About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, November 5, 2010 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Missing link?  This guy is the species that came before the missing link.

Post 1

Friday, November 5, 2010 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Infuriating to watch.  Ed is so right.

Post 2

Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 2:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I interpreted the remark about deficits and spending as referring to spending deficit money on Iraq, e.g. a nation other than ours.

Since the video treats that war as "needless," I can understand why its creators would not view their statements as "contradictory."

This view begs many other questions, such as how our opponents propose to handle terror threats, but I can easily anticipate them making the response I just did about "contradictory" statements on deficits and spending.

Post 3

Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

I appreciate your illustrative defense of post-modern, left-liberal, existentio-nihilistic, tree-hugging, worm-worship. You mentioned the caveat that that view begs other questions and it does -- but it begs questions even more relevant than the example that you gave.

The reason runs like this:

You can't start with a surplus and end in a deficit without spending some money somehow.

You can spend money on our nation or on other nations and, at the end of the day, you can tabulate what it was that was spent on our nation and compare it to what it was that was spent on other nations.

If what it was that was spent on our nation dwarfs what it was that was spent on other nations, then you cannot legitimately make the following two statements together:

1) republicans spent so much money that they got us from big surplus to big deficits
2) republicans won't spend money on the country (because they think that spending money on our country is "wasted money", but they'll spend money on wars)

Let's say, for example, that 80% of all the money that the republicans spent in 8 years was money spent on our country and that 20% of all the money that republicans spent in 8 years was on the war in Iraq. Does spending a fifth of your money on another country allow you to infer the conclusion that you won't spend money on your country? Many Americans pay taxes. They pay at a rate that exceeds 20% of their income. Does that fact make proper the following conclusion?:

Americans won't spend money on themselves (because they send 20% of their income to Uncle Sam, they must feel that spending money on themselves is a waste).
No, it does not. It is not a proper conclusion to draw because it contradicts reality and it contradicts logic. We do spend money on ourselves, so reality proves the main statement wrong. The fact that we spend money on other things besides ourselves begs the question of why. Why do we pay taxes? It turns out that it is a logical fallacy to infer that -- because we don't spend every penny on ourselves -- that we feel money spent on ourselves is a waste. A shorthand way to talk about such left-liberal "reaoning" is:

You can't get there from here.

:-)

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
According to the National Priorities Project:

FY2011, is devoted to Social Security and Medicare - programs aimed at senior citizens, the disabled and children and spouses of deceased workers (see chart below).

Spending on 'national defense' (a government definition) amounts to 20% of total federal spending. This does not include, however, foreign military financing grants, other military assistance, or other military-related expenditures.

The high deficits in the 1980s accelerated the accumulation of federal debt. Servicing this debt now consumes approximately 7% of spending, or about $250 billion.

The federal government contributes very little to education, contributing only about 8% of total spending (local, state and federal) on elementary and secondary education. Total education spending, including higher education, consumes less than 3% of the federal budget.




I did not understand what they meant by the "other" military expenditures, but it appears Ed is right about the 20% figure.

I am having trouble reconciling these figures with this cost of war running counter, but government financial engineering has always eluded me.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/06, 11:41am)


Post 5

Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Luke.

What I want to know is how come the % of Total Federal Outlays in 2010 for "government" was negative?

How do you apportion a "negative %" to something?

Ed


Post 6

Saturday, November 6, 2010 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There were probably some unexpected savings somewhere in management, perhaps via consolidation efforts.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.