Bernie Sanders .... Tax rate 90%

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-02-2015, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who knows? Because nobody questioned any of the Defense numbers/charts.

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

Uhh? You can get numbers about defense budget spending directly from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). We call that a primary source. Getting numbers on "welfare" spending is trickier, considering that "welfare" is a subjective word that the CBO (the primary source) doesn't use as a category. Which goes back to my original post to you... Until The Weekly Standard defines what they consider "welfare" spending and what they do not, their chart and numbers are useless.

This should have all been clear from the beginning. Nevertheless, I am happy to type reductive, redundant sentences if that is what's necessary to help you understand.

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 11:42 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Uhh? You can get numbers about defense budget spending directly from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). We call that a primary source. Getting numbers on "welfare" spending is trickier, considering that "welfare" is a subjective word that the CBO (the primary source) doesn't use as a category. Which goes back to my original post to you... Until The Weekly Standard defines what they consider "welfare" spending and what they do not, their chart and numbers are useless.

This should have all been clear from the beginning. Nevertheless, I am happy to type reductive, redundant sentences if that is what's necessary to help you understand.

I actually saw a SIPRI as the source for one of the Military charts; while the Welfare chart attributes data to the CRS and CBO and compiled from Senate Budget Committee ranking member.

I will give credit for impressive use of the bold function.

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-02-2015, 11:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I actually saw a SIPRI as the source for one of the Military charts; while the Welfare chart attributes data to the CRS and CBO and compiled from Senate Budget Committee ranking member.

I will give credit for impressive use of the bold function.

If you're referring to another chart somebody posted somewhere, I haven't seen it, I haven't checked the source and therefore won't comment on it

Regardless of the fact The Weekly Standard "attributes" their data to a legitimate source, they need to define what "welfare" is, instead of purposely opting not to, so that they can call any spending they don't like "welfare" in order to bolster their partisan ideals. Again: the CBO doesn't call any of its spending "welfare". TWS needs to explain how it reached its conclusions; otherwise, we have no reason to believe them. This is called "the burden of proof".

Stick around a bit, I think I'm going to tutor you pretty well.

[*bfine32*]

(06-02-2015, 11:59 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: If you're referring to another chart somebody posted somewhere, I haven't seen it, I haven't checked the source and therefore won't comment on it

Regardless of the fact The Weekly Standard "attributes" their data to a legitimate source, they need to define what "welfare" is, instead of purposely opting not to, so that they can call any spending they don't like "welfare" in order to bolster their partisan ideals. Again: the CBO doesn't call any of its spending "welfare". TWS needs to explain how it reached its conclusions; otherwise, we have no reason to believe them. This is called "the burden of proof".

Stick around a bit, I think I'm going to tutor you pretty well.

You seem to be kinda talking in circles here. Did anybody provide "burden of proof" by breaking down the Defense numbers?

To answer that question: No. But the welfare numbers are "purposely" misleading because they are not broken down.

It is great to debate someone with an agenda; they abandon logic quickly.

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-03-2015, 12:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You seem to be kinda talking in circles here. Did anybody provide "burden of proof" by breaking down the Defense numbers?

To answer that question: No. But the welfare numbers are "purposely" misleading because they are not broken down.

It is great to debate someone with an agenda; they abandon logic quickly.

You seem to have no clue what the phrase "talking in circles" actually means, but I'll ignore that distraction and remind you that I didn't offer any charts, figures, numbers or "breakdowns" of defense spending. Not sure why you're asking me to defend what somebody somewhere else said to you.

I stated that The Weekly Standard "purposely" opted not to reveal which programs they consider welfare. I came to that conclusion because clearly the author of the post 1. knows how to type 2. has a computer and 3. can communicate clearly in the English language. And yet he failed to tell us what he considers "welfare", which would have allowed us to make sure he isn't including programs nobody else would call a welfare program in his numbers. Do you conclude that the author accidentally  didn't tell us what programs he considers welfare?

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2015, 12:28 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: You seem to have no clue what the phrase "talking in circles" actually means, but I'll ignore that distraction and remind you that I didn't offer any charts, figures, numbers or "breakdowns" of defense spending. Not sure why you're asking me to defend what somebody somewhere else said to you.

I stated that The Weekly Standard "purposely" opted not to reveal which programs they consider welfare. I came to that conclusion because clearly the author of the post 1. knows how to type 2. has a computer and 3. can communicate clearly in the English language. And yet he failed to tell us what he considers "welfare", which would have allowed us to make sure he isn't including programs nobody else would call a welfare program in his numbers. Do you conclude that the author accidentally  didn't tell us what programs he considers welfare?

I conclude that the author maybe as biased as many on here (we may never know). 

However, my original point was that the Defense numbers were taken at face value and not called into question; however the Welfare number were as soon as they were posted and continue to be by posters such as yourself.

Quick breakdown:I’ve got a cousin on welfare; he gets a free cell phone. I got a son in the Navy, he has to pay for his.  

 

[GodHatesBengals]

(06-03-2015, 12:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I conclude that the author maybe as biased as many on here (we may never know). 

However, my original point was that the Defense numbers were taken at face value and not called into question; however the Welfare number were as soon as they were posted and continue to be by posters such as yourself.

Quick breakdown:I’ve got a cousin on welfare; he gets a free cell phone. I got a son in the Navy, he has to pay for his.  

 

I never even brought up the issue of bias. Frankly, bias is an inescapable fact of reality, shaped mostly by things entirely out of our control. I don't care if someone is biased because everyone is biased; I care if what they're saying is true or not. The Weekly Standard blog post you linked to is, at best, guilty of not making it clear whether or not it is true. That's my criticism of it, bias aside. Facts matter.

If you took somebody's defense numbers at face value, that's your problem. I didn't see them, and if I did, I would check the CBO's own defense budget report (which you can find with a very easy Google search) and see whether it matches up or not. You should have (and still should) do the same. As for the welfare numbers you linked to, they were questioned by yours truly with great precision and devastating logic and deserve to be dismissed until its author clarifies his methods.

I was going to type a long response to the small anecdote at the end, but it'd be a waste.

[Benton]

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

so... It's an actual increase in military spending versus a potential hypothetical increase in non-military spending?

if social programs are increasing that much, does that mean were going to be spending that much more on defense?

[Yojimbo]

(06-03-2015, 02:07 AM)Benton Wrote: so... It's an actual increase in military spending versus a potential hypothetical increase in non-military spending?

if social programs are increasing that much, does that mean were going to be spending that much more on defense?

Defense spending is federal welfare spending for all the big defense contractors and their employees.

[BmorePat87]

Maybe this will clear some stuff up. The reason why "defense" is used is because we have a "defense budget". The CFR explains their chart on their website, stating that their numbers use the SIPRI numbers that combine the defense budget with overseas operations, which is not combined in the federal budget.

What this doesn't include is spending in departments that are not the DOD. So Veterans Affairs, State, and Energy spending is not included. VA shouldn't be included. That's not fair to say that caring for soldiers from wars 40 years ago is part of our current defense spending. So we can keep the defense numbers lower by not including that in it.

Lumping together welfare is a big different, though, as there's no "welfare" budget. We have various programs in various departments that get money based on the numbers. This is mandatory too. So if X people qualify, you must pay based on that. The issue with that chart is it was all projections based on a belief that new recruitment practices would increase numbers by a certain percentage.

So you're comparing a defined and known spending with a projection and undefined spending

[xxlt]

(06-02-2015, 08:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well according to the article posted the numbers do not take into account Social Security

What about corporate welfare? Pretty sure that elephant in the room was hiding behind the curtains too. If we want to talk about who the real welfare queens are...

[xxlt]

(06-03-2015, 07:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Maybe this will clear some stuff up. The reason why "defense" is used is because we have a "defense budget". The CFR explains their chart on their website, stating that their numbers use the SIPRI numbers that combine the defense budget with overseas operations, which is not combined in the federal budget.

What this doesn't include is spending in departments that are not the DOD. So Veterans Affairs, State, and Energy spending is not included. VA shouldn't be included. That's not fair to say that caring for soldiers from wars 40 years ago is part of our current defense spending. So we can keep the defense numbers lower by not including that in it.

Lumping together welfare is a big different, though, as there's no "welfare" budget. We have various programs in various departments that get money based on the numbers. This is mandatory too. So if X people qualify, you must pay based on that. The issue with that chart is it was all projections based on a belief that new recruitment practices would increase numbers by a certain percentage.

So you're comparing a defined and known spending with a projection and undefined spending

Good post. It makes the point (intentionally or not) that defense spending actually drives welfare spending. That is, taking care of the soldiers diminished by war is not part of defense spending ("that's not fair"), it is part of welfare spending. So welfare gets left playing bad cop to defense spending's good cop. (Bad cop wastes money, good cop is a steward of our resources. Bad cop must be stopped, good cop must be supported. Of course those are lies too, but lies easily swallowed by the gullible and the gulli calves, as Wayne Campbell used to say.) And as x increases y should increase (defense spending driving up welfare spending as we care for soldiers on the back end but bill it to welfare and not defense). Of course, the anti-welfare crowd is no more inclined to care for a soldier whose life it virtually destroyed than any other person who has encountered misfortune outside the military. Their answer: **** you Mr. Veteran, pull yourself up by your own boot straps and quit crying if your boots, hands, psyche, or anything else got blown off on the battle field: this is America - time to toughen up sissy! But, what do you expect from heartless bastards? I mean, besides from lies, distortions, and bitching about welfare their own policies necessitate or it least create an environment for the necessity of it. And the band played on...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

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

No. I would suggest you treat both with equal amounts of skepticism, research the source, and decide for yourself what or who you believe is a reliable source of legitimate information and who isn't. 

That's what I did. I don't believe the earned income tax credit is welfare. Nor do I believe educational assistance such as the Pell Grant is welfare, either. Do you believe those are welfare?

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2015, 07:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Maybe this will clear some stuff up. The reason why "defense" is used is because we have a "defense budget". The CFR explains their chart on their website, stating that their numbers use the SIPRI numbers that combine the defense budget with overseas operations, which is not combined in the federal budget.

What this doesn't include is spending in departments that are not the DOD. So Veterans Affairs, State, and Energy spending is not included. VA shouldn't be included. That's not fair to say that caring for soldiers from wars 40 years ago is part of our current defense spending. So we can keep the defense numbers lower by not including that in it.

Lumping together welfare is a big different, though, as there's no "welfare" budget. We have various programs in various departments that get money based on the numbers. This is mandatory too. So if X people qualify, you must pay based on that. The issue with that chart is it was all projections based on a belief that new recruitment practices would increase numbers by a certain percentage.

So you're comparing a defined and known spending with a projection and undefined spending

I was going to get into this if someone else didn't. The table I pointed to earlier, and many other sources, show defense separated out in a definitive manner. It's a very obvious chunk. Different people define welfare in different ways and so trying to find otu the source numbers for someone saying that welfare is increasing but not defining the budget items being used is of interest. For instance, VA benefits are a form of welfare, but many people like to exclude those from the numbers given we absolutely should be providing those services and more.

[BmorePat87]

(06-03-2015, 07:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: Good post. It makes the point (intentionally or not) that defense spending actually drives welfare spending. That is, taking care of the soldiers diminished by war is not part of defense spending ("that's not fair"), it is part of welfare spending. So welfare gets left playing bad cop to defense spending's good cop. (Bad cop wastes money, good cop is a steward of our resources. Bad cop must be stopped, good cop must be supported. Of course those are lies too, but lies easily swallowed by the gullible and the gulli calves, as Wayne Campbell used to say.) And as x increases y should increase (defense spending driving up welfare spending as we care for soldiers on the back end but bill it to welfare and not defense). Of course, the anti-welfare crowd is no more inclined to care for a soldier whose life it virtually destroyed than any other person who has encountered misfortune outside the military. Their answer: **** you Mr. Veteran, pull yourself up by your own boot straps and quit crying if your boots, hands, psyche, or anything else got blown off on the battle field: this is America - time to toughen up sissy! But, what do you expect from heartless bastards? I mean, besides from lies, distortions, and bitching about welfare their own policies necessitate or it least create an environment for the necessity of it. And the band played on...

Absolutely. Those mandatory spending numbers called "welfare" appear to include both federal pension and veteran affairs mandatory spending. If that's true, since his numbers are funny (and for good reason as the chart was merely a political ploy) I cannot say for certainty which additional spending is included as it is well above the known number for the actual "welfare" programs, he is suggesting there is something wrong with caring for injured soldiers.

It's a shame too, because as Matt said, welfare reform is a noble cause. There's no reason to spend more than we need to or waste money by overspending. Unfortunately, this chart doesn't help that cause when it lies.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2015, 04:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz3bw4xin9O[/font][/size][/color]

Sorry I missed this.  I'm aware of when we started having an income tax, but that doesn't mean you get to dismiss all of the time before that.  At that time we had an income tax of zero. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2015, 09:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Sorry I missed this.  I'm aware of when we started having an income tax, but that doesn't mean you get to dismiss all of the time before that.  At that time we had an income tax of zero. 

They tried to implement one during the war of 1812 to pay for it, then they did implement during the Civil War. The courts decided a peacetime income tax was unconstitutional in 1895. The income tax was proposed during 1894 to replace lost revenues from reducing tariffs. This reasoning is why the 16th was passed and why we now have income tax. All because of a reduction in revenue from tariffs and excise taxes.

What killed those taxes? Free trade. Not even joking, we have free trade to blame for the income tax.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-03-2015, 09:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They tried to implement one during the war of 1812 to pay for it, then they did implement during the Civil War. The courts decided a peacetime income tax was unconstitutional in 1895. The income tax was proposed during 1894 to replace lost revenues from reducing tariffs. This reasoning is why the 16th was passed and why we now have income tax. All because of a reduction in revenue from tariffs and excise taxes.

What killed those taxes? Free trade. Not even joking, we have free trade to blame for the income tax.

I never really understood why an income tax was unconstitutional before the 16th amendment.  The Constitution seems pretty broad in allowing Congress to create taxes.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

My wife and were married at 18 years old. We both had jobs and together, we never made more than $30,000.00 per year. Every year when we filed our Tax Returns, we always received more back than we put in, at least 2 times more and at most 4 times more. I guess it was because of the "Earned Income Credit" but I can't be sure.

I want to know why we always received more per year from the government than was taken?

Even now, I don't make much per year but that money I get isn't taxable and I pay no taxes to the City, State or Feds. I do pay Property Taxes and Sales Taxes though and my Property Taxes seem high to me especially living here in Indiana and the go up every year too.

Should I be taxed on the money I get every month because of that auto accident?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-03-2015, 09:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They tried to implement one during the war of 1812 to pay for it, then they did implement during the Civil War. The courts decided a peacetime income tax was unconstitutional in 1895. The income tax was proposed during 1894 to replace lost revenues from reducing tariffs. This reasoning is why the 16th was passed and why we now have income tax. All because of a reduction in revenue from tariffs and excise taxes.

What killed those taxes? Free trade. Not even joking, we have free trade to blame for the income tax.

Free trade is to blame for A LOT of the ills of our nation.  But hey, those corporations are reaping the benefits, so it will eventually trickle down to us schlubs......right?