Prince Ire
Section XIII
People depend on social welfare payments for survival. Munch of the DoD exists to protect places that aren't America, and why should Americans go homeless so that Americans can fight and die defending non-Americans?
Debt Limit
- Thread starter Typhonis
- Start date
History Learner
Well-known member
It’s kinda besides the point; I agree but even assuming a 50% cost inflation you’re still running a deficit or breaking even at that point and that’s with cutting literally everything else besides those three things.
bintananth
behind a desk
I would not be surprised in the slightest if some remote post outside Nowhere, Alaska manned by two guys gets hot coffee and fresh donuts flown in by a contractor with a helicopter every morning.
Nor would I be surprised if the NCO who has to make sure the contractor gets paid on time doesn't know what's getting delivered because it's classified and he doesn't need to know.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Social welfare payments are cancer on a nation and a culture. They create intergenerational dependency, corrode the family unit, build entitlement culture, and are the single most common way for corrupt politicians to buy votes and keep themselves in power.
Either do something with honest charity, or don't do it at all.
At least the military sometimes fulfills its stated purpose.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
And as we all know, there's absolutely no waste anywhere except the DoD to be cut, amiright?
Education Department Can't Stop Schools From Using Funds for Athletics
A top Democrat on the U.S. House education committee said the money should be used to support students, not expensive sports facilities.
www.newsweek.com
Oh. Yeah, the level of waste that could be cut across the board is absurd.
Was this really a good use of Taxpayer dollars?
Rand Paul: US government spent $118,000 to learn if Thanos could really snap his fingers
“We spent $118,000 to study if a metal replica, a robot of Marvel Comics evil warlord Thanos, could snap his fingers. $118,000. Really,” Paul said.
thepostmillennial.com
Wait what?
NIH spent millions on experiments in which puppies were injected with cocaine
The National Institutes of Health spent $2.3 million on research in which beagle puppies were injected with cocaine, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Even looking purely at the Mandatory spending we could trim a monstrous amount, just look at healthcare.
Waste in the US Health Care System: Estimated Costs and Potential for Savings - PubMed
In this review based on 6 previously identified domains of health care waste, the estimated cost of waste in the US health care system ranged from $760 billion to $935 billion, accounting for approximately 25% of total health care spending, and the projected potential savings from interventions...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
In this review based on 6 previously identified domains of health care waste, the estimated cost of waste in the US health care system ranged from $760 billion to $935 billion, accounting for approximately 25% of total health care spending,
The current budget is 6.3 trillion, with income of 4.9 trillion. Just cutting that waste would yield a budget of about 5.6 trillion. Cutting out the rest of the Festivus List* would yield a budget of 5.1 trillion. We're quite close. Assume the military can shave about 20-25% as waste, the budget is balanced.
If we instead presume that every department could eliminate 25% of waste, not only would the budget balance but there would be a significant surplus that could be used to pay the debt down, all without impacting the services provided at all.
*I mean, maybe you actually think setting up a Hamster Fight Club is a good use of public funds, idunno, maybe the economy will crash and burn without government money being spent on making hamsters fight.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Some of them need to lose their careers.
If they suck at their jobs, are corrupt, or are lefty activist hacks get rid of them.
It's the military not a jobs program. We need the best. Not slackers and people there pushing agendas.
If they suck at their jobs, are corrupt, or are lefty activist hacks get rid of them.
It's the military not a jobs program. We need the best. Not slackers and people there pushing agendas.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
True enough, any anticorruption campaign would have to include measures to ensure that the thousand-dollar pliers and hundred-thousand-dollar studies of Thanos' fingersnap were what gets cut rather than pay for enlisted or repairing bridges.
Politicians will resist and prefer to keep the waste because it's really not truly waste, it's graft and bribes where they are getting kickbacks, the "10% to the big guy." However that doesn't mean reducing corruption isn't a good thing, just a hard thing.
Typhonis
Well-known member
Fine, hit them for not reporting income. Illegal income is still income and is thus taxable.
History Learner
Well-known member
Hence why I said to you previously:
$6.3 Trillion - $5.1 Trillion + 25% of DoD spending (roughly $170 Bilion) = ~$1.4 Trillion, or 5.5% of GDP
Congratulations, you've just triggered the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. For reference, 2008 was about 5% of GDP and saw unemployment rates of between 10-15%; given this is larger, you're probably looking at between 15-20% and you're definitely going to see whatever Government that implemented this thrown out in the next election.
No, because in a standard recession, you tend to see tax receipts fall by 10-20%; assuming the median of 15%, your income has dropped from $4.9 Trillion to ~$4.2 Trillion. Not only have you caused an economic collapse, the budget still isn't balanced and that's also assuming you don't run any stimulus to get the nation out of this crisis.
As I've said repeatedly, welcome to the Debt Doom Loop. There are no good options, you get hurt either way.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Okay, so you don't know how basic math works and can write up the wrong equation in order to get wrong answers. What next?
There's unlikely to be a recession from removing waste, nor will removing such waste trigger a recession.
You can go on insisting that the economy will collapse if Congress isn't allowed to spend 118,000 dollars on a study to see if Thanos can really snap his fingers while wearing the infinity gauntlet or not, but I think everybody with a working brain can tell cutting random wasteful spending won't crash the economy.
Bigking321
Well-known member
I feel like turning whatever savings into a tax cut would help boost the economy and increase tax revenues do to increased economic activity.
History Learner
Well-known member
But I'm not wrong, hence why you didn't provide a counter number. By all means, please show the audience what 6.3 minus 5.1 equals and then figure out what percentage of 25.46 your answer is.
Except it will, because you just removed, for example, millions of jobs that pay income tax and spend disposable income into the wider economy through their consumption. This is basic economics and if you feel otherwise, cite it.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, the reason he didn't bother to provide a counter-number, is (most likely, I'm not claiming to be a mind-reader) because you've demonstrated countless times that you are utterly resistant to logic, facts, and anything else that doesn't line up with your a-priori conclusions.
Pretty much any time that anyone on The Sietch bothers to argue with you at all, it's either for their own amusement, or for the benefit of the audience, because we all know that you're not going to listen to anything that anyone says, unless it agrees with your biases.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Why, when that equation has no meaning and isn't related to what I said? I already supplied the real numbers, you made up an entirely different equation unrelated to it to try to claim the real numbers were wrong. Go play with your strawman somewhere else.
"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." -John Maynard Keynes
Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery. - John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace
Actual economics tends to agree that your plan of raising the level of inflation clicking hot is actually the worst choice. It ruins consumer confidence, and confidence in the currency is what motivates consumers to actually buy, sell, and save.
The wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on frivolities you're so in love with is, roughly, the economic equivalent of digging holes in the ground and filling them up again, it theoretically raises the GDP and taxes on the wages spent digging and filling, but at the end of the day there's no value created and no economic production, it's purely wasted effort that could have been used more fruitfully elsewhere. That is basic economics.
History Learner
Well-known member
Because the facts agree with me, and I'm right. That's why you don't make actual arguments against me because you can't.
Is that why you replied and he just made an effort post? You reply because I get under your skin, if you were just doing this for amusement as you claim, you wouldn't have previously repeatedly said I'm not worth your time. That you make time to reply to me is enjoyable and shows exactly how much of a rise I engender in you.
Whether you like to admit it or not, I trigger you and I absolutely love that.
History Learner
Well-known member
Except the basic math you call an equation has all of the meaning and is directly related to what you said, in that it proves you wrong and hence is why you avoided providing your own when prompted. You didn't supply real numbers, you provided a self estimate of 25% with no source.
Can we infer from this you don't want to admit you're wrong or you can't do basic math?
I wasn't aware Lenin was an actual economist, would you care to cite where he got his economics degree from? While you're at it, we also have the writings of Kenyes to go on about government spending, would you like to delve into that? After we get into those two, since economics is a wider field than just two guys in the 20th Century, would you like to cite what modern economists say in surveys on the topics?
I agree a fair amount of waste exists, the problem is what when you delete that, it means millions of jobs lost and a recession. You're wrong on all accounts here and it's why you haven't cited any evidence to back it up besides two quotes.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Naw, you don't have facts on your side or you wouldn't have needed to invent an equation like " 6.3 minus 5.1 times 25.46."
Hilariously, though, it still yields a balanced budget, if you ignore the stupid part you inserted in there. The federal budget of 6.3 trillion, if reduced by removing the ~ 25% waste that seems to be common to large federal programs, which I've provided numerous citations for, yields a Federal budget of 4.8 trillion, just a touch under the 4.9 taken in and thus a balanced budget that can start paying down the debt.
No, we can infer that you can't read or understand basic math. I also provided sources that you apparently missed.
I provided quotes from Keynes and you conclude it was from Lenin. I guess we can add basic reading to the things you're incapable of.
Deleting blatant waste won't cause a recession. If the military didn't pay 2000 dollars for a nut that civilians pay fifty cents for, it wouldn't cause millions of jobs to be lost, it would just remove some graft, and the military could go on to build several times more vehicles for a fraction of the price, which could be sold or otherwise use for some actual benefit.
I'm not the one that needs to be providing citations here, I'm not the one making a positive claim, namely that eliminating wasteful needless spending will always automatically cause a recession.
The bigger issue of course, is your continued use of the fallacy of False Choice. There are a myriad of options and your insistence that the only one possible is inflation is the real issue. Regardless of how the citations roll out, your base reasoning is fallacious.
Last edited: