• 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!

The real source of our problems....

SEE POST BELOW FOR QUESTION

  • You're nuts

    Votes: 13 52.0%
  • Come to think of it, we're always at war and trillions in debt

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • I just don't know

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • I just don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    25

sKiTzo

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
2,671
Reaction score
535
Location
OC California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
War is a business to them. If there is no war, they have to start one or they lose profits. Exorbitant profits.. OUR TAX DOLLARS>>>>>>"DEFENSE" SPENDING>>>>>TRILLIONS>>> MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Do you honestly think we would be in any more "danger" had we not been at war the last two decades and spent zillions? Could you maybe see how they might have contrived these wars for profit and/or private agenda?

Poll Question: Am I crazy to say that those who run the "military industrial complex" have hijacked our government and are sucking us dry?
 
Yeah! Saddam never did anything wrong!
 
you made another thread.

I shall utter the same response.

The majority of US debt comes from:

-Big bank bailouts. Goldman Sachs, the Koch brothers, JP Morgan... those people.
-Medical program failure...
-social security and entitlement programs failure
and least but not last.

-military spending.

In that order.

That being said.. if you would solve the big banks problem and Wall street... you would have virtually only 33% of the debt the US is in now. I mean it.
 
War is a business to them. If there is no war, they have to start one or they lose profits. Exorbitant profits.. OUR TAX DOLLARS>>>>>>"DEFENSE" SPENDING>>>>>TRILLIONS>>> MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Do you honestly think we would be in any more "danger" had we not been at war the last two decades and spent zillions? Could you maybe see how they might have contrived these wars for profit and/or private agenda?

Poll Question: Am I crazy to say that those who run the "military industrial complex" have hijacked our government and are sucking us dry?

If one looks past all the CAPS and bold phrases, your post boils down to: "Do you honestly think we would be in any more "danger" had we not been at war the last two decades"

I think the answer is: Yes.
 
Its politicians that create war not the military...the military only goes where politicians tell them or allow them to go, seems your complaints whether legitimate or not are misplaced. You should rail on the politicians who start war and who are in fact in charge of what the military does and where it goes.
 
you made another thread.

I shall utter the same response.

The majority of US debt comes from:

-Big bank bailouts. Goldman Sachs, the Koch brothers, JP Morgan... those people.
-Medical program failure...
-social security and entitlement programs failure
and least but not last.

-military spending.

In that order.

That being said.. if you would solve the big banks problem and Wall street... you would have virtually only 33% of the debt the US is in now. I mean it.

Considering the combined cost of the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been almost 4 trillion dollars, you're statement is entirely false. Unless you honestly believe we've given 4 trillion in bailouts?

Not to mention these are the direct additional costs of running the wars, not the amount we pay for maintaining such a large military.
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters
 
Its politicians that create war not the military...the military only goes where politicians tell them or allow them to go, seems your complaints whether legitimate or not are misplaced. You should rail on the politicians who start war and who are in fact in charge of what the military does and where it goes.

The fact that you feel you need to explain that the military itself doesn't create war shows that you apparently do not understand the definition of the term "Military–industrial complex"

This term includes the politicians, corporations, lobbyists, and other such relationships that decide when, where, how and with what war is waged.

"Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex[1], is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry"
 
Considering the combined cost of the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been almost 4 trillion dollars, you're statement is entirely false. Unless you honestly believe we've given 4 trillion in bailouts?

Not to mention these are the direct additional costs of running the wars, not the amount we pay for maintaining such a large military.
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters

Your post here is a ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison, as you A) assume that 100% of spent money represents borrowed money and B) add in interest for that borrowed money to the cost and C) add in all future assessed liabilities. And that's before I get into the ridiculous nature of your source, which started with their conclusion and worked backwards.

However, by the standards you have proposed, the wars cost $3.7 Trillion. Social Security costs more than $8.6 Trillion. And Medicare costs more than $38.6 Trillion (I have not included the interest for the debt for either of those, which needless to say would radically increase their score).


defense-entitlement-spending-680.jpg



The military is expensive. But it's not the thing driving our debt.
 
Your post here is a ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison, as you A) assume that 100% of spent money represents borrowed money and B) add in interest for that borrowed money to the cost and C) add in all future assessed liabilities. And that's before I get into the ridiculous nature of your source, which started with their conclusion and worked backwards.

However, by the standards you have proposed, the wars cost $3.7 Trillion. Social Security costs more than $8.6 Trillion. And Medicare costs more than $38.6 Trillion (I have not included the interest for the debt for either of those, which needless to say would radically increase their score).


http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/defense-entitlement-spending-680.jpg[/igm]


The military is expensive. But it's not the thing driving our debt.[/QUOTE]

It's not a ridiculous apples-oranges comparison to compare government expenditures in relation to government debt. Rainman05 made the statement that the bailouts were more than the wars, which is factually untrue, regardless of how you cut it.

When you view the federal budget simply as net income and expenditures, all expenditures greater than income must become debt. Every single expenditure, from war, to bailouts, to medicare, to everything else, counts equally under expenditures.

It's rather arbitrary to say "We charged the bailouts on the credit card but paid the war in cash."

Lastly, are you really trying to assert that the war hasn't costed 3.7 billion dollars? Do I really require more sources?
 
Considering the combined cost of the wars in afghanistan and iraq has been almost 4 trillion dollars, you're statement is entirely false. Unless you honestly believe we've given 4 trillion in bailouts?

Not to mention these are the direct additional costs of running the wars, not the amount we pay for maintaining such a large military.
Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters


True, 4 tril dollars. Lets say all the money went to the debt thought, 4tril over 11 years means less than 400bil/year which is covered in the military spending approved by the budget.

But lets say it went to the deficit... and thus, the debt.
4 tril out of 16tril.

We know that 2.5tril are from foreign nations... about 1.7tril is from china while the rest are from various European countries.

So that still leaves 9.5tril unaccounted for... and that 9.5 comes from the bailouts to the banks. The entitlement programs. Everything I mentioned before.
 
It's not a ridiculous apples-oranges comparison to compare government expenditures in relation to government debt. Rainman05 made the statement that the bailouts were more than the wars, which is factually untrue, regardless of how you cut it.

true especially considering that much of TARP was paid back.

When you view the federal budget simply as net income and expenditures, all expenditures greater than income must become debt. Every single expenditure, from war, to bailouts, to medicare, to everything else, counts equally under expenditures.

then for purposes of comparison between programs, either all spending must be counted as attached to debt, or all spending must be counted free of debt. You cannot attach interest to the score of spending you don't like, and not attach it to spending you prefer to score low.

Lastly, are you really trying to assert that the war hasn't costed 3.7 billion dollars? Do I really require more sources?

I am asserting that the war has not cost $3.7 Trillion. I add in that the point that claims that it has cost that much are counting future liabilities against current costs which, as I have demonstrated, would only result in putting war spending back in its' place as far below entitlements.


This is why the best form of comparison is spending as a % of GDP. It gives you a real time snapshot of comparative spending.
 
Your post here is a ridiculous apples-to-oranges comparison, as you A) assume that 100% of spent money represents borrowed money and B) add in interest for that borrowed money to the cost and C) add in all future assessed liabilities. And that's before I get into the ridiculous nature of your source, which started with their conclusion and worked backwards.

However, by the standards you have proposed, the wars cost $3.7 Trillion. Social Security costs more than $8.6 Trillion. And Medicare costs more than $38.6 Trillion (I have not included the interest for the debt for either of those, which needless to say would radically increase their score).


defense-entitlement-spending-680.jpg



The military is expensive. But it's not the thing driving our debt.


Marine what you havent included in your numbers....is Military Pay and benefits and healthcare costs...add that and the cost goes up significantly.
Comparing Social Security and Medicare to the military isnt a fair....Social Security and Medicare cover vastly more people and it is taxed from them for their entire lifetimes.
You know I love the military and I stand by them and what they do and what they need 500% this is not about them
 
The fact that you feel you need to explain that the military itself doesn't create war shows that you apparently do not understand the definition of the term "Military–industrial complex"

This term includes the politicians, corporations, lobbyists, and other such relationships that decide when, where, how and with what war is waged.

"Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex[1], is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry"



I do understand that....but standing way out in front of that pack are the politicians...thats my perspective.
 
Marine what you havent included in your numbers....is Military Pay and benefits and healthcare costs...add that and the cost goes up significantly.

Actually that is included.

Comparing Social Security and Medicare to the military isnt a fair....Social Security and Medicare cover vastly more people and it is taxed from them for their entire lifetimes.

:shrug: and people are taxed to pay for the military. those programs continue to be the main drivers of our debt - especially Medicare. That is why that program needs reform - if we do not find a way to reign in costs while still extending the maximum possible protection to our lower-income seniors, then it will collapse, and they will be left in the cold :(.

You know I love the military and I stand by them and what they do and what they need 500% this is not about them

well, take that that up with alpaca, as he seems to think that cutting dod spending will produce some kind of nirvana.
 
:shrug: and people are taxed to pay for the military. those programs continue to be the main drivers of our debt - especially Medicare. That is why that program needs reform - if we do not find a way to reign in costs while still extending the maximum possible protection to our lower-income seniors, then it will collapse, and they will be left in the cold :(.

There is a reform up and running isn't there? Or at least scheduled to be up and running.
And that is Obamacare. A brand new tax on the population. :)
 
Actually that is included.



:shrug: and people are taxed to pay for the military. those programs continue to be the main drivers of our debt - especially Medicare. That is why that program needs reform - if we do not find a way to reign in costs while still extending the maximum possible protection to our lower-income seniors, then it will collapse, and they will be left in the cold :(.



well, take that that up with alpaca, as he seems to think that cutting dod spending will produce some kind of nirvana.



You could have had medicare reform Cp...but the far right blew it. How in the world they believed that somehow they could get away with giving tax cuts to the rich in the same plan that cuts medicare defies reason. Ryan had a golden opportunity to become a Super Star in American Politics and he threw it away by adding a huge tax cut for only the top 2% of our richest and corporations.
 
So that still leaves 9.5tril unaccounted for... and that 9.5 comes from the bailouts to the banks. The entitlement programs. Everything I mentioned before.
I'm anti-TARP, but as CPWill pointed out, most of that money was, or will be paid back. Even if it wasn't, the number is still substantially lower than the rest.

well, take that that up with alpaca, as he seems to think that cutting dod spending will produce some kind of nirvana.

Yep, you nailed it. I stated that cutting DOD spending would usher in a new era of prosperity and freedom. Let's give three cheers for america! Hip hip!

What I actually stated was that he was wrong in his statement about the costs to the taxpayers of the war.

I can personally think of about a million better ways to spend $3.7 billion dollars than by pissing it away on s***holes like afghanistan and iraq, on people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If taxes must be collected, I'd rather have them spent on our OWN PEOPLE than the slums of other nations.
 
You could have had medicare reform Cp...but the far right blew it. How in the world they believed that somehow they could get away with giving tax cuts to the rich in the same plan that cuts medicare defies reason. Ryan had a golden opportunity to become a Super Star in American Politics and he threw it away by adding a huge tax cut for only the top 2% of our richest and corporations.

:doh you think that 100% of the American populace represents the top 2%? Ryan's plan included across the board nominal tax rate reductions; and tax reform is critical if we want to spur the kind of growth that will allow us to fund Medicare going forward.
 
I'm anti-TARP, but as CPWill pointed out, most of that money was, or will be paid back. Even if it wasn't, the number is still substantially lower than the rest.



Yep, you nailed it. I stated that cutting DOD spending would usher in a new era of prosperity and freedom. Let's give three cheers for america! Hip hip!

What I actually stated was that he was wrong in his statement about the costs to the taxpayers of the war.

I can personally think of about a million better ways to spend $3.7 billion dollars than by pissing it away on s***holes like afghanistan and iraq, on people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If taxes must be collected, I'd rather have them spent on our OWN PEOPLE than the slums of other nations.

I agree with this but the issue is that military spending is not the real source of the problem. It is one of the sources for the problem, but the real source is something else... big banks and wall street bailouts, failed medicare programs and a failed social security program for the masses.
 
:doh you think that 100% of the American populace represents the top 2%? Ryan's plan included across the board nominal tax rate reductions; and tax reform is critical if we want to spur the kind of growth that will allow us to fund Medicare going forward.

Nonesense and you know it....his tax cut was targeted directly at the rich and no one else was getting squat...lets remember something Cp...ryan brought out 4 plans all slightly different...his first was purely tax cuts for the rich and thats what turned many people against him and his plan...after he came out with the second FAILED attempt with tax cuts for the rich he was basically done....now the the 3rd and 4th variations are being ignored
You cant tell people that we cant AFFORD your program that you paid for....but we can certainly afford a 25% tax cut for those that dont need it at all....Reform is not take from here and give to the rich....
 
I agree with this but the issue is that military spending is not the real source of the problem. It is one of the sources for the problem, but the real source is something else... big banks and wall street bailouts, failed medicare programs and a failed social security program for the masses.
The REAL source of the problem is having expenditures greater than income. Our politicians mouths write checks that our citizens' asses can't cash. The wars are one of the many many sources we have contributing to our debt, but certainly not all.
 
...
The majority of US debt comes from:

-Big bank bailouts. Goldman Sachs, the Koch brothers, JP Morgan... those people.
-Medical program failure...
-social security and entitlement programs failure
and least but not last.

-military spending.

In that order.

That being said.. if you would solve the big banks problem and Wall street... you would have virtually only 33% of the debt the US is in now. I mean it.
What is missing from a lot of these posts is how much of social security coosts are wasted. Or, another example, with the big bank bailouts there is a cost of not bailing them out. I'm a retired design engineer so when I was describing problems to peers where costs were an issue I had to describe in detail losses and gains in what happened and what would happen. Otherwise it's just assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Why does sKiTzo keep asking people if he is nuts?
 
What is missing from a lot of these posts is how much of social security coosts are wasted. Or, another example, with the big bank bailouts there is a cost of not bailing them out. I'm a retired design engineer so when I was describing problems to peers where costs were an issue I had to describe in detail losses and gains in what happened and what would happen. Otherwise it's just assumptions.

The problem wasn't the bailout... but the way the bailout was done.

They bailed out the banks and imposed stupid conditions if any conditions at all. If a bank would have been given 200bil dollars of taxpayer money as bailout, said bank should have wiped 200bil dollars off the debt private citizens held. In other words, if the bank had 20mil clients, out of which 10mil had debts, each one of those citizens should have been 20k less in debt from the debt they owed the bank. Moreover, their credit should have also been frozen as if they had the 20k $ debt... so they wouldn't just go about borrowing more money for whatever needs.

That would have been a good bailout deal. I hope it is clear what I wanted.

Another condition that I would have liked to see was the division of the big banks. Take goldman sachs and rip it in 4 smaller banks that would not be allowed to merge afterwards for an indefinite period of time. Divide them how? According to state lines. So for example you would have goldman sachs in the pacific states... jimmy sachs in the midwest, lololoo bank in the south and gigolo bank in the atlantic. Then, proceed to deny each of those banks further expansion outside of their geographical area... so that they would have only a limited amount of capital at their disposal. Therefore, break up the "too big to fail" thing.
 
Follow the currency and you'll find reasoning for our military exploits.

It all boils down to other countries trying to sell their commodities in other currencies than the dollar. However, when they start doing that in oil...well we can't have that at all.

Iraq did it by switching from the dollar to the euro in oil sales. Next thing you knew, the U.S. government was saying that Hussein had terrorist links and WMDs...that was proven false so then they gave the BS reasoning of "liberating Iraqis." Truth is that we didn't approve of them not using the dollar as the basis of their oil sales. When we went to war with Iraq...they suddenly started selling oil in dollars again at a substantial profit loss.

Libya was the same way. We supported the rebels due to what? Spreading democracy and liberating the people? Not quite because Gaddafi was in the planning stages of changing oil sales from the dollar to a new African gold currency called the Dinar...well we couldn't have that apparently because soon after the government was overthrown...the Libyan Central Bank was set up backed by the dollar.

Iran has been planning for years to get their oil sales off the dollar. Now we are using the same rhetoric against them that we did to Iraq. We don't take into account that Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 1700s or that Ahmadinejad is a puppet president. No, we just claim it is dangerous and they will attack an ally and there is no indication that they would do anything of the sort. Iran is all bark and no bite but if you look at the currency and what they are trying to do with their oil...it makes a ton of sense why we want another war.

Our currency is the root of our problems because it is inflating and devaluing by the day. Other countries want to get out of it before it brings them down like it will bring us down eventually.
 
Back
Top Bottom