Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Hypocrisy

Viper-King
Posts: 4,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:19:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When we think about Barack Obama, we all are angry at how much he spends. What's the biggest funds for? The Department of Defense. Total outlays equals $688 billion & 255 million and only $5 billion & 260 million is mandatory outlays. Republicans are the biggest advocates for the huge funds for DoD and want to intervene in several countries including Iran. Doesn't that make Republicans hypocrites because they want to cut spending but want to increase the department that the most funds go to?
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:23:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes. They'd rather spend ungodly amounts of money destabilizing third world countries than improving our educational system.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:28:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems conservatives should want to cut military funding. Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research at least purchases things that are beneficial to society. It seems that spending money on the military and for tax-breaks to the most rich is a poor use of funds.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:39:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:19:44 PM, Viper-King wrote:
When we think about Barack Obama, we all are angry at how much he spends. What's the biggest funds for? The Department of Defense. Total outlays equals $688 billion & 255 million and only $5 billion & 260 million is mandatory outlays. Republicans are the biggest advocates for the huge funds for DoD and want to intervene in several countries including Iran. Doesn't that make Republicans hypocrites because they want to cut spending but want to increase the department that the most funds go to?

Well, it means they're not really "fiscally conservative" or pro-"small government", so for Republicans who claim to be those things, yes it does.

Not only do Romney and Ryan oppose cutting the military at all, they think it has to be increased. Anyone who knows anything about how much the U.S. spends on military as a percentage of GDP or of total spending, and compared to literally any other country, should recognize the ridiculousness of their agenda.

Not to mention the fact that civil liberties decrease and government grows massivly during war time. This is another factor that makes it hypocritical for anyone who promotes a small government to support spending as much on the military as Romney/Ryan want to.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 9:52:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:28:29 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
It seems conservatives should want to cut military funding. Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research at least purchases things that are beneficial to society. It seems that spending money on the military and for tax-breaks to the most rich is a poor use of funds.

Entitlement spending is 2/3rds of the budget.

Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research, etc, are not necessarily beneficial for society. First, it soaks up private capital, leading to less economic growth. Second, it is a gateway for corruption (say, money spent on roads gives money to a company that will make the road and helped the current administration win, or money for health insurance mandates that the insurers must cover alcoholism or something else unnecessary, etc.)

Third, many of these tasks can be picked up the private sector. Basic research is good when public, but private scientific development is more effective for our scientific development. Tax cuts are beneficial. You just need the confidence, and a growing economy so that all tax cuts are put to work and so the businesses have reason to reinvest their wealth into growing ventures and developments.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:30:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Entitlement spending is 2/3rds of the budget.

Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research, etc, are not necessarily beneficial for society. First, it soaks up private capital, leading to less economic growth.

Military spending soaks up private capital, just like other spending.

Second, it is a gateway for corruption (say, money spent on roads gives money to a company that will make the road and helped the current administration win, or money for health insurance mandates that the insurers must cover alcoholism or something else unnecessary, etc.)

Military spending also can be a gateway for corruption. Take the case of Halliburton. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Halliburton donated heavily to the Republican campaign and was unusually given sole right to bid on many contracts.

Third, many of these tasks can be picked up the private sector. Basic research is good when public, but private scientific development is more effective for our scientific development. Tax cuts are beneficial. You just need the confidence, and a growing economy so that all tax cuts are put to work and so the businesses have reason to reinvest their wealth into growing ventures and developments.

The private sector would not really pick up military spending. However, the goal of investing in the economy is to spend on things the private sector will not, or to stimulate/start growth in the private sector. But, it can be flawed.

Military spending is bad for many of the same reasons other government spending is bad. My main point is that it is hypocritical to condemn government spending, while wanting to increase military spending. Also, it is tough to see how Americans benefit from having more soldiers, ships or bases. Yet, Americans get a clear benefit from most other spending.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 10:30:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Entitlement spending is 2/3rds of the budget.

Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research, etc, are not necessarily beneficial for society. First, it soaks up private capital, leading to less economic growth.

Military spending soaks up private capital, just like other spending.

Second, it is a gateway for corruption (say, money spent on roads gives money to a company that will make the road and helped the current administration win, or money for health insurance mandates that the insurers must cover alcoholism or something else unnecessary, etc.)

Military spending also can be a gateway for corruption. Take the case of Halliburton. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Halliburton donated heavily to the Republican campaign and was unusually given sole right to bid on many contracts.

Third, many of these tasks can be picked up the private sector. Basic research is good when public, but private scientific development is more effective for our scientific development. Tax cuts are beneficial. You just need the confidence, and a growing economy so that all tax cuts are put to work and so the businesses have reason to reinvest their wealth into growing ventures and developments.

The private sector would not really pick up military spending. However, the goal of investing in the economy is to spend on things the private sector will not, or to stimulate/start growth in the private sector. But, it can be flawed.

Military spending is bad for many of the same reasons other government spending is bad. My main point is that it is hypocritical to condemn government spending, while wanting to increase military spending. Also, it is tough to see how Americans benefit from having more soldiers, ships or bases. Yet, Americans get a clear benefit from most other spending.

I do agree with your points on military spending. I agree that military spending needs to be cut as well, but national defense is still a gov't responsibility, that the market cannot cure.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Viper-King
Posts: 4,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:57:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 10:42:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Um... not really
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Fail logic and fail at trolling. That chart is including the Tribal, Federal, Local, and States' spending. Try your own source.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

We spend the most on Defense. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 11:33:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It would be hypocritical if Republicans ran on cutting all spending. Albeit, they state explicitly in their platform that they want to keep military spending at status quo or increase it. Hence, they aren't hypocrites.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 12:03:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 11:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It would be hypocritical if Republicans ran on cutting all spending. Albeit, they state explicitly in their platform that they want to keep military spending at status quo or increase it. Hence, they aren't hypocrites.

Quite true, it is their very ideology that is hypocritical.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 12:19:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 12:03:56 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/29/2012 11:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It would be hypocritical if Republicans ran on cutting all spending. Albeit, they state explicitly in their platform that they want to keep military spending at status quo or increase it. Hence, they aren't hypocrites.

Quite true, it is their very ideology that is hypocritical.

You're operating under an either/or paradigm. One isn't only fiscally conservative nor fiscally liberal. There are intermediate stages which most, if not all, people occupy. The Republican Party is no exception. When they say that they are fiscally conservative, they don't mean the utmost fiscal conservatism- 'cause that would require anarchy- but a stage in between. Ideologies aren't far-left or far-right.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 12:53:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 12:19:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/30/2012 12:03:56 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/29/2012 11:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It would be hypocritical if Republicans ran on cutting all spending. Albeit, they state explicitly in their platform that they want to keep military spending at status quo or increase it. Hence, they aren't hypocrites.

Quite true, it is their very ideology that is hypocritical.

You're operating under an either/or paradigm. One isn't only fiscally conservative nor fiscally liberal. There are intermediate stages which most, if not all, people occupy. The Republican Party is no exception. When they say that they are fiscally conservative, they don't mean the utmost fiscal conservatism- 'cause that would require anarchy- but a stage in between. Ideologies aren't far-left or far-right.

The point is that they claim to promote small government and fiscal conservatism. Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative who promotes small government. Romney and Ryan speak as if they are just as fiscally conservative and pro-small government as libertarians like Ron Paul are. But Romney and Ryan are only a bit less fiscally conservative than Obama in terms of how much we spend, government programs, and yes, foreign policy. Foreign policy cannot be seen as independent from fiscally conservative, small government values; supporting a hyper-interventionist military and refusing to consider any cuts to it shows that one does not consistently support those values, and is thus a hypocrite.

Hypocrisy can be inherent within an ideology. If there is an ideology that contains contradicting ideas within it, like "be a fiscal conservative" and then "do this which is the antithesis of fiscal conservative" then it can be said to be hypocritical or at least advocating hypocrisy. They might say openly that they don't want to cut military spending at all but that doesn't change the fact that such a policy contradict their other policies, the ideologies they claim to adhere to, comments about the waste/inefficiency/evilness of too much government spending and opposition to big government.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:32:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 9:52:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/29/2012 9:28:29 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
It seems conservatives should want to cut military funding. Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research at least purchases things that are beneficial to society. It seems that spending money on the military and for tax-breaks to the most rich is a poor use of funds.

Entitlement spending is 2/3rds of the budget.

Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research, etc, are not necessarily beneficial for society. First, it soaks up private capital, leading to less economic growth. Second, it is a gateway for corruption (say, money spent on roads gives money to a company that will make the road and helped the current administration win, or money for health insurance mandates that the insurers must cover alcoholism or something else unnecessary, etc.)

Third, many of these tasks can be picked up the private sector. Basic research is good when public, but private scientific development is more effective for our scientific development. Tax cuts are beneficial. You just need the confidence, and a growing economy so that all tax cuts are put to work and so the businesses have reason to reinvest their wealth into growing ventures and developments.

You always hear this, but I'm not sure if it is true. As i) often the people doing the inventing aren't making the big bucks, so the incentive there is distorted, and ii) a-lot of scientific advancement seems to have come out of government funded projects.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:58:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 12:19:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/30/2012 12:03:56 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/29/2012 11:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It would be hypocritical if Republicans ran on cutting all spending. Albeit, they state explicitly in their platform that they want to keep military spending at status quo or increase it. Hence, they aren't hypocrites.

Quite true, it is their very ideology that is hypocritical.

You're operating under an either/or paradigm. One isn't only fiscally conservative nor fiscally liberal. There are intermediate stages which most, if not all, people occupy. The Republican Party is no exception. When they say that they are fiscally conservative, they don't mean the utmost fiscal conservatism- 'cause that would require anarchy- but a stage in between. Ideologies aren't far-left or far-right.

Usually, this is true. But in a recession, increasing spending is working as an anti-austerity measure, and the only head of State that I can think of who's doing this is Hollande (the French Socialist (and an actual socialist, not just not-Conservative as fck))
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:06:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 10:57:32 PM, Viper-King wrote:
At 8/29/2012 10:42:41 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Um... not really
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Fail logic and fail at trolling. That chart is including the Tribal, Federal, Local, and States' spending. Try your own source.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

We spend the most on Defense. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

PWNED.

What's ridiculous about "defense" spending is that we spend more than the next 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are allies.

Apparently spending trillions of dollars to fight a war that can't be won (against terror - the most vague and unstoppable villain) overseas is more important than providing basic needs, health care and education here at home. We suggest that Americans who utilize social programs are nothing but lazy, parasitic leeches who contribute to the dire economic crisis. But we say we are fighting those wars so that the brown people we accidentally bomb every once in awhile can have access to those very things. Oh, and this astronomically expensive war effort also costs a lot of lives (foreign and domestic), our security (as research indicates our presence in the Middle East has strengthened opposition to the U.S) and our reputation as a leader in the world (everyone else thinks we're fvcking arrogant and retarded).
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 9:17:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 3:32:34 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/29/2012 9:52:32 PM, Contra wrote:
At 8/29/2012 9:28:29 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
It seems conservatives should want to cut military funding. Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research at least purchases things that are beneficial to society. It seems that spending money on the military and for tax-breaks to the most rich is a poor use of funds.

Entitlement spending is 2/3rds of the budget.

Money spent on healthcare, roads, scientific research, etc, are not necessarily beneficial for society. First, it soaks up private capital, leading to less economic growth. Second, it is a gateway for corruption (say, money spent on roads gives money to a company that will make the road and helped the current administration win, or money for health insurance mandates that the insurers must cover alcoholism or something else unnecessary, etc.)

Third, many of these tasks can be picked up the private sector. Basic research is good when public, but private scientific development is more effective for our scientific development. Tax cuts are beneficial. You just need the confidence, and a growing economy so that all tax cuts are put to work and so the businesses have reason to reinvest their wealth into growing ventures and developments.

You always hear this, but I'm not sure if it is true. As i) often the people doing the inventing aren't making the big bucks, so the incentive there is distorted, and ii) a-lot of scientific advancement seems to have come out of government funded projects.

1) Basic economics shows that if you channel incentives towards a goal, the policy will succeed. By the profit motive and pursuing their self interest, they work hard to innovate and find new scientific research. However they gain the most utility from it. For example, Jonas Salk gained the most utility by finding a medicine and giving it up for free.

2) Frequently, scientific research comes from the private sector (basic R&D excluded). It aligns with the role of incentives. Free people invented the computer, the automobile, the telephone, basically everything, the internet was a fortunate accident on the side of gov't. And if was a private Swedish individual who invented the World Wide Web so people could use the internet.

I love how nobody has refuted my points on entitlement spending is out of control. Currently 40% of our spending is financed from debt. Currently 2/3rds of spending is entitlement spending. If you don't cut entitlements, you cannot balance a budget, which leads to higher debt, higher interest rates, and then what? Lower job creation, less investment, and a weaker economy.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 9:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 12:19:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/30/2012 12:03:56 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/29/2012 11:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It would be hypocritical if Republicans ran on cutting all spending. Albeit, they state explicitly in their platform that they want to keep military spending at status quo or increase it. Hence, they aren't hypocrites.

Quite true, it is their very ideology that is hypocritical.

You're operating under an either/or paradigm. One isn't only fiscally conservative nor fiscally liberal. There are intermediate stages which most, if not all, people occupy. The Republican Party is no exception. When they say that they are fiscally conservative, they don't mean the utmost fiscal conservatism- 'cause that would require anarchy- but a stage in between. Ideologies aren't far-left or far-right.

I'm talking about 'small government' conservatives who want to have a MASSIVE military. They use the label 'small government' even though they clearly aren't. That's what I'm referring to.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 9:30:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If we're all done with this circlejerk....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 9:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 9:25:19 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 12:19:59 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/30/2012 12:03:56 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/29/2012 11:33:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It would be hypocritical if Republicans ran on cutting all spending. Albeit, they state explicitly in their platform that they want to keep military spending at status quo or increase it. Hence, they aren't hypocrites.

Quite true, it is their very ideology that is hypocritical.

You're operating under an either/or paradigm. One isn't only fiscally conservative nor fiscally liberal. There are intermediate stages which most, if not all, people occupy. The Republican Party is no exception. When they say that they are fiscally conservative, they don't mean the utmost fiscal conservatism- 'cause that would require anarchy- but a stage in between. Ideologies aren't far-left or far-right.

I'm talking about 'small government' conservatives who want to have a MASSIVE military. They use the label 'small government' even though they clearly aren't. That's what I'm referring to.

Hey, lies work miracles, the GOP is good at it too.

The GOP theme on Thursday I believe was "we can change it". The GOP did the same thing here, changing what small gov't means.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:25:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Small government could also mean "basic" government. I think everyone would agree that national security is a legitimate action of the government (this is not to say DoD is wise in its spending or actions).

If they mean small government as not social programs, but courts and military and true interstate commerce, then they wouldn't be hypocrits, right?
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 10:00:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 7:25:22 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
Small government could also mean "basic" government. I think everyone would agree that national security is a legitimate action of the government (this is not to say DoD is wise in its spending or actions).

If they mean small government as not social programs, but courts and military and true interstate commerce, then they wouldn't be hypocrits, right?

Small government implies that it does not take in much money, and our department of defense takes A LOT of money as it is. And they want to INCREASE the military budget. I just don't see how that is in line with 'small government', even if they cut social programs. We already have the largest military budget on earth.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 10:08:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

I love how nobody has refuted my points on entitlement spending is out of control. Currently 40% of our spending is financed from debt. Currently 2/3rds of spending is entitlement spending. If you don't cut entitlements, you cannot balance a budget, which leads to higher debt, higher interest rates, and then what? Lower job creation, less investment, and a weaker economy.

Clearly, entitlement spending needs to be altered, and if nothing is done there will be problems. However, spending is not really out of control. The USA ranks 25 out of 34 OECD countries in social spending in (percentage of GDP, 1 being spending the most, 34 being spending the least). There are healthy economies with high social spending. I argue that shifting tax burdens, cutting military spending and creating more efficient social programs is the best course of action.[1]

Also, do Americans benefit from military spending? I can understand increasing if there is a war that needs to be fought (like North Korea starts invading other countries). However, I don't think Americans benefit the USA meddling in the middle east. The only reason to increase military spending is if a war is being plan. It is extremely wasteful to increase military spending in peacetime with no plan for use of funds.

[1]http://www.businessinsider.com...
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 10:11:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 10:00:46 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/1/2012 7:25:22 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
Small government could also mean "basic" government. I think everyone would agree that national security is a legitimate action of the government (this is not to say DoD is wise in its spending or actions).

If they mean small government as not social programs, but courts and military and true interstate commerce, then they wouldn't be hypocrits, right?

Small government implies that it does not take in much money, and our department of defense takes A LOT of money as it is. And they want to INCREASE the military budget. I just don't see how that is in line with 'small government', even if they cut social programs. We already have the largest military budget on earth.

Yeah, having literally hundreds of bases around the world and tens of thousands of soldiers on every continent is not national defense, it's dominance. Saying you're an advocate of small government while at the same time supporting the most key aspect to preserving tyranny makes you a moron, but since US politics is in such a state that a major candidate is attacked for having bank accounts outside the US I'm not surprised that millions of people actually believe this nonsense
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 10:58:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 10:08:38 AM, twocupcakes wrote:

I love how nobody has refuted my points on entitlement spending is out of control. Currently 40% of our spending is financed from debt. Currently 2/3rds of spending is entitlement spending. If you don't cut entitlements, you cannot balance a budget, which leads to higher debt, higher interest rates, and then what? Lower job creation, less investment, and a weaker economy.

Clearly, entitlement spending needs to be altered, and if nothing is done there will be problems. However, spending is not really out of control. The USA ranks 25 out of 34 OECD countries in social spending in (percentage of GDP, 1 being spending the most, 34 being spending the least). There are healthy economies with high social spending. I argue that shifting tax burdens, cutting military spending and creating more efficient social programs is the best course of action.[1]

Total US unfunded liabilities is over $120 trillion dollars, or more than $1,000,000 per taxpayer. [2] This is outrageous. This huge debt will cause us a weaker economy and higher interest rates. It is harmful for our well being.

We could privatize these programs and make them individual responsibilities. For example, the current 12.4% Social Security tax could be cut to 10% split equally 5% and 5% among employer and employee, and over the employees worktime, the savings that they would've accumulated at a conservative estimate at the average return of the S&P 500 would result in a total retirement savings account of over $800,000 or more, compared to the amount that most people get from Social Security, which is $300,000 (rate of return of SS is 1.2% vs S&P 500 5.1-6.85%).

So private accounts for many would ensure greater retirement security and a sound balance sheet. And this means that taxes could be cut by 2.4% in effect, leading to economic growth, and letting the government become fiscally responsible.

In addition to a sound retirement proposal, and gov't fiscal responsibility, people will become more invested in their company's success, giving them incentives to help their company, and the stock market will jump, leading to increased capital for reinvestment which equals further economic growth, and ending this entitlement over time would create more confidence and smaller government. Personal responsibility would also create prudence with their money.

Medicare could also be privatized.

Workers could pay 4% of wages, employers contribute 2% to total funds, and both are deposited into a private account (Health Insurance Retirement Account, or HIRA).

After 65, funds are annuitizied, and a fixed lump sum is deposited into the workers individual HSA annually, which makes personal responsibility continue to lower costs.
Assuming $46,000 annually;
(46,000 x 0.06 = $2,760)
$2,760 x 44 = $121,440
121,440/12 = $10,120 annually)

Assuming that the average person lives to 78, which is about the typical lifespan. And this projection isn't including two critical things. First, any shortfall could easily be covered by a likely private retirement savings account like I just mentioned, and second, this doesn't include any of the health care savings that would likely result from a consumer health care market.

See, you can save our future, grow our economy, ensure retirement security, and have a sound budget all at the same time. It just requires the free market and American responsibility.


Also, do Americans benefit from military spending? I can understand increasing if there is a war that needs to be fought (like North Korea starts invading other countries). However, I don't think Americans benefit the USA meddling in the middle east. The only reason to increase military spending is if a war is being plan. It is extremely wasteful to increase military spending in peacetime with no plan for use of funds.

We agree that military spending needs to be responsibly cut.

[1]http://www.businessinsider.com...
[2] http://www.usdebtclock.org...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 2:43:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
^^ No attempt at a rebuttal?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 4:20:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks for the response. Sorry, I took awhile getting back to you.

Total US unfunded liabilities is over $120 trillion dollars, or more than $1,000,000 per taxpayer. [2] This is outrageous. This huge debt will cause us a weaker economy and higher interest rates. It is harmful for our well being.

Maybe I could not find the stat you mentioned, but I read $50,900 debt per person and 139,996 debt per taxpayer. Debt is slightly higher than GDP. The USA pays on average 3.29% interest, and has an AAA bond rating. [1]

[1]http://www.slate.com...

We could privatize these programs and make them individual responsibilities. For example, the current 12.4% Social Security tax could be cut to 10% split equally 5% and 5% among employer and employee, and over the employees worktime, the savings that they would've accumulated at a conservative estimate at the average return of the S&P 500 would result in a total retirement savings account of over $800,000 or more, compared to the amount that most people get from Social Security, which is $300,000 (rate of return of SS is 1.2% vs S&P 500 5.1-6.85%).

So private accounts for many would ensure greater retirement security and a sound balance sheet. And this means that taxes could be cut by 2.4% in effect, leading to economic growth, and letting the government become fiscally responsible.

In addition to a sound retirement proposal, and gov't fiscal responsibility, people will become more invested in their company's success, giving them incentives to help their company, and the stock market will jump, leading to increased capital for reinvestment which equals further economic growth, and ending this entitlement over time would create more confidence and smaller government. Personal responsibility would also create prudence with their money.

Medicare could also be privatized.

Workers could pay 4% of wages, employers contribute 2% to total funds, and both are deposited into a private account (Health Insurance Retirement Account, or HIRA).

After 65, funds are annuitizied, and a fixed lump sum is deposited into the workers individual HSA annually, which makes personal responsibility continue to lower costs.
Assuming $46,000 annually;
(46,000 x 0.06 = $2,760)
$2,760 x 44 = $121,440
121,440/12 = $10,120 annually)

Assuming that the average person lives to 78, which is about the typical lifespan. And this projection isn't including two critical things. First, any shortfall could easily be covered by a likely private retirement savings account like I just mentioned, and second, this doesn't include any of the health care savings that would likely result from a consumer health care market.

See, you can save our future, grow our economy, ensure retirement security, and have a sound budget all at the same time. It just requires the free market and American responsibility.

1. Cutting social security from 12.4% to 10% may be tough(even with investing in stocks). With an increase in population retiring (the baby boomers, generation X), and an increase in life expectancy, a higher tax rate is needed to maintain the same service. I am for raising the retirement age ( with an exception for people who are to unhealthy to work).

2. I really like the idea of investing saving in the stock market( at least a portion of it). However, money in social security is about $2.6 trillion. Can all of this money be invested in stocks. I do not think so. The biggest mutual fund in the world is 163.57 billion in comparison. I am unsure how much could/should be invested right now. Also, investing all of the fund is risky. Perhaps around 30%?

3. Many companies already have private pension funds for there employees. You want employers to pay into a mandatory social security fund. This could hurt small businesses.

4. Also, what about people who are unemployed or out of the USA for a long time. With private accounts, they will be screwed upon old age. These unemployed/less off people are the exact people who Social Security is there to support.

5. The stock market jumping because people are invested in growth of their company is just wishful thinking.
http://www.marketwatch.com...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 7:55:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 4:20:55 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Thanks for the response. Sorry, I took awhile getting back to you.

Total US unfunded liabilities is over $120 trillion dollars, or more than $1,000,000 per taxpayer. [2] This is outrageous. This huge debt will cause us a weaker economy and higher interest rates. It is harmful for our well being.

Maybe I could not find the stat you mentioned, but I read $50,900 debt per person and 139,996 debt per taxpayer. Debt is slightly higher than GDP. The USA pays on average 3.29% interest, and has an AAA bond rating. [1]

That is national debt, not including personal debts I believe.

Unfunded liabilities are as I said $120 trillion, or more than $1 million per taxpayer. Unfunded liabilities are the actual or potential debts, for which there is no current funding for. (http://tinyurl.com...)

This is massive, and disastrous for our economy and national security.
[1]http://www.slate.com...

We could privatize these programs and make them individual responsibilities. For example, the current 12.4% Social Security tax could be cut to 10% split equally 5% and 5% among employer and employee, and over the employees worktime, the savings that they would've accumulated at a conservative estimate at the average return of the S&P 500 would result in a total retirement savings account of over $800,000 or more, compared to the amount that most people get from Social Security, which is $300,000 (rate of return of SS is 1.2% vs S&P 500 5.1-6.85%).





So private accounts for many would ensure greater retirement security and a sound balance sheet. And this means that taxes could be cut by 2.4% in effect, leading to economic growth, and letting the government become fiscally responsible.

In addition to a sound retirement proposal, and gov't fiscal responsibility, people will become more invested in their company's success, giving them incentives to help their company, and the stock market will jump, leading to increased capital for reinvestment which equals further economic growth, and ending this entitlement over time would create more confidence and smaller government. Personal responsibility would also create prudence with their money.

Medicare could also be privatized.

Workers could pay 4% of wages, employers contribute 2% to total funds, and both are deposited into a private account (Health Insurance Retirement Account, or HIRA).

After 65, funds are annuitizied, and a fixed lump sum is deposited into the workers individual HSA annually, which makes personal responsibility continue to lower costs.
Assuming $46,000 annually;
(46,000 x 0.06 = $2,760)
$2,760 x 44 = $121,440
121,440/12 = $10,120 annually)

Assuming that the average person lives to 78, which is about the typical lifespan. And this projection isn't including two critical things. First, any shortfall could easily be covered by a likely private retirement savings account like I just mentioned, and second, this doesn't include any of the health care savings that would likely result from a consumer health care market.

See, you can save our future, grow our economy, ensure retirement security, and have a sound budget all at the same time. It just requires the free market and American responsibility.

1. Cutting social security from 12.4% to 10% may be tough(even with investing in stocks). With an increase in population retiring (the baby boomers, generation X), and an increase in life expectancy, a higher tax rate is needed to maintain the same service. I am for raising the retirement age ( with an exception for people who are to unhealthy to work).

No, by privatize I mean individual, private accounts. Ending this gov't program. Possibly forced savings, or more preferably an "automatically enrolled" system that has individuals have the 10% of wages put into a private account so they have a good retirement balance, and if they opted out, they would get that 10% in wages, and be personally responsible for their savings, if they wanted to have savings in retirement.

2. I really like the idea of investing saving in the stock market( at least a portion of it). However, money in social security is about $2.6 trillion. Can all of this money be invested in stocks. I do not think so. The biggest mutual fund in the world is 163.57 billion in comparison. I am unsure how much could/should be invested right now. Also, investing all of the fund is risky. Perhaps around 30%?

There is no reason why the size of mutual funds could not increase.

And, the average annual return of the S&P 500 is about 6.85%. For Social Security, it's annual return is on average 1.2%. This is over time, so even when a horrible year like 2008 comes around once every two generations, stocks are going to most likely be safe. Social Security though, its benefits are going to need to be cut by 2037, and many people have recently started the phenomena of this entitlement, in which people pay in more than they receive, a bad investment.

But I like that you are open to the idea.

3. Many companies already have private pension funds for there employees. You want employers to pay into a mandatory social security fund. This could hurt small businesses.

First, they already are required to pay 12.4% of their worker's individual wages into Social Security with FICA taxes. My proposal cuts this amount by 19.36%. If an employee wanted to opt out, they would receive higher wages in return, and unlike the current system, it wouldn't harm other people's retirement situations if they did opt out (the wealthy are largely able to).

Second, many small businesses invest their pension accumulations in the stock market because it has higher returns.

4. Also, what about people who are unemployed or out of the USA for a long time. With private accounts, they will be screwed upon old age. These unemployed/less off people are the exact people who Social Security is there to support.

There will still be a safety net in place for them, either with a negative income tax, EITC, or some other form.

And they should of been saving over their lifetime for retirement.

5. The stock market jumping because people are invested in growth of their company is just wishful thinking.
http://www.marketwatch.com...

It aligns the incentives with the behavior, i.e. people are helped if their main company does well in many cases (not all company's have a stock offering).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 7:50:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is national debt, not including personal debts I believe.

Unfunded liabilities are as I said $120 trillion, or more than $1 million per taxpayer. Unfunded liabilities are the actual or potential debts, for which there is no current funding for. (http://tinyurl.com...)

Yeah, i could not find the unfunded liabilities stat on the debt clock. Total debt is about 16 trillion. So, unfunded liabilities is 7.5 times total debt?! Where did this statistic come from? It seems it is trying to measure future expenditure without a current plan to pay.


No, by privatize I mean individual, private accounts. Ending this gov't program. Possibly forced savings, or more preferably an "automatically enrolled" system that has individuals have the 10% of wages put into a private account so they have a good retirement balance, and if they opted out, they would get that 10% in wages, and be personally responsible for their savings, if they wanted to have savings in retirement.

Many people are "bad savers" and lack foresight. Many people (especially low income people) will not save, or be forced to spend(to avoid foreclosure, to payoff tuition debt, or for medical bills) and be screwed upon retirement.




And, the average annual return of the S&P 500 is about 6.85%. For Social Security, it's annual return is on average 1.2%. This is over time, so even when a horrible year like 2008 comes around once every two generations, stocks are going to most likely be safe. Social Security though, its benefits are going to need to be cut by 2037, and many people have recently started the phenomena of this entitlement, in which people pay in more than they receive, a bad investment.

But I like that you are open to the idea.

Stocks are definitely good idea. However, if someone has there money in stocks, and a recession hits as they want to retire. They will forced to work until the market picks up.

Do people manage there stock fund themselves. If so, if people choose bad investments , they could lose all there savings. Does the government invest all of the 2.6 trillion in the S & P? The total value of all the stocks in the S & P is 12.12 trillion. So, the government may be able to invest all the money in S & P. However, the amount of money to invest matters. For example, if 6.07 trillion was in SS, the USA would have controlling share 50.01% of all the top 500 companies. Also, the price gets driven up as money is invested. This could inflate the value of the shares, or lead to a high purchasing price. But, stocks are a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


First, they already are required to pay 12.4% of their worker's individual wages into Social Security with FICA taxes. My proposal cuts this amount by 19.36%. If an employee wanted to opt out, they would receive higher wages in return, and unlike the current system, it wouldn't harm other people's retirement situations if they did opt out (the wealthy are largely able to).

Second, many small businesses invest their pension accumulations in the stock market because it has higher returns.

Okay, this would not have to hurt businesses.

4. Also, what about people who are unemployed or out of the USA for a long time. With private accounts, they will be screwed upon old age. These unemployed/less off people are the exact people who Social Security is there to support.

There will still be a safety net in place for them, either with a negative income tax, EITC, or some other form.

And they should of been saving over their lifetime for retirement.

Will the safety net be funded enough? They should be saving but some won't. Perhaps they are living paycheck to paycheck, or an unforeseen a disaster/situation causes them to take from their retirement fund. Some people live to be really old and may run out. An individual plan would cause many elderly to live in poverty. I think the whole point of SS is to take care of disadvantaged people.

Also, how is this implemented? I mean, the current workers are paying into SS without stock funds.


It aligns the incentives with the behavior, i.e. people are helped if their main company does well in many cases (not all company's have a stock offering).

Top management generally determine the success of a company. Also, in a mutual fund people have money in many competing companies. If all their retirement is just in their own company, it is a risky investment.