There is a thing about "Opinions."

 

I have got to answer JFoster

My mother warned me about arguing or discussing with certain kinds of people, but there was entirely too much disinformation in one comment to ignore.  And lastly, I have to say that people who think they know everything are a real pain in butt to those of us who do.

Now, first, about my connection to reality and the legalization of Marijuana– The commentor should go to his Wiki and read about the drug policy in the Netherlands.  Then I would invite him to live in my world.

Next, about defense spending– True, Social Security and Medicare are about the same size as the amount we are told is spent upon defense.  The difference is that Medicare and Social Security are governmental TRUST funds.  They are NOT paid for through income tax.  They are supported by direct contributions from those who benefit from them.  [Except that is for illegal aliens using someone else’s social security number.  They pay but do not collect].  Hence, Social Security and Medicare do not belong in the Federal Budget Allocations, whereas Defense spending is an appropriation and is 60+% of our budget.

If our spending was in line with the rest of the world we could easily balance our budget. Just about every country in Europe, for example, spends less that 2% of its GDP on defense.  Most are around 1% and the whole European Union together only spends 1.69%.  We spend 4.65%.  It is this imbalance that makes it easy for the top 1-2% to keep us busy fighting each other, rather than focusing on them, the real cause of the problem.

Clearly if we reduced our defense spending by 80% or more, our budget would look better.  I can’t help but think the world would be better off, too.

I will not get into a discussion of the fairness of a progressive tax.  One either believes it is an equitable way to spread the cost of government or doesn’t.   That is what we are supposed to have now, except the tax breaks that Bush pushed through put the largest burden of today’s tax structure on the middle class.  If everyone and every corporation paid their fair share there would be enough to do everything that we should be doing—offering Universal Health Care to every man, woman, and child in America; offering higher education or vocational education to everyone who can make use of it at an affordable price. We must raise the standard of living for everyone so that families can spend more time together.  With more support in the home, educating America might become easier.  That would entail some major income redistribution.  It is time.

And thank you for reading my blog.

Print Friendly
 
 
  • Brandon M. Sergent

    Nice work, I’ll be linking to this post. And you have a small typo. “Health Care to ever man,”

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Sayers/100000644760696 Ken Sayers

      thank you, for me, one typo is amazing : ))

      • innomen

        Happy to help :)

  • Eric Brown

    I believe the European Union can afford to only spend 1-2% on Defense is because they rely heavily on the protection afforded by NATO Alliance with the U.S. The last three times we greatly reduced Defense spending, we ended up in major wars. Is this just a coincidence?

    EB

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Sayers/100000644760696 Ken Sayers

      I would answer yes and no. There are always going to be people who want to go to war as long as they think they have something to gain. I just read about someone who went to a village in Peru that did not have a reliable source for potable water. For about $60,000 they were provided with a well and a water tower that was operated through solar panels. There were also some people in the village who were educated to operate it. Doing things like that are a lot less expensive than wars. Not only does it improve how we are viewed, it removes a “war driver.” People go to war because they see no way out of their misery. By helping them, we help ourselves.

      So, Not only do we need to decrease Defense spending, we need to alter the way we view angry people. If we can relieve their anger in positive ways, well you see what I mean.

      On the other hand, I am not altogether sure we did not provoke wars to get our spending back up.

  • http://None Ben

    Just wanted to thank you for that pie chart of the breakdown of government spending! It clearly breaks down government spending.

    However, I wanted to point out that your proposal to reduce defense spending by 80% is a little outlandish. Cutting any budget by 80% would cripple the organization. Perhaps a more sensible approach would be to instead gradually reduce the budget.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Sayers/100000644760696 Ken Sayers

      I would not cut it 80% overnight. First there is a lot of waste. Second, there are weapon systems that are unnecessary. Third, there are a lot of funds tied up in logistics to supply our troops in the Middle East. Fourth, we need to retool our defense industry to start making items we need for peace. There are way too many people employed in the Defense sector to simply cut, cut, cut.

  • http://myspace.com/4merlyknownasken Ken_Sayers

    I do not believe I said that the defense budget should be cut overnight, but a start would be nice. The billions we are spending on war and bribes could be a good place to begin.eliminating private contractors would also be a good idea. We train the soldiers and then they quit and go to work for Blackwater. We don’t have enough soldiers so we hire Blackwater mercenaries at rates hundreds of times what we would have paid them had they stayed in the military. I would be interested in finding out if Blackwater is an equal opportunity employer.

  • George

    Your pie chart is utter fail. It only represents discretionary spending. You fail to mention that over half of the US budget is “mandatory spending,” another word for entitlements. We give away over half of the budget to people, many of whom never paid in at ALL. We have sold the future of this country to create a massive corrupt welfare state, due to thinking like yours. You also deride defense spending- defense (which makes up about 17% of the real budget) is the only thing on that chart that is an actual constitutional role of our government.

    I won’t even get in to the fairness of “progressive” taxes… yeah punish the people that work, reward the ones who don’t.

    Thanks for destroying my country and my children’s future.

    • Chris

      Absolutely right, George. Simply more liberal spin here – blame defense spending, ignore entitlements. Talking about cutting billions in defense spending and not mentioning the trillions in entitlement spending is ludicrous at best.

    • Paul-ATL

      Touche as they say… Defense spending has already been cut too far. We are the most powerful nation as well as the leader of the free world. We are not supposed to be among the rest of the world. And you may call that arrogant, I call it being proud to be an American. I will not apologize for that.

      If you want to be a pansy, go live in France. Conservatives have been too conservative with standing up to the socialist direction, and now have decided to stand up together to bring America back to our proud stance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Sayers/100000644760696 Ken Sayers

        It is time, Paul, to find other means to settle our differences.

    • Lar

      Mostly wrong George. You are right, social security is an entitlement. You make that sound like that is a bad thing. Do conservatives think entitlements are a bad thing? Yes?

      Social security is what people that work pay into George. It is mandatory spending. It is an entitlement. Though managed by government, it is owned solely by the workers that paid into it.

      “We give away over half the budget…”, is what you said. We give away no tax money by paying out social security benefits.

      U totally fail George.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ken-Sayers/100000644760696 Ken Sayers

      The “Mandatory Spending” is NOT part of the budget. Social Security and Medicare are not paid for through income taxes and therefore do NOT contribute to the deficit. Those two items are “ON” the budget, as opposed to “IN” the budget because of a law signed by Lyndon Johnson. That law allows the amount spent on Medicare and S.S. to be added into the budget’s total figure, but it is NOT part of the budget. It was dobe to make the budget appear to be bigger and therefore make the defense portion appear to be relatively smaller. President Nixon was the first to use that option. “On” the budget is entirely different from “in” the budget. Sorry you are so focused on defense. You need to give more thought to what you are trying to defend.

  • Pingback: スーパーコピー時計