When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Don't say Social Security, Medicare or Unemployment Insurance as those programs are funded via taxes
All Federal spending is funded by taxes. Well, a combination of taxes, debt, and money-creation. Just because Medicare and SS have separate line-items on your W-2 doesn't magically separate them from the rest of the Federal budget. In reality, there is no actual separation of the funds within the Treasury.
Originally Posted by bahurd
and if our Congress kept their grubby little hands off them they'd be self funded.
If Congress kept their hands off of Medicare, Unemployment and Social Security, none of them would exist. Congress created them in the first place.
Yes, I believe that we are. From the very page you just linked to, here's the overall 2015 Federal budget:
They've lumped Unemployment & Labor in with SS, which brings the total to 60%.
EDIT: I see you edited your post to include the smaller version of this same chart.
EDIT II: Ok, and now you've added a chart which shows that taxes are a source of Federal revenue. (Note that this is different from Federal spending, which relies upon a combination of revenue, debt, and money-creation.)
So, what's your point? Your charts support my previous statement: Entitlement spending is by far the largest chunk of the Federal budget.
Yes, I believe that we are. From the very page you just linked to, here's the overall 2015 Federal budget:
They've lumped Unemployment & Labor in with SS, which brings the total to 60%.
EDIT: I see you edited your post to include the smaller version of this same chart.
EDIT II: Ok, and now you've added a chart which shows that taxes are a source of Federal revenue. (Note that this is different from Federal spending, which relies upon a combination of revenue, debt, and money-creation.)
So, what's your point? Your charts support my previous statements.
My point is several of those programs are supported by income (not 100% supported, granted ). When the general Q public looks they go holy **** yes, our social programs are way out of whack without taking into account there's funds coming in to pay for them (again, not all self funding).
Our military spending has no taxes specifically allocated to them and so the 20% directly spent on them (military + veterans) isn't offset. We both look at the same chart and see different things. I never disputed your numbers.
Can you link me to the data that shows the latter category is far less than 50% of federal spending?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the latter category," but if you click on the link which bahurd provided a few posts ago, it drills down into moderate detail, both for the overall budget as well as for the mandated and discretionary segments of it.
For the uneducated, mandatory spending is where the law says "you must spend this." So, Social Security would be one example.
Discretionary spending is where congress gets to pick and choose on a year-to-year basis what to spend. This is stuff like NASA, defense, agricultural subsidies, etc.
Of course, it's kind of a meaningless separation, for two reasons. One is that the money all comes from the same place, but the second and more important reason is that the "mandatory" spending is only mandatory because congress voted for the law which mandates it, and they can just as easily vote to change said law.
The latter category of my question on the last page.
Can you show me any data that shows that there is less money in crony capitalism and big biz/corporations-gov backdoor dealings than 50% of the federal spending?
Last edited by hi_im_sean; 07-06-2016 at 04:29 PM.
Reason: budget =/= spending
The latter category of my question on the last page.
Can you show me any data that shows that there is less money in crony capitalism and big biz/corporations-gov backdoor dealings than 50% of the federal spending?
1: There is no category for "Crony Capitalism," so you can stretch that definition to mean whatever you want. You have to define your terms.
2: If one group of things (in this case, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, SS and Labor) equals 60% of Federal spending, then all other things combined (of which "Crony Capitalism" must be a part) can be no more than 40% of it. And 40% is less than 50%.
I ask the following sincerely: Do you not understand how any of this works, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
I generally reserve my judgments on these sorts of things because I firmly believe the issue are so complex and we are fed so much BS, and its tiresome to figure out what's real. I only posted in this forum because you guys have more smarts than any other discussion group im currently a part of.
Having said that, "crony capitalism" isn't part of federal spending. As stated in my original question, its not something (that I know of) that we can have data for because of the nature of "the issue". Both phrases in quotes because I don't even know how to define it.
Its done in secret, behind closed doors, etc.(supposedly) Just like you said in 1. "There is no category for "Crony Capitalism". So how can you say that if entitlements are over 50%, then obviously anything else will be less, when that anything else isn't part of the same pie?
Regardless of whether or not Hillary should be jailed, (and she should be), the email debacle should unquestionably lead to the immediate revocation of any security clearance(s) that she holds. A security clearance says "we the people trust you" - and she has violated that trust.Once she no longer holds a security clearance or the means to get a security clearance, she should be considered incapable of performing the duties of president. I don't want a commander in chief, or a head diplomat, making decisions on my behalf without having access to all of the available information.
One great thing about our country is separation of powers: Now FBI director faces congressional probe | Washington Examiner
The executive branch and it's appointees might say she's "not guilty", but the representatives of the people and the states now get their chance to call BS.
Regarding Hillary, One of my coworkers today likened her to a McDonald's Cashier who proves absurdly incompetent at managing a money drawer, and is now in the running for general manager.
I challenged him: I suggested that Hillary running for president is like a McDonald's employee who proved incompetent at managing the money in a drawer - and THEN couldn't stop burning fries whilst she was running fries - and THEN made hamburgers entirely out of order while she was on the burger line by often putting the bun somewhere in the middle, and THEN regularly spilled drinks on drive-thru customers while running the drive thru window, and THEN made the mistake of using fry grease instead of degreasing solution when she was sentenced to be the night janitor, and NOW she's in a head to head competition for the general manager of the store. Seriously, her entire political career has been one major trust-infringing ****-up after the next - I doubt it stops at the WH.
Trump on the other hand, while being in charge of a company, regularly made the best decision for the shareholders of that company (regardless of what it looked like from the perspective of someone on the outside) - and he gets berated for making those decisions. As the CEO, it's not his job to make decisions in the best interest of the general public, it's his job to make decision for the best interest of shareholders. He's done an exceptional job at doing his job. Now I fully believe that he didn't really want to be president when he started running, but now he has decided that it's his duty to be president because the voters said so. I fully expect him to do an exceptional job as president because just as he did while CEO of his company, Trump will do an exceptional job at doing his job - this time with the best interest of his "shareholders" in mind - and no, I'm not referencing the shareholders of his company.
Not having the desire to be president should be considered one of the greatest strengths of a presidential candidate - I really do think that Trump didn't actually desire to be president so much as he wanted to make a bold and powerful statement before his anticipated crushing defeat in the delegate race. Being president is not an honor, it's a duty; and while I think B.O. is just now starting to realize that, I'm quite confident that H.C. feels that she is simply entitled to the presidency.
Having said that, "crony capitalism" isn't part of federal spending. As stated in my original question, its not something (that I know of) that we can have data for because of the nature of "the issue". Both phrases in quotes because I don't even know how to define it.
That's because it isn't real. This business you've been fed about "Crony Capitalism" is a fiction designed to distract you from the real ways in which the US Federal government is hemorrhaging money. The whole point is to make you angry and then give you a target to blame.
Here's a slide that should scare the **** out of everyone. Spending has exceeded revenue for years, but by 2040, spending on entitlement programs and debt interest alone will exceed revenue, leaving no money left over for anything else; schools, roads, military, the operation of the government itself, etc.
How can you prove something doesn't exist(ex- all the money that is kept offshore to avoid taxation... supposedly)? Its the perfect ruse?
To Joe's point, if it can't be measured it likely doesn't exist or isn't worth the discussion. Here's another little graph for you when talking about tax breaks.
Joe Perez gets up in the morning even when he doesn't feel like it and goes to work. He uses his mind and his hands for someone else's benefit and is monetarily compensated for it. But somewhere between his work being done and the stagecoach arriving with his pay, the stagecoach gets robbed. Some of Joe's compensation is taken by professional thieves, the expert victims, and skillful grifters. The willfully inept likewise extract a portion, as do the dutifully lazy. And finally, the souls actually deserving compassion, the involuntary invalids, the extraordinarily elderly, and the intellectually infantile. The last groups being the only beneficiaries of Joe's benevolence were but he to be giving it freely from his abundance. And Joe is a generous soul of great empathy, but also a discerning steward of his bounty and would likely steer his contributions to more fruitful fields given the opportunity. But alas, the coach has been hijacked on the open road leaving Joe with but a small portion of the fruits of his efforts. Joe, dear sweet Joe, relegated to a tiny ramshackle tenement in New Jersey, hunched over a water hose and a discarded motorbike radiator for life sustaining warmth, wearing the same old, giant boots he's worn for the entirety of last year, drinking bottom-shelf rot-gut whiskey to sedate the aches of walking miles each day to find work. Dear Joe walks and walks but those who help themselves to his earnings often drive their own air conditioned automobiles, smoke fine tobaccos, and have homes much larger than Joe's humble tenement provided to them at Joe's expense. How much more do you think Joe can take? His big, filthy, pornographer's mustache isn't concealing a grin, but a grimace. He's injured, bruised, wounded beneath the frivolous faded joy of his Hawaiian print shirt. And yet they are not sated, and bear no remorse. How much more shall Joe quietly endure? How much is allofit?
Trump on the other hand, while being in charge of a company, regularly made the best decision for the shareholders of that company (regardless of what it looked like from the perspective of someone on the outside) - and he gets berated for making those decisions. As the CEO, it's not his job to make decisions in the best interest of the general public, it's his job to make decision for the best interest of shareholders. He's done an exceptional job at doing his job. Now I fully believe that he didn't really want to be president when he started running, but now he has decided that it's his duty to be president because the voters said so. I fully expect him to do an exceptional job as president because just as he did while CEO of his company, Trump will do an exceptional job at doing his job - this time with the best interest of his "shareholders" in mind - and no, I'm not referencing the shareholders of his company.
You need to look into how Trump actually ran his businesses, not just the balance sheets. He brought in immigrant labor, exported jobs, declared bankruptcy to screw contractors/investors/etc out of payments, abused eminent domain, lended his name to businesses that were complete scams, etc. Trump has never given a crap about the average American outside of trying to figure out how to extract more money out of their pocket. Yet you think he will suddenly do great things for us when elected?
(For the record, I don't think Hillary is any better. I'll be voting 3rd party this election because I can't cast a vote for either of these candidates.)
Oh, do you mean to imply the Dems had their own separate intelligence or were they just mouthing the same old bs the admistration was pushing to them. Sure lots of blame to go around but frankly it originated with 2 individuals.
There was no doubt after the 1st gulf war Sadam had (already did) develop a viable chemical program and used it on his own people. Not in dispute. If you also go do some research it was well accepted he had no nuclear program. So, the WMD scare was bullshit, a lie, cost several thousand dead and many more thousands wounded for the remainder of their days.
07-06-2016, 03:39 PM
0
