Reply With Quote
The baseline is way too high IMO. Much of our defense spending is unrelated to national defense or disproportionate to the threats.
Because of current actions, the last few years increase. Again, look at the long term trend instead of those short ones you claim are evidence of AGW. The trend is most definitely lowering. Once we leave the ME, and don't engage in other things, it will probably be the lowest spending since WWII.
The baseline is way too high IMO. Much of our defense spending is unrelated to national defense or disproportionate to the threats.
pffft.
In Iraq, we just transferred that spending to the State Department and independent contractors.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm only saying that the levels of military costs will decrease. We don't have to work on that issue. These costs are of cyclic nature and at a high point now, and will decrease when we get out of Afghanistan... Unless Obama throws us into Iran...
Social spending, however, has only an upward trend, and will do serious damage to this nation if we don't get a handle on it.
The long term trend is UP. I know you're pretty damn bad with data, but when your first value is lower than the last value, the trend is UP.
wow a study was needed to show fewer impoverished mouths = less spending by the tax payer?
On the spending side, he's at least attempting to take on the spending issues that need to be addressed. He hits defense as well as en lements, so kudos to him for acknowledging that reality.
I'm not as big a fan of what he's got on his revenue side. I'm all for simplifying the tax code with lower marginal rates and minimal to zero deductions, but it looks like he just wants a single bracket with the whole thing ending up revenue neutral. I used to be a fan of the single bracket concept, but have softened that stance and would be okay with a 2 or 3 bracket system. Whatever we do also needs to be revenue positive. The cuts need to be a of a lot bigger than the revenue, but the revenue needs to be greater than zero.
My thoughts after all of 15 minutes of browsing his plan.........
You do know that all of the GOP candidates for president have pretty much come out and said they would go the military route, so they can differentiate themselves with the "softie" liberal in office, right?
Its a bunch of bull , of course, suitable Koolaid for the faithful. Still, one has to wonder.
Ask me about what happened to the crime rates roughly 18 years after Roe v. Wade.
Some people don't like that sniglet either.
The sudden jump in social spending during 2008 shows what happens when people get unemployed.
Astonishingly enough, they need unemployment insurance and other financial assistance.
That is what they are there for. They will automatically drop as people get back to work, while at the same time, revenue will magically go up for the same reason.
Hopefully we will get out of Afghaniswamp soon.
What happened to the crime rates roughly 18 years after Roe v Wade? God bless
The trend line slopes in the same direction of the defense spending trendline.
..... if you turn that graph upside down.
RG, nevermind. I read a bunch of articles and concluded it's impossible to determine that crime has been reduced because of legalized abortions. In fact some stats say violent crimes have gone up since that decision and some stats say people don't report certain crimes anymore. Best results i found confirming your opinion is crime has gone down 2 percent overall. With all that said, impossible to conclude roe vs wade had anything to do with crime. If anything that decision probably saved hundreds of women lives per year and killed over 50 millions babies. God bless.
You are freaking me out a little bit. Are you suddenly channeling Santorum?
No, just read some articles. RG got me curious. God bless
There's good example. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I can't disagree with that at all. There is so damned much waste and crony spending in the military, we could make HUGE cuts without reducing our actual defensive capabilities. Unfortunately, those things are the sacred cows of defense spending. When they do make cuts, they make sure not to touch those en lements.
As for the article, I'm willing to say "it's possible". It's logical, but I'm not so sure that reality will line up with theory. One potential problem is that most, if not all women, can get contraceptives free or for 9 bucks per month, through le X. I know it's unpleasant, but there are lot of people who just won't use them consistently, no matter what they cost. , credible studies show that something like 40-50% of ALL medications aren't taken correctly.
In the past, we have spent a lot of money on programs that promised to save lots more money down the road, but didn't. I'm skeptical of the 5-to-1 savings promised in this study, but I think it might at least be net positive in the long run. In my book, anyone who thinks they should prevent a pregnancy, definitely should.
But there are a handful of reasons why I object to this particular program. They don't have anything to do with hating women, or poor people, or people of color, or any of the other scapegoat slogans being tossed around. Once again, I think it would be worthwhile for people to listen, instead of instantly demonizing the people who don't agree.
You do realize that correlation doesn't prove a cause/effect relationship? Strike that - I know you understand it.
Are you open minded enough to at least listen to some reasons why the studies are skewed? (I think intentionally so.) I'm not talking about pitting this study vs. that study, or quoting some conservative blog with its own agenda. And I'm not even saying that there is not truth to the idea that unwanted kids commit more crimes. I just don't like skewed studies - even when they try to confirm something on "my side" of the fence. Yep, I know it's hard to believe, but I get just as pissed about the manipulative, bull right-wing "studies" where the conclusion is decided before the study is done.
All I'm saying is that even if there was a real world cause/effect relationship between Roe v Wade and the drop in violent crime, it is VASTLY over-stated by the studies.
One reason the "Roe effect" carries so much weight is because it is logical. Unwanted kids commit more crime. Let me ask you this, as long as we're turning what seems logical into reality. When this new free-birth-control-for-all goes into effect, isn't it logical that there should be a HUGE drop in the number of abortions across the country? And shouldn't the reduction in abortions be especially large in those urban areas where, logically, more women can't afford contraception? I'll make a friendly wager that it doesn't work out that way.
So below what income level do you think will be the most effective at eliminating all those potential criminals?
Government should pay anyone who wants their tubes tied or a vasectomy $5,000 or something.
everybody wins
Studies show that it would save tax payers if there weren't social programs
The trend is up in dollar amounts, but down in per capita amounts.
I challenge you to take the same OMB dada I did, and run a linear trend line through it with Excel.
Put up or shut up... Money talks, bull walks...
How about I just cherry pick my data like the AGW community does. Is this better?
I'll save you the work, because I doubt you know how to use Excel:
It doesn't surprise me. You are always saying stupid things like accusing me of not understanding thermodynamics, but then not saying what part you think I don't understand. Maybe you know I would prove your stupid ass wrong if you made a specific allegation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
