I think we need to clarify some things here, because you're saying that we have a vastly superior military force than the other two superpowers in the world combined like it's a bad thing. I would argue it isn't. I would also argue that the very reason that we're almost always engaging in military affairs for other countries, and almost never in response to an attack on our own soil is, in fact, because the overwhelming military might we project. Nor is this somehow unnecessary. Indeed, it is the most important function of a government.
So, to clarify, what I'm saying is this:
First, we overspend on our military. We can spend less and still have the best, strongest military in the world.
Second, there is nothing wrong with helping out allies - but as B_S noted many of our allies have been reneging on their commitments and need to pick up their share of the burden.
That being said, you're not wrong that we could probably cut a bunch of spending and still have a great military. We probably could cut quite a bit and have a military that is either just as good or better, in fact, because I'm sure there's an asston of wasteful spending going on.
I believe the actual unit of measurement would describe it as a metric ****ton.
What I would want is a refocusing. Forces specifically designed to combat piracy (like the Littoral combat ship was intended to be), an emphasis on special operations over conventional ground combat. Continued focus on air superiority. But with all of that a reduction in the kind of general combat capabilities that it's becoming more and more clear are largely relics. Note I'm saying reduction, not complete dissolution. Between nuclear power and the vast interconnected nature of the world economy, a war the scale of the original world wars just isn't as much of a concern.
Medicare/Medicaid seem to be under "healthcare" and social security seems to be under "pension".
The numbers wouldn't make much sense otherwise.
Looking at the chart, Medicare appears to be "Medical Service (Seniors)" while Medicaid is "Vendor Payments (Welfare)". Social Security is indeed pensions.
Ultimately it's not a very useful site.
Social Security: $851 Billion (Federal)
Medicare (Including Admin costs): $597 Billion (Federal)
Medicaid (Including Admin costs): $492 Billion (Total), $120 Billion (States)
[The ratio of Federal to State spending on Medicaid ranges from 50% to 75%.]
Public Assistance: $370 Billion (Federal), $10 Billion (States)
Defense: $615 Billion
Does graduating from college mean that you're more educated than not going to college?
Well, by definition getting more education makes you more educated, college is education, making the simplest answer "yes". What would be your argument/reasoning for this not being the case?
Second, there is nothing wrong with helping out allies - but as B_S noted many of our allies have been reneging on their commitments and need to pick up their share of the burden.
I agree, but what the implications of doing this? Afaik, the European countries (save Germany) aren't exactly in good financial spots either. Asking them to pick up their side of the bargain can be very bad to their economies, and that could be one of the reasons why the U.S. doesn't do this.
What I would want is a refocusing. Forces specifically designed to combat piracy (like the Littoral combat ship was intended to be), an emphasis on special operations over conventional ground combat. Continued focus on air superiority. But with all of that a reduction in the kind of general combat capabilities that it's becoming more and more clear are largely relics. Note I'm saying reduction, not complete dissolution. Between nuclear power and the vast interconnected nature of the world economy, a war the scale of the original world wars just isn't as much of a concern.
Well, to be fair, lots of people thought the same thing (interconnected nature of world [European] economy and immense destructive power via modern weapons) back in the early 1900s. Then WW1 broke out and Europe sorta died.
I'm with B_S on this. The U.S.'s overwhelming military power is instrumental in maintaining the status quo and the existence of the global world today. Reducing it without extreme careful consideration can have huge consequences.
Looking at the chart, Medicare appears to be "Medical Service (Seniors)" while Medicaid is "Vendor Payments (Welfare)". Social Security is indeed pensions.
Ultimately it's not a very useful site.
Social Security: $851 Billion (Federal)
Medicare (Including Admin costs): $597 Billion (Federal)
Medicaid (Including Admin costs): $492 Billion (Total), $120 Billion (States)
[The ratio of Federal to State spending on Medicaid ranges from 50% to 75%.]
Public Assistance: $370 Billion (Federal), $10 Billion (States)
Defense: $615 Billion
Does graduating from college mean that you're more educated than not going to college?
Well, by definition getting more education makes you more educated, college is education, making the simplest answer "yes". What would be your argument/reasoning for this not being the case?
Let me answer this on a broader level.
This is the average SAT scores back in 2006-
Math- 518
Reading-503
Writing-497
This is the average SAT score in 2015-
Math-511
Reading-495
Writing-484
This is the total # of people who took the test in 2006-
1,465,744
This is the total # of people who took the test in 2015-
1,698,521
You can take a look at all the other numbers yourself. I'll link the reports. Doing a thorough analysis of these numbers will be incredibly time-consuming and I have *****-all interest in doing them. I intend to paint with a wide-brush right now.
The point I want to make is that making something suddenly available for all doesn't necessarily lead to the results you desire.
More and more people take the SAT, but it's clear they're not prepared for it. Say what you want about the SAT and whether its scores actually mean anything in terms of college-readiness, but the scores on the math and writing section are indicative of your basic math/writing abilities.
I would be far more interested in raising the quality of high schools across the nation than making college free for everyone. The whole "free college" thing reads like a sound-byte to me. Everyone associates college with better economic opportunities and more education. It may be so, but that doesn't mean much if the freshmen entering college are not at a level to benefit. You're simply making college into high school 2.0, and that doesn't benefit anyone.
On another issue- Public colleges are incredibly overfilled right now. The UCs, for example, famously have quarters long wait-list for the mandatory courses for the more popular degrees. Adding more people will stretch the limits of the colleges themselves, and this doesn't help. You need to spend more money on the public colleges to allow them to account for the rise in entrants.
There's so many more issues with making public colleges free, and probably lots better ways to have a more educated public.
I fully agree that defense spending needs to be slashed. A lot of it is ridiculously wasteful and it goes to unproductive causes that don't actually create wealth.
However I can't understand why people are ignoring SS and Medicare's imminent insolvency, especially when it comes to unfunded liabilities. With SS and Medicare put together the unfunded liabilities are in the hundreds of trillions. Those programs, if not massively overhauled soon, will bankrupt the country. There needs to be a mutual sacrifice on defense and social spending.
Does graduating from college mean that you're more educated than not going to college?
Well, by definition getting more education makes you more educated, college is education, making the simplest answer "yes". What would be your argument/reasoning for this not being the case?
Let me answer this on a broader level.
This is the average SAT scores back in 2006-
Math- 518
Reading-503
Writing-497
This is the average SAT score in 2015-
Math-511
Reading-495
Writing-484
This is the total # of people who took the test in 2006-
1,465,744
This is the total # of people who took the test in 2015-
1,698,521
You can take a look at all the other numbers yourself. I'll link the reports. Doing a thorough analysis of these numbers will be incredibly time-consuming and I have *****-all interest in doing them. I intend to paint with a wide-brush right now.
The point I want to make is that making something suddenly available for all doesn't necessarily lead to the results you desire.
More and more people take the SAT, but it's clear they're not prepared for it. Say what you want about the SAT and whether its scores actually mean anything in terms of college-readiness, but the scores on the math and writing section are indicative of your basic math/writing abilities.
I would be far more interested in raising the quality of high schools across the nation than making college free for everyone. The whole "free college" thing reads like a sound-byte to me. Everyone associates college with better economic opportunities and more education. It may be so, but that doesn't mean much if the freshmen entering college are not at a level to benefit. You're simply making college into high school 2.0, and that doesn't benefit anyone.
On another issue- Public colleges are incredibly overfilled right now. The UCs, for example, famously have quarters long wait-list for the mandatory courses for the more popular degrees. Adding more people will stretch the limits of the colleges themselves, and this doesn't help. You need to spend more money on the public colleges to allow them to account for the rise in entrants.
There's so many more issues with making public colleges free, and probably lots better ways to have a more educated public.
You used to have to pay to get into high school decades ago. Your argument was probably a contemporary one back then for not making high school accessible to everyone. Maybe the test scores would go down on average if more people took it, but that doesn't matter. It costs $80 to take that test, or at least it did when I paid for one in 2006. I'm not sure how it is for all of the colleges in the US, but the major ones in my state don't require you to take the SAT so this is all anecdotal. So to me and everyone in my state, it literally doesn't matter. We could have the smartest people in the country in our state who aren't taking it to go to an out of state college.
Raising the quality of high school education doesn't do anything for people who already graduated or are about to. Adult education should be free like it is in some other developed countries. And who cares if someone is taking a class for no benefit? People do that all the time; taking a class just for fun because they have the money or financial aid. My therapist did that when he went to college. And it's not a matter of turning it into high school 2.0. It's not mandatory, and you can drop out if you want to. Some people say ANYONE can get a degree, but it's not a matter of being smart, it's a matter of economic opportunity and privilege.
How can you say for sure that that guy flipping burgers at McDonald's isn't going to turn his life around if he went to college and got a degree? It shouldn't be a matter of money, everyone deserves an opportunity to make their life better. If we can fund K-12 education then we can fund adult education. We need to start what liberals have always been saying: cut defense spending, and make corporations and the 1% pay their fair share in taxes. We need to stop companies from having overseas tax havens and stop hurting the middle class.
You used to have to pay to get into high school decades ago. Your argument was probably a contemporary one back then for not making high school accessible to everyone.
You need to source this. My understanding is that public high school (as far as the ones established since the early 1900s) were always "free".
And, to be technical, they're not really free. Your taxes are spent on funding them.
Maybe the test scores would go down on average if more people took it, but that doesn't matter. It costs $80 to take that test, or at least it did when I paid for one in 2006. I'm not sure how it is for all of the colleges in the US, but the major ones in my state don't require you to take the SAT so this is all anecdotal. So to me and everyone in my state, it literally doesn't matter. We could have the smartest people in the country in our state who aren't taking it to go to an out of state college.
Washington State Uni. requires either the SAT or ACT. This is similar to what most colleges/unis in the U.S. does.
The average ACT score is 20/36. I don't know well enough to comment on the ACT, but that average seems pretty darned low relative to the max score.
In any case, the point I wanted to make with the SAT scores were-
- The average high school student doesn't seem to be prepared for college education.
- On a broad level, having more people have the opportunity to do something (CollegeBoard offers a fee waiver for poor families), doesn't necessarily mean much of anything.
Raising the quality of high school education doesn't do anything for people who already graduated or are about to. Adult education should be free like it is in some other developed countries.
Why should it be free?
And let's be clear here- There are no such things as "free".
In your opinion, what is the purpose of making college education free? What goal is it meant to achieve?
If we can fund K-12 education then we can fund adult education. We need to start what liberals have always been saying: cut defense spending, and make corporations and the 1% pay their fair share in taxes. We need to stop companies from having overseas tax havens and stop hurting the middle class.
-We can't fund K-12 education, at least not on the current amount of funding the state/fed governments decide to give it.
-Why is it that liberals only ever talk about defense spending? Do you even know what could be cut, or are you mentioning it in the fashion of a talking point like how conservatives are always going after welfare spending even though cutting them won't even make a dent on fed. spending?
-Speaking of talking points, how much taxes should the corporation and 1% pay for it to be "fair"?
-We can't fund K-12 education, at least not on the current amount of funding the state/fed governments decide to give it.
So give it more funding. America needs better education standards in one way or another, it's currently way behind where it should be (in comparison to other similarly wealthy countries).
-Why is it that liberals only ever talk about defense spending? Do you even know what could be cut
Most of the defense spending could be cut. Might be some adverse effects. Could cut a fifth of the spending, that would probably not do much harmful, and be enough to improve education.
-Speaking of talking points, how much taxes should the corporation and 1% pay for it to be "fair"?
The 1% specifically, three of fours times as much in my opinion. Problem is, they don't want that to happen, and they have the power to stop it from happening. In order for such a reform to pass, it would need widespread public support or else there's no guarantee whatsoever they can't get it shut down. This has happened in the past. For example, the estate tax, a blatantly high-income earner tax, has been nearly removed several times, and guess who was trying to do that. Oh yeah, people who it would affect- people who have a lot of money but yet seem to think that it's not fair for them to pay more tax (what they should be doing) when they are so far ahead and others are so far behind.
Increase taxation on the 1% so they don't have 20% of the freaking income. There is no reason not to.
Reducing defence spending as well, education in America would be actually great.
You used to have to pay to get into high school decades ago. Your argument was probably a contemporary one back then for not making high school accessible to everyone.
You need to source this. My understanding is that public high school (as far as the ones established since the early 1900s) were always "free".
And, to be technical, they're not really free. Your taxes are spent on funding them.
The United States historically had a demand for general skills rather than specific training/apprenticeships. High school enrollment increased when schools at this level became free, laws required children to attend until a certain age, and it was believed that every American student had the opportunity to participate regardless of their ability.
And I got the years wrong, it was a little over a hundred years ago that high school became free (to the students). I got the decades part mixed up because that was when high schools were expanded.
The 1% specifically, three of fours times as much in my opinion.
If you're talking income tax, that works out to 118.8 or 158.4 percent of their income.
I foresee issues with this policy proposal.
Not just income tax, net tax. Distrubted obviously. E.g. increase the number of people affected by the estate tax.
Edit: Another thing that could be done is put more effort into closing corporate loopholes and enforcing punishments for exploiting them. Whatever is works to get the money to people who need it.
I'm confused. If you want the top 1% to pay "three or four times as much" tax, you need to make those people pay more tax. Making other people pay more tax doesn't change the amount payed by the top 1%, because those other people are by definition not part of the top 1%.
I'm confused. If you want the top 1% to pay "three or four times as much" tax, you need to make those people pay more tax. Making other people pay more tax doesn't change the amount payed by the top 1%, because those other people are by definition not part of the top 1%.
The estate tax is based on the house not on the person. Less than 1% of people are affected by it. The boundaries could be adjusted to include a little more of the top end.
Another option is to simply put public pressure on the 1% to provide more for charity. I'm not concerned with how it would be done, but simply getting it done so society isn't weighted towards a select group of people. To be clear, I'm not arguing for near-complete equality, but simply removing the extremes of wealth and poverty.
Combining an inequality solution with a cut to defence spending would do very real good for America. There's no much point with all the defence spending to save lives if people are dying on the streets because they don't have the resources they need to live longer healthier lives. Especially given the ambiguity in whether American military action is actually doing any good for the world.
There's no much point with all the defence spending to save lives if people are dying on the streets because they don't have the resources they need to live longer healthier lives.
If you think there's little difference between "overly expensive healthcare coverage" and "war", you know nothing of the latter.
Especially given the ambiguity in whether American military action is actually doing any good for the world.
If you think there's any "ambiguity" here, I'm guessing you're only thinking about things like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And yes, the merits of those operations are debatable, to put it mildly. However, they also represent an almost laughably tiny fraction of the total influence the American military has on the global scene. I think it's pretty obvious at this point in 2015 that the Russian and Chinese governments have some serious old-school territorial ambitions, and that American-backed military alliances are critical to keeping them in check. In short, if you want America to spend less on its military, ask your own government to spend more. Maybe even something approaching its "fair share". Because right now, American taxpayers are heavily subsidizing your security.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There's no much point with all the defence spending to save lives if people are dying on the streets because they don't have the resources they need to live longer healthier lives.
If you think there's little difference between "overly expensive healthcare coverage" and "war", you know nothing of the latter. How much do you think a Syrian refugee would give for their worst problem to be a hospital bill?
Overly expensive healthcare coverage is a value judgement you just placed on the idea that immediately makes it look bad. That doesn't do well for approaching the issue fairly. What would make healthcare coverage 'overly expensive'?
There's no guarantee military action will do anything good for a Syrian refugee.
How much do you think a Pakistani child would give for US drones to stop constantly flying overhead and occasionally bombing people who have no guarantee of actually being a terrorist?
Especially given the ambiguity in whether American military action is actually doing any good for the world.
If you think there's any "ambiguity" here, I'm guessing you're only thinking about things like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
All military action is ambiguously good for the world. In simply saying it isn't, you are basically denying pacifism. I am by no means convinced that military action is doing good for the world currently.
I think it's pretty obvious at this point in 2015 that the Russian and Chinese governments have some serious old-school territorial ambitions, and that American-backed military alliances are critical to keeping them in check.
Or maybe the strength of America's military is causing them to feel threatened and hence want to increase their own strength, like what may well be happening in the middle east (in part).
And, do tell me, why is it fair that America gets to be the regulator of world conflict? Doesn't that seem morally corrupt to you, for one country to be a decider of what other countries are allowed to do? Who is keeping America in check? 'The most powerful country in the world', not because of political determination or strength of self-sufficiency but because of force? It seems much more fair for countries to be equal, keeping each other in check and not having one country bully others into submission. Obviously, this doesn't mean that equality should be constantly maintained, but aggressively abundant military force should be reserved for times of great conflict- when allies are not in abundance like they are now.
In short, if you want America to spend less on its military, ask your own government to spend more. Maybe even something approaching its "fair share". Because right now, American taxpayers are heavily subsidizing your security.
I didn't ask anyone to subsidise Australian military. I'm not the representative of my country, I don't agree with plenty of the government's decisions. I'm in more agreement with some of the European governments (though not by any great degree), I mainly live in Australia because A- I was born here, and B- because I like the culture where I live. I'm in favour of general, worldwide reduction in military spending and military action because I don't think it's doing enough.
Overly expensive healthcare coverage is a value judgement you just placed on the idea that immediately makes it look bad.
You're the one who's saying that the healthcare situation in America is bad. I'm granting you that for the sake of argument, and saying that it's still outrageous to compare it to a state of war.
Or maybe the strength of America's military is causing them to feel threatened and hence want to increase their own strength, like what may well be happening in the middle east (in part).
...like this. Read some history. Imperialist states don't need to feel threatened to want to increase their strength; they always want to increase their strength. You're making that assumption because it is convenient for your desired conclusion, not because you have any real evidence for it.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that equality should be constantly maintained, but aggressively abundant military force should be reserved for times of great conflict- when allies are not in abundance like they are now.
A strong military should not be "reserved for times of great conflict" for the same reasons that a shingled roof should not be "reserved for times of great rainfall". How long do you think it takes to build a large effective military, anyway? You can't just write a check after Pearl Harbor gets bombed and have personnel, equipment, and infrastructure instantly pop out of the ground.
Now, we do have one measure for suddenly and dramatically increasing the size of our military in emergencies. It's called the draft. I don't want to make assumptions about your position, but pacifists aren't normally fans of it. And regardless, conscripts are far less effective than career soldiers -- even from a purely military perspective, we really don't want to have to call them up. That means maintaining a large volunteer force instead.
I didn't ask anyone to subsidise Australian military. I'm not the representative of my country, I don't agree with plenty of the government's decisions.
Good! Then you should have no problem with advocating for a military buildup!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're the one who's saying that the healthcare situation in America is bad. I'm granting you that for the sake of argument, and saying that it's still outrageous to compare it to a state of war.
I think I misunderstood what you meant earlier. Anyway.
A loss of life is a loss of life. What's ridiculous about the comparison, given the relevance here?
I am explicitly denying pacifism. Pacifism as a philosophy rests on selective reading and wishful thinking.
Your opinion isn't gospel. If others disagree, then it is ambiguous, unless you are suggesting that all people who are significantly more pacifistic than you are idiots. Just so we are clear, I'm not a true pacifist, but I'm more pacifistic than many. Since you are the one saying that it is good for the world, it's up to you to show that it is, all I am doing is doubting.
A strong military should not be "reserved for times of great conflict" for the same reasons that a shingled roof should not be "reserved for times of great rainfall". How long do you think it takes to build a large effective military, anyway? You can't just write a check after Pearl Harbor gets bombed and have personnel, equipment, and infrastructure instantly pop out of the ground.
Preparations can be made to allow for such circumstances, I'm not recommending massive demilitarisation, merely a significant one.
Good! Then you should have no problem with advocating for a military buildup!
For one, Australia's already been increasing defence spending: http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/15-16/
And secondarily, me not agreeing with many decisions of the government does not in any way imply I should have no problem with advocating military buildup. The reason I don't agree with all their decisions is because I have my own opinions, which leaves me quite capable of having a problem with that (not that I necessarily do), so this comment was kinda dumb.
In general, regardless of whether they may be problematic consequences with reducing military force, that doesn't mean it's still not a good idea. Other problems have costs for not solving them too. The question is which cost is best to pay, and it's in that manner where I am inclined to think defence spending isn't cost effective.
The 1% specifically, three of fours times as much in my opinion.
If you're talking income tax, that works out to 118.8 or 158.4 percent of their income.
I foresee issues with this policy proposal.
Using income tax rates for people at that income level is a tad optimistic, though. Won't a lot of it be investment or capital gains, taxed at a substantially lower rate? (Not so low that 3-4x it won't clean them out, though.)
On the other hand, I read an article recently that observed that strategically raising the tax rate on the highest income earners by a few percentage points could result in a substantial amount of revenue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Your opinion isn't gospel. If others disagree, then it is ambiguous, unless you are suggesting that all people who are significantly more pacifistic than you are idiots.
People disagree with the theory of evolution. That doesn't mean the theory is "ambiguous". It means those people are ignoring or misreading the evidence.
Which puts it at almost exactly half of U.S. spending per capita and as a percentage of GDP, which again is actually not bad compared to, say, Germany, but still not what anyone could call "fair". There's another wrinkle here, though: it's only about one twenty-sixth the absolute value. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that cash spent equals strength, then in order for the U.S.-Australia alliance to maintain the same strength, for every 1% Australia increases its military budget, America can reduce its budget by... 0.038%.
So yeah. While I'd like our allies to pull more weight, the simple fact is that to take over the burden on America they'd have to completely bankrupt themselves. The disparity in economies makes the America-has-the-big-stick model the only practical one for these alliances. We are going to remain the number one "regulator of world conflict" for the foreseeable future, because nobody else can fulfill that role. Asking allies to contribute more isn't going to be a matter of changing this dynamic; it's just a matter of taking a bit of an edge off the U.S. domestic budget.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First, we overspend on our military. We can spend less and still have the best, strongest military in the world.
Second, there is nothing wrong with helping out allies - but as B_S noted many of our allies have been reneging on their commitments and need to pick up their share of the burden.
You seem to know more about government workings than I do. Would you mind elaborating on how we overspend?
Because my perspective is, "There's conflict, we're involved, why would we cut military spending?" But I don't anything about the military budget.
I believe the actual unit of measurement would describe it as a metric ****ton.
Metric and not standard, huh?
What I would want is a refocusing. Forces specifically designed to combat piracy (like the Littoral combat ship was intended to be), an emphasis on special operations over conventional ground combat. Continued focus on air superiority. But with all of that a reduction in the kind of general combat capabilities that it's becoming more and more clear are largely relics. Note I'm saying reduction, not complete dissolution. Between nuclear power and the vast interconnected nature of the world economy, a war the scale of the original world wars just isn't as much of a concern.
I'm not sure how ground warfare is a relic. ISIS is fought on the ground. We had troop surges in Iraq that proved very effective. And needless to say, if we're ever involved in an engagement in Iran, Syria, or North Korea, and definitely if we ever found ourselves in conflict with Russia, we would need to have ground troops.
The 1% specifically, three of fours times as much in my opinion.
If you're talking income tax, that works out to 118.8 or 158.4 percent of their income.
I foresee issues with this policy proposal.
That's the listed rate, but not the effective rate isn't it? I think when most people talk about raising income tax they mean the effective rate. You wouldn't even have to technically raise rates to do so, just remove some of the existing methods of paying less. CNN money says that in 2014 the top 1% paid an average of 23.5% income tax (in 2001 they paid an average rate of 27.6%), and Warren Buffet famously said that back in 2011 he only paid 17% income tax (of course, I'm not arguing that three or four times this amount actually makes sense).
That's the listed rate, but not the effective rate isn't it? I think when most people talk about raising income tax they mean the effective rate. You wouldn't even have to technically raise rates to do so, just remove some of the existing methods of paying less. CNN money says that in 2014 the top 1% paid an average of 23.5% income tax (in 2001 they paid an average rate of 27.6%), and Warren Buffet famously said that back in 2011 he only paid 17% income tax (of course, I'm not arguing that three or four times this amount actually makes sense).
Absolutely. But when someone speaks of tripling or quadrupling the rate, it's hard to interpret that as meaning "let's close the stupid loopholes".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You seem to know more about government workings than I do. Would you mind elaborating on how we overspend?
Because my perspective is, "There's conflict, we're involved, why would we cut military spending?" But I don't anything about the military budget.
First of all, sorry for the delay. My son was born on the 8th and I didn't notice this response until just now.
I think this article says most of what I would say about Military R&D.
I think there is a tendency to lump 'overall budget' with 'overall quality' when it comes to government spending (See Also: Schools, Emergency Services). Any analysis of the military spending structure will tell you it's a bloated mess.
But the actual point I was making with what you quoted is that we shouldn't be making unilateral military actions all the time. We are not, and should not, be the world police, and by allowing ourselves to repeatedly be 90-95% of every military action, we're essentially providing our allies' military support for them. That's what I meant by 'overspend' in that particular instance.
I'm not sure how ground warfare is a relic. ISIS is fought on the ground. We had troop surges in Iraq that proved very effective. And needless to say, if we're ever involved in an engagement in Iran, Syria, or North Korea, and definitely if we ever found ourselves in conflict with Russia, we would need to have ground troops.
I should clarify that I don't mean ground warfare itself is a relic, I mean the war engine we have surrounding it is. We will always need to have the capability to put boots on the ground, but it's the air where wars are won or lost and the diplomatic sphere that determines whether or not we can enforce change without getting bogged down in decades of occupation.
What if we need our military for an external threat?
A valid thought.
But what constitutes a threat?
A threat to American lives obviously, but what of a threat to American infrastructure overseas? Or american owned companies overseas?
A threat to keeping the money rolling in? A threat to economic stability?
A threat to fight, in order to prop up a failing political leaders chances of being re-elected?
All of the above?
The USA govt. has acted like Imperialists outside their borders for quite some time, and just like Imperialists of the past (think the British, French etc.) they're looking after their own interests, and spending an enormous amount of cash to run the most expensive military machine of all time. Foreign policy explains a lot too.
Anyway, my take is that Defence spending has to be a balance between what's needed and what might be needed, to achieve your aims with efficiency.
In the case of the USA, which is currently involved in many many conflicts outside it's borders, constantly, this balance may change quickly.
A valid thought.
But what constitutes a threat?
A threat to American lives obviously, but what of a threat to American infrastructure overseas? Or american owned companies overseas?
A threat to keeping the money rolling in? A threat to economic stability?
A threat to fight, in order to prop up a failing political leaders chances of being re-elected?
All of the above?
I think if we've learned anything recently - and I don't know if we have, mind, because we've still got people who promote the Monroe Doctrine as though the past century didn't happen - it's that "defending America" must needs extend beyond only keeping a military that guards our borders and protects us from existential threats.
The USA govt. has acted like Imperialists outside their borders for quite some time, and just like Imperialists of the past (think the British, French etc.) they're looking after their own interests, and spending an enormous amount of cash to run the most expensive military machine of all time. Foreign policy explains a lot too.
And why is having our military might felt beyond our borders something you're regarding as a problem, as opposed to a necessity?
First, we overspend on our military. We can spend less and still have the best, strongest military in the world.
Second, there is nothing wrong with helping out allies - but as B_S noted many of our allies have been reneging on their commitments and need to pick up their share of the burden.
I believe the actual unit of measurement would describe it as a metric ****ton.
What I would want is a refocusing. Forces specifically designed to combat piracy (like the Littoral combat ship was intended to be), an emphasis on special operations over conventional ground combat. Continued focus on air superiority. But with all of that a reduction in the kind of general combat capabilities that it's becoming more and more clear are largely relics. Note I'm saying reduction, not complete dissolution. Between nuclear power and the vast interconnected nature of the world economy, a war the scale of the original world wars just isn't as much of a concern.
Looking at the chart, Medicare appears to be "Medical Service (Seniors)" while Medicaid is "Vendor Payments (Welfare)". Social Security is indeed pensions.
Ultimately it's not a very useful site.
Social Security: $851 Billion (Federal)
Medicare (Including Admin costs): $597 Billion (Federal)
Medicaid (Including Admin costs): $492 Billion (Total), $120 Billion (States)
[The ratio of Federal to State spending on Medicaid ranges from 50% to 75%.]
Public Assistance: $370 Billion (Federal), $10 Billion (States)
Defense: $615 Billion
A couple references:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/
Getting good numbers on this stuff is hard, but these work roughly.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Well, by definition getting more education makes you more educated, college is education, making the simplest answer "yes". What would be your argument/reasoning for this not being the case?
I agree, but what the implications of doing this? Afaik, the European countries (save Germany) aren't exactly in good financial spots either. Asking them to pick up their side of the bargain can be very bad to their economies, and that could be one of the reasons why the U.S. doesn't do this.
Well, to be fair, lots of people thought the same thing (interconnected nature of world [European] economy and immense destructive power via modern weapons) back in the early 1900s. Then WW1 broke out and Europe sorta died.
I'm with B_S on this. The U.S.'s overwhelming military power is instrumental in maintaining the status quo and the existence of the global world today. Reducing it without extreme careful consideration can have huge consequences.
Thank you.
Let me answer this on a broader level.
This is the average SAT scores back in 2006-
Math- 518
Reading-503
Writing-497
This is the average SAT score in 2015-
Math-511
Reading-495
Writing-484
This is the total # of people who took the test in 2006-
1,465,744
This is the total # of people who took the test in 2015-
1,698,521
You can take a look at all the other numbers yourself. I'll link the reports. Doing a thorough analysis of these numbers will be incredibly time-consuming and I have *****-all interest in doing them. I intend to paint with a wide-brush right now.
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/national-report.pdf
https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/total-group-2015.pdf
The point I want to make is that making something suddenly available for all doesn't necessarily lead to the results you desire.
More and more people take the SAT, but it's clear they're not prepared for it. Say what you want about the SAT and whether its scores actually mean anything in terms of college-readiness, but the scores on the math and writing section are indicative of your basic math/writing abilities.
I would be far more interested in raising the quality of high schools across the nation than making college free for everyone. The whole "free college" thing reads like a sound-byte to me. Everyone associates college with better economic opportunities and more education. It may be so, but that doesn't mean much if the freshmen entering college are not at a level to benefit. You're simply making college into high school 2.0, and that doesn't benefit anyone.
On another issue- Public colleges are incredibly overfilled right now. The UCs, for example, famously have quarters long wait-list for the mandatory courses for the more popular degrees. Adding more people will stretch the limits of the colleges themselves, and this doesn't help. You need to spend more money on the public colleges to allow them to account for the rise in entrants.
There's so many more issues with making public colleges free, and probably lots better ways to have a more educated public.
However I can't understand why people are ignoring SS and Medicare's imminent insolvency, especially when it comes to unfunded liabilities. With SS and Medicare put together the unfunded liabilities are in the hundreds of trillions. Those programs, if not massively overhauled soon, will bankrupt the country. There needs to be a mutual sacrifice on defense and social spending.
You used to have to pay to get into high school decades ago. Your argument was probably a contemporary one back then for not making high school accessible to everyone. Maybe the test scores would go down on average if more people took it, but that doesn't matter. It costs $80 to take that test, or at least it did when I paid for one in 2006. I'm not sure how it is for all of the colleges in the US, but the major ones in my state don't require you to take the SAT so this is all anecdotal. So to me and everyone in my state, it literally doesn't matter. We could have the smartest people in the country in our state who aren't taking it to go to an out of state college.
Raising the quality of high school education doesn't do anything for people who already graduated or are about to. Adult education should be free like it is in some other developed countries. And who cares if someone is taking a class for no benefit? People do that all the time; taking a class just for fun because they have the money or financial aid. My therapist did that when he went to college. And it's not a matter of turning it into high school 2.0. It's not mandatory, and you can drop out if you want to. Some people say ANYONE can get a degree, but it's not a matter of being smart, it's a matter of economic opportunity and privilege.
How can you say for sure that that guy flipping burgers at McDonald's isn't going to turn his life around if he went to college and got a degree? It shouldn't be a matter of money, everyone deserves an opportunity to make their life better. If we can fund K-12 education then we can fund adult education. We need to start what liberals have always been saying: cut defense spending, and make corporations and the 1% pay their fair share in taxes. We need to stop companies from having overseas tax havens and stop hurting the middle class.
You need to source this. My understanding is that public high school (as far as the ones established since the early 1900s) were always "free".
And, to be technical, they're not really free. Your taxes are spent on funding them.
Washington State Uni. requires either the SAT or ACT. This is similar to what most colleges/unis in the U.S. does.
The average ACT score is 20/36. I don't know well enough to comment on the ACT, but that average seems pretty darned low relative to the max score.
In any case, the point I wanted to make with the SAT scores were-
- The average high school student doesn't seem to be prepared for college education.
- On a broad level, having more people have the opportunity to do something (CollegeBoard offers a fee waiver for poor families), doesn't necessarily mean much of anything.
Why should it be free?
And let's be clear here- There are no such things as "free".
In your opinion, what is the purpose of making college education free? What goal is it meant to achieve?
-We can't fund K-12 education, at least not on the current amount of funding the state/fed governments decide to give it.
-Why is it that liberals only ever talk about defense spending? Do you even know what could be cut, or are you mentioning it in the fashion of a talking point like how conservatives are always going after welfare spending even though cutting them won't even make a dent on fed. spending?
-Speaking of talking points, how much taxes should the corporation and 1% pay for it to be "fair"?
So give it more funding. America needs better education standards in one way or another, it's currently way behind where it should be (in comparison to other similarly wealthy countries).
Most of the defense spending could be cut. Might be some adverse effects. Could cut a fifth of the spending, that would probably not do much harmful, and be enough to improve education.
The 1% specifically, three of fours times as much in my opinion. Problem is, they don't want that to happen, and they have the power to stop it from happening. In order for such a reform to pass, it would need widespread public support or else there's no guarantee whatsoever they can't get it shut down. This has happened in the past. For example, the estate tax, a blatantly high-income earner tax, has been nearly removed several times, and guess who was trying to do that. Oh yeah, people who it would affect- people who have a lot of money but yet seem to think that it's not fair for them to pay more tax (what they should be doing) when they are so far ahead and others are so far behind.
Increase taxation on the 1% so they don't have 20% of the freaking income. There is no reason not to.
Reducing defence spending as well, education in America would be actually great.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
By free I mean to the student. I don't know why you're bringing up "Well SOMEBODY had to pay for that!" right now. It's obviously paid by taxes, and college should be paid by taxes as well. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education_in_the_United_States
And I got the years wrong, it was a little over a hundred years ago that high school became free (to the students). I got the decades part mixed up because that was when high schools were expanded.
I foresee issues with this policy proposal.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not just income tax, net tax. Distrubted obviously. E.g. increase the number of people affected by the estate tax.
Edit: Another thing that could be done is put more effort into closing corporate loopholes and enforcing punishments for exploiting them. Whatever is works to get the money to people who need it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The estate tax is based on the house not on the person. Less than 1% of people are affected by it. The boundaries could be adjusted to include a little more of the top end.
Another option is to simply put public pressure on the 1% to provide more for charity. I'm not concerned with how it would be done, but simply getting it done so society isn't weighted towards a select group of people. To be clear, I'm not arguing for near-complete equality, but simply removing the extremes of wealth and poverty.
Combining an inequality solution with a cut to defence spending would do very real good for America. There's no much point with all the defence spending to save lives if people are dying on the streets because they don't have the resources they need to live longer healthier lives. Especially given the ambiguity in whether American military action is actually doing any good for the world.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If you think there's any "ambiguity" here, I'm guessing you're only thinking about things like the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. And yes, the merits of those operations are debatable, to put it mildly. However, they also represent an almost laughably tiny fraction of the total influence the American military has on the global scene. I think it's pretty obvious at this point in 2015 that the Russian and Chinese governments have some serious old-school territorial ambitions, and that American-backed military alliances are critical to keeping them in check. In short, if you want America to spend less on its military, ask your own government to spend more. Maybe even something approaching its "fair share". Because right now, American taxpayers are heavily subsidizing your security.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Overly expensive healthcare coverage is a value judgement you just placed on the idea that immediately makes it look bad. That doesn't do well for approaching the issue fairly. What would make healthcare coverage 'overly expensive'?
There's no guarantee military action will do anything good for a Syrian refugee.
How much do you think a Pakistani child would give for US drones to stop constantly flying overhead and occasionally bombing people who have no guarantee of actually being a terrorist?
All military action is ambiguously good for the world. In simply saying it isn't, you are basically denying pacifism. I am by no means convinced that military action is doing good for the world currently.
Or maybe the strength of America's military is causing them to feel threatened and hence want to increase their own strength, like what may well be happening in the middle east (in part).
And, do tell me, why is it fair that America gets to be the regulator of world conflict? Doesn't that seem morally corrupt to you, for one country to be a decider of what other countries are allowed to do? Who is keeping America in check? 'The most powerful country in the world', not because of political determination or strength of self-sufficiency but because of force? It seems much more fair for countries to be equal, keeping each other in check and not having one country bully others into submission. Obviously, this doesn't mean that equality should be constantly maintained, but aggressively abundant military force should be reserved for times of great conflict- when allies are not in abundance like they are now.
I didn't ask anyone to subsidise Australian military. I'm not the representative of my country, I don't agree with plenty of the government's decisions. I'm in more agreement with some of the European governments (though not by any great degree), I mainly live in Australia because A- I was born here, and B- because I like the culture where I live. I'm in favour of general, worldwide reduction in military spending and military action because I don't think it's doing enough.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I am explicitly denying pacifism. Pacifism as a philosophy rests on selective reading and wishful thinking.
...like this. Read some history. Imperialist states don't need to feel threatened to want to increase their strength; they always want to increase their strength. You're making that assumption because it is convenient for your desired conclusion, not because you have any real evidence for it.
In literally the very next sentence, I invite Australia to pick up some of the slack. You're not keen on that idea.
A strong military should not be "reserved for times of great conflict" for the same reasons that a shingled roof should not be "reserved for times of great rainfall". How long do you think it takes to build a large effective military, anyway? You can't just write a check after Pearl Harbor gets bombed and have personnel, equipment, and infrastructure instantly pop out of the ground.
Now, we do have one measure for suddenly and dramatically increasing the size of our military in emergencies. It's called the draft. I don't want to make assumptions about your position, but pacifists aren't normally fans of it. And regardless, conscripts are far less effective than career soldiers -- even from a purely military perspective, we really don't want to have to call them up. That means maintaining a large volunteer force instead.
Good! Then you should have no problem with advocating for a military buildup!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think I misunderstood what you meant earlier. Anyway.
A loss of life is a loss of life. What's ridiculous about the comparison, given the relevance here?
Your opinion isn't gospel. If others disagree, then it is ambiguous, unless you are suggesting that all people who are significantly more pacifistic than you are idiots. Just so we are clear, I'm not a true pacifist, but I'm more pacifistic than many. Since you are the one saying that it is good for the world, it's up to you to show that it is, all I am doing is doubting.
So then you think America should cut it's defence budget, so long as other countries increase military spending? Or what?
Preparations can be made to allow for such circumstances, I'm not recommending massive demilitarisation, merely a significant one.
For one, Australia's already been increasing defence spending: http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/15-16/
And secondarily, me not agreeing with many decisions of the government does not in any way imply I should have no problem with advocating military buildup. The reason I don't agree with all their decisions is because I have my own opinions, which leaves me quite capable of having a problem with that (not that I necessarily do), so this comment was kinda dumb.
In general, regardless of whether they may be problematic consequences with reducing military force, that doesn't mean it's still not a good idea. Other problems have costs for not solving them too. The question is which cost is best to pay, and it's in that manner where I am inclined to think defence spending isn't cost effective.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Using income tax rates for people at that income level is a tad optimistic, though. Won't a lot of it be investment or capital gains, taxed at a substantially lower rate? (Not so low that 3-4x it won't clean them out, though.)
On the other hand, I read an article recently that observed that strategically raising the tax rate on the highest income earners by a few percentage points could result in a substantial amount of revenue.
People disagree with the theory of evolution. That doesn't mean the theory is "ambiguous". It means those people are ignoring or misreading the evidence.
That would be nice. But see below.
Such as? I already mentioned on one preparation that is made; you haven't commented on that yet.
Which puts it at almost exactly half of U.S. spending per capita and as a percentage of GDP, which again is actually not bad compared to, say, Germany, but still not what anyone could call "fair". There's another wrinkle here, though: it's only about one twenty-sixth the absolute value. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that cash spent equals strength, then in order for the U.S.-Australia alliance to maintain the same strength, for every 1% Australia increases its military budget, America can reduce its budget by... 0.038%.
So yeah. While I'd like our allies to pull more weight, the simple fact is that to take over the burden on America they'd have to completely bankrupt themselves. The disparity in economies makes the America-has-the-big-stick model the only practical one for these alliances. We are going to remain the number one "regulator of world conflict" for the foreseeable future, because nobody else can fulfill that role. Asking allies to contribute more isn't going to be a matter of changing this dynamic; it's just a matter of taking a bit of an edge off the U.S. domestic budget.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because my perspective is, "There's conflict, we're involved, why would we cut military spending?" But I don't anything about the military budget.
Metric and not standard, huh?
I'm not sure how ground warfare is a relic. ISIS is fought on the ground. We had troop surges in Iraq that proved very effective. And needless to say, if we're ever involved in an engagement in Iran, Syria, or North Korea, and definitely if we ever found ourselves in conflict with Russia, we would need to have ground troops.
That's the listed rate, but not the effective rate isn't it? I think when most people talk about raising income tax they mean the effective rate. You wouldn't even have to technically raise rates to do so, just remove some of the existing methods of paying less. CNN money says that in 2014 the top 1% paid an average of 23.5% income tax (in 2001 they paid an average rate of 27.6%), and Warren Buffet famously said that back in 2011 he only paid 17% income tax (of course, I'm not arguing that three or four times this amount actually makes sense).
http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/04/pf/taxes/top-1-taxes/
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think this article says most of what I would say about Military R&D.
I think there is a tendency to lump 'overall budget' with 'overall quality' when it comes to government spending (See Also: Schools, Emergency Services). Any analysis of the military spending structure will tell you it's a bloated mess.
But the actual point I was making with what you quoted is that we shouldn't be making unilateral military actions all the time. We are not, and should not, be the world police, and by allowing ourselves to repeatedly be 90-95% of every military action, we're essentially providing our allies' military support for them. That's what I meant by 'overspend' in that particular instance.
I should clarify that I don't mean ground warfare itself is a relic, I mean the war engine we have surrounding it is. We will always need to have the capability to put boots on the ground, but it's the air where wars are won or lost and the diplomatic sphere that determines whether or not we can enforce change without getting bogged down in decades of occupation.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
A valid thought.
But what constitutes a threat?
A threat to American lives obviously, but what of a threat to American infrastructure overseas? Or american owned companies overseas?
A threat to keeping the money rolling in? A threat to economic stability?
A threat to fight, in order to prop up a failing political leaders chances of being re-elected?
All of the above?
The USA govt. has acted like Imperialists outside their borders for quite some time, and just like Imperialists of the past (think the British, French etc.) they're looking after their own interests, and spending an enormous amount of cash to run the most expensive military machine of all time. Foreign policy explains a lot too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Who's wielding the big stick?
Fun Fact: America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html
Take a guess how many of those years were for external threats.
Anyway, my take is that Defence spending has to be a balance between what's needed and what might be needed, to achieve your aims with efficiency.
In the case of the USA, which is currently involved in many many conflicts outside it's borders, constantly, this balance may change quickly.
And why is having our military might felt beyond our borders something you're regarding as a problem, as opposed to a necessity?