Frank, please don't include Social Security in this total. You know very well that it is a closed, separately funded program that is not in immediate trouble and probably would not be in any trouble if the Government had not decided to "raid" it a few years back. I know it is commonplace for sloppy reporters to lump Social Security in with the current budget mess, but we should operate on a higher standard.

And Frank, as far as me going to the "extreme", I can only react to off the wall statements like: "Gov't can't do things as well as the private sector. Never have, never will." What part of this quote from you supports ANY Government agency? And, if you didn't mean it that way, why did you say it in the first place?

As far as spending goes, this source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...rt_2011_US_fed puts Defense Spending at 25% for 2011. Pensions at 21% and health care at 23%. I submit that a pretty good portion of the "pension" costs are for military retirees, and I suspect there are a number of veterans who receive health care too. I don't think those numbers are included in "defense spending". We spent 5% in interest on our obligations and a whopping 3% on education. Welfare got 13%.

Now, I'm sure you can poke around and discover a different chart, but to pretend that defense spending, direct and indirect, is not a SIGNIFICANT cost is to ignore reality. Remember, when Ronald Reagan was President, we essentially bankrupted the USSR through the arms race. I'm concerned we're looking at the same fate, if we don't stop engaging in wars all over the globe.

- Jack

 

Military pensions are part of the 25% Defense Spending, but Veterans Affairs payments (for those that get them, not all do) are not.

 

Fair enough, Harley - I'll take your word on it (unless I find something to the contrary). And, in the interest of honesty and objectivity, I now realize I've overstated the cost of a fighter jet. The F-35 is projected to cost in the neighborhood of a mere $160 million per plane according to several sources I've looked at, rather than the billions I alluded to earlier.

And in case anyone's thinking I'm saying "gut the Military", I'm not. But, it's important to know where the money goes. We seem to be getting into an arms race with China. They seem threatened by our Navy, and they are taking steps to counter this perceived threat. I'm concerned this will become a positive feedback loop, and I don't know that we can out-produce the Chinese.

I know everyone thinks I'm a flaming liberal, but I'm really just "center right". I voted straight Republican all the way up to Bush Jr's election. At that point, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "I felt my party had deserted me." The Tea Party version seems totally contrary to my beliefs.

- Jack

 

Several million of that went straight to Stealth's pockets.

 

Yup - he's one of those "War Profiteers", that's certain.

- Jack

 

Lmao this thread grew alot overnight!

 

http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/slide...udget_spending

Ahh, that's the key word: "Immediate". SS is a ponzi scheme and has been for years. Without SS reform/opt-out, it is as insolvent as our current finances. "A higher standard" is relative to your own esoteric thoughts/personal opinion. We must consider all programs if we are going to have a serious discussion. SS not only is/will become insolvent, it places downward pressure on the dollar via forced borrowing/printing of money.

I agree that we have too many 'foreign entanglements' going on. Our military is stretched thin and 10 years in Afghanistan is ridiculous, especially since it took us less than 18 months to topple the Third Reich.

Do you actually believe that the government--in general--is more competitive and/or efficient than the private sector? I have had personal experience dealing with the government, and I can only tell you that I have never seen the waste/corruption anywhere near the level of the federal government.

You still didn't justify lumping me/others into the 'kill off the police' crowd. You need to admit that was just another knee-jerk attack. I like to call it "Pelosi Tactics".

 

Jack,

I use the same site for FY budget items. If you click on the [+] in front of each category, it will expand.
This is under cost center 700 in the federal budget ( explanation on the site we use, or you can get it from the Fed Gov ).

I know for a fact you are not a gut the military person, heck that would fly in the face of the service you provided.

 

OK - I guess I have to respond once more. Regarding Social Security - here is a quote directly from your link: "What’s more, the so-called trust fund -- where payroll taxes not needed for current payouts are stashed -- consists of $2.6 trillion in IOUs from the U.S. Treasury. The funds have been borrowed over the past two decades to pay for other federal programs." Congress has completely destroyed the Social Security program and now, many of its members want to blame that program for their own mismanagement. And yes, Frank, I am quite aware that today's payers are paying for current recipients. But, this does not make it a ponzi scheme. Since its revenues are separate from the general tax revenue, and since those revenues are specifically FOR SS and SS gets nothing from general taxes, it MUST be considered separately. I don't see Social Security forcing ANY borrowing or printing of money. In spite of the damage done to it by Congress, it STILL has a (small) surplus.

Regarding defense spending, your link says: "About 25% of the total goes to personnel costs, and the figure doesn't include veterans’ pensions..." I'm withholding judgement on this though. I still think Harley could well be right, and need to do more research.

Our military forays in support of the political aims of our leadership DO force printing/borrowing though. Why can't they be more efficient? Well, sonny, this ain't your daddy's war, where the other side wears uniforms and used the classic tactics of mass and position in battles. Our Military is not really designed or equipped for COIN operations. What's more, our Military is not trained or equipped to be a "police force". Our Military is designed, trained and equipped to "break things". When there's nothing to break, we are kind of left wondering what to do.

I did not say the Government is more "efficient" than the private sector. Those are your words. I am all too familiar with waste/fraud/abuse in Government procurement, often brought about by having to buy from the "lowest bidder", or, to satisfy lobbyist pressure. But, in your OWN words, "Police should be funded exclusively by the states/local governments. Obviously this does not include the FBI, CIA, etc. Federal funds are well spent on these programs and their covert intelligence gathering operations." And, I'm sorry, but what "private sector" are you introducing here? Last I heard, State and local government is "Government" - funded by tax revenues. And Frank, how does this square with your earlier statement: "Gov't can't do things as well as the private sector. Never have, never will."

Frank, your sweeping generalities are what I'm having a problem with. That, and your persistent refusal to admit that you MIGHT have misspoken. It's hardly a "knee-jerk" reaction.

But of course, since I'm senile now, I forget that you are NEVER wrong. I shall slink away to my pathetic life of bedpans, premasticated food and someone to help me remember to take my pills/change my diapers. I leave the future of our great Nation (and this discussion) in your brilliant, incisive, carefully thought out, divinely inspired, hands! I feel so blessed!

- Jack

 

"Lock Box"

 

You just can't help with the personal attacks, can you.

Anyways, let me clear: I and most people DO support the funding of police by taxpayer funds. This is something that should not be farmed out to private corporations/entities. As far as road maintenance goes, why can't roads be sponsored by corporations the way H.E.R.O. emergency trucks are sponsored here in Atlanta? They could even paint their corporation name on the road for advertisement. If a road fell into a state of dis-repair, the corporation would lose sales.

Another point, and lets be sure to make the distinctions: Local government is held more accountable than the federal government when it comes to upholding the law. Ever heard the old saying, "it would take an act of Congress"? Things get done much quicker at the local level than at the federal level.

Your attempt to lump me or any other conservative into the anarchist crowd has utterly failed. I am a rugged individualist that supports minimal interference in the lives of adults/citizens. America should be more like Texas, and less like Massachusetts.

 

Sorry Frank, I'm waiting on my diaper change... or, is it the bedpan? Or, maybe the pills? Things are confusing now that I'm in my dotage.

Anyway, I'm so pleased to have a big, strong, "rugged individualist" like you to take care of things now that I'm not up to the task. Now I have to take a nap.

- Jack

 

No I am not a teacher, I could not afford that habit.

 

Wow, wow, wow!!!

Sanity check needed in Aisle 56.

 

Those that choose to live in the delusional world of post WW2 thinking and believe that we are capable of ruling the world, and should, will not change their thinking. This is a Socialist society, the train left the station long ago. Had a single payer medical system materialized, and it will eventually, we would be on par with the Europeans.
Rugged individualism and self reliance? Gone.