Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If we can afford ANOTHER WAR, obviously we don't really need to cut ANY social programs.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:50 AM
Original message
If we can afford ANOTHER WAR, obviously we don't really need to cut ANY social programs.
Pretty obvious, isn't it?

The discussion should be about raising revenue, or cutting the war orgy.

In particular, this is how Americans want to do it:

"The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable), eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent), eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says arent necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent). " - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876558/ns/politics

This is a no-brainer.

This is how to win in 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. It would be great to hear our
Democratic leaders get out there and talk about raising revenue instead of we all have to get a hair cut, and their one sided "shared sacrifice" bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Liberal Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. I agree with that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raschel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RT Atlanta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. K & R
wish I had more to add but the message and the solution is really that simple as you have so eloquently stated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrossChris Donating Member (641 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't think logic, or "no brainers" play into it. They're just going to do what they want to do.
The top 1% is trying to destroy us, and take what they can from the wreckage. Who can really stop them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. hardly! we need to cut now to pay for the fourth and fifth wars!
coming soon to an islamic country near you!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. you've got it backwards
we need to cut ALL social programs and eliminate all government regulatory bodies, including the entire EPA, so that we can afford to have even more wars.

Also, we need to raise taxes by 20% across the board for people in the $1.00 - $250,000 annual income range, and cut taxes by 20% for the $250,000 - $4,000,000 income range. Above $4,000,000 a year? No taxes at all, so that jobs will be created. Makes perfect sense, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
8. Social Programs do not benefit the multi-national corporations that
the government represents.

Wars do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Southerner Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
9. We can't afford another anything
I crunched numbers taken from this website:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

The increase in spending between 2008 and 2010 is this:

Pensions 14%
Health Care 22%
Education 39%
Defense 16%
Welfare 56%
Protection 13%
Transportation 19%
General 14%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TBF Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Did you now?
Why don't we look at what the money is actually spent on (as opposed to increases in spending - which disregards the base spending):



Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion (and remember that we paid in extra from our paychecks to cover Social Security/Medicare)

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

At any rate, enjoy your stay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Lol! That equals 203% of ?
You'd better try "crunching" some new numbers, son. Welfare eats up only a miniscule fraction of our budget compared to the Pentagon and military:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Southerner Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. You'd better try a reading comprehension course
My numbers are the INCREASE in spending in those areas. They don't, and will not, add up to 100%. The story being told is that spending has increased drastically in just about every category. Also, my numbers are total spending by the government. Cut it how you want, but we are all taxed for that total spending so that's all that matters.

I'm just trying to make the point that we can't keep harping about spending on wars when it is so easy to point out that spending in all other areas besides the military has increased greatly. I'm worried about 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Give me a break. The Military is over half of the discretionary budget.
Fuck, it IS the discretionary budget.

"WE" can harp on the thing that is the giant friggin' elephant in the room, that for some odd reason is un-fucking-touchable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. It's nice to see that he's still visiting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. And you'd better try again. From your own site:
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 12:33 PM by Lorien
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Southerner Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Try again?
Your links confirm the increases in spending frm 2008 to 2010 for welfare and defense spending I quoted in my original post. What's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. no, you say your link shows 56% increase in welfare --your link says otherwise
why lie? because it makes for a bigger number attributed to welfare? (which you include unemployment insurance, which is about 1/6 --in fact almost all the increase can be attributed to increases in unemployment and food stamps which you don't want to spend on as you'd prefer to have children starve and die than spend more on their care)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Southerner Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Go to my link
Choose 2008 in the pull down menu from my link. Look at how much was spent in the welfare category for 2008 and then for 2010. Do some math. How am I lying?

I am not attacking the spending increase in that category as I realize a lot of it is due to unemployment insurance for a lot of displaced people. What am I pointing out is spending has increased drastically in all categories. How can we go on without facing this fact? I would rather spend time discussing what to do with with the money the government does have instead of abritrarily pointing fingers about what has been spent and where.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Your link says that you lied about the 56% increase
i'm not monkeying around with your drop downs and so forth.

your link shows welfare spending at roughly 500B in 2008 and roughly 625B in 2010. it's right there on the site you linked to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Southerner Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Sorry
Your numbers are for total spending (includes state and locals). I should have said click on the Federal tab. The numbers there are 322B and 502B.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Why Do We Need to Spend $700 Billion A Year on Defense?
Which works out to be $7 trillion a decade. Why? What nation is coming after us? Who is trying to invade and occupy us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. Radical Islamic Atheists, obviously.
And Russia, via Alaska.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavin4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I Think You Mean...
Gay, Radical, Islamic, Athesist, Illegal Immigrants from Mexico.

Still, do we really need $7 trillion per decade to stop them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. why are you linking a tea partier website?
and why are you using percentages? percentages make the 19B spent on "welfare" after a 56% increase look the largest, but the 16% increase in defense (600-700B!) makes it look small when it's the largest amount of spending increase on the list.

stop being fooled and/or stop trying to fool others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. why you lying? 56% increase in "welfare" isn't even in the (bogus) link you posted
it shows about a 20% increase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
32. We can if we tax the rich at the rate of the greatest generation!
We could pay off the debt and deficit in 10 years!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. Bringing jobs back to America would raise revenue, as would some WPA
type programs (green energy anyone)? But we don't hear politicians speaking about jobs much anymore, do we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
14. I'm of the opinion that until they cut the military in half, end the drug war/legalize & tax pot
they're full of fucking shit that they "need" to cut medicare or pull food out of the mouths of poor kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. +1 There are easy solutions to our problems.
But politics does not care about solutions, just donations and votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
21. I've seen the cost of the war quoted as 6x10^8 dollars.
That would be about 2 dollars per person in America, which isn't much of a social programme.

I think there may well be good arguments against American military intervention in Libya, but the cost isn't one of the stronger ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Yeah, but that 1.2 trillion plus annual military budget sure is a drain
And social programs aren't about distributing the money evenly amongst every person in the country. Rather, they are about pooling that money and using it for those who are in true need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Agreed - but Libya is only a tiny fraction of defence spending.
I think that

"Cut defence spending, and use the money to spend more on social programmes"

is a much stronger line of argument than

"Don't intervene in Libya, and use the money to spend on social programmes".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I don't know about that,
Considering that our opening Cruise missile salvo destroyed enough government capital to make up for the cuts in low income heating assistance program.

A million here, a billion there may not sound like much in the greater scope of things, but the fact of the matter is that is money that is being destroyed, money that could be put to better use here at home. A million here, a billion there pretty soon adds up to some real cash. Consider, we've been in Libya for roughly one month. Now multiply that by twelve, then by ten or twenty.

Yet we continue to cut programs that help those poor and elderly. Sorry, it doesn't matter if it is six hundred million or six hundred billion, that is money that is needed here at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. You go, MadHound.
I found the latest war really abysmal, because it proves that 96% of the people we have elected don't give a damn about anything other than making cozy with the MIC.

If the war on Libya is all that important, let some other nations fight it. Our nation can hold some type of awards ceremony over at the UN to thank them.

But we just don't have the money right now for more wars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
25. We can fund the School of Assassins
but we can't afford health care for seniors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
33. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
34. YES!
I will use this argument! THANKS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
35. yeah, the antiwar vote has always been decisive in elections (horselaugh)
if only...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. See 2006 midterms
That's pretty much how the Dems took over
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
36. Amen! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 16th 2014, 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC