Members banned from this thread: Ransom


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: $ 1,000,000, 000, 000 isn't enough for you Rethuglican War Mongers!

  1. #1
    Points: 49,879, Level: 54
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 771
    Overall activity: 39.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Mini Me's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    20499
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Grass Valley, CA
    Posts
    16,693
    Points
    49,879
    Level
    54
    Thanks Given
    4,524
    Thanked 1,643x in 1,279 Posts
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    $ 1,000,000, 000, 000 isn't enough for you Rethuglican War Mongers!

    https://mises.org/wire/trillion-doll...ough-war-party

    The Trillion-Dollar Military Still Isn't Enough for the War Party18 COMMENTS09/10/2019
    Ryan McMaken

    Since the end of the Cold War in 1990, US defense spending has increased 182 percent in nominal terms, and 44 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. In inflation-adjusted terms, defense spending is now about equal with the all-time peak reached in 2011, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget estimates that defense spending will reach an all-time high in 2020.

    Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 3.2.
    In 2018 dollars, defense spending hit approximately $942,198 — which includes "homeland defense" spending and spending on veterans. It can soon be expected to top a trillion dollars every year.

    Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 3.2.
    Thanks to Donald Trump's budget deals with the Democrats, which paves the way for even more lavish use of taxpayer money, defense spending increased 9.9 percent from 2018 to 2019.
    Meanwhile, based on conservative 2017 estimates of spending from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) — which ignore spending on veterans, for instance — the US spent 610 billion dollars, while China spent 228 billion. The rest of the list engaged in miniscule amounts of spending by comparison, with Russia spending 66 billion, the UK spending 47 billion, and Japan spending 45 billion — to list a few examples.

    Source: SIPRI, totals are in billions of dollars.
    In other words, US politicians spent more on defense than the next seven biggest spenders combined. And most of those other spenders are consistent allies.
    And, of course, the US government has an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons, which,as Dwight Eisenhower understood, is essentially an impenetrable deterrence against an existential threat against the US government.
    Nevertheless, in the wake of this year's budget deal, researchers from the American Enterprise Institute claimed the binge still was not enough. For them, a trillion dollars per year is just barely enough to "avoid outright disaster."
    Last edited by Common; 09-12-2019 at 01:53 AM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Mini Me For This Useful Post:

    Orion Rules (09-11-2019)

  3. #2
    Points: 431,936, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307943
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,353
    Points
    431,936
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,172
    Thanked 76,958x in 55,587 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    $ 1,000,000, 000, 000 isn't enough for you Rethuglican War Mongers!

    Start communicating like a mature adult.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (09-11-2019),MisterVeritis (09-12-2019),stjames1_53 (09-11-2019)

  5. #3
    Points: 145,642, Level: 91
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 1,008
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Private Pickle's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    181646
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    49,929
    Points
    145,642
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    8,572
    Thanked 13,113x in 9,773 Posts
    Mentioned
    307 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just out of curiosity how much is enough for entitlement programs for you "Librulss"?
    I find your lack of faith...disturbing...

    -Darth Vader

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Private Pickle For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (09-12-2019),stjames1_53 (09-11-2019)

  7. #4
    Points: 172,886, Level: 98
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 764
    Overall activity: 47.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    88542
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    51,897
    Points
    172,886
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    18,283
    Thanked 20,510x in 14,774 Posts
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    https://mises.org/wire/trillion-doll...ough-war-party

    The Trillion-Dollar Military Still Isn't Enough for the War Party18 COMMENTS09/10/2019
    Ryan McMaken

    Since the end of the Cold War in 1990, US defense spending has increased 182 percent in nominal terms, and 44 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. In inflation-adjusted terms, defense spending is now about equal with the all-time peak reached in 2011, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget estimates that defense spending will reach an all-time high in 2020.

    Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 3.2.
    In 2018 dollars, defense spending hit approximately $942,198 — which includes "homeland defense" spending and spending on veterans. It can soon be expected to top a trillion dollars every year.

    Source: Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Table 3.2.
    Thanks to Donald Trump's budget deals with the Democrats, which paves the way for even more lavish use of taxpayer money, defense spending increased 9.9 percent from 2018 to 2019.
    Meanwhile, based on conservative 2017 estimates of spending from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) — which ignore spending on veterans, for instance — the US spent 610 billion dollars, while China spent 228 billion. The rest of the list engaged in miniscule amounts of spending by comparison, with Russia spending 66 billion, the UK spending 47 billion, and Japan spending 45 billion — to list a few examples.

    Source: SIPRI, totals are in billions of dollars.
    In other words, US politicians spent more on defense than the next seven biggest spenders combined. And most of those other spenders are consistent allies.
    And, of course, the US government has an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons, which,as Dwight Eisenhower understood, is essentially an impenetrable deterrence against an existential threat against the US government.
    Nevertheless, in the wake of this year's budget deal, researchers from the American Enterprise Institute claimed the binge still was not enough. For them, a trillion dollars per year is just barely enough to "avoid outright disaster."
    After all, a trillion dollars simply isn't enough when the "National Security Strategy" is to be ready to launch three wars at once: in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia.
    There is no upper bound on spending with these perennial advocates for what is essentially unlimited spending on the military.
    Socialist Military Planning
    The "correct" amount of spending, of course, is totally unknown. We're just told it's a bigger number than what is now being spent. But how could a correct number be known? The defense economy is socialist in the strict, technical sense of the term. Defense "services" are provided either by government owned or government-funded agencies and firms only. There is nothing resembling market competition, and the amount of spending has no connection whatsoever to anything that might be described as market demand. Spending targets and totals are simply numbers plucked out of the air by central planners with the help of lobbyists from organizations that benefit from the largesse.
    But don't worry. Friendly hawkish economists provide theoretical cover for the total disconnect between those who spend the money and those who pay all the bills. Economist Mark Hendrickson, who also decries the recent budget deal as offering far too little in new spending, sums up the rationale for endless spending in two sentences: "You can argue that the federal government spends too much on defense. That is an unknowable except in retrospect, but the cost of spending too much on defense is almost certainly less than the cost of not spending enough."
    This sounds clever, but it's not true.
    Defense spending does not exist in a vacuum, and increased spending on "defense" isn't politically neutral. Nor does additional spending translate only to defensive capability held in storage somewhere waiting to be brandished only when the state is threatened.
    [RELATED: "Public Goods, National Defense, and Central Planning" by Richard Ebeling]

    In practice, when a military force is sitting on a huge pile of cash and equipment, the temptation to use those resources — even when facing no real military threat — is much greater. This tends to increase paranoia in other states which then launch reactive efforts to increase their own defense spending in response to a competitor states.
    In the case of the US, of course, the US has shown in recent decades that it is enthusiastic about invading other sovereign states on a fairly regular basis. And when it isn't launching new wars, it is talking about it, as in the cases of Syria and Venezuela. Even in cases where full-scale war is averted, as in Syria, the US still asserts it can violate local air space and even land troops within the country's borders whenever it wants.
    The case of the 2011 US invasion of Libya, for example, is instructive. In Libya, we were told the brutality of the Qaddafi regime required immediate military intervention, without so much as a debate in Congress. Fortunately, offensive military weapons were all set to start another US military invasion on the other side of the planet.
    The operation, of course, did nothing to enhance US defense, nor did it help ordinary Libyans. The failure of the invasion is now admitted even by one of its chief architects, the Hillary Clinton disciple Samantha Power, who now says: "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own." Translation: the war failed.
    Indeed, the US's huge military buildup since 9/11 overall has not actually made the US any safer. Writing in March for The New Republic, Stephen Wertheim pointed outhow the new military thinking of that time was based on the idea establishing global military primacy for the US. Once this can be done, other threats will wither away. That, of course, didn't happen:
    [Then-US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz and his Pentagon colleagues originally justified their focus on primacy by claiming that it would bring peace. In a draft of their report, called the Defense Planning Guidance, they argued that the United States should seek a preeminence so overwhelming as to prevent any potential rival from even “aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” After a public outcry, the final language was softened. But at least policymakers back then felt some compunction to demonstrate that Pax Americana would live up to its name.
    Decades later, the opposite has transpired. America spends more on defense than the next seven countries combined, with roughly 800 bases ringing the globe, yet its might has not prevented China from rising nor Russia from asserting itself, and may have antagonized both. Instead of cowing others into peace, primacy has plunged America into war. It has forced the United States to resist any significant retractionof its military power, lest it lose influence relative to anyone else. The endless wars are endless because the United States has appointed itself the world’s “indispensable nation,” in Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s formulation, responsible less for ensuring its own safety than for maintaining its material and moral privilege to police the world. The costs include147,000 lives in Afghanistan and $5.9 trillion for a war on terror that has stretched on since 2001, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project.




    It would be nice if more military spending could convince other large states to give up and go home, but that's not how nationalism works.
    Thus, contrary to Hendrickson's formula, it turns out the cost of "too much spending" extends far beyond the mere dollar amount over the theoretical "correct" amount of spending. Instead, military spending itself creates a need for even more spending.
    The Economic Cost
    Meanwhile, the advocates for endless spending on new military projects ignore the many economic costs military spending imposes on the domestic economy.
    As with all government spending, defense spending bids up the prices of raw materials used in all industries, not just defense. A huge military makes steel, for instance, more expensive to the private sector. Government spending also hires away workers from the private sector. This means engineers who might have been working on products designed to improve the lives of ordinary people are instead busy building weapons that will be used to bomb yet another dirt poor no-threat country on the other side of the world.
    And then there are the veterans themselves, of course, who now will spend years in and out of filthy VA hospitals to treat both physical and mental ailments brought on by wars — like the Iraq War — which only served to increase the power and footprint of organization like Al-Qaeda.
    We have no way of calculating the economic drag imposed on the private sector over time, and this is unfortunate since economic power is the most important factor in determining long-term military power. As foreign policy scholar John Mueller noted in his book Atomic Obsession, the Soviets during the Cold War were not primarily deterred by the size of the US conventional military, or even by its nuclear arsenal. Instead, they were deterred by the "the enormous potential of the American war machine" which existed not in already-made weapons, but in the form of the world's largest economy.
    In other words, the best defense is a capitalist one in which enormous amounts of wealth make it clear that the potential for successful warmaking is enormous. Or, as Ludwig von Mises wrote in Interventionism: "When the capitalist nations in time of war give up the industrial superiority which their economic system provides them, their power to resist and their chances to win are considerably reduced."
    Unfortunately, today's hawks insist it is now always wartime, and they demand the tax collectors expropriate ever larger amounts of Americans' wealth in order to carry out their version of military readiness. What is the total cost such such relentless spending on the private sector? We don't know for sure, and neither do the hawks. Since they're the ones who want more of the taxpayer's money, the burden of proof is on them.
    At the very least, however, a good place to start is to demand an end to the US policy of using its enormous military to constantly threaten, invade, and coerce foreign nations. Fortunately, a military like that is unlikely to cost a trillion dollars per year.

    One of the problems here is that it ain't just repubs. Obama won a peace prize and then proceeded to make 8 straight years of war. I don't seem to recall Hiliary screaming to spend less on defense either

  8. #5
    Points: 49,879, Level: 54
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 771
    Overall activity: 39.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Mini Me's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    20499
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Grass Valley, CA
    Posts
    16,693
    Points
    49,879
    Level
    54
    Thanks Given
    4,524
    Thanked 1,643x in 1,279 Posts
    Mentioned
    117 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Private Pickle View Post
    Just out of curiosity how much is enough for entitlement programs for you "Librulss"?
    Those programs pay for themselves; like Social Insecurity, Disability, Workers Comp, etc with payroll deductions. Now Welfare doesn't, but would you rather see mothers with kids living on the streets?

    But wait! many are on the streets, as they can't make enough to rent a dwelling because of sky high rents!


  9. #6
    Points: 145,642, Level: 91
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 1,008
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Private Pickle's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    181646
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    49,929
    Points
    145,642
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    8,572
    Thanked 13,113x in 9,773 Posts
    Mentioned
    307 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    Those programs pay for themselves; like Social Insecurity, Disability, Workers Comp, etc with payroll deductions. Now Welfare doesn't, but would you rather see mothers with kids living on the streets?

    But wait! many are on the streets, as they can't make enough to rent a dwelling because of sky high rents!

    So move to a place where you don't have to live in a high rise. I'd like to see the individual get a job than having more kids so they get more welfare.

    And I think it's hilarious you believe SS, Medicare and Medicaid, Disability, etc pay for themselves. Something tells me you're not paying attention.

    Hey Forum by the way...see how quickly he made the argument around me and my character? Now I'm a rightist who doesn't care about the poor or homeless.

    Wonder why I no longer care about being respectful and in some cases even reasonable to the members here? This is why.
    Last edited by Private Pickle; 09-11-2019 at 06:49 PM.
    I find your lack of faith...disturbing...

    -Darth Vader

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Private Pickle For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (09-12-2019),stjames1_53 (09-11-2019)

  11. #7
    Points: 141,269, Level: 90
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,781
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Ransom's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    48002
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    44,110
    Points
    141,269
    Level
    90
    Thanks Given
    10,124
    Thanked 15,009x in 10,721 Posts
    Mentioned
    494 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Programs….that get this....pay for themselves. What a f'n idiot.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ransom For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (09-12-2019)

  13. #8
    Points: 138,389, Level: 89
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,061
    Overall activity: 36.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    58241
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    50,620
    Points
    138,389
    Level
    89
    Thanks Given
    104,275
    Thanked 29,262x in 20,293 Posts
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    Those programs pay for themselves; like Social Insecurity, Disability, Workers Comp, etc with payroll deductions. Now Welfare doesn't, but would you rather see mothers with kids living on the streets?

    But wait! many are on the streets, as they can't make enough to rent a dwelling because of sky high rents!

    those mothers should have thought it through before making babies....otherwise you suffer under your own taxation. You didn't vote.....not even against it, and now somehow it's our fault..................you're a joke and it's about time you got woke.
    Last edited by stjames1_53; 09-11-2019 at 08:03 PM.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  14. #9
    Points: 43,584, Level: 51
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 1,666
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran25000 Experience Points
    Hoosier8's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    10172
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    13,643
    Points
    43,584
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    1,411
    Thanked 10,163x in 6,406 Posts
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    Those programs pay for themselves; like Social Insecurity, Disability, Workers Comp, etc with payroll deductions. Now Welfare doesn't, but would you rather see mothers with kids living on the streets?

    But wait! many are on the streets, as they can't make enough to rent a dwelling because of sky high rents!

    Horsehockey. Taxes pay for those programs. They are all tax and spend programs.
    When Donald Trump said to protest “peacefully”, he meant violence.

    When he told protesters to “go home”, he meant stay for an insurrection.

    And when he told Brad Raffensperger to implement “whatever the correct legal remedy is”, he meant fraud.

    War is peace.

    Freedom is slavery.

    Ignorance is strength.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Hoosier8 For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (09-11-2019)

  16. #10
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,869, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 91.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496515
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,642
    Points
    858,869
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,202
    Thanked 147,525x in 94,386 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    Those programs pay for themselves; like Social Insecurity, Disability, Workers Comp, etc with payroll deductions. Now Welfare doesn't, but would you rather see mothers with kids living on the streets?

    But wait! many are on the streets, as they can't make enough to rent a dwelling because of sky high rents!

    Social Security does not pay for itself. When it was started there were something like 42 workers for every collector of social security. It is down to around 3:1 now. It is heading for a crash.

    And so far as the thread goes, after WWII there were several international agreements that placed the USD as the global reserve currency (which allows the US to deficit spend at the levels we do) and in return the US would protect the West.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Cotton1 (09-11-2019),stjames1_53 (09-11-2019),Tahuyaman (09-16-2019)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts