Bernie Sanders .... Tax rate 90%

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 06:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:

Military spending increased approximately 75% from 2001 to 2010 in excess of $200 billion.  Per year.  I don't know about other services, but the Army expanded during simultaneous conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq to meet operational demands.  The Army waived or reduced enlistment standards to meet recruitment quotas accepting a certain percentage of new recruits with criminal records, medical or psychiatric conditions normally disqualifying, and decreased educational standards.  Iraq is no longer the operational demand it once was so it is only natural for the Army to contract.  The Army did it as recently as the early 90s.  Did we get another Task Force Smith?

Spending on veteran benefits shouldn't be lumped into the same category as military spending.

Well your chart does show the reduction is spending on Defense. Conversely:

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 06:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well your chart does show the reduction is spending on Defense. Conversely:

Are those taking into account SS and Medicare?

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 06:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Are those taking into account SS and Medicare?

Looks like a No.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/federal-welfare-spending-skyrocket-80-percent-next-decade_696026.html

"These figures do not count state contributions to federal welfare programs (primarily on low-income health assistance) which brought total welfare spending in FY2011 to more than $1 trillion – dwarfing any other budget item including Medicare and Social Security, and totaling enough to mail every household in poverty a check for 60k each year."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-02-2015, 06:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well your chart does show the reduction is spending on Defense. Conversely:

Do you want to discuss military spending or welfare spending?

I'm sure there is wasteful welfare spending as well as excess military spending.  We are talking about politicians after all.

I looked over the list and while in the military on active duty I received assistance from several of the welfare programs included in those figures; additional child tax credit, earned income tax credit, special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC), child and adult care food program (I am assuming this is food stamps), and possibly supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP).  Would you like to explain to the lower enlisted why these assistance programs need to be cut to preserve military spending?

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like a No.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/federal-welfare-spending-skyrocket-80-percent-next-decade_696026.html

"These figures do not count state contributions to federal welfare programs (primarily on low-income health assistance) which brought total welfare spending in FY2011 to more than $1 trillion – dwarfing any other budget item including Medicare and Social Security, and totaling enough to mail every household in poverty a check for 60k each year."

I need to look more into that, because they are claiming 80% of mandatory and non-defense discretionary spending is welfare.

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 07:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you want to discuss military spending or welfare spending?

I'm sure there is wasteful welfare spending as well as excess military spending.  We are talking about politicians after all.

I looked over the list and while in the military on active duty I received assistance from several of the welfare programs included in those figures; additional child tax credit, earned income tax credit, special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC), child and adult care food program (I am assuming this is food stamps), and possibly supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP).  Would you like to explain to the lower enlisted why these assistance programs need to be cut to preserve military spending?

I didn't think we were discussing one or the other; I thought we were talking ways to reduce the deficit. Seems the dominate theme became "cut Defense"; even though we are currently doing exactly that. I was just showing another area where we might be able to save a buck or 2.

I do agree with you in the fact that the wage for lower enlisted should be raised; unfortunately, these wage increased have been severely stifled over the last few years.

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 07:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I need to look more into that, because they are claiming 80% of mandatory and non-defense discretionary spending is welfare.

Please do. I'll admit I know a lot more about microeconomics than I do macroeconomics. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-02-2015, 07:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't think we were discussing one or the other; I thought we were talking ways to reduce the deficit. Seems the dominate theme became "cut Defense"; even though we are currently doing exactly that. I was just showing another area where we might be able to save a buck or 2.

I do agree with you in the fact that the wage for lower enlisted should be raised; unfortunately, these wage increased have been severely stifled over the last few years.

Seems counter intuitive wages have been stifled during the same time period military spending increased approximately 75%.  When a LT with 3 YOS makes more money than a 1SG it isn't just the lower enlisted whose wages have been stifled.  Hostile fire pay is $7.50/day.  I leave bigger tips than that for an hour's worth of service at a restaurant.  When the service is shitty.

When I was a single SFC my turbo tax analysis showed me I paid more in tax than most Americans while earning less.  WTF?

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2015, 07:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Please do. I'll admit I know a lot more about microeconomics than I do macroeconomics. 

So I looked at the numbers using table 3.2 here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

It's not as detailed as some others, but provides a good enough picture. From what I can tell, the numbers provided in the article would include everything under VA benefits, income security (including retirement for fed employees), and health. Admittedly, this is just a shot in the dark. Without specifics it's hard to say what they are considering welfare, but the rest of it wouldn't work as such and those items add up to the roughly $1 trillion mark. Maybe they aren't including the federal employee retirement stuff and including all of education. I don't know.

We really do need welfare reform, can't deny that. I think that particular piece of literature, however, it based more on rhetoric than on facts.

[xxlt]

Aren't the welfare numbers consistent with two things: 1) an aging population, and 2) almost all the economic gains of the last 30 years being funneled into the pockets of the top .1% to top 1%? When all the wealth gets concentrated into a miniscule portion of the population there is more poverty. And, we have a social welfare system designed to protect the elderly, among others. 










(I swear some posters just dropped in from Mars or something.)  

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 08:25 PM)xxlt Wrote: Aren't the welfare numbers consistent with two things: 1) an aging population, and 2) almost all the economic gains of the last 30 years being funneled into the pockets of the top .1% to top 1%? When all the wealth gets concentrated into a miniscule portion of the population there is more poverty. And, we have a social welfare system designed to protect the elderly, among others. 










(I swear some posters just dropped in from Mars or something.)  

Well according to the article posted the numbers do not take into account Social Security

[BmorePat87]

(06-02-2015, 07:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I looked at the numbers using table 3.2 here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

It's not as detailed as some others, but provides a good enough picture. From what I can tell, the numbers provided in the article would include everything under VA benefits, income security (including retirement for fed employees), and health. Admittedly, this is just a shot in the dark. Without specifics it's hard to say what they are considering welfare, but the rest of it wouldn't work as such and those items add up to the roughly $1 trillion mark. Maybe they aren't including the federal employee retirement stuff and including all of education. I don't know.

We really do need welfare reform, can't deny that. I think that particular piece of literature, however, it based more on rhetoric than on facts.

Based on current and past allocation of the federal budget, they have to be. Considering the source too, it's easier to just call all mandatory spending "welfare" and claim there's a problem. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-02-2015, 05:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be the Boss you got to pay the cost.

And being the military Boss is the most important thing in the whole wide world.

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-02-2015, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like a No.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/federal-welfare-spending-skyrocket-80-percent-next-decade_696026.html

"These figures do not count state contributions to federal welfare programs (primarily on low-income health assistance) which brought total welfare spending in FY2011 to more than $1 trillion – dwarfing any other budget item including Medicare and Social Security, and totaling enough to mail every household in poverty a check for 60k each year."

Chart and article=useless until they clearly define what counts as welfare and what doesn't.

[Devils Advocate]

Income tax is not the answer. Cutting wasteful spending is and we waste an unimaginable amount of it.

How about ISIS using equipment we left in Iraq?

Or $120,000 can of coke?

Or, as I previoulsy mentioned, the huge waste called the DHS?

All the 'aide' we give to virtually every single country on the planet?

'Men who stare at goats' and all the black budget programs we know nothing about?

Fast and furious? Iran contra? ...this list goes on and on.

We don't have to delve too deep to find wasteful spending in the billions trillions.

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 09:24 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Chart and article=useless until they clearly define what counts as welfare and what doesn't.

But we can take the Defense numbers and charts at face value?

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-02-2015, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But we can take the Defense numbers and charts at face value?

Which defense numbers and charts? Ones from, say, a source notorious for peddling misinformation to gullible ideologically-aligned readers just like The Weekly Standard which you cited? I wouldn't, no.

[StLucieBengal]

Besmirching his chart/study by just saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't agree with what you believe.... that's Ridiculous.


Good find Bfine

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-02-2015, 11:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Besmirching his chart/study by just saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't agree with what you believe....   that's Ridiculous.  


Good find Bfine

Did I say it doesn't matter because it doesn't "agree with what I believe", or are you the only one who said that? While we're on the subject, what do I "believe" since you seem to think you know?

Not believing a chart published by a horrible source that offers no methodology for its numbers is "ridiculous"?

Let me guess: saying you don't believe the Earth is 6,000 years old when there's a book right there proving it is also ridiculous, right?

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 11:25 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Which defense numbers and charts? 

Who knows? Because nobody questioned any of the Defense numbers/charts.

Surprisingly the welfare chart/numbers are posted and suddenly: "We must investigate further".