That would actually be 4.7% for the United States in 2011 and 1.1% for NZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
Printable View
That would actually be 4.7% for the United States in 2011 and 1.1% for NZ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
Do you honestly believe that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoebird
Part of the problem of the dialectic of politics these days is that things get lost.
The problem that I see with the dialectic is the assumption that if you are *for* social programs, then you are *against* fiscal responsibility at the governmental level. Likewise, if you want lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, it's because you do not believe in social programs.
Both are false, and the reality is actually quite different.
First, the parties simply have different perspectives on how things should go. Republicans -- ostensibly -- assert that they want a smaller federal government and that the states can do wahtever they want. They are looking to cut federal funding of various programming because they do not believe at the most essential level (at least, traditionally speaking) that these elements should be handled at the federal level, but at the state level. Therefore, federal funding for schools goes kaput, which that isn't part of the federal spending budget, which means that they can cut taxes.
The democrats see it differently. They assert that there should be more national cohesion, and as such these programs should have federal origin. To make sure that poorer states get what richer states are able to create (by way of having a wealthier populace, a larger populace, more natural resources in that state, whatever), we run federal programs to balance that out. As such, the budget is larger, and therefore you have to pay higher federal taxes.
At the most basic level, no one is saying "lets be unbalanced and overspend!" and no one is saying "social programs are stupid; let people starve!" At the most basic level, the parties are saying "this is not a federal issue, we can cut it, and then if we have more revenue than we need, we can cut the taxes." and "this is an issue that is federal, so we should support it, and as such, we need the tax rate to be X in order to support this."
In both instances, the desire is to run a balanced budget -- to be fiscally responsible -- while also meeting the underlying goals of what they think the federal government is for.
The real elephant in the room, though (and no pun here. i actually just mean it as the common phrase) is the neocon agenda of military interventionism. It is expensive, and I have to ask -- is it really what Americans believe in?
Most people don't know the history or relevance of this construct. It actually came out of a response to socialism -- and was considered a liberal ideology that was differentiating itself from socialism/communism that was on the rise in the 1930s. It was then labeled "neo-conservative" -- to denote that it was clearly *not* socialist. One of the hallmarks of this movement was military interventionism.
It wasn't until the 1960s/70s that it allied with the conservative movement, as a response to the development of then anti-war New Left, whose ideologist of being socially progressive still permeate the democrats to this day. And, as we have seen, the neocon agenda has greatly influenced the republican party's behaviors since the Regan administration.
What I find really interesting about this is that -- largely -- the US was, ideologically speaking, an isolationist nation. . . even after WW2 with the advent of NATO and the UN. Participation, yes, absolutely, no worries. But that's quite different than having a focus for military interventionism!
And so why is this relevant?
Military interventionism is not an aspect of our culture -- traditionally speaking, as Americans -- nor is it a clearly defined aspect of our constitution (our constitution would hint otherwise), nor is it traditionally a part of the republican party or the ideology of republic under jefferson as far as I can tell -- he being one of the luminaries of the movement.
Yet, military interventionism seems to be very important to that party right now -- moreso than any other topic really (aside from the theocon agenda) -- and military interventionism is. . .
wait for it. . .
EXPENSIVE.
At the end of the day, a really large portion of tax revenue is going to support military interventionism. Something that -- i think at least -- most republicans don't even comprehend. I asked my sister -- a rabid republican these days -- about her position on military interventionism and not only did she have to look it up, but she asserted that it was not a 'tea party agenda' (they are tea partiers now, with no clear connection to any understanding of the libertarian foundation in that ideology or how it has been co-opted by the modern GOP, but whatever), and I've even asked several of my highly educated republican friends (one's even a judge). Not one of them could tell me what it was, how the republican party utilized and practiced this ideology and how it affects us today.
I just pointed at the budget.
I'm not saying that people are dumb or incapable. I think they are genuine and smart, but not seeing -- or not willing to see -- the *fiscal responsibility* of keeping this pet named "military interventionism" which is neither an inherent American value, nor an inherent conservative value (certainly not!) and even more so, not an inherent republican value.
So why is it *so very* important that we will quibble night and day over whether or nto big bird should receive funding but we will NOT talk about the direct impact of this particular ideology -- and it's practical outcomes -- in terms of budget?
My suggestion is that we actually set aside quibbling about entitlements and start talking practically about the war machine.
I suggest we look closely as to whether this ideology is an american ideology and value. If it is, then we need to raise taxes to fund it. And if it isn't, then we need to extract ourself from that pathway, and then redistribute funds accordingly, and then tax accordingly.
And *then* we can talk about whether differnet benefits should be federal or state (the origin of the division between the two parties), and how big the revenue stream needs to be from there.
But until we talk about it, we're all going to fret over "welfare queens" and not wht's really going on with the budget.
You'll forgive me that ti's 2 am. I'm not entirely clear headed. I also just saw looper this evening. so there's lots going on in there. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Perhaps a more clear statement would be that I think we are simply spending too much on defense when we don't truly need to -- imo.
To me, that's like telling someone who is telling me that they are broke that they don't need cable.
But that being said, here are some fun links. I would have gotten the fancy ones from the government itself, but wiki has them, so. . . here they are from wiki!
This one gives US federal spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...._-_FY_2011.png
I grant you that the majority of spending there is on social security and medicaid. But, I thought social security was being excepted in this dialogue? Anyway. . . and also, no one was complaining about medicaid. We were talking about people who feel entitled (or "welfare queens").
Now, that's not my favorite budget chart. There's another one around that I can't seem to find that actually breaks out the "discretionary" and such all the way down to "scientific grants" and the like. But, I can't seem to find it.
But, I did find one that breaks down defense spending -- which is where Alan's numbers come from -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States
Again, it's wiki, but it's quick. ;) And, it has a chart adjusted for inflation as well.
This wiki goes over spending of the US vs other nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures
My process is basically this -- if we didn't have an ideology focused on military interventionism, then the military needs in general would be lesser. As such, that 19% budget could shrink -- that revenue could be A. diverted elsewhere or B. ultimately dropped (in terms of decreasing taxes).
And for me, because I basically "run" on values -- I don't see any reason to spend that much revenue on something that I personally don't believe in (military interventionism), and that, honestly speaking, I'm not sure a lot of americans do either. And by that I mean americans in general, not americans in any given party.
I think that most republicans, for example, are really focused on the small government side of things, not recognizing that their party isn't always focused that way.
One of my friends even said to me "their social policy sucks because of theocons mucking it up; their neocon agenda with it's military focus is crap; but i prefer their ideas about small government."
I can't argue with that. But I also can't dislike two things and stay for one, when the other party has two things that I agree on and one that I'm not happy with.
As they say "c'est la vie."
And here is NZ's financial statements: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/governme.../jun12/018.htm
wiki didn't have the article. i had to go to the government web site. It just looks to me like a government that's spending the majority of it's revenue on it's people.
If i'm doing the math right, 1,693M was spent in defense, and the total budget was 92,474M, then that's 1693 divided by 92,474 to get percentage, and my calculator is coming up 1.8%. Which meant that the remaining money -- which is 98.2% of the budget -- went to social services, infrastructure and related.
And then there's the running of the government on the second chart (if i'm understanding that correctly).
Again, I know that it's not comparable in terms of size (being the population of RI), but I do think that in terms of *ideas* . . . we can speak about that.
I mean, the ideas around "where is that bar where we feel that people's basic needs are met so that they aren't dealing with the struggle of abject poverty and can be a benefit to society (or gives their children the opportunity)?" and also "where are we spending our money in other places that might be better diverted to paying down debt, or paying for other services that our citizens want?"
And this assumes (or the second question does), that the federal government is the means we (citizenry) want to utilize. For me, there's sense in using both state and federal, but there's also sense in streamlining federal down to the bare bones, and letting the states work it out for and between themselves.
To be honest, there are *a lot* of great ideas out there in the world. . . tons of them. . . on how to solve these problems. But I think they get lost in our aggressive behaviors towards each other of wanting to be absolutely positively right and/or win an election or something. :)
In my mind the quickest and simplest way to reduce military spending in the US is to cease the policy of playing policeman to the world. The military budget of NZ is, like every other ally, subsidized by the US (aka the US taxpayers). If that policy were to end I have a strong hunch NZ would need to meet or exceed 4.7% of GDP to secure itself. If charity begins at home its time for the US to be a little more charitable.
Absolutely agree. And the sooner the better. And that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and everywhere else. We really, really can't afford this any more. Let the chips fall where they may, protect our own borders properly, spend the money on intelligence and surveillance to determine real threats to our homeland, but I humbly submit that we resign from the post of making things better in every corner of the world. What would we do with the money? Wow, I have some ideas....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Things like Social Security are actually self-funding (ahem if the money isn't used for other things) and solvent for quite awhile into the future (not indefinitely, so you are going to hit some problems eventually), but there is no need to cut it now. Republicans don't actually believe in funding at the state level either, they always oppose it at the state level, which it a problem when you need supermajorities for any taxes.
That's the issue with whacking taxation (essentially, government income) at the federal level. It's fine to say "it's better to handle it locally" but the local government(s), not having had to handle these expenses before, takes on the responsibility with ... wait for it ... more taxes!Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Tim Pawlenty made a big deal out of the fact that he didn't raise taxes while he was Governor of Minnesota. Instead, he and his buddies in the state Legislature just kicked the can down the road with "creative" accounting/borrowing/synonyms and by announcing that some state functions were now county and city functions. So my county taxes went up.
Then the (previous and Republican) Mayor of St. Paul decided he needed that no-tax feather in his cap and announced that he would not raise taxes on St. Paul homeowners. Sho' nuff, my property taxes did not rise. But someone failed to deliver the memo to parks that kept growing grass and sewers that failed to clear themselves of debris and streets that collected snow and streetlamps that refused to keep their bulbs lit. As a result, I now pay "fees" for city duties which previously were paid by my taxes. And I'm now more out of pocket than I was back then.
As far as I'm concerned, keeping "taxes" flat and supplementing them with "fees" (that everyone has to pay) is a hoax, a semantic trick. No one interested in "small government" seems to look at it in the macro sense. If Republicans want to hand education to the states, fine. Then get rid of NCLB. if it's such a great idea, states will adopt it. If social services belong to the states, then quit lobbying against choice. For some reason, "smaller government" never seems to apply to people's lives. Unless guns are involved.
Gregg,
Precisely so. That is my point.
But the party that most supports military interventionism -- ie, the neocon agenda of the republican party -- is unwilling to cut military spending back to "simply securing ourselves."
I support simply securing ourselves and using our tax revenue to do that. I agree that other nations, likewise, would likely have to extend spending in that direction (and as such either cut other programs or increase revenue via taxes to do so -- and remain fiscally viable).
But if we are going to support military interventionism, we are either going to have to A. raise revenue to support it or B. cut spending in other areas -- notably in social programming.
The republican party seems to be fairly clear in it's process. It keeps telling us election after election that the world needs to be "safe for democracy" and that we need to do it. That military interventionism is very important, so we cannot cut spending there.
Which means that in order to reduce taxes and/or not raise them, we need to cut spending elsewhere. And, whatever we can't cover, we'll just go into debt over anyway.
This is not fiscally responsible.
And until people within the party actually speak up to this issue (and honestly, I wish they would), it's not going to change. They are not going to be fiscally responsible. They are going to keep spending money on what we do not need or want -- military interventionism -- and not spending money that we do raise on what we do want: paying down the debt, keeping basic programming going, and perhaps expanding that as useful to the citizenry.