Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 331







Post#8251 at 05-19-2012 12:04 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
05-19-2012, 12:04 PM #8251
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Bi-partisanship:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...t-in-99-0-vote

A budget resolution based on President Obama’s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday. In a 99-0 vote, all of the senators present rejected the president’s blueprint. It’s the second year in a row the Senate has voted down Obama’s budget...







Post#8252 at 05-21-2012 10:55 AM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
05-21-2012, 10:55 AM #8252
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

"Dan Rather slammed corporate media on Friday night, alleging that news coverage is guided by political interests and profits," begins a piece at Huffpost this morning. It is rare that a corporate celebrity journalist tells the truth in the Land of the Free around the standard propaganda lines, risking their multimillion dollar salary, but this is a rare glimpse.

"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#8253 at 05-21-2012 11:26 AM by ASB65 [at Texas joined Mar 2010 #posts 5,892]
---
05-21-2012, 11:26 AM #8253
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
Texas
Posts
5,892

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
"Dan Rather slammed corporate media on Friday night, alleging that news coverage is guided by political interests and profits," begins a piece at Huffpost this morning. It is rare that a corporate celebrity journalist tells the truth in the Land of the Free around the standard propaganda lines, risking their multimillion dollar salary, but this is a rare glimpse.

Well, I could have told you that. Of course the media has very close ties to the politicians. They socialize with each other in their private lives. They are all friends and neighbors. When my uncle worked for CBS all his neighbors and associates were politicians. My cousin and Newt Gingrich's daughter carpooled to cheerleading practice together. And when she got married in the 1990's she received a wedding present from Bill and Hillary...And my uncle was also very good friends with Dan Rather. When my uncle died a few years ago, Dan Rather came to his funeral, so I'm pretty certain that Dan Rather was also in the clique. And wasn't Dan Rather's son one of the heads of Fannie Mae?...Maybe I'm thinking of different journalist, but I know he was the son of one those big journalists.







Post#8254 at 05-21-2012 12:52 PM by puravidavid [at Carlsbad, California joined Dec 2006 #posts 68]
---
05-21-2012, 12:52 PM #8254
Join Date
Dec 2006
Location
Carlsbad, California
Posts
68

After November's elections, this is certain, the continuing demand for change will oust incumbant politicians viewed as poor leaders, a projection of the mass social mood onto those hapless men and women. These so-called leaders are tools of the global corporations who's executives rarely get voted out by docile shareholders, leaving them ample continuity to exert the dominant influence over tax and spending legislation. Why else, without massive taxpayer subsidies, has their concentration of income and wealth grown as it has over the past 30 years, while all else have stagnted?
Follow the money but be led by your heart...







Post#8255 at 05-21-2012 01:07 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
05-21-2012, 01:07 PM #8255
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by puravidavid View Post
After November's elections, this is certain, the continuing demand for change will oust incumbant politicians viewed as poor leaders, a projection of the mass social mood onto those hapless men and women. These so-called leaders are tools of the global corporations who's executives rarely get voted out by docile shareholders, leaving them ample continuity to exert the dominant influence over tax and spending legislation. Why else, without massive taxpayer subsidies, has their concentration of income and wealth grown as it has over the past 30 years, while all else have stagnted?
And wars will be fought for *their* benefit while our children die in them.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#8256 at 05-21-2012 01:16 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
05-21-2012, 01:16 PM #8256
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by puravidavid View Post
After November's elections, this is certain, the continuing demand for change will oust incumbant politicians viewed as poor leaders, a projection of the mass social mood onto those hapless men and women. These so-called leaders are tools of the global corporations who's executives rarely get voted out by docile shareholders, leaving them ample continuity to exert the dominant influence over tax and spending legislation. Why else, without massive taxpayer subsidies, has their concentration of income and wealth grown as it has over the past 30 years, while all else have stagnated?
War is a racket!
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#8257 at 05-21-2012 09:31 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
05-21-2012, 09:31 PM #8257
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

http://www.fox59.com/news/politics/w...6719530.column

I wonder what happens if we end up with politicians completely incapable of compromise except to sell out to the most powerful people in America. Ultimately that becomes ineffective -- right?
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#8258 at 05-21-2012 11:55 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
05-21-2012, 11:55 PM #8258
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Unnecessary ‘wars’ are abhorrent.







Post#8259 at 05-22-2012 09:56 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
05-22-2012, 09:56 AM #8259
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
Unnecessary ‘wars’ are abhorrent.
But only to the rational, honest, humane mind.

Someone who has the moral and cultural blinders that shield one from awareness of the cost of war to the common man but puts the focus instead upon power and profit can see war as a lucrative enterprise, a means of expanding control of captive markets, securing command of cheap labor and natural resources, and gaining on the economic actors of lesser ruthlessness. It's good for advancing careers in certain government bureaucracies (typically ministries of war and propaganda). It's good for distracting people from the boredom, the poverty, and the meaninglessness of life. It's good for sacrificing "surplus people" who can be given a uniform, a rifle, and orders to keep firing the rifle until ordered to stop firing (death or crippling injury often being accepted as the noblest excuse for stopping). Unemployed people can be drawn into numbing work in war industries that produce objects that have no civilian use rather than be put to work making consumer goods.

It is great for formulating bromides that glorify the most pointless tragedy as the consummate expression of human virtue. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori... bullhist! There's nothing sweet or wonderful about being blasted into smithereens when hit with an artillery shell or wandering onto a landmine. There's no delight in drowning as one's ship sinks, suffocating as one exhausts a vanishing air pocket in a foundering ship, or being cooked alive in the burning oil from what was recently an oil tanker. There is no beauty in being crushed in a military aircraft shot down or incinerated in a disabled tank. That's before I even discuss what can happen to civilians.

War used to well distinguish between military and civilian targets -- but in a Crisis war, the distinction is not so clear. The economy of the enemy is itself seen as a target for ruin. Governments tend to dedicate machine production, metal works, and motor fuels to warfare -- which makes oil fields, refineries, metal mills, vehicle assembly plants, and ball-bearing plants targets for air strikes. I am surprised that the housing for working people in defense plants was not seen as much a target as military barracks; in the next Crisis War they might also be.

Note that in the American Civil War the Union side offered the slaves upon whom the Confederacy depended for agricultural production the one thing that the Confederacy could never offer -- freedom. The Confederacy died not so much because of military defeats but instead because its economic system was gutted. In the First World War, a 3T war that increasingly took on Crisis characteristics, the German General Staff fostered revolutionary movements intended to knock out its enemies -- most obviously Russia.

I can predict the worst places to be in America during the next war between the United States and any significant enemy. We take such places for granted these days, but these places will be zones of consummate peril. Surely you saw images of the aftermath of the First Gulf War, including the carnage on the Highway of Death (Kuwait Highway 80, an expressway). Intelligence reports established that Iraqi soldiers were fleeing Kuwait in stolen vehicles of every kind from the subcompact vehicles of recent foreign workers to fire trucks. Coalition aircraft targeted such vehicles. (It was later discovered that there were civilian hostages. It is understandable that coalition aircraft would target troops fleeing in stolen vehicles. (Flight by soldiers in stolen vehicles is itself a crime).

Only an unprincipled thug -- a gangster -- could come up with this:

Quote Originally Posted by Benito Mussolini
War is to man what maternity is to a woman. From a philosophical and doctrinal viewpoint, I do not believe in perpetual peace.

War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and imposes the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to make it.
As long as humanity churns out leaders like that there will be wars.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#8260 at 05-22-2012 11:00 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
05-22-2012, 11:00 AM #8260
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
But only to the rational, honest, humane mind.

Someone who has the moral and cultural blinders that shield one from awareness of the cost of war to the common man but puts the focus instead upon power and profit can see war as a lucrative enterprise, a means of expanding control of captive markets, securing command of cheap labor and natural resources, and gaining on the economic actors of lesser ruthlessness. It's good for advancing careers in certain government bureaucracies (typically ministries of war and propaganda). It's good for distracting people from the boredom, the poverty, and the meaninglessness of life. It's good for sacrificing "surplus people" who can be given a uniform, a rifle, and orders to keep firing the rifle until ordered to stop firing (death or crippling injury often being accepted as the noblest excuse for stopping). Unemployed people can be drawn into numbing work in war industries that produce objects that have no civilian use rather than be put to work making consumer goods.

It is great for formulating bromides that glorify the most pointless tragedy as the consummate expression of human virtue. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori... bullhist! There's nothing sweet or wonderful about being blasted into smithereens when hit with an artillery shell or wandering onto a landmine. There's no delight in drowning as one's ship sinks, suffocating as one exhausts a vanishing air pocket in a foundering ship, or being cooked alive in the burning oil from what was recently an oil tanker. There is no beauty in being crushed in a military aircraft shot down or incinerated in a disabled tank. That's before I even discuss what can happen to civilians.

War used to well distinguish between military and civilian targets -- but in a Crisis war, the distinction is not so clear. The economy of the enemy is itself seen as a target for ruin. Governments tend to dedicate machine production, metal works, and motor fuels to warfare -- which makes oil fields, refineries, metal mills, vehicle assembly plants, and ball-bearing plants targets for air strikes. I am surprised that the housing for working people in defense plants was not seen as much a target as military barracks; in the next Crisis War they might also be.

Note that in the American Civil War the Union side offered the slaves upon whom the Confederacy depended for agricultural production the one thing that the Confederacy could never offer -- freedom. The Confederacy died not so much because of military defeats but instead because its economic system was gutted. In the First World War, a 3T war that increasingly took on Crisis characteristics, the German General Staff fostered revolutionary movements intended to knock out its enemies -- most obviously Russia.

I can predict the worst places to be in America during the next war between the United States and any significant enemy. We take such places for granted these days, but these places will be zones of consummate peril. Surely you saw images of the aftermath of the First Gulf War, including the carnage on the Highway of Death (Kuwait Highway 80, an expressway). Intelligence reports established that Iraqi soldiers were fleeing Kuwait in stolen vehicles of every kind from the subcompact vehicles of recent foreign workers to fire trucks. Coalition aircraft targeted such vehicles. (It was later discovered that there were civilian hostages. It is understandable that coalition aircraft would target troops fleeing in stolen vehicles. (Flight by soldiers in stolen vehicles is itself a crime).

Only an unprincipled thug -- a gangster -- could come up with this:



As long as humanity churns out leaders like that there will be wars.
Unfortunately , I don't see any end to wars. When the next big war starts( WWIII), I hope that we will be prepared to protect ourselves.







Post#8261 at 05-22-2012 03:40 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
05-22-2012, 03:40 PM #8261
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
Unfortunately , I don't see any end to wars. When the next big war starts( WWIII), I hope that we will be prepared to protect ourselves.
We could spend half of what we already do for defense and still be more than prepared to protect ourselves.

"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#8262 at 05-22-2012 04:11 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
05-22-2012, 04:11 PM #8262
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Keeping context

While the current proportions may not be what one prefers, I think it is important to keep in context the trend --




Perhaps the most interesting element is the interest on the debt. Remember: for every debt, a credit.

While there is no actual cost to us for federal debt (no tax increases, no inflation), there is a cost to the private sector from diminished interest payments on US Treasury bonds. It is a deflationary headwind that very few recognize.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#8263 at 05-22-2012 06:10 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-22-2012, 06:10 PM #8263
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
While the current proportions may not be what one prefers, I think it is important to keep in context the trend --




Perhaps the most interesting element is the interest on the debt. Remember: for every debt, a credit.

While there is no actual cost to us for federal debt (no tax increases, no inflation), there is a cost to the private sector from diminished interest payments on US Treasury bonds. It is a deflationary headwind that very few recognize.
This is an interesting chart. It shows that in 2011, health spending (Medicaid + Medicare) amounted to 24.2% of the Federal budget, which actually exceeds defense's share (22.6%). That is inconsistent with Deb's chart. I wonder what gives.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#8264 at 05-22-2012 06:33 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
05-22-2012, 06:33 PM #8264
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

From PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/ohio/state...ding-consumes/

Rep. Dennis Kucinich says defense spending consumes more than half the discretionary budget





Rep. Dennis Kucinich argues the United States is financing wars with borrowed money.


President Obama submitted his 2012 budget proposal to Congress on Valentine's Day, but the debate on efforts to cut spending started weeks earlier. Rep. Dennis Kucinich opened it with a call to question the cost of wars.

"We can have a strong defense, but we are spending so much money that we are undermining our ability to be able to provide for the American people here at home," he said.

"One of the biggest causes of our soaring debt and economic insecurity ends up being Pentagon spending. The budget for the Pentagon consumes more than half of our discretionary spending."

PolitiFact Ohio wondered about that and took a closer look.

We turned to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan, liberal-leaning think tank that analyzes data to show how tax dollars are spent.

The federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary and mandatory.

Mandatory spending, also called direct spending, refers to outlays required by law. It includes such entitlement programs as Social Security and Medicare, veterans' benefits, food stamps, education and health programs.

Mandatory spending is about two-thirds of the total budget. The problem of dealing with the politically charged entitlements is why balancing the budget is so difficult.

Discretionary spending is the part of the budget governed by the annual appropriation process and debated by Congress. That category includes "defense" (which does not include all military-related spending), security, agricultural subsidies, education, health programs, highway construction and housing assistance.

Discretionary defense outlays in fiscal 2010, which ended in October, were $689 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Non-defense outlays were $677 billion, or less than half the total.

For fiscal 2011, the CBO projects an even larger percentage of the discretionary budget -- 58 percent -- is military.

Discretionary spending on the military has been trending up for more than a decade. From 2001 to 2010, it increased by 71 percent -- almost three times the rate of increase in domestic discretionary spending, which rose about 24 percent.

Nonsecurity-related discretionary spending accounts for only about 15 percent of the $3.5 trillion total budget.

We leave the question of whether that’s good policy for others to debate. But as to Kucinich’s statement, we rate his claim as True.
Last edited by Deb C; 05-22-2012 at 06:35 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#8265 at 05-22-2012 08:23 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
05-22-2012, 08:23 PM #8265
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Sorry, I had to post the entire piece.


War Pay

The Nearly $1 Trillion National Security Budget

By Chris Hellman and Mattea Kramer

Recent months have seen a flurry of headlines about cuts (often called “threats”) to the U.S. defense budget. Last week, lawmakers in the House of Representatives even passed a bill that was meant to spare national security spending from future cuts by reducing school-lunch funding and other social programs.

Here, then, is a simple question that, for some curious reason, no one bothers to ask, no less answer: How much are we spending on national security these days? With major wars winding down, has Washington already cut such spending so close to the bone that further reductions would be perilous to our safety?
In fact, with projected cuts added in, the national security budget in fiscal 2013 will be nearly $1 trillion -- a staggering enough sum that it’s worth taking a walk through the maze of the national security budget to see just where that money’s lodged.

If you’ve heard a number for how much the U.S. spends on the military, it’s probably in the neighborhood of $530 billion. That’s the Pentagon’s base budget for fiscal 2013, and represents a 2.5% cut from 2012. But that $530 billion is merely the beginning of what the U.S. spends on national security. Let’s dig a little deeper.

The Pentagon’s base budget doesn’t include war funding, which in recent years has been well over $100 billion. With U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq and troop levels falling in Afghanistan, you might think that war funding would be plummeting as well. In fact, it will drop to a mere $88 billion in fiscal 2013. By way of comparison, the federal government will spend around $64 billion on education that same year.

Add in war funding, and our national security total jumps to $618 billion. And we’re still just getting started.

The U.S. military maintains an arsenal of nuclear weapons. You might assume that we’ve already accounted for nukes in the Pentagon’s $530 billion base budget. But you’d be wrong. Funding for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy (DOE), so it’s a number you rarely hear. In fiscal 2013, we’ll be spending $11.5 billion on weapons and related programs at the DOE. And disposal of nuclear waste is expensive, so add another $6.4 billion for weapons cleanup.

Now, we’re at $636 billion and counting.

How about homeland security? We’ve got to figure that in, too. There’s the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will run taxpayers $35.5 billion for its national security activities in fiscal 2013. But there’s funding for homeland security squirreled away in just about every other federal agency as well. Think, for example, about programs to secure the food supply, funded through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So add another $13.5 billion for homeland security at federal agencies other than DHS.

That brings our total to $685 billion.

Then there’s the international affairs budget, another obscure corner of the federal budget that just happens to be jammed with national security funds. For fiscal 2013, $8 billion in additional war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan is hidden away there. There’s also $14 billion for what’s called “international security assistance” -- that’s part of the weapons and training Washington offers foreign militaries around the world. Plus there’s $2 billion for “peacekeeping operations,” money U.S. taxpayers send overseas to help fund military operations handled by international organizations and our allies.

That brings our national security total up to $709 billion.

We can’t forget the cost of caring for our nation’s veterans, including those wounded in our recent wars. That’s an important as well as hefty share of national security funding. In 2013, veterans programs will cost the federal government $138 billion.

That brings us to $847 billion -- and we’re not done yet.

Taxpayers also fund pensions and other retirement benefits for non-veteran military retirees, which will cost $55 billion next year. And then there are the retirement costs for civilians who worked at the Department of Defense and now draw pensions and benefits. The federal government doesn’t publish a number on this, but based on the share of the federal workforce employed at the Pentagon, we can estimate that its civilian retirees will cost taxpayers around $21 billion in 2013.

By now, we’ve made it to $923 billion -- and we’re finally almost done.

Just one more thing to add in, a miscellaneous defense account that’s separate from the defense base budget. It’s called “defense-related activities,” and it’s got $8 billion in it for 2013.

That brings our grand total to an astonishing $931 billion.

And this will turn out to be a conservative figure. We won’t spend less than that, but among other things, it doesn’t include the interest we’re paying on money we borrowed to fund past military operations; nor does it include portions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that are dedicated to national security. And we don’t know if this number captures the entire intelligence budget or not, because parts of intelligence funding are classified.

For now, however, that whopping $931 billion for fiscal year 2013 will have to do. If our national security budget were its own economy, it would be the 19th largest in the world, roughly the size of Australia’s. Meanwhile, the country with the next largest military budget, China, spends a mere pittance by comparison. The most recent estimate puts China’s military funding at around $136 billion.

Or think of it this way: National security accounts for one quarter of every dollar the federal government is projected to spend in 2013. And if you pull trust funds for programs like Social Security out of the equation, that figure rises to more than one third of every dollar in the projected 2013 federal budget.

Yet the House recently passed legislation to spare the defense budget from cuts, arguing that the automatic spending reductions scheduled for January 2013 would compromise national security. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said suchautomatic cuts, which would total around $55 billion in 2013, would be “disastrous” for the defense budget. To avoid them, the House would instead pull money from the National School Lunch Program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, food stamps, and programs like the Social Services Block Grant, which funds Meals on Wheels, among other initiatives.

Yet it wouldn’t be difficult to find savings in that $931 billion. There’s plenty of low-hanging fruit, starting with various costly weapons systems left over from the Cold War, like the Virginia class submarine, the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, the missile defense program, and the most expensive weapons system on the planet, the F-35 jet fighter. Cutting back or cancelling some of these programs would save billions of dollars annually.

In fact, Congress could find much deeper savings, but it would require fundamentally redefining national security in this country. On this issue, the American public is already several steps ahead of Washington. Americans overwhelmingly think that national security funding should be cut -- deeply.

If lawmakers don’t pay closer attention to their constituents, we already know the alternative: pulling school-lunch funding.

Chris Hellman and Mattea Kramer are research analysts at the National Priorities Project. They wrote the soon-to-be-published book A People’s Guide to the Federal Budget, and host weekly two-minute Budget Brief videos on YouTube.

[Note: This is the latest National Priorities Project piece on TomDispatch about the true cost of national security. In a piece last year by Chris Hellman, the total cost of national security was calculated in a slightly different manner; it included interest payments on the borrowing that funded past military operations. In the national security numbers described above, such interest payments have been omitted.

For further reading on national security spending see “U.S. Security Spending Since 9/11,” an examination of the nearly $8 trillion the United States has spent on defense since the September 11th attacks. Also see “Debt, Deficits, and Defense: A Way Forward” by the Sustainable Defense Task Force.]
Last edited by Deb C; 05-22-2012 at 08:28 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#8266 at 05-23-2012 04:07 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
05-23-2012, 04:07 PM #8266
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

About that gender gap

We're in May so it's way too early to read much into any poll, but there's one mathematical inconsistancy I've noticed and it has to do with the gender gap.
We often hear that Obama has a 15 to 20 point lead amongst women and that Romney has a smaller lead among men. Fine, but here's the problem. Women make up about 52 or 53 percent of the voting population, but the polls say that any Obama lead is within the margin or error. It doesn't add up. If one is leading the larger group by a larger margin than the opponet is lead the smaller group, how can you have a statistical tie?







Post#8267 at 05-23-2012 05:13 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
05-23-2012, 05:13 PM #8267
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
This is an interesting chart. It shows that in 2011, health spending (Medicaid + Medicare) amounted to 24.2% of the Federal budget, which actually exceeds defense's share (22.6%). That is inconsistent with Deb's chart. I wonder what gives.
Probable a little hanky-panky with definitions? For example, one might put Homeland Security in "Defense" but a big part of Homeland Security is the TSA screeners that pat you down before boarding a plane. I don't know about you but I can tell the difference between a US Marine and a TSA screener from a few hundred yards - even if the Marine is in his skivvies.

Probable a little playing with defintions on both charts as well as perhaps some sins of omission?

One thing for sure, given Medicare and Medicaid, doesn't the "health" bar on Deb's seem a little bit short?

Oh, and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not "discretionary spending," they are "entitlements." Interest on the debt is also not discretionary but its relatively puny.
Last edited by playwrite; 05-23-2012 at 05:16 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#8268 at 05-23-2012 08:32 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
05-23-2012, 08:32 PM #8268
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Probable a little hanky-panky with definitions? For example, one might put Homeland Security in "Defense" but a big part of Homeland Security is the TSA screeners that pat you down before boarding a plane. I don't know about you but I can tell the difference between a US Marine and a TSA screener from a few hundred yards - even if the Marine is in his skivvies.

Probable a little playing with defintions on both charts as well as perhaps some sins of omission?

One thing for sure, given Medicare and Medicaid, doesn't the "health" bar on Deb's seem a little bit short?

Oh, and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not "discretionary spending," they are "entitlements." Interest on the debt is also not discretionary but its relatively puny.
Maybe Deb's chart just refers to discretionary spending. That would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and just include health clinics and the like.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#8269 at 05-23-2012 08:52 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-23-2012, 08:52 PM #8269
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
We're in May so it's way too early to read much into any poll, but there's one mathematical inconsistancy I've noticed and it has to do with the gender gap.
We often hear that Obama has a 15 to 20 point lead amongst women and that Romney has a smaller lead among men. Fine, but here's the problem. Women make up about 52 or 53 percent of the voting population, but the polls say that any Obama lead is within the margin or error. It doesn't add up. If one is leading the larger group by a larger margin than the opponet is lead the smaller group, how can you have a statistical tie?
This is why I don't believe the polls.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#8270 at 05-23-2012 09:43 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
05-23-2012, 09:43 PM #8270
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
This is an interesting chart. It shows that in 2011, health spending (Medicaid + Medicare) amounted to 24.2% of the Federal budget, which actually exceeds defense's share (22.6%). That is inconsistent with Deb's chart. I wonder what gives.
Probable a little hanky-panky with definitions? For example, one might put Homeland Security in "Defense" but a big part of Homeland Security is the TSA screeners that pat you down before boarding a plane. I don't know about you but I can tell the difference between a US Marine and a TSA screener from a few hundred yards - even if the Marine is in his skivvies.

Probable a little playing with defintions on both charts as well as perhaps some sins of omission?

One thing for sure, given Medicare and Medicaid, doesn't the "health" bar on Deb's seem a little bit short?

Oh, and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not "discretionary spending," they are "entitlements." Interest on the debt is also not discretionary but its relatively puny.
DHS is just what you might expect when a Homeland Defense, er Security department is thrown together in the aftermath of a shocking tragedy.

Then again, let's not ignore the components. Several have law enforcmenet capablities. All act as enforcers or threat managers of some kind:
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#8271 at 05-24-2012 11:51 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
05-24-2012, 11:51 AM #8271
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
DHS is just what you might expect when a Homeland Defense, er Security department is thrown together in the aftermath of a shocking tragedy.

Then again, let's not ignore the components. Several have law enforcmenet capablities. All act as enforcers or threat managers of some kind:

Looking at defense spending from a macro-level, what an MMTer would be most interested in is whether or not such spending is more inflationary than other govt spending. I found one reference that explores this, but it is a little old - 1984, when the issue was actually much more hotly debated than it is today -

http://www.indiana.edu/~globalm/pdf/defense.pdf

- their conclusion was that it had not been more inflationary in the US and UK, but had been in Germany and France. I guess it depends of what your defense spending is buying which may have changed between then and now. Do you have something more in this area?

The other macro- question, and I believe related to the first, is does defense spending add more or less than other spending to the economy's production capacity? As long as govt spending is outpaced by the economy's productive capacity, there can be no problem with that spending. If defense spending doesn't add to the economy's production capacity, then it is a macroeconomic concern. When one considers where the Internet came from, it's a little hard to believe all defense spending is non-productive.

For me, fighting over defense vs. non-defense spending plays into the hands of those wanting to sustain the false mythology of constrained federal spending. I would rather have a more reality-based discussion of true micro-level considerations of the issue. Some of these are capture very well by one of the founding fathers of MMT, Dr. William Black, who apparently is not a big fan of the military-industrial complex -

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=19479

What is “good” at the macro level may well be disastrous at the micro level
Warning: Bill is not known for being short on words.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#8272 at 05-24-2012 04:38 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
05-24-2012, 04:38 PM #8272
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Looking at defense spending from a macro-level, what an MMTer would be most interested in is whether or not such spending is more inflationary than other govt spending. I found one reference that explores this, but it is a little old - 1984, when the issue was actually much more hotly debated than it is today -

http://www.indiana.edu/~globalm/pdf/defense.pdf

- their conclusion was that it had not been more inflationary in the US and UK, but had been in Germany and France. I guess it depends of what your defense spending is buying which may have changed between then and now. Do you have something more in this area?
The only real source of inflatiion from Defense spending has to be structural. In a down economy, that's not likely. We have all specialized production facilities we need, without impacting the commercial market at all. After all, we invented the MIC, and most of it is still there, standing by - especiallu now with the wars sinding down. As far as human assets, experienced engineers and the like are not too hard to come by either. If they get to be, then we'll open the H-1B floodgate ... as we always do.

Quote Originally Posted by PW ...
The other macro- question, and I believe related to the first, is does defense spending add more or less than other spending to the economy's production capacity? As long as govt spending is outpaced by the economy's productive capacity, there can be no problem with that spending. If defense spending doesn't add to the economy's production capacity, then it is a macroeconomic concern. When one considers where the Internet came from, it's a little hard to believe all defense spending is non-productive.
Defense spin-offs are important to the overall economy, but the actual direct spending, not so much - unless you live where the spending takes place. NoVA is going gangbusters after all the spending on <insert the miltary or homeland defense contract of choice>. That should wind-down a bit. At least, we can hope so. If it doesn't, then we have truly become the new Rome, and we'll be looking for an opportunity soon.

Quote Originally Posted by PW ...
For me, fighting over defense vs. non-defense spending plays into the hands of those wanting to sustain the false mythology of constrained federal spending. I would rather have a more reality-based discussion of true micro-level considerations of the issue. Some of these are capture very well by one of the founding fathers of MMT, Dr. William Black, who apparently is not a big fan of the military-industrial complex -

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=19479

Warning: Bill is not known for being short on words.
I can't say I disagree with the idea that speicalizing in making things that we never want to use, then finding a reason to use them, is not a moral or ethical business model. We have anoher issue too. When we focus on MIC production, we tend to shift our commerical buying to foreign goods - at least we have since the Vietnam build-up. So we grow an industry that shouldn't want, and deprecate industries we should want. We didin't even leverage all our war-fighting into lucrative contracts, like the Lithium mining concessin in Afghanistan. That went to China. Obvioiusly, quid pro quo was not in the cards.

Not smart from an economic stand point. We get points for not fighting for conquest, though.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 05-24-2012 at 04:44 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#8273 at 05-24-2012 04:59 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
05-24-2012, 04:59 PM #8273
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
The only real source of inflatiion from Defense spending has to be structural. In a down economy, that's not likely. We have all specialized production facilities we need, without impacting the commercial market at all. After all, we invented the MIC, and most of it is still there, standing by - especiallu now with the wars sinding down. As far as human assets, experienced engineers and the like are not too hard to come by either. If they get to be, then we'll open the H-1B floodgate ... as we always do.


Defense spin-offs are important to the overall economy, but the actual direct spending, not so much - unless you live where the spending takes place. NoVA is going gangbusters after all the spending on <insert the miltary or homeland defense contract of choice>. That should wind-down a bit. At least, we can hope so. If it doesn't, then we have truly become the new Rome, and we'll be looking for an opportunity soon.


I can't say I disagree with the idea that speicalizing in making things that we never want to use, then finding a reason to use them, is not a moral or ethical business model. We have anoher issue too. When we focus on MIC production, we tend to shift our commerical buying to foreign goods - at least we have since the Vietnam build-up. So we grow an industry that shouldn't want, and deprecate industries we should want. We didin't even leverage all our war-fighting into lucrative contracts, like the Lithium mining concessin in Afghanistan. That went to China. Obvioiusly, quid pro quo was not in the cards.

Not smart from an economic stand point. We get points for not fighting for conquest, though.
We loose big time for the dumb wars that were not needed. Net points are negative.







Post#8274 at 05-25-2012 12:31 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
05-25-2012, 12:31 PM #8274
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
This is why I don't believe the polls.
Polls can be generally very accurate. But the math wonk within me quells at spin that not only gets spun badly but also accepted meekly by those who claim to be arbitars of infomation.







Post#8275 at 05-25-2012 12:44 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
05-25-2012, 12:44 PM #8275
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
Polls can be generally very accurate. But the math wonk within me quells at spin that not only gets spun badly but also accepted meekly by those who claim to be arbitars of infomation.
What I don't understand is how pollsters contact people these days, when most younger people have unlisted cell phone numbers.

Maybe Rasmussen makes no attempt to contact them.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------