity eventually it becomes over-invested. So it has to raise it's domestic consumption.

The dollar is being and will be devalued. How can you print 6 trillion dollars and not have this happen. This will make US products cheaper.

If you see it differently I'm listening?

Bi-model distributions can occur in nature. Think that this may be part of an evolutionary selection/discrimination.

Example: Technology creates real and percieved improvements in living standards, but at a cost. Those 4-6% of people who manufacture, those who develop can create many conveniences (Apple/Samsung engineers/techs create 1e6 ph/person).

However thus is created a bimodal distribution of wealth, now called the 1%.

Entitlemented says

Bi-model distributions can occur in nature. Think that this may be part of an evolutionary selection/discrimination.

Example: Technology creates real and percieved improvements in living standards, but at a cost. Those 4-6% of people who manufacture, those who develop can create many conveniences (Apple/Samsung engineers/techs create 1e6 ph/person).

However thus is created a bimodal distribution of wealth, now called the 1%

yea but wealth distribution is pretty constant through history. The times of punctuated equilibrium occur when the government interferes. Like right now and in the early 30s.

indigenous says

yea but wealth distribution is pretty constant through history

Are you kidding me? You are truly clueless.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

yea but wealth distribution is pretty constant through history

Are you kidding me? You are truly clueless.

Show me otherwise

This quote from this:

In chapter 11, we see how Mises addressed the issue of the haves versus the have-nots. In particular, he distinguished between capital and consumer goods. Consumer goods largely benefit only one person at a time. A man enjoys the benefits of a particular shirt while he wears it. Capital goods yield benefits to a flood of consumers at once. Why, then, the Marxist fixation on state ownership of the power company when its customers have electricity? Mises notes that a customer does not need to own the plant to have electricity.

With this in mind, how would the conventional sense of wealth distribution change if we excluded capital goods from the issue? In the United States, 1 percent of the population owns 38 percent of the wealth (as of 2001). But how much of that 38 percent of the wealth is left to that 1 percent if capital goods are excluded? Most likely, 95 percent of their wealth is tied up in rights to capital goods. So consumer wealth distribution is far tighter than academics imagine. Everyone has access to running water, telephones, potato chips, and television. That's what counts in a standard of living.

http://mises.org/daily/4819

indigenous says

cepting date is NOT knowledge.

huh?