General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJavaman
(62,534 posts)to vote against their own best interests.
paleotn
(17,997 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,499 posts)That steady day-after-day drip drip of hate and mis-information sucks people in. It subtly and not so subtly shapes their world view. It gets them angry and afraid so that they will not believe or listen to any contrary views or facts.
It is as important as the legal political bribes (campaign and Super PAC contributions) to the continued control over all three branches of government. We must bust up the media oligarchy and never let that tool be used against us again!
TwilightZone
(25,512 posts)Military spending is about 16% of the total. 27% goes to healthcare. 33% goes to SS, labor, unemployment, etc.
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png
There is no doubt that the military budget is still much, much too high, but misrepresenting it with nonsense like this doesn't help.
homegirl
(1,436 posts)are funds that working Americans and employers have paid into for many decades. Are you saying SS and unemployment benefits are being paid by current taxes?
TwilightZone
(25,512 posts)They come from payroll and self-employment taxes.
The taxes one pays in aren't stored somewhere for one to collect at a later date. They're paying for current recipients' benefits, along with other sources like interest on trust fund bonds and taxes on SS benefits. The trust fund is there as a reserve for when those other sources run out, but at present most benefits for current recipients are paid by payroll taxes, bond interest, and taxes on SS payments.
My point was that discretionary spending and total spending are two very different things. Making a vague claim about half of spending going to the military is demonstrably false.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)that SS be either privatized, benefits cuts, the retirement age raised or means testing employed before it becomes necessary to raise taxes to start redeeming those trust fund bonds to pay benefits. "Social Security Reform" is a euphemism employed to make cutting benefits rather than raising taxes to repay money already borrowed on them sound respectable.
Igel
(35,383 posts)That is precisely how Social Security was set up from day 1. The first dollar paid into SS was paid out shortly thereafter. It wasn't kept, it wasn't retained.
Under Reagan Social Security taxes were increased to produce a bunch of excess monies earmarked for SS. It went into a "trust fund."
A couple of years ago expenses and tax income became equal, so virtually no money went into the trust fund that year. Don't know about the current state of affairs. Projections are that in a few years they'll be digging into the trust fund, then Social Security benefits will still be paid for using current taxes, and in 20 years or so the trust fund will be exhausted. (The trust fund cannot be held in cash, by law--that's how it's been straight along. Any excess revenue goes into special Treasury bills that cannot be privately held and the money is then handed over to Congress. Congress spends it, because Congress doesn't keep a lot of excess money around. So when they start to use trust fund money Congress will have to repay the money from then-current revenues. That may mean raising taxes, it may mean converting trust fund T-bills to T-bills sold at public auction, it may mean cutting some expenses or programs, or it may mean disposing of the obligation or reducing SS benefits by Congressional fiat. All that SS money is just general tax revenue earmarked by Congress for a special purpose, and what Congress gives Congress can take away. There is no Constitutional authority for any tax on income but income tax, and all income tax is under Congressional authority, so all the talk about what Congress "must" do is just what Congress has said Congress must do ... until Congress says otherwise.)
Unemployment insurance is the same: They keep some money in reserve, but otherwise current revenue = current expenses. UI is at the state level, however, not federal.
They're not called "insurance" for no reason. That's how insurance works.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)It isn't remotely like your 401k or IRA.
What you are currently paying into FICA is distributed more or less immediately to those on the receiving side of SS. Over the years a surplus has built up, it's true. But it's still not something in which your specific contributions are held for your eventual use.
This is something completely fundamental to SS, something that everyone should understand, but alas, too many do not.
IronLionZion
(45,615 posts)https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n1/v75n1p1.html
Social Security benefits are paid from the reserves of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) trust fund. The reserves are funded from dedicated tax revenues and interest on accumulated reserve holdings, which are invested in Treasury securities. These cash flowsthe tax income, the investment (and redemption) of the securities, the interest on the invested reserves, and the payment of benefitsbecome critically important when reserves are low relative to benefit payments, as occurred in 1983. In 2015, reserves are large enough that cash flow will not be a problem for the trust fund for almost 20 years. In recent years, attention has focused on the cash flows' effects on the rest of the federal budget. This article examines the cash flows and reserves from the perspective of not just the trust fund itself but also from that of the rest of the budget.
more info:
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.htm
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)a variety of accounting tricks are used to disguise the fact
that US military spending is close to $ 1.2 TRILLION PER YEAR
Want sources? There are lots . .
Veterans For Peace
newthinking
(3,982 posts)TwilightZone
(25,512 posts)This isn't complicated. It's simple math.
Rex
(65,616 posts)druidity33
(6,450 posts)somewhere in between the 17% you claim and the 50% the OP claims...
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and the ME are not counted
in the DOD "base budget."
" . . the base budget figure continues to get cited as defense spending even though it excludes the main, and costliest, activities in recent years of the U.S. military."
Source . .
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/02/the-trickery-of-the-military-budget/
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)TZ is busy failing a bunch, and probably wants to be, so let's let him have his failure!
Think of it as a party favor.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)What site am I on today?
TwilightZone
(25,512 posts)It's hard enough to convince people that military spending should be drastically reduced without confusing them with bullshit memes that are blatantly wrong. This kind of nonsense makes the rounds all the time. It doesn't help. It just makes it appear that people have no idea what they're talking about.
Politifact on a similar meme - FALSE: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
Aerows
(39,961 posts)everybody fails at something.
You can always take this thread home as a keepsake.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Then they were shown the error of their ways they hid behind math...ermigad...
paleotn
(17,997 posts)....I don't think twilight is defending defense spending, just nitpicking one claim in the OP. Removing that one claim really doesn't affect the point the OP is making one bit. Half, 1/3, 25%, 1.2 trillion, whatever the actually portion of total federal outlays is, it is patently obscene compared to the good that could be done in people's lives by spending the money on domestic programs and stuff that doesn't go boom. Hopefully, twilight realizes that. I'm all for accuracy, but it can be taken to an extreme.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Accuracy matters. Bullshit people once and they'll tune the rest out as bullshit too, which is why so called "Drug Awareness Education" has been a running joke for 30 years and is still a joke to young people today.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)but when you throw in off book wars, nuclear arsenals,veterans benefits, black box spending on national security agencies, interest payments, and military R&D costs sprinkled throughout the rest of the budget, it becomes impossible to know exactly how much we spend on "national defense," although it is not unrealistic it assume at least 1/5 and possibly 1/4 of all federal revenue.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)total military spending is at least 50% of discretionary spending.
It is a "bullshit meme" on your part to write about it without
being clear that you are talking about BOTH discretionary and
non-discretionary FEDERAL government spending . .
and BTW there are also BILLIONS spend each year on military-related
activities by state and local governments.
How about we try to have this discussion without the inflammatory
lingo?
lakeguy
(1,640 posts)first you count expenditures that are already paid in by us. then you neglect to count all the costs of war (oops, i mean defense).
TwilightZone
(25,512 posts)Good luck, because it doesn't exist.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I couldn't structure a sarcastic and caustic enough post to keep me from being banned or at least hidden. I tried quite a few, but none of them had the right mix of sarcasm and caustic wit.
You should be quite proud, since your post isn't founded in the slightest bit of truth, and you know it.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)And much more than we need to be spending. We could literally cut our military budget in half, and still would be out-spending other countries.
This opinion piece is from the same source/website where you got your information...
The U.S. Pentagon and military has more money than it needs.
Its hard to draw any other conclusion from the stark facts: the U.S. outspends every other nation on earth when it comes to our military. We spend more than the next seven countries combined.
Where does the money go?
Heres a hint: Pentagon spending is subject to the same rules of corporate greed that plague our entire economy. More than half of the Pentagon budget goes to for-profit contractors.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2016/04/20/us-military-spending-vs-world-crazy/
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)well stated!
The neocon authoritarian 'conservative' psyche is a dark, destructive and suicidal place
newthinking
(3,982 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Initech
(100,129 posts)While Christian fundamentalists are proudly parading their hatred, bigotry and ignorance toward transgendered people because they might "commit a rape" in locker rooms, bathrooms, or changing rooms (when this has happened exactly 0 times), an actual rapist like Stanford's Brock Turner gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist because prison would be "severely impactful". God damn them.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I used to subscribe to the Freedom From Religion Foundations, "Freethought Today". There was a section, usually 2 full pages called "Black Collar News". Article after article, after article, every month on molestation's, rape, and sexual misconduct carried out by preachers, priests, ministers, youth group leaders......
Who's keeping them out of the bathrooms?
Response to Fuddnik (Reply #17)
Initech This message was self-deleted by its author.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)with more cuts to follow.
But for his own kids, opportunity means sending them to Harvard.
There's some logic for you.
"Obamas remarks also focused heavily on economic inequality, which he has previously called the defining challenge of our time. The Farm Bill, he said, would give more Americans a shot at opportunity.
http://blackinamerica.com/content/270508/obama-signs-8-7-billion-food-stamp-cut-into-law-more-cuts-will-follow-to-other-social-programs
Just remember to vote Democrat, 'cause the other folks will screw you.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Logic and America do not belong next to each other.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I'm pretty sure that we haven't even reached two million from all sides in their wars. Syria, bad as it is, is running at most 400k on all sides.
I mean, I'm not going to argue with such a fact free anti-American herbal teabagger rant, but I thought it interesting just how completely divorced from fact they are.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)As if a few hundred thousand dead middle easterners should count for anything. I mean, if we haven't even reached 2 million then what's all the fuss about??
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...well, at least according to the hate-filled anti-American kooks.
I mean clearly, we forced Hitler to gas the jews and stuff, because we didn't appease him, like we really should be appeasing the terrorists now, right? So it's all our fault, just like it always is.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Also on whether or not you include people that died as a result of the severe sanctions we imposed for a number of years. Several years ago, before the Iraq war began, my Father and I went to watch a presentation about our sanctions... the damage already done, already being done - and so on, at a local University. The exact number is questionable, but... reports suggest over 500,000 (very conservatively) children died as a result of the sanctions. Sanctions that the US, in particular, remained steadfast in imposing despite most (if not all) of the rest of the world deciding that enough was enough. One particular article suggests that nearly 600,000 children had died as a result of our sanctions... by the year 1995. Source below:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html
Now that's children alone, without including the undoubtedly high number of adults, both men and women. That is only beginning to scratch the surface in terms of total damage. The war before that - and the war after, bombing raids since, drone strikes and so on... I suspect that the number, from Iraq alone, comes to two million or more. So, yes. Millions would be accurate.
It is not hatred of America, or herbal teabaggery (whatever that is...?) to point out that... yes, we have done some damned awful things. I don't think that, for the most part, it is in dispute that our invasion of Iraq was a bad thing, for quite a number of reasons. I don't think that there is still much serious argument among educated people about whether Al Qaeda, or Bin Laden were linked to Iraq prior to our invasion. I don't think any but the most die-hard war supporters still think that Saddam was hiding WMDs.
This goes beyond "making a mistake", or "committing an error with the best of intentions", or any other way we might minimize it. It was... and is, an extreme tragedy, a terrible crime on our part - and something that we will be paying for for generations to come. Not just financially, not just in our own losses, but in the creation of generations of future terrorists, attacks against our allies, against the west in general. It didn't have to happen this way. Much of our current strife, our current suffering, economic, military, diplomatic and other issues... are a direct result of the Iraq war.
No. It is not about hating America. I love my Country and it's people, but that doesn't stop me from admitting to the truth, even when it is harsh and ugly.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...you deserve an earnest reply.
Here are the facts. The sanctions we imposed were not on food. And Zaidi's report, which you are linking to in that NYT article, was based on false data. The Iraqi government really wanted us to lift the sanctions, so tried to twist it to look like we were killing children.
However that strategy backfired. Indeed, the "weapon sanctions aren't working and killing children" was one of the specific excuses that Tony Blair and George Bush used to justify the invasion. We weren't killing people, you see. We were saving the children.
To her credit, Zaidi retracted her report a few years on, after she was able to revisit Iraq and find out what was really going on.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/14/1460217/-Madeleine-Albright-The-Iraq-Sanctions-Myth
So no. The "evil Clinton administration" wasn't killing Iraqis by forcing an embargo on them to curb Saddam's behavior. Just like with ending Iran's nuclear program, economic sanctions are an effective alternative to war.
And it is bizarre to me to hear members of the far left agree with people like Cheney and Rumsfeld in arguing otherwise.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)It can't be disputed though, that our sanctions did in fact result in suffering and death. I'm not referring to food, specifically, but to things like medical supplies - as well as the devastating poverty that economic sanctions can bring on. In particular - there were arguments that certain (very necessary) medical supplies could be used to make weapons - and so they became part of the sanctions.
Economic sanctions might be a preferable alternative to war, I do think though, that more diplomatic solutions (we certainly had time to pursue them much more fiercely) might have worked even better.
I'm certainly not suggesting that war would be a good or effective alternative, more the opposite. Almost anything would have been better than what the eventual result of our conflict with Iraq was. It wasn't even "our" conflict, really, it was an issue most Americans knew little about, in a Country that few of us knew anything about until the war. What I do know is that Iraq, as a Country, was already suffering a great deal - and some of that suffering was our doing.
The invasion... the... pre emptive strike, as they called it... it will go down in history, I suspect, as being what really instigated the hell out of the middle east, sparked the growth and strength of ISIS, terrorist organizations - and so on. It also destroyed a lot of our credibility internationally, devastated our own Country financially, cost thousands of lives... I don't need to go on, we know what war does.
I'll have to look more deeply into how much suffering our sanctions actually did cause. I wasn't aware that so much was lied about and fabricated by the Iraqi government. Thanks for correcting my ignorance there.
What it really comes down to is the war - and the presentation I saw was something put together by a protest group trying to prevent it.
I don't think the US is evil, I think a lot of bad shit goes on behind closed doors, I think deals get made that we have no say in and no control over. I think our government is financially corrupt. I also think we've done some really terrible things in the middle east. The leap to invade made any future efforts at diplomacy much, much more difficult in that part of the world.
In any event, looks like I've got some searching to do.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)But the one issue that really had a crossover was the importation of chlorine, which can be both used to make chemical weapons (of which the Bathist government was enamored), but also to disinfect water. But in general, Saddam's regime refused to take advantage of the Oil for Food program.
I don't dispute that Iraq was specifically made poor by the sanctions, and poverty causes increases in infant mortality, regardless. But this was not our fault. In addition, the pressure the regime was under made life even more brutal. It was really remarkable for its atrociousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
Not to say our invasion made it any better. It clearly made it worse.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)she can't see it. She just recites raising taxes
midnight
(26,624 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,027 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Don, please tell us what's behind Door #2.
They've just won . . 4 more years of the same old shit! It's another never-ending war!!
How do you feel now, Barbara? Are you excited?
Can we choose something else, Monte?
No, that's not how we play "Let's Make a Deal".
Who's the next contestant that wants to play?
6chars
(3,967 posts)blah blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah
ISRAEL
blah blah blah
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Life, that which everyone should control for at least an odd dozen or so, and at less than minimum wages.
Liberty, which is to say freedom from taxes and regulation and the interference with States' Rights which enable
Pursuit of Happiness, aka the profits which lead to a lifestyle appropriately proportioned for serfs, yeomen, boyars and oligarchs
It's amazing, really, that The Founders, understood it all so well and anticipated our most significant needs nearly 250 years later!