• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pie chart - WHERE YOUR INCOME TAX MONEY REALLY GOES

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder how many here know the difference between discretionary spending and mandatory spending?
Click to expand...

Mandatory spending is untouchable by virtue of the law. Discretionary spending is the flexible portion of the budget that can be 100% eliminated. Let's do it.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Mandatory spending is untouchable by virtue of the law. Discretionary spending is the flexible portion of the budget that can be 100% eliminated. Let's do it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how many people here know that?

I think it's irresponsible that congress has created so much mandatory spending. I say it needs to be disassembled piece by piece.
 
pinqy said:
Food is included in the inflation rate with a weight of 13.989% of the basket. Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U. S. city average, by expenditure category

They're not hidden: A-35. Unemployed total and full-time workers by duration of unemployment

Please do actual research.
Click to expand...

It's not the inflation rate, it is the CPI...which no longer is the inflation rate...it is now a cost-of-living/inflation hybrid.

'Since January 1999, a geometric mean formula has been used to calculate most basic indexes within the CPI; in other words, the prices within most item categories (e.g., apples) are averaged using a geometric mean formula. This improvement moves the CPI somewhat closer to a cost-of-living measure, as the geometric mean formula allows for a modest amount of consumer substitution as relative prices within item categories change.'

http://www.bls.gov/dolfaq/bls_ques2.htm

Inflation and cost-of-living are two seperate things.

'Economists use the term “inflation” to denote an ongoing rise in the general level of prices quoted in units of money. The magnitude of inflation—the inflation rate—is usually reported as the annualized percentage growth of some broad index of money prices. With U.S. dollar prices rising, a one-dollar bill buys less each year. Inflation thus means an ongoing fall in the overall purchasing power of the monetary unit.'

Inflation: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty


So, according to the BLS itself, the CPI is not THE inflation rate...people just call it that out of convenience/ignorance.
 
DA60 said:
This improvement moves the CPI somewhat closer to a cost-of-living measure, as the geometric mean formula allows for a modest amount of consumer substitution as relative prices within item categories change.'[/I]
Click to expand...
Yep.

The substitution means as cheap Chinese goods are substituted, the CPI doesn't move as fast as it should.
 
DA60 said:
It's not the inflation rate, it is the CPI...which no longer is the inflation rate...it is now a cost-of-living/inflation hybrid.

'Since January 1999, a geometric mean formula has been used to calculate most basic indexes within the CPI; in other words, the prices within most item categories (e.g., apples) are averaged using a geometric mean formula. This improvement moves the CPI somewhat closer to a cost-of-living measure, as the geometric mean formula allows for a modest amount of consumer substitution as relative prices within item categories change.'

Is the Consumer Price Index (CPI) a cost-of-living index?

Inflation and cost-of-living are two seperate things.

'Economists use the term “inflation” to denote an ongoing rise in the general level of prices quoted in units of money. The magnitude of inflation—the inflation rate—is usually reported as the annualized percentage growth of some broad index of money prices. With U.S. dollar prices rising, a one-dollar bill buys less each year. Inflation thus means an ongoing fall in the overall purchasing power of the monetary unit.'

Inflation: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty


So, according to the BLS itself, the CPI is not THE inflation rate...people just call it that out of convenience/ignorance.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as THE inflation rate....the CPI is A measure of inflation. The PPI, the ECI, the PCE, the HICP, the import price index, the export price index, the GDP deflator, the etc are all measures of inflation. As for BLS saying the CPI is not a measure of inflation....from BLS: Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions
"Various indexes have been devised to measure different aspects of inflation. The CPI measures inflation as experienced by consumers in their day-to-day living expenses; the Producer Price Index (PPI) measures inflation at earlier stages of the production process; the Employment Cost Index (ECI) measures it in the labor market; the BLS International Price Program measures it for imports and exports; and the Gross Domestic Product Deflator (GDP Deflator) measures inflation experienced by both consumers themselves as well as governments and other institutions providing goods and services to consumers. Finally, there are specialized measures, such as measures of interest rates.

The "best" measure of inflation for a given application depends on the intended use of the data. The CPI is generally the best measure for adjusting payments to consumers when the intent is to allow consumers to purchase at today's prices, a market basket of goods and services equivalent to one that they could purchase in an earlier period."

The CPI uses a cost of living approach. It's the most commonly used measure, but even so there are different variations: the CPI-U as the headline number; the CPI-W used for Social Security COLA; the CPI-E, an experimental index based on weights for the elderly; and the CCPI-U, the chained consumer price index.

I'm curious as to how you think measuring the change in prices to maintain a constant standard of living is not a measure of inflation.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yep.

The substitution means as cheap Chinese goods are substituted, the CPI doesn't move as fast as it should.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying that a drop in prices should not be included in an index measuring change in prices??
 
pinqy said:
There is no such thing as THE inflation rate....the CPI is A measure of inflation. The PPI, the ECI, the PCE, the HICP, the import price index, the export price index, the GDP deflator, the etc are all measures of inflation. As for BLS saying the CPI is not a measure of inflation....from BLS: Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions
"Various indexes have been devised to measure different aspects of inflation. The CPI measures inflation as experienced by consumers in their day-to-day living expenses; the Producer Price Index (PPI) measures inflation at earlier stages of the production process; the Employment Cost Index (ECI) measures it in the labor market; the BLS International Price Program measures it for imports and exports; and the Gross Domestic Product Deflator (GDP Deflator) measures inflation experienced by both consumers themselves as well as governments and other institutions providing goods and services to consumers. Finally, there are specialized measures, such as measures of interest rates.

The "best" measure of inflation for a given application depends on the intended use of the data. The CPI is generally the best measure for adjusting payments to consumers when the intent is to allow consumers to purchase at today's prices, a market basket of goods and services equivalent to one that they could purchase in an earlier period."

The CPI uses a cost of living approach. It's the most commonly used measure, but even so there are different variations: the CPI-U as the headline number; the CPI-W used for Social Security COLA; the CPI-E, an experimental index based on weights for the elderly; and the CCPI-U, the chained consumer price index.

I'm curious as to how you think measuring the change in prices to maintain a constant standard of living is not a measure of inflation.
Click to expand...

I am not playing some childish pissing contest with you because you like to come on here and try and brow beat people with your (supposed) bureaucratic techno speak that (seems) to pad your own ego.

The BLS already admitted that the CPI is NOT an inflation indicator but a cost of living/inflation hybrid.

Plus, they have admitted that they have, on numerous occasions, changed the way they calculate the CPI.

Both of these prove that the CPI is NOT a measure if inflation.

You have a problem with that...take it up with your (supposed) buddies at your (supposed) old place of business...I am only quoting them.


Btw, it is my opinion that the CPI was a far better inflation indicator 20-30 years ago then it is now.
If you don't agree, please take it up with ShadowStats.com.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
I am not playing some childish pissing contest with you because you like to come on here and try and brow beat people with your (supposed) bureaucratic techno speak that (seems) to pad your own ego.

The BLS already admitted that the CPI is NOT an inflation indicator but a cost of living/inflation hybrid.

Plus, they have admitted that they have, on numerous occasions, changed the way they calculate the CPI.

Both of these prove that the CPI is NOT a measure if inflation.

You have a problem with that...take it up with your (supposed) buddies at your (supposed) old place of business...I am only quoting them.
Click to expand...

But you are not quoting them saying it is not a measure of inflation. You are inferring that from talk of the cost of living approach. I quoted them directly saying it is a measure of inflation, so why are you ignoring that?

A cost of living index IS a measure of inflation. I have no idea why you think it's not. But you latch onto one part of the site talking about the CPI as a cost of living index (well, emulating a COLI), and ignore all the other parts of the very same site that refer to it as a measure of inflation.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Wouldn't such an amendment imply that the government has operated illegitimately since 1947? This sounds like a recipe for all kinds of chaos.
Click to expand...

on the issue of the AF yes it would, congress has long since passed followed constitutional procedures for doing things
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Madison's writings are not legally binding documents. The same goes for Jefferson, Adams and Washington. The constitution is the legal binding document where all laws must derive. Laws not based on the constitution are illegitimate. Laws based on Madison's writings are equally illegitimate even if he did sign the constitution.

Turtledude will be giving us a pie chart shortly seperating constitutional spending and non-constitutional spending. When he does that we will all know the difference.
Click to expand...

again what is gave you is not what the founders though later on, ....but what they said as the ACTULAL clauses I mentioned..... was being discussed and debated on while still framing the constitution.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually the principles have not really changed. The founding fathers believed in public education, they believed in welfare, they believed in infrastrucuture.

The difference is that our economy as well as our demographics has changed... particularly from an agrarian society where the majority could grow or obtain their own food.. to and industrialized society where people buy food with wages.

Distinctly different economies with different advantages and disadvantages.
Click to expand...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Don't see education there. Guess that it is part of the "general welfare" part which was a responsibility of parents and then a responsibility of local school boards. (Although when I talked to teachers their mantra was "We aren't responsible-it is up to parents and the student"). Don't think that they considered welfare for individuals part of "general welfare". They did believe in infrastructure as part of "general welfare".

And the main purpose of government is to secure liberty.
 
ernst barkmann said:
your incorrect....you need to read the constitutional conventions notes on the clauses of the constitution was they are being created, and understand what the founders are talking about,[what is in their minds] forts are federal property , and are not manned by state militia.

i will get you started:

Founders' Constitution: Table of Contents

what i posted to you from the founders, is directly taken from the convention when discussing those clauses i posted........the founders clearly state there will be a small standing army.
Click to expand...

Ernst.. its simple.. please show me exactly in the CONSTITUTION exactly where it provides for a standing federal army. We can find LOTS of things in the constitutional conventions.. lots of things that were discussed lots of things that were eventually in the constitution and lots of things that did not end up in the Constitution. The constitution puts clear limits on the military. It spells out a navy.. It does not spell out a federal army.. it does not spell out "a small standing army".
It certainly does NOT spell out the army that we have today...not directly in any shape or form.
 
TurtleDude said:
why are you asking me this?
Click to expand...

Just like to know if you have any rationale for stating the constitution provides for an air force since it, nor any other of the above things are specifically written into the constitution.
 
Eric7216 said:
Don't see education there. Guess that it is part of the "general welfare" part which was a responsibility of parents and then a responsibility of local school boards. (Although when I talked to teachers their mantra was "We aren't responsible-it is up to parents and the student"). Don't think that they considered welfare for individuals part of "general welfare". They did believe in infrastructure as part of "general welfare".

And the main purpose of government is to secure liberty.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did consider welfare part of general welfare. Not to the degree that it is now, but then as I stated they did had a more agrarian society and not the industrialized society that we have today.
 
jaeger19 said:
Ernst.. its simple.. please show me exactly in the CONSTITUTION exactly where it provides for a standing federal army. We can find LOTS of things in the constitutional conventions.. lots of things that were discussed lots of things that were eventually in the constitution and lots of things that did not end up in the Constitution. The constitution puts clear limits on the military. It spells out a navy.. It does not spell out a federal army.. it does not spell out "a small standing army".
It certainly does NOT spell out the army that we have today...not directly in any shape or form.
Click to expand...

Article 2, section 8 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Article 2, section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

So clearly the Constitution does provide for an Army of the United States, as distinct from the Militia (or how could the President be Commander in Chief of it?)
Yes, there is a restriction on the funding, but that's not the same as saying no standing army, just stricter control on it.
 
longview said:
https://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html
The Treasury Bulletin says on budget receipts and borrowing was $3,068,252
DOD 19% $585,950
VA 4.8% $149,501
HHS 31.3% $962,354
Debt 13.6% $419,797
So your pie chart looks a little off.
Click to expand...

It's more than a little off, considering the pie chart which shows the military getting more than 50 percent of all the money! Maybe HHS and the DOD got mixed up on the chart?

Greetings, Longview. :2wave:
 
jaeger19 said:
Ernst.. its simple.. please show me exactly in the CONSTITUTION exactly where it provides for a standing federal army. We can find LOTS of things in the constitutional conventions.. lots of things that were discussed lots of things that were eventually in the constitution and lots of things that did not end up in the Constitution. The constitution puts clear limits on the military. It spells out a navy.. It does not spell out a federal army.. it does not spell out "a small standing army".
It certainly does NOT spell out the army that we have today...not directly in any shape or form.
Click to expand...

I agree it does not spell out the current army we have, an amendment would solve that problem, as I believe many of the things the founders did not envisioned we would have to deal with.



"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

HERE- is Hamilton, speaking on the very clause I posted

"The institutions alluded to are STANDING ARMIES, and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies it is said are not provided against in the new constitution; and it is therefore inferred, that they may exist under it.1 Their existence however from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical & uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which requires a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them.

Madison on the clause

Is the power of raising armies, and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.
 
pinqy said:
Wait, you're saying that a drop in prices should not be included in an index measuring change in prices??
Click to expand...
Correct.

Our ability to get cheaper products through trade or automation should improve our living. Not be maintained at a standstill because of it.

Take a TV for example. They go down in price year after year. How about basing it on the newest technology rather than the falling price.

720P

Then 1080P

Now 4K televisions for example.
 
Actually the two biggest factors that don't receive enough weigh in my opinion is property prices and food prices. Any COLA calculation, benefits, union wage scales increases, etc. are slipping in value because the necessities in life aren't given enough weight in the calculation.
 
pinqy said:
Article 2, section 8 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Article 2, section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

So clearly the Constitution does provide for an Army of the United States, as distinct from the Militia (or how could the President be Commander in Chief of it?)
Yes, there is a restriction on the funding, but that's not the same as saying no standing army, just stricter control on it.
Click to expand...

When called into service.. and clearly they limited the appropriation of money to terms of two years. They can raise an army.. yes.. when attacked, etc.. they cannot have the standing army that we have today.

that's why its to raise and support armies . It wasn't to have an army.. certainly not the army we have today... it was so that we could raise armies when needed.

Unlike the NAVY which is specifically provided for.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yes, they did consider welfare part of general welfare. Not to the degree that it is now, but then as I stated they did had a more agrarian society and not the industrialized society that we have today.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Washington only had 4 in his cabinet, Treasury, State, War, and Attorney General. By the time of Teddy Roosevelt a few were added, Commerce and Labor (combined), Navy, Postmaster, Interior, and Agriculture. Even by FDR's time there wasn't much concern about individual welfare. In his 1935 State of the Union, FDR stated:
A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.
Click to expand...

Seems like he did not like welfare. It was only recently that we added these programs. I believe that it was a product of the Christian revivals of 1930s and the 1970s. Christianity is so much more concerned about the poor and charity and the evils of wealth compared to any other religion or philosophy (except for perhaps Marxism, which, of course, sprang from Judeo-Christian morality while leaving god out of it).
A good country should spend limited resources where they would do the most good. It is hard to imaging that spending $20,000 each on 50 million people who can't/won't support themselves does more good for the country than $100 billion on medical research, product safety testing, better roads and buildings, etc.
At the very least, there should be a logical objective rationale for welfare spending, as opposed to a moralistic one. Up to now, it doesn't seem to be doing much good and the problems that it was supposed to solve seem to be escalating. IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom