Isn't the military budget increasing?

Post #345,393 by S1mon_Jester 7/30/11 1:36:45 AM Reply	Isn't the military budget increasing? In 1960, national defense was the governmentÂs main job; it constituted 52 percent of federal outlays. In 2011 Â even with two wars Â it is 20 percent and falling. Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other retiree programs constitute roughly half of non-interest federal spending. Hasn't the military budget been INCREASING the last several years? The annual base defense budget increased from $295B in FY2000 to $549B by FY2011, an 86% increase, excluding supplemental funding directly attributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and certain other expenses related to the "War on Terror." http://en.wikipedia....ending_Trends.png
Post #345,396 by beepster 7/30/11 5:54:33 AM Reply	by percentage. not dollars. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,400 by Another Scott 7/30/11 7:01:49 AM Reply	Of course... the Federal Government should do nothing more than it did in 1960, or 1940, or 1923 or 1895 or ... or 1792 depending on your view of whenever the appropriate Golden Age was. A more fair comparison would be between 1960 and 2000 - before the wars and before the Lesser Depression. 1960 % of Federal Spending: Pensions: 7.7 Health Care: 1.0 Education: 1.1 Defense: 35.2 Welfare: 2.0 Protection: 0.1 Transportation: 2.9 2000 % of Federal Spending: Pensions: 13.8 Health Care: 10.9 Education: 1.9 Defense: 11.1 Welfare: 5.4 Protection: 0.9 Transportation: 1.4 For completeness, 2010 % of Federal Spending: Pensions: 12.9 Health Care: 14.2 Education: 2.4 Defense: 14.6 Welfare: 8.7 Protection: 0.9 Transportation: 1.6 Yes, let's return to those golden days of 1960 when 40 million (22.2% of the population) was in poverty (census.gov). When we were building nuclear weapons like no tomorrow. When the USSR was shooting down US planes. When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South. Etc., etc. It's funny, isn't it, that many people who like to make arguments that things are too expensive and cite raw numbers never talk about what is paid for with those dollars? They're not a fan of "cost-benefit analysis". I wonder why that is... Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,403 by beepster 7/30/11 8:10:59 AM Reply	Funnier still is how when people rant against that growth..and speak of how it was...they always revert back to racism. You appear to be no exception. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,404 by Another Scott 7/30/11 8:59:08 AM Reply	<sigh>
Post #345,405 by hnick 7/30/11 9:23:20 AM Reply	Re: Funnier still It's not racism we are reverting to, it's feudalism. If there's racism involved, it's just a teeny teeny part. HTH.
Post #345,425 by beepster 7/31/11 1:31:40 PM Reply	Bullshit. Its right in there...always is.. the quote.. "When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South." Always there. You might think its teeny tiny. but its ALWAYS THERE. talking about going back to a smaller government "like it was"...99% of the time is met with..."oh, like when blacks couldn't drink out the same water fountains" or some such nonsense. Nother just did it..and then sighed when I called him on it... oh freakin well. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,432 by Another Scott 7/31/11 2:06:41 PM Reply	Your selective outrage is frequently tiresome. I gave several examples of what things were like in 1960: the poverty rate; a nuclear buildup and actual confrontations during the cold war; and civil rights issues that we've at least partially overcome. Part of the reason why things aren't like that any more is because the federal government spends more on social programs, is more active in civil rights issues, and spends proportionally less on the military now than it did then. I didn't pick 1960 out of my ear - it was in Samuelson's OpEd. It was his example of a time we should return to. My point, right there in this thread, is that talking about spending without talking about what the money actually buys is stupid. But you seemingly want to turn my comment into some rant about racism. It's rather tiresome that you can't stay on a topic. Go play your guitar or something and cheer up. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,437 by beepster 7/31/11 4:19:38 PM Reply	Ah, its selective I see. So why don't we select the topic to stay on..instead of linking to things that change that topic to racism...which that one did? And gee...why does that seem to happen all the time? Oh, I dunno. Convenient way to stop an inconvenient topic. Possibly. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,468 by drook 7/31/11 7:37:49 PM Reply	Well you're sure trying to stop it Pensions: 12.9 Health Care: 14.2 Education: 2.4 Defense: 14.6 Welfare: 8.7 Protection: 0.9 Transportation: 1.6 Yes, let's return to those golden days of 1960 when 40 million (22.2% of the population) was in poverty (census.gov). When we were building nuclear weapons like no tomorrow. When the USSR was shooting down US planes. When black students couldn't get lunch at Woolworth's. When voting rights were restricted in many areas of the South. Etc., etc. That's 12 issues I count there. Two of them were about racism. He's not the one who keeps focusing on it. -- Drew
Post #345,474 by beepster 7/31/11 7:59:11 PM Reply	Try 5 and 2 of the 5 were. The rest were statistics. Not issues. Issues raised were the cold war and racism. And one of those statistics WOULD actually want you to go back to that age..as people that were in poverty for more than 2 or more months in the 2004-6 time frame was 28.9%...so at least on that front, we were better off back then. http://www.census.go...ics04/table2a.pdf Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,476 by Another Scott 7/31/11 8:15:53 PM Reply	How many people got Food Stamps in 1960? How many people got Medicare in 1960? Comparing apples to apples shows your conclusion that things were better in 1960 is wrong. http://en.wikipedia....rate_timeline.gif Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,491 by beepster 7/31/11 10:37:21 PM Reply	pilot started in 61. Act passed in 64. Hmm. And your census appears to differ from mine yet still shows no improvement since 65...for all that growth in government that is supposed to stop it. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,415 by Ashton 7/30/11 6:05:29 PM Reply	That dead horse won't hunt, especially amidst the urbane IGM of these parts. The idea that actual racism has [ever] vanished from the Puritan-programmed vox populi of Murica! is as ludicrous in 2011 --as it was ... a few days after the Emancipation Proclamation. Dunno where you've been, over your puppy-years--But I can recall epithets hurled [at ANYone 'different'] in my infancy: currently in vogue, to be seen-on-signs/heard-as-'bleeps', Beep -- especially at farRight-ful gatherings/mobs, On the Attack. (Ditto re the WarHawks' signs <VS> Americans gathered to protest the horror of continuing the Vietnam genocides.) The vocabulary/vernacular of the Right-fringes Today is as scurrilous, dehumanizing and Evull as.. anything that came from the Ministry of Propaganda/Göbbels, from 1927 on. I have heard these odious phrases since childhood and I remember them well: unclear what history-of-US version was inculcated into Your yout, but it must have been pretty sanitized. I was fucking-There, kid. You don't misremember shit like that, unless you only 'read about it somewhere', well before your time. {{sheesh}} with this both-sides-do-it pap, your staple of non-engagement dissembling.
Post #345,426 by beepster 7/31/11 1:32:25 PM Reply	if i bothered to translate that.. I'd probably think it was bullshit too. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,460 by Ashton 7/31/11 6:53:03 PM Reply	You won't eat your own dog food.. as usual. Can only wonder at your eyes glazing-over / not reading the content of blogs, blurbs and videos --the racial/xenophobic/misogynistic "Sign language" to be observed at many ~~Conservative~~ Reactionary gatherings: Just among those which make it into the corp. meeja; who knows about the regional un-reported variants? One need not impute ingrained racism's omnipresence in '11 political jargon: it's EXPLICIT. That is --if one chooses to See what one looks at, at all. True, though: there are fewer caricatures of Obama + watermelons. Not 0, but ... fewer. But it's not '12 yet, either.
Post #345,475 by beepster 7/31/11 8:00:30 PM Reply	that ain't it. its more along the lines of posting in english as a second language... but if dog food's your thing...ok. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,536 by Ashton 8/1/11 5:35:38 PM Reply	I empathize with that pain you suffer in 'crafting' English.
Post #345,540 by beepster 8/1/11 6:00:43 PM Reply	Clearly Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,593 by Ashton 8/2/11 2:41:15 PM Reply	Rep. Lamborn likens Obama to a "tar baby" http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 "Tar Baby" -- from time to time, this ugly racially charged phrase has come up in our political discourse. Most often, the term is applied to a situation or a thing. John McCain, for example, used it to describe divorces. Likewise, Mitt Romney used it to describe the Big Dig. In both instances, the Republican leaders apologized for using such a loaded word -- even though they hadn't used it to describe an actual person. The same cannot be said for Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who used the term to describe President Obama in a statewide radio interview on Friday. You can listen to that interview here, which we examined on my KKZN-AM760 radio show this morning. Here's the key excerpt: LAMBORN: Even if some people say "well, the Republicans should have done this, or should have done that," they will hold the President responsible. Now, I don't even want to be associated with him, it's like touching a, a tar baby and you get it...you know you're stuck and you're part of the problem and you can't get away. It has been questioned whether the term "tar baby" is always a racist term. In 2006, Ta-Nehisi Coates explored this issue in Time magazine. "Is tar baby a racist term?" he asked. "Like most elements of language, that depends on context. Calling the Big Dig a tar baby is a lot different than calling a person one." In this case, that context is quite clear. [. . .] Of course too ... there's another category we've had noses-rubbed-in, till raw: The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 ..Complete with those cute spreadsheet/pie-chart graphics, supporting the regional diss. Just more Librul distortion, no doubt. Can't be anything to it. Both sides [must] do it. It's an even playing-field. There's no difference between Demos/Repos--it's all in our Minds. cha. cha. Extremist in defense of liberty is no vice--cha.cha.cha, Carrion.
Post #345,598 by mmoffitt 8/2/11 4:19:24 PM Reply	Colorado, eh? It's good to hear from one of the morally superior Northern States.
Post #345,497 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 12:37:44 AM Reply	Percentages and dollars. 2000 % of Federal Spending: Defense: 11.1 For completeness, 2010 % of Federal Spending: Defense: 14.6 That still looks like an increase to me. 14.6 > 11.1 Now, we could go back to the 35%....but to do that, we'd have to re-institute the draft. (That's why it was that high back then.)
Post #345,499 by beepster 8/1/11 1:23:52 AM Reply	or conversely reverse course on all the other stuff. But that would be inconvenient. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,500 by Another Scott 8/1/11 7:31:01 AM Reply	What would you cut, and how would you get enough votes?
Post #345,509 by beepster 8/1/11 11:50:06 AM Reply	Thankfully, not my job But I would start by looking at the workforce, and items like doe..as for votes...doing the unpopular won't garner them...part of the reason we are in this mess Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,511 by drook 8/1/11 12:03:31 PM Reply	What if the popular thing is also the right thing? Closing all businesses and putting everybody out of work would be unpopular. Does that mean we should do it? Republicans keep talking about their willingness to do the unpopular things, as though it proves how serious they are about fixing things. But what if the things they are willing to do are not only unpopular, but bad for the economy? What if they're unpopular with the majority of the population because they are bad for the majority of the population? Huge public works projects like the WPA would be very popular with the millions of people that they could employ. They would also fix the lack of demand that is crippling the economy. Don't pretend we're in this mess because leadership is unwilling to do things that are "unpopular". We're in this mess because leadership is unwilling to do things that are unpopular with the banking/financial industry. -- Drew
Post #345,541 by Ashton 8/1/11 6:02:35 PM Reply	You may underestimate Beep's comprehension of 'the poor' He realizes that these folks shall never aspire to/inhabit a Corner Office (or see an Armani-Suited one, live.) Perhaps he sees the necessity of these folks biting-the-bullet of their expectations of a decent society, one with the Galtian Rulez which Made Murica what it Is, today (in his macroscopic view.) 'Popular' is thus anathema to the ultimate Authority for digital-think Economics, that handy algorithm for maintaining the rule of the Haves over those who rarely employ such phrases as, the-velocity-of-money. Proles never could craft such a brilliantly-recursive scam as his patriots-in-arms who came up with mortgage-backed-securities, aka "reducing the risk factor to Zero" [Ours!--as they said to selves: not Everyone Else's] And $brilliance trumps every other aspect of (some peoples' idea of) what a society 'is about'. Doncha know? So you just don't get how these craft-y strategists program their recipes for infinitely expanding 'wealth'--for those smart enough to game the system, infinitely (there are lots of exponentials hidden in that mortgage secret formula: these folks think BIG. As infinity IS.) Ergo, screw your 'majority of the population'--those aims/desires/POVs all suck with the real $$Pros. Beep's just lookin-out for Numero Uno: is there anyone else in a zero-sum game?
Post #345,544 by beepster 8/1/11 7:42:28 PM Reply	That would hardly fit with my supporting, for example, more public works/infrastructure spending instead of bailing out wall street... but it fits perfectly with your made up version of the moniker. And, of course, the doubling in size of the fed over the past 30 years has done so much to help the masses..as everything in washington is done in such a selfless fashion. What. Ever. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,547 by Another Scott 8/1/11 9:43:35 PM Reply	You're making up stuff again... "And of course, doubling the size of the fed over the past 30 years..." http://www.gpoaccess...fy11/pdf/hist.pdf 1980: Federal Outlays: 21.6% of GDP 2010: Federal Outlays: 25.4% of GDP http://www.opm.gov/f...mentSince1962.asp 1980: Total Federal Employment: 4.965M 2010: Total Federal Employment: 4.443M HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,595 by Ashton 8/2/11 3:22:48 PM Reply	Y'know Beep.. I think that most realize that you aren't the [caricature-self] which you promulgate here--or nobody could stand being around you, and we know: they Can. Nevertheless, your predictable defense of the most extreme aspects of [whatever IS the latest brouhaha involving language -mayhem if not -murder] does constitute A Theme with few variations. Maybe it's just your religious-faith that Your variant of {n + many) Econ-theories: [what-ever! does that word connote? given the multiple dueling 'definitions' extant==each acolyte/'Economist' Sure that His God is Real and the others.. misled or nefarious] Is the One True algorithm, both necessary [and here's the clinker: sufficient!] == all ye need to know: to 'craft' a liveable? "fair"? humane?? society. (Some of us have come to learn that 'logic' is never.. enough; it's only a crude start; others Believe.) And if Murican vulture-Capitalism is the epitome of Economist 'thought'-to-date?? I'd say: q.e.d. But, wtf.. Carrion with the other True Believers. In a hundred years there will be all New People (or, perhaps when the nukes finally fly again.. not so many.) (Your idea of 'stirring-the-pot', via juxtaposing extremes: fits into all the web-lists of Logical Fallacies, now so neatly chronicled; but don't let that stop you; obviously that stance feeds some deep need of a psyche, eh?) :-0 People think that because they know the name of something ... they 'understand it'. --Richard Feynman
Post #345,510 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 11:51:08 AM Reply	No. the draft was in effect back then. Merely reversing course would NOT be enough. To hit 35% without a draft means you'd have to cut far FURTHER. Of course, I'm all for that. Can we get rid of TSA and their stupid full-body scanners?
Post #345,512 by boxley 8/1/11 12:06:25 PM Reply	the airlines pay tsa Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #345,515 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 1:04:55 PM Reply	Nope. They pay part of it, but after 9/11, they globalized a large chunk of it and the federal government pays that part. There have been lawsuits over the part the airlines still pay. As directed by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the major responsibilities of airline passenger and baggage screening is now handled by our agency. To assist in paying for the increased aviation security, Congress provided us with the authority to charge airlines a fee equal to their costs of passenger and baggage screening in 2000, to the extent that the September 11 Security Fee was insufficient to cover the agency's costs for aviation security. Airlines pay one-twelfth per month of their 2000 screening costs to TSA. http://www.tsa.gov/r...rcarrier_fee.shtm Even though the screeners at airport security checkpoints in the U.S. are employees of the Transportation Security Administration and those fancy new see-through-your-clothes machines are technically paid for by the feds, the airlines still have to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars per year for security theater. Several of them claim the TSA is overcharging to the tune of $115 million. An appeals court disagrees. See, the airlines used to be the ones that would foot the bill for airport security. After the TSA took over in 2001, it was determined that the airlines would continue to pay, but their share was capped at what the airlines spent during the 2000 calendar year. http://consumerist.c...sa-screening.html
Post #345,520 by beepster 8/1/11 2:43:48 PM Reply	Re: Nope. There is the excise ticket tax, fed security fee and pass facility charges on every ticket. Airlines were bitching because air marshals fly first class. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,521 by boxley 8/1/11 2:44:40 PM Reply	still a lot of money for theatre Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #345,524 by S1mon_Jester 8/1/11 3:37:20 PM Reply	And you think Congress wouldn't put that excise fee into the budget? A $42.3 billion defense budget bill passed by the House will cut $270 million from the TSA and eliminate collective bargaining privileges for TSA workers. http://townhall.com/...n_from_tsa_budget http://www.washingto...XmnaHH_story.html If it's all done via excise fees, the House can't cut funding.
Post #345,527 by beepster 8/1/11 4:13:35 PM Reply	Staffing eliminate collective bargain? Sounds like staffing issues to me. The ticket excise tax is just that..a tax. Generally its used as FAA funding..and PFCs are supposed to be "lock boxed" for airport development...but we all know how well those lock boxes work. Airlines are one of the highest taxed and most regulated "deregulated" industries we have. (jet fuel and payroll are 2 highest expenses...both taxed) and the revenue taxed at 10% before you get to the special security fees, etc. Combined with their cutthroat pricing model, its not much of a surprise that they don't earn profits. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,617 by S1mon_Jester 8/3/11 12:24:46 AM Reply	LOL....Here, let me emphasis it for you. Here...let me emphasis it for you. will cut $270 million from the TSA I'll repeat it again - how can you CUT TSA budget if they're not in the budget? Nevermind...I'll give up on whether or not TSA is in the budget. If the House can CUT their BUDGET once...they can do it AGAIN.
Post #345,618 by beepster 8/3/11 8:08:20 AM Reply	guessing your point is simply that the TSA is part of the government. On this, I don't debate you. Part of and paid for from the Dept Homeland Security. Sources of funds that are "supposed to" help pay are the items I was point towards...but in the end..its all one big happy source of revenue for them to blow. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,628 by S1mon_Jester 8/3/11 3:24:30 PM Reply	Want to know what's sad? The only ones who seem to be up for cutting back TSA (in particular the full-body scanners) are Tea Partiers. I'm finding myself agreeing with them.
Post #345,551 by lincoln 8/1/11 9:58:35 PM Reply	typical conservative response: "Cut everything, but don't touch the Pentagon's budget!" Yeah, I sure all those aircraft carriers, all those nuclear submarines, all those multi-million dollar F-35 jets just have al-Qaeda quaking in fear. NOT. "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #345,596 by beepster 8/2/11 3:38:14 PM Reply	wrong Pentagon is part of the workforce. a HUGE part of the workforce. and procurement and contracting practice in this area, especially in advanced weaponry is beyond broken. We could probably get the exact same capability with our armed forces..and better pay to active military, and still cut 20%. But that would kind of run counter to the thought that everything the government does is monumentally efficient...some people seem to think that around here. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,602 by Another Scott 8/2/11 8:08:51 PM Reply	Strawman much?
Post #345,603 by beepster 8/2/11 8:23:52 PM Reply	not here. stated a perceived position of some...but answered a response that alluded to me not thinking there was room in defense for reduced spending. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,611 by lincoln 8/2/11 9:46:07 PM Reply	you might think it but a super_majority of RepubliCANTS say it out loud nearly every single day. We have close to 1,000 military bases around the world, a military budget over 10x the next biggest spending country, and yet that's still not enough: I want to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security over the long term, we hope to have that done in time. To also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So, bottom line, we canÂt protect these entitlements and also have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while weÂre at war with Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and will be for a long time to come. http://thinkprogress...amist-extremists/ "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow
Post #345,612 by beepster 8/2/11 9:56:46 PM Reply	If you're going to say something about republicans how about linking to something with republicans in it. Instead, you give me a former one of yours. woohoo Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,614 by Another Scott 8/2/11 10:15:46 PM Reply	You can have him. He voted for your ticket after all...

Welcome to IWETHEY!