CheapyD on U.S.' debt ceiling

That's just anti-big government types who want to cut spending period.

People tend to balk at cutting military spending in general on both sides of the aisle as they buy the fear rhetoric. So it's the far right small government types, and the far left anti-war/military types that are the main bases for slashing defense spending.

The people in the middle are more hesitant to slash defense spending as they buy the fear rhetoric and think our military needs to vastly outpace the rest of the world in capability etc.
 
So... We need a ticket that includes Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. :D

Neither one would likely agree to be VP under the other... perhaps we can set up a ticket with Co-Presidents? :D
 
It's moot anyway. The far right and far left have pretty much no impact on elections. they just cancel each other out.

National elections are fought among the moderate right, the center (independents) and the moderate left. Those are the potential swing votes. The people who don't always vote party line (or for the extreme right/left fringe parties).
 
Well, it's been a good conversation here with you dmaul - and to some extent, Clak. It's amazing how we can carry on an actual conversation without degrading into meaningless, bite-sized snipes, immature name calling, and complete disregard for anything resembling social etiquette. Good times.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... We need a ticket that includes Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. :D

Neither one would likely agree to be VP under the other... perhaps we can set up a ticket with Co-Presidents? :D[/QUOTE]
You DO know that Paul and Sanders are fundamentally opposed to eachother and that they only really overlap superficially on foreign policy. Once you get deeper than saying they're against interventionism, you'll see how different they really are.

[quote name='UncleBob']Well, it's been a good conversation here with you dmaul - and to some extent, Clak. It's amazing how we can carry on an actual conversation without degrading into meaningless, bite-sized snipes, immature name calling, and complete disregard for anything resembling social etiquette. Good times.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ
 
[quote name='dohdough']You DO know that Paul and Sanders are fundamentally opposed to eachother and that they only really overlap superficially on foreign policy. Once you get deeper than saying they're against interventionism, you'll see how different they really are.[/QUOTE]

Yes. That's why I put the grinning smiley at the end.

The idea was to create a ticket that would honestly attempt to cut military spending and have enough of a draw to get the extremes of both sides to vote for it. It'd never work, thus the :D
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Who's voting for these people though? In the Ron Paul thread (and I know I keep chanting Ron Paul, but he makes for the perfect case), watch the Jon Stewart video, in particular, the clip from the FOX News debate - Ron Paul goes on a rant about cutting military spending and the audience goes WILD. And these are people who are attending a FOX News event - friggin' FOX News junkies - cheering like crazy at someone talking about massive cuts to military spending.[/QUOTE]

Well WHY are they voting for these candidates? They may like the idea of cutting military spending, but they might love the idea of banning abortion and gay marriage and calling democrats socialists a whole lot more.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Well WHY are they voting for these candidates? They may like the idea of cutting military spending, but they might love the idea of banning abortion and gay marriage and calling democrats socialists a whole lot more.[/QUOTE]

So, then, why aren't there candidates that speak out against military spending, banning abortion and banning same-sex marriage?
 
Because the social conservatives that support banning abortion and banning gay marriage are pretty much almost all very strongly pro-military types and vehemently oppose any cuts to defense spending.

The only people on the right who support slashing defense spending are the smaller government types. And unless they're raging hypocrites (and many are) they can't support banning abortion or gay marriage etc. as that's directly supporting bigger government through more government intervention in people's personal lives.

Again, the problem is there is no clear segment of the population that is behind cutting defense spending other than libertarians and other small government types, and the relatively far left.

So there's no candidate out there that can get enough support to win the presidency with a campaign making a big issue out of slashing defense spending. And even if they magically won, they'd never get big cuts through congress anyway.

It's sucks, but that's pretty much a lost cause. Cuts can and will be made to defense spending, but more along the lines of just slowing it's absurd growth rather than making any real cuts that can truly help reduce the deficit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can anyone here tell me a good read (book, blog, article - if there are such things) for how U.S. defense funding is allocated, spent, etc., and perhaps some good arguments on what to cut first and most?

Other than a few blanketing statements such as the U.S. spending more than the next 10 highest spenders combined, I'm not knowledgeable about defense funding at all.

The main issue for me, of course, would be avoiding sources/references that get the facts wrong (or have become outdated) without having to spend a bunch of time cross-checking to confirm their legitimacy.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Can anyone here tell me a good read (book, blog, article - if there are such things) for how U.S. defense funding is allocated, spent, etc., and perhaps some good arguments on what to cut first and most?

Other than a few blanketing statements such as the U.S. spending more than the next 10 highest spenders combined, I'm not knowledgeable about defense funding at all.

The main issue for me, of course, would be avoiding sources/references that get the facts wrong (or have become outdated) without having to spend a bunch of time cross-checking to confirm their legitimacy.[/QUOTE]

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/03/01/the-real-us-national-security-budget/
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] So, then, why aren't there candidates that speak out against military spending, banning abortion and banning same-sex marriage?[/QUOTE]

I can only think of Walter Jones and Ron Paul.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Which I just don't understand... why does cuts to military spending *rarely* come up in main stream politics? Seems like about the only one talking about it is Ron Paul and no one takes him seriously.[/QUOTE]
If I had to guess, cutting military spending = you hate the troops.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I had to guess, cutting military spending = you hate the troops.[/QUOTE]

It just seems to me that if a crowd of FOX News fans can get together and cheer - loudly - at the idea of cutting military spending... the idea is out there - and is popular...
 
[quote name='camoor']npr?[/QUOTE]
Heh, that still make me laugh. They barely get anything from the government as it is. But sure, lets silence all public media so the people have no open forum.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It just seems to me that if a crowd of FOX News fans can get together and cheer - loudly - at the idea of cutting military spending... the idea is out there - and is popular...[/QUOTE]
Whoever proposes it will be accused of hating the military. It won't come from any serious conservatives because military personal are largely conservative.
 
[quote name='Clak']Whoever proposes it will be accused of hating the military. It won't come from any serious conservatives because military personal are largely conservative.[/QUOTE]

You'd think that - check out the amount of donations Paul's campaign gets from military members though.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You'd think that - check out the amount of donations Paul's campaign gets from military members though.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I should have said mainstream republicans. It isn't going to come from the Perrys or Bachmans etc... Paul basically runs his campaign like he has nothing to lose, which is basically true. Most don't run campaigns like that so they're kissing every ass they can.
 
[quote name='Clak']Maybe I should have said mainstream republicans. It isn't going to come from the Perrys or Bachmans etc... Paul basically runs his campaign like he has nothing to lose, which is basically true. Most don't run campaigns like that so they're kissing every ass they can.[/QUOTE]

Sadly. :(
 
Well you have to realize that Paul's supporters are a little different too. They seem willingly to give him money even if he has next to no chance of winning the election. Not all political donators are willing to do that, so most politicians have to kiss ass and make promises.
 
I'm left wondering why Ron Paul is such an exception... regardless of the individual's political views, I wish we had more politicians like him - and, to some extent, even Bernie Sanders. The ones that say "**** mainstream thought - I'm going to do what I think is right... and if you don't like it, then don't vote for me."
 
[quote name='Clak']If I had to guess, cutting military spending = you hate the troops.[/QUOTE]

The only thing that would ever be cut is pay and benefits for troops. Useless weapon systems have powerful friends.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I had to guess, cutting military spending = you hate the troops.[/QUOTE]

That is the rhetoric. Cut spending you hate the troops as they'll be less safe from having less equipment etc. etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I had to guess, cutting military spending = you hate the troops.[/QUOTE]

BS, give the soldiers a raise and quit buying ridiculous toys to further our ridiculously over-powered military. Put it this way. We have gadgets that our enemies can't even fathom, yet they're handily beating us in the strategy dept while using equipment from the '80s.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I can only think of Walter Jones and Ron Paul.[/QUOTE]

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm#10
... All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. ...
Click to expand...
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm#2004-484

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm#2006-378

Haven't found anything on Walter Jones recently about the marriage issue, but he may have changed his stance. Jones is now against the War on Drugs, PATRIOT Act, etc. Timothy Johnson, from Illinois, is another recent convert against our foreign policy and Surveillance State. He seems to have changed his views sometime in 2009 or early 2010; if he isn't redistricted out, we'll see if he continues to hold those positions. Justin Amash has had a pretty strong voting record on these issues as well.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] You'd think that - check out the amount of donations Paul's campaign gets from military members though.[/QUOTE]

If you compare it to what other members get, whether they be pro-war or anti-war, that might actually tell you something insightful rather than just looking at a large number.
 
[quote name='IRHari']If you compare it to what other members get, whether they be pro-war or anti-war, that might actually tell you something insightful rather than just looking at a large number.[/QUOTE]

He got more than the rest of the Republican candidates combined in the last quarter, and also received more than Obama did. It broke the same way in 2007/08.
 
Cool, thanks.

I'd like to think that Paul is right about the reason why he thinks he gets more $ than any other candidate from military members. It'd be interesting to find out why they do.
 
[quote name='KingBroly'](because tax cuts aren't permanent, unlike tax hikes)[/QUOTE]

History more or less completely disagrees with this...

Year $10,001 $20,001 $60,001 $100,001 $250,001
1913 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1914 1% 2% 3% 5% 6%
1916 2% 3% 5% 7% 10%
1918 16% 21% 41% 64% 72%
1920 12% 17% 37% 60% 68%
1922 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1924 7% 11% 27% 43% 44%
1926 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1928 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1930 6% 10% 21% 25% 25%
1932 10% 16% 36% 56% 58%
1934 11% 19% 37% 56% 58%
1936 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1938 11% 19% 39% 62% 68%
1940 14% 28% 51% 62% 68%
1942 38% 55% 75% 85% 88%
1944 41% 59% 81% 92% 94%
1946 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1948 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1950 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1952 42% 62% 80% 90% 92%
1954 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
1956 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1958 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1960 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1962 26% 38% 62% 75% 89%
1964 23% 34% 56% 66% 76%
1966 - 1976 22% 32% 53% 62% 70%
1980 18% 24% 54% 59% 70%
1982 16% 22% 49% 50% 50%
1984 14% 18% 42% 45% 50%
1986 14% 18% 38% 45% 50%
1988 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1990 15% 15% 28% 28% 28%
1992 15% 15% 28% 28% 31%
1994 15% 15% 28% 31% 39.6%
1996 15% 15% 28% 31% 36%
1998 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2000 15% 15% 28% 28% 36%
2002 10% 15% 27% 27% 35%
2004 10% 15% 25% 25% 33%
2006 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2008 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%
2010 10% 15% 15% 25% 33%


That 28% to 39.6% to 33% top tier rate in the last 16 years is a permanent tax hike right? Unless you want to say that everything over 1% going back nearly 100 years makes for a permanent hike, but then you're being VERY unrealistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top