Why Do Conservatives Favour Small Government? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14352486
Beal wrote:In what way? Those funds are earmarked for the Highway Trust fund. Are you referring to the recent shortfalls or raiding of the fund in prior years?


I am saying that the revenues created through gas taxes are significantly less than the costs of maintaining the roads.

http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg ... themselves
http://daily.sightline.org/2008/07/23/d ... -of-roads/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... explains-4

B wrote:...don't pay any fuel taxes at all.


...but end up subsidising car drivers by covering the difference between road building and maintenance and the taxes that are supposed to cover them and do not.

B wrote:You just told me I was wrong in characterizing your argument, then you restated exactly what I wrote. I acknowledge that you believe that in the cast of carbon "pollution," non-intervention equates to subsidy. What you refuse to acknowledge is that non-intervention, even if it is a subsidy, is the opposite of big government.

Big government = intervention.

You can't equate all subsidies to big government, then list an example of a subsidy that is obviously the opposite of big government in order to prove that someone who supports it is in favor of big government.

You have lost this point. You are just being obtuse.


Sure. As long as we are clear that conservatives support the idea that the taxpayer pay for the pollution of companies and therefore help the company make more profit at the taxpayer's expense, due to the inaction of gov't.

Because you seem to agree that the gov't is effectively supporting such profiteering. You just see it as gov't supporting this transfer of wealth through inaction rather than action.

B wrote:My point wasn't about whether it is a subsidy. My point is about whether it qualifies as big government. You are obviously incapable of discussing this rationally.


Okay. If the gov't stole your land and gave it to someone else, would you consider it an example of too much gov't intervention?
#14353247
Because they don't like government telling them what to do, how to live, taking their money in any taxes, interfering with their desire to shape government according to their religious views and finally they don't want government interfering with their business activities. They can't stand it when there are any rules imposed upon them in any area of life. And when it's DC who is making the rules they're double mad because they know they are paying taxes to have those laws made. They yearn for the old world where local groups were free to shape their destinies. Conservatives see a world wherein business is free to do whatever it wants. This is their ideal of democracy.

Conservatives look to the past and find comfort.
Liberals look to the future and find hope.
Moderates sit in the middle looking both ways wondering what to do.

Conservatives want all their money in their pockets, no rules for living except religious ones, maximum freedom with no imposed responsibilities. If our country were a small western town in 1872 with a sheriff who was just like them and a saloon and a church and a store and a "doc" who rode to visit people in a buggy.... well they'd be just thrilled. The conservatives of today yearn for this sort of America. Mayberry, RFD...!

Liberals know that fairy tale living of long ago. They realize that the bigger the world gets in terms of population the greater the need for cooperation. They know that unrestrained liberties lead to unrestrained abuses of power. Liberals know that "no rules" capitalism is contrary to the ideals of any democracy.

In order to restore our democracy all we have to do is to get rid of lobbying... With legalized extortion gone America could return to it's original greatness.
#14353785
uggabugga wrote:
In order to restore our democracy all we have to do is to get rid of lobbying... With legalized extortion gone America could return to it's original greatness.


Good post. I quoted this final part because I believe that out of all of that good post, this is the best. The organized lobbying and the cabals of the rich are what is tearing apart middle america, and we're buying into it.
#14353960
Pants-of-dog wrote:However, gasoline taxes do not actually cover highway work, so those of us who ride bikes (mostly liberals) are supporting another intervention that conservatives like: nice smooth highways to drive their Buicks on.

Can you ever volunteer information so that you sound reasonably honest? The major increase in the gas tax during the Clinton administration was to be put to deficit reduction, not highway maintenance. Additionally, increased fuel efficiency standards means that we get more use with less tax revenue for utilization. That is, a big government policy imposing fuel efficiency standards is bankrupting its own highway fund. So this is not a question of subsidies at all, since the entire highway system was built under a 4-cent per gallon gas tax in the 1950s.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In the case of pollution, "non-intervention" (or more correctly, not making the business accountable for its mess) equates to having someone else clean up the pollution.

The pollution is a fraction of what it was in the 1950s too. Couple pollution reduction with fuel efficiency, and your argument simply doesn't hold water.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That money that the fossil fuel company would otherwise have to use to clean up is paid out of the taxpayer's wallet.

First, businesses aren't the #1 carbon polluters. Consumers drive cars, and they are the #1 polluters. They are also the voters.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If the gov't took away your land and gave it to someone related to the gov't, would you consider that a subsidy for that person who received the land?

The United States cannot take land without providing just compensation, and to use such power, it has to fulfill a public purpose.

Beal wrote:In what way? Those funds are earmarked for the Highway Trust fund. Are you referring to the recent shortfalls or raiding of the fund in prior years?

Of course, he won't even address the raiding of the funds. This is the problem with arguing with people on the political left.

Pants-of-dog wrote:...but end up subsidising car drivers by covering the difference between road building and maintenance and the taxes that are supposed to cover them and do not.

For the most part, this is untrue. Car drivers have been "subsizing" the general fund at substandard rates of interest for a very long time. Only recently with a long-term recession, high gasoline prices, and increased fuel efficiency has the general fund not been able to cover expenses; and, the reason it comes to the attention of politicians isn't because they are worried so much about highways, it's because they relied on car drivers to subsidize other programs by forcing them to loan their reserves at subprime rates, which technically IS a subsidy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. As long as we are clear that conservatives support the idea that the taxpayer pay for the pollution of companies and therefore help the company make more profit at the taxpayer's expense, due to the inaction of gov't.

Pollution is not accounted as a cost; it's considered a negative externality.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because you seem to agree that the gov't is effectively supporting such profiteering.

Of course the government supports profiteering; that's how they raise income tax revenue. No income, no tax revenue.

keso wrote:Good post. I quoted this final part because I believe that out of all of that good post, this is the best. The organized lobbying and the cabals of the rich are what is tearing apart middle america, and we're buying into it.

Well, it's the latter part that is the problem. The electorate has to get a lot smarter, and they simply don't spend much time at politics, whereas special interests spend lots of time and money.
#14353966
blackjack21 wrote:Can you ever volunteer information so that you sound reasonably honest? The major increase in the gas tax during the Clinton administration was to be put to deficit reduction, not highway maintenance. Additionally, increased fuel efficiency standards means that we get more use with less tax revenue for utilization. That is, a big government policy imposing fuel efficiency standards is bankrupting its own highway fund. So this is not a question of subsidies at all, since the entire highway system was built under a 4-cent per gallon gas tax in the 1950s.


This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

bj wrote:The pollution is a fraction of what it was in the 1950s too. Couple pollution reduction with fuel efficiency, and your argument simply doesn't hold water.


This does not contradict my claim that conservatives support the idea that the taxpayer pay for the pollution of companies and therefore help the company make more profit at the taxpayer's expense, due to the inaction of gov't.

bj wrote:First, businesses aren't the #1 carbon polluters. Consumers drive cars, and they are the #1 polluters. They are also the voters.


This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

bj wrote:The United States cannot take land without providing just compensation, and to use such power, it has to fulfill a public purpose.


And yet, the USA did.

Bj wrote:Of course, he won't even address the raiding of the funds. This is the problem with arguing with people on the political left.


This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

bj wrote:For the most part, this is untrue. Car drivers have been "subsizing" the general fund at substandard rates of interest for a very long time. Only recently with a long-term recession, high gasoline prices, and increased fuel efficiency has the general fund not been able to cover expenses; and, the reason it comes to the attention of politicians isn't because they are worried so much about highways, it's because they relied on car drivers to subsidize other programs by forcing them to loan their reserves at subprime rates, which technically IS a subsidy.


Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

bj wrote:Pollution is not accounted as a cost; it's considered a negative externality.


It is a cost to whomever pays for the externality,

This is why this does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

bj wrote:Of course the government supports profiteering; that's how they raise income tax revenue. No income, no tax revenue.


This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.
#14354408
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

I would suggest taking an accounting class so that you can better understand the meaning of the term "subsidy."

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim that conservatives support the idea that the taxpayer pay for the pollution of companies and therefore help the company make more profit at the taxpayer's expense, due to the inaction of gov't.

Most small government conservatives do not support heavy environmental regulation. They see the EPA as part of the problem.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

Your claim includes an assertion of fact that is not in evidence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And yet, the USA did.

The US did not recognize property rights of native tribes, as it did not recognize them as sovereign states among the family of nations. So North America was considered terra nullius. That's different from taking lands owned by a private individual within a territory the state considers sovereign.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

Yes it does. Highways have been paid for by gasoline excise taxes and vehicle license taxes. Recent shortfalls are not the primary history of highway funding by any stretch of the imagination. As for your other claims, you deliberately misuse the generally accepted meaning of the term "subsidy" to bolster your argument. So your argument falls on its own weight.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Here is a Federal Highway Trust Fund primer from 1998 so that you can clearly see that the history has primarily been one of surplus. FHTF Primer
Clearly, it shows that heavy trucks, truck sales, truck licenses, etc. pay higher taxes. The tax on diesel is $0.06 more than it is for gasoline.

What is the HTF balance?
Since the establishment of the fund, more has been earned through tax receipts and interest
income than has been spent. Over the fiscal years 1957-1997, income has totaled $394.3 billion
($366.2 billion from tax receipts and $28.1 billion from interest earnings) while outlays have
totaled $371.8 billion, leaving a balance of $22.4 billion. Of that $22.4 billion balance,
$12.6 billion is credited to the Highway Account and $9.9 billion is credited to the Mass Transit
Account.
...
Why is the current balance so large?
The Highway Account balance has consistently stayed at "larger-than-necessary" levels for
30 years due to budget-driven spending controls. Those controls began with administrative
deferrals or impoundments (which began in 1966) and continue today with legislative limitations
on obligations (which began in fiscal year 1976). Essentially this has restricted highway
spending to levels below levels supportable by the Fund’s income. The Highway Account
surplus of $23.0 billion at the end of fiscal year 1997 (the end of the previous authorization
period) represents the cumulative effect of those spending controls over the life of the fund.
Under TEA-21, the balance is projected to grow, but, because of higher authorization levels, the
surplus will be lower than at the end of the ISTEA period.


In actual fact, the Federal Highway Trust fund is subsidizing the construction of bicycle trails, even though bicyclists don't pay the tax. So the funds are being diverted to other than their intended use for the benefit of people like you.

Out of Gas: Congress Raids the Highway Trust Fund for Pet Projects

The $78 billion, five-year total for obligated expenditures for non-highway, non-bridge
construction or maintenance projects includes:

Over $2 billion on 5,547 projects for bike paths and pedestrian walkways and
facilities;
$850 million for 2,772 “scenic beautification” and landscaping projects;
$488 million for behavioral research;
$313 million for safety belt performance grants;
$224 million for 366 projects to rehabilitate and operate historic transportation
buildings, structures, and facilities;
$215 million for 859 projects under scenic or historic highway programs;
$121 million on 63 projects for ferryboats and ferry terminal facilities;
$110 million for occupant protection incentive grants;
$84 million for 398 projects for safety and education of pedestrians and bicyclists;
$84 million for 213 road-kill prevention, wildlife habitat connectivity, and highway
runoff pollution mitigation projects;
$28 million to establish 55 transportation museums;
$19 million for 25 projects to control and remove outdoor advertising;
$18 million for motorcyclist safety grants; and
$13 million on 50 projects for youth conservation service.


Pants-of-dog wrote:It is a cost to whomever pays for the externality,

This is why this does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

This is a semantic argument, and it's also wrong. If the cost is accrued by other than the government, it is not subsidized by the government by your own misuse of the term "subsidy."

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim that conservatives have no problem with gov't subsidising highways and fossil fuels.

As already stated, the government does not subsidize highways. They are paid for by those who use them. A very substantial use of the highways involves commerce--e.g., driving to work. So when you have the ability to transport yourself to work, you also pay income taxes in addition to the gas taxes. So the government supports projects that generate tax revenue.
#14354646
blackjack21 wrote:I would suggest taking an accounting class so that you can better understand the meaning of the term "subsidy."


I would suggest taking an introduction to English class so that you can better understand how to put together an argument.

bj wrote:Most small government conservatives do not support heavy environmental regulation. They see the EPA as part of the problem.


This does not contradict my claim.

bj wrote:Your claim includes an assertion of fact that is not in evidence.


Please explain.

bj wrote:The US did not recognize property rights of native tribes, as it did not recognize them as sovereign states among the family of nations. So North America was considered terra nullius. That's different from taking lands owned by a private individual within a territory the state considers sovereign.


And yet the US signed treaties that recognised indigenous property rights.

bj wrote:Yes it does. Highways have been paid for by gasoline excise taxes and vehicle license taxes. Recent shortfalls are not the primary history of highway funding by any stretch of the imagination. As for your other claims, you deliberately misuse the generally accepted meaning of the term "subsidy" to bolster your argument. So your argument falls on its own weight.


It must be nice to be able to ignore the evidence I provide. Just beleive anything you want, without any concern for reality. How pleasant.

bj wrote:Here is a Federal Highway Trust Fund primer from 1998 so that you can clearly see that the history has primarily been one of surplus. FHTF Primer
Clearly, it shows that heavy trucks, truck sales, truck licenses, etc. pay higher taxes. The tax on diesel is $0.06 more than it is for gasoline.


Who cares? The question is whether or not they pay for the roads.

    What is the HTF balance?
    ...
    surplus will be lower than at the end of the ISTEA period.


So, over 15 years ago, gas taxes paid for it. This is not the case any more.

In actual fact, the Federal Highway Trust fund is subsidizing the construction of bicycle trails, even though bicyclists don't pay the tax. So the funds are being diverted to other than their intended use for the benefit of people like you.

Out of Gas: Congress Raids the Highway Trust Fund for Pet Projects

[list=]The $78 billion, five-year total for obligated expenditures for non-highway, non-bridge
construction or maintenance projects includes:

Over $2 billion on 5,547 projects for bike paths and pedestrian walkways and
facilities;
$850 million for 2,772 “scenic beautification” and landscaping projects;
$488 million for behavioral research;
$313 million for safety belt performance grants;
$224 million for 366 projects to rehabilitate and operate historic transportation
buildings, structures, and facilities;
$215 million for 859 projects under scenic or historic highway programs;
$121 million on 63 projects for ferryboats and ferry terminal facilities;
$110 million for occupant protection incentive grants;
$84 million for 398 projects for safety and education of pedestrians and bicyclists;
$84 million for 213 road-kill prevention, wildlife habitat connectivity, and highway
runoff pollution mitigation projects;
$28 million to establish 55 transportation museums;
$19 million for 25 projects to control and remove outdoor advertising;
$18 million for motorcyclist safety grants; and
$13 million on 50 projects for youth conservation service.[/list]


Many of those are specifically for highway maintenance. But if you want to ignore that because it was from conservative report to congress, go ahead.


Anyways, from your link:

    One of the many recent government bailouts consisted of $8 billion for the bankrupt Highway Trust Fund (HTF) — a fund set up to support, through federal gasoline and other taxes, all federal transportation programs and projects. However, the $8 billion did not solve the problem. The Highway Trust Fund will go bankrupt (again) by the end of August 2009 unless Congress bails it out (again).

    This week the U.S. House of Representatives voted to spend $7 billion of taxpayers’ money, just to keep the Fund temporarily afloat, and the U.S. Senate is poised to do the same. Mere months ago, Congress provided over $27 billion for highway and infrastructure projects as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

    Yet billion-dollar government bailouts are not the solution to protect our nation’s infrastructure. Congress must begin by reprioritizing funds.


So, two things:

1. Your link agrees with me that the Highway fund can no longer pay for roads.

2. The list of work you provided above includes infrastructure projects that the US used partly to get itself out of the economic hole that they dug for themselves in the recent financial crisis.

bj wrote:This is a semantic argument, and it's also wrong. If the cost is accrued by other than the government, it is not subsidized by the government by your own misuse of the term "subsidy."


Yes, your criticism is merely a semantic one and does not contradict my claim.

bj wrote:As already stated, the government does not subsidize highways. They are paid for by those who use them. A very substantial use of the highways involves commerce--e.g., driving to work. So when you have the ability to transport yourself to work, you also pay income taxes in addition to the gas taxes. So the government supports projects that generate tax revenue.


No. Highways are not paid by fuel taxes. They might have been fifteen years ago, but not now.

Please see the evidence I already posted.
#14355646
I was loathe to jump into this one because I will just attract the usual "yea but you are not a real conservative" morons. Can I take a crack at this?

I want to establish that I will use two icons of American Conservatism as my sources. Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr. It would be laughable for anyone to question their conservative bona fides.

Goldwater said this:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.


This quote requires that you really look carefully at what he is saying. There is a word that is even more misunderstood than 'conservative' and that is 'libertarian'. Goldwater was a social libertarian. Everything government did was to be vetted in the light of solid libertarian principles. (Not economic....social.) (He was an Eran libertarian....not a Taxizen one ) Further he was a strict constitutionalist. He believed not that big government was necessarily bad, he believed that it ought not be national. Goldwater would have far less apt to criticize state and local governments for (for example) welfare than he was the federal government. He felt that it was the central government that was constitutionally constrained from acting in this regard.

Notice he uses two powerful words...Freedom and Liberty. He strongly advocated for keeping the government out of people's personal lives. Look at this quote from his presidential nomination acceptance speech. It is a blockbuster if you pause to reflect on the word that I highlight and consider the modern 'Fox News Christian Conservative". Look at this:
Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism


This from a man who literally wrote the book on conservatism. Did he really see the conservative as a nonconformist? He most certainly did! What, after all, is the US constitution if not a license to be a nonconformist?

But he was a Christian Conservative, Right? Yes he was. Just like me. He was a high church Episcopalian. And he said this:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."


This just seems to make perfect sense to me but many of my conservative friends are appalled by it. But you see that the seeds of small government are sewed in Thoreau's ""That government is best which governs least""

So Goldwater advocated small government certainly at the national level, but also locally too, mostly because he found so many things to be simply not its business. He rejected virtually the entire social engineering agenda of the central government. And he applied a strict standard on its meddling in the affairs of business with the possible exception of applying justice to it.

Buckley:

At the risk of starting with the trivial:

Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.


Again. Social libertarian leading to less intrusive and therefor smaller government.

One must bear in mind that the expansion of federal activity is a form of eating for politicians.


There is an inverse relationship between reliance on the state and self-reliance.


The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry


And then there is this one:

Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.


So is the rule here to disavow the role of government in all social programs? No. But there is a stark realization that these programs tend to have a life of their own. They grow and they want to multiply. Want an example? Food stamps. What started as means to distribute some of our excess capacity to the poor has become a virtual national guaranteed wage. I and other conservatives do not decry providing aid to the poor. We would, however, assert that it should not be the responsibility of the central government. Aid for the poor should be local and state programs.

Small government.

Think about this. How is it that I pay higher taxes to the federal government than I do to my state? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If the federal government were not involved in such things as pensions and other entitlement programs I wouldn't. Now look. This does not mean that I am opposed to social security. I am not. It is a necessary evil. But it does at least some violence to our constitution.

It is no secret on these forums that I believe that the federal government has been sucked into a wide variety of social vacuums from which it ought not at least for now try to extricate itself. Often we can point to the need to constrain out of control business and do-nothing local governments. Never the less, the ideal conservative position is one of "power down". Place the greatest amount of responsibility closest to the subject of that responsibility.

So the true conservative believes in a small central government because he/she believes it is likely the most ineffective place from which to govern.

Sadly we have not carried the day. Government has grown exponentially and not just because of "liberals". As Buckley said, "the growth of government is a form of eating for politicians".

I have little problem with the government 'regulating' business. Indeed I think it ought to regulate it more. I am just fine with a high national minimum wage for example. I have a huge problem when, rather than regulate, the government decides to go it alone. There is a vast difference between mandating a high minimum wage and enforcing workplace controls and handing out checks drawn on the national bank account.
#14366242
Drlee wrote:It is no secret on these forums that I believe that the federal government has been sucked into a wide variety of social vacuums from which it ought not at least for now try to extricate itself. Often we can point to the need to constrain out of control business and do-nothing local governments. Never the less, the ideal conservative position is one of "power down". Place the greatest amount of responsibility closest to the subject of that responsibility.


Image

If you are interested in talking about how the government has been sucked into a wide variety of social vacuums, let's talk about it. Where would you like to start? This is the pie chart of the federal budget from 2008.


Well, you did start the discussion.
So is the rule here to disavow the role of government in all social programs? No. But there is a stark realization that these programs tend to have a life of their own. They grow and they want to multiply. Want an example? Food stamps. What started as means to distribute some of our excess capacity to the poor has become a virtual national guaranteed wage.


Here is a graph of the food stamp payouts from 2008 to date.

Image

Here is a graph of the average value of the food stamps that a person receives.

Image

I would beg to differ with you on your wording, that food stamps are, "A virtual national guaranteed wage."
#14366271
I would beg to differ with you on your wording, that food stamps are, "A virtual national guaranteed wage."


Call that a bit of hyperbole on my part. Further I think they should not be cut. I think they should be increased or eliminated. I opposed the republican cuts to the program for a variety of reasons.

What Food Stamps are, is a virtually universally applied minimum spending that individuals may apply to food. They not only supplement wages, they pay even when someone is not employed or indeed employable. And they are tied to income.

Your pie chart is deliberately distorted. The US certainly does not spend over half of its budget on defense. This is a number that is routinely quoted but it includes not only the money for current military pensions but a reserve accrued for future ones. Nevertheless as a conservative I would expect that the federal budget would go largely to defense. That is its job. Not funding education at the local level.
#14366465
keso wrote:Image

If you are interested in talking about how the government has been sucked into a wide variety of social vacuums, let's talk about it. Where would you like to start? This is the pie chart of the federal budget from 2008.


And now for a chart that wasn't pulled directly from the ass of some Berkely CS Student:

Image

DrLee wrote:This is a number that is routinely quoted but it includes not only the money for current military pensions but a reserve accrued for future ones.


That's part of it, the X is supposed to indicate spending on emergency funding and black ops. However the main reason it's deceptive is because it depicts discretionary spending only. In other words, it ignores somewhere around 60% of the federal budget...the portion of the budget that includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, and TANF (Welfare). Keso was trying to pass off discretionary spending as though it were the entire Federal budget.
#14366580
Both of those images could be correct.

keso's pie chart could include all spending on defense including emergency spending, while Beal's only looks at the budgeted amount.

The Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, for example, were funded through emergency measures and thus would not appear in the yearly budget.

They are also of different years. Beal is showing 2013 and keso is showing 2008.
#14366956
Pants-of-dog wrote:Both of those images could be correct.


Both of them are at least potentially accurate. Some amount of data interpretation went in to Keso's chart. It's possible it may overestimate military spending as a percent of discretionary spending but it's also possible it does not. What you are failing to understand is that Keso's chart doesn't represent the entire federal budget. It is discretionary spending only. It represents about 40% of the total Federal budget. My chart is the entire federal budget. Keso's is not. Get it yet?

Me: 100%
Keso: about 40% or so. (I havent bothered to look up the exact ratio of discretionary to mandatory spending, but that is what it was a few years ago.)

Pants-of-dog wrote:keso's pie chart could include all spending on defense including emergency spending, while Beal's only looks at the budgeted amount.

The Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, for example, were funded through emergency measures and thus would not appear in the yearly budget.

They are also of different years. Beal is showing 2013 and keso is showing 2008.


/sigh, you really think that defense spending as a percent of the federal budget decreased from over 50% of federal outlays to under 20% in 5 years? Do you read what you write before you post?

If you want a same year comparison, here is discretionary spending alone for 2013:

Image

That is what 2013 military spending looks like as a percent of the discretionary budget. This is what 2013 military spending looks like as a percent of the total budget:

Image

Get it yet?

2013 discretionary budget. Only around 40% or so of the total US Federal budget:

Image

2013 total budget, including both discretionary as well as mandatory spending. 100% of the Federal budget:

Image
#14367172
Drlee wrote:Your pie chart is deliberately distorted. The US certainly does not spend over half of its budget on defense. This is a number that is routinely quoted but it includes not only the money for current military pensions but a reserve accrued for future ones. Nevertheless as a conservative I would expect that the federal budget would go largely to defense. That is its job. Not funding education at the local level.


Drlee, are you saying that the division or percentage in the pie chart does not represent money spent "that current year" but also includes projections for future years?

Could you go into more detail into this. I am asking sincerely, not to try to nitpick, nor for some other BS reason.

I will say that I disagree with the last part of your quote. I think, so would Eisenhauer. That being said, I don't think that the federal budget should go (my quote) "LARGELY" to defense.

Who is going to attack us, in a symmetrical warfare style? Nobody. That's why they hijacked planes, and why they increased the NSA style of activities. (I don't necessarily approve of those).

To be honest, I feel that OBL set out to bankrupt America by forcing us into asymmetrical warfare conditions that are super expensive. But, i am going off topic, sorry for that.

I will say that I agree with you that defense spending should be federal.
#14367187
No offense taken. It is a good question.

When looking at the US military budget it is important, (especially when comparing it to other nations) to remember that US soldiers are paid very very well indeed. On top of this they have a 20 year retirement that pays about half of their base pay and essentially free medical care for life. (Very low medical copays.) So when one looks at a one-over-the-world chart like yours it does not differentiate between current year expenses and expenses for all of the retirees like myself. (I retired and began drawing my retirement pay 20 years ago and will continue (God willing) for at least that much longer in the future.) About 25% of the military budget is salaries and direct personnel costs and this does not include retired pay.

The wars which Bush kept off of the books are very expensive. In addition to the actual expenses for the wars there are the veteran related expenses that are not in the military budget. These are another $158 billion per year half of which is mandatory spending.

We are involved in these very expensive wars (my opinion only) because we refuse to use our conventional power to strike at the nations sponsoring terror. Has we deposed the regime in Saudi Arabia instead of demonstrating in Iraq, for example, we would have gone much further in thwarting radical Islam by pacifying one of its biggest sources of funding.

If the counter terror operations you are speaking of become too expensive we will be forced into deposing regimes until those who would foster terror within their borders fear us worse than they fear the radicals. This is, IMO, what we should have been doing all along. We should have invaded Iran and removed the theocracy immediately during the hostage crisis and installed a liberal regime. If we had we would have made several nations think twice before they sponsored or even tolerated terrorism originating from their turf.

The US spends a lot more than it needs to in no small part because we are willing to take a certain number of casualties to avoid inflicting a great deal more. I will not go on record as endorsing bombing women and children to get rid of terrorists but I am all for destroying the governments of those who support it.
#14367243
Pants-of-dog wrote:Thank you. That was an informative post. I understand things more clearly now.

Can you show me where I can find the mandatory budget (i.e total minus discretionary)?


For a quick analysis with fewer details, the Congressional Budget Office has a breakdown between the two in the Excel file here.

For more details, the White House Office and Management and Budget has all kinds of different views here. For mandatory versus discretionary, see tables 8.x. Of particular interest would be table 8.3, which breaks down the major spending categories as a percent of the total budget. To get defense as a percent of discretionary spending, you would need to calculate yourself from table 8.1. Here is what the two look like, side-by-side, since 2000 (2013 is an estimate):

Left column is year. Middle column is defense as a % of discretionary only. Right column is defense as a % of total federal budget.
Year [Def/Disc] [Def/Total]
2000 48% 17%
2001 47% 16%
2002 48% 17%
2003 49% 19%
2004 51% 20%
2005 51% 20%
2006 51% 20%
2007 53% 20%
2008 54% 21%
2009 53% 19%
2010 51% 20%
2011 52% 19%
2012 52% 19%
2013 52% 18%

While this would indicate an upward trend, the longer term trend has been downward:

Left column is year. Middle column is defense as a % of discretionary only. Right column is defense as a % of total federal budget.
Year [Def/Disc] [Def/Total]
1963 71% 48%
1973 59% 31%
1983 59% 26%
1993 54% 21%
2003 49% 19%
2013 52% 18%
#14368379
Beal wrote:
And now for a chart that wasn't pulled directly from the ass of some Berkely CS Student:



Good positive way to add to a discussion.
#14500015
Pants-of-dog wrote:Conservatives do not support a small gov't.

They like a big gov't that intrudes in people's bedrooms, records their phone calls, controls women's wombs, bombs brown people, subsidises oil and highway construction, builds prisons, fills prisons, and many other things.

Conservatives only want "small gov't" when liberals want to help the poor, as Jesus did.


You can always be counted on to spew emotional LIES, pretty much in ANY situation. I'm just wondering what you ate to cause you to vomit so much bullshit.

To answer the intelligent question of the thread, (and somehow I was sure it wasn't a question you asked) I'd say that conservatives favor small government because larger government has proven to be a disaster. Larger government is bad for business and it's bad for freedom. It costs more in tax revenue, especially when we're paying for stuff we shouldn't have to.
#14500152
Reason10 wrote:You can always be counted on to spew emotional LIES, pretty much in ANY situation. I'm just wondering what you ate to cause you to vomit so much bullshit.




To answer the intelligent question of the thread, (and somehow I was sure it wasn't a question you asked) I'd say that conservatives favor small government because larger government has proven to be a disaster. Larger government is bad for business and it's bad for freedom. It costs more in tax revenue, especially when we're paying for stuff we shouldn't have to.


So you support getting rid of all laws prohibiting abortion. Cutting the defence budgets dramatically. Stop subsidising fossil fuels and highways, shut down the NSA, repeal the Patriot Act, get rid of DOMA, bring the soldiers home, legalise soft drugs, and stop giving churches tax breaks?

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]