Devil's in the details. I haven't looked, but aren't you proposing something like a $700 billion-$1 trillion cut? That's roughly $2000-$3000 per person in this country. Yeesh. Just gonna throw that number out there? Tell you what. How about you identify the first place you'd look to cut.
People talk about government waste as if the private sector were some magical place where nobody spends money unnecessarily or makes mistakes.
How about we wait to pay off the debt until interest rates are actually a problem? You know - make investments that will generate future tax revenues? Oh wait, SOLYNDRA!!!
You know what happens to money you return to the wealthy via a tax cut? To money you give to the poor? Which one, do you think, nets a greater ROI? But oh no, FRAUD!! LAZY BUMS!! WELFARE QUEENS!!
I don't see irrationality to that degree in the Democratic party, which is why I'm a democrat. We have a far left in our party - but they don't have representation in Congress. The far right in the Republican party is very nearly the entire party, and what remains are people who for reasons other than the Bible tend to deny science and economics.
This belongs in the partisanship thread.
Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
We did just fine with budgets of ~2T during the Clinton years and early Bush years. Has inflation jumped up so much as to justify a near-doubling in less than 20 years? The chart on the link normalizes the budgets for inflation adjusted dollars so you can't tell me inflation accounts for the increase. There are some areas of obligation that should be protected, IE Social Security, but you can't tell me that low hanging fruit isn't out there.
I don't think we need a tax cut, as stated before we pulled in 3T in revenue last year. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
http://augmentedtrader.com/2012/06/02/f ... and-obama/
I don't think we need a tax cut, as stated before we pulled in 3T in revenue last year. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
http://augmentedtrader.com/2012/06/02/f ... and-obama/
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Such a narrow set of information, such a sweeping conclusion. I suggest starting with curiosity - listening to the lectures by leading academics and public thinkers would be a great place to start.
Glad you agree that social security is good policy. Thanks for the talk.
Glad you agree that social security is good policy. Thanks for the talk.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Condescend much? Nice dodge of my questions.
We did just fine with budgets of ~2T during the Clinton years and early Bush years. Has inflation jumped up so much as to justify a near-doubling in less than 20 years?
What critical spending is there to account for a nearly $1T/year difference?
We did just fine with budgets of ~2T during the Clinton years and early Bush years. Has inflation jumped up so much as to justify a near-doubling in less than 20 years?
What critical spending is there to account for a nearly $1T/year difference?
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Sorry - I have been excessively condescending. I'll try to tone it down.
In your post, you imply that the government budget should not be impacted by growth, economic factors, or world events. That the budget must be "justified" by "critical spending." I just don't think this is a wise way to think about these things. The government is not a cost, it's not an empty pit into which money is thrown. The question I ask is, where is money best spent? Another way of asking that question is, what should we do with our time?
Reducing the size of government increases the role of the free market. The free market's good for a number of things, but there are also things it's obnoxiously awful at. Economics deals with supply and demand in the abstract, but the free market operates by finance. Currency is its unit of information. Supply and demand are represented in the free market only to the extent represented by currency. Which is to say, you gotta have money for your demands to be counted. And the market is all private: the external effects of private interactions can be enormous, but they're not accounted for by the market.
The desire to shrink the government essentially just because you don't like it is illegitimate on its face. Just as much as communists, rare as they are these days, who dislike the free market just because. They're both equally irrational, except that one is politically legitimate in this country.
Everything is complicated. I don't want to increase or decrease the size of the government generally and nor should anyone else. Every situation is simply too complicated, and you have to look at the particulars to determine whether and to what extent the government's role should be increased or decreased. But some people don't see it this way. Some people think of the government as a pure cost, and to the extent we reduce it, we save money. This is just not very thoughtful.
Sorry again for my condescension. I was being an asshole. Next time I get pissed like that, I'll just let you have the last word and walk away.
In your post, you imply that the government budget should not be impacted by growth, economic factors, or world events. That the budget must be "justified" by "critical spending." I just don't think this is a wise way to think about these things. The government is not a cost, it's not an empty pit into which money is thrown. The question I ask is, where is money best spent? Another way of asking that question is, what should we do with our time?
Reducing the size of government increases the role of the free market. The free market's good for a number of things, but there are also things it's obnoxiously awful at. Economics deals with supply and demand in the abstract, but the free market operates by finance. Currency is its unit of information. Supply and demand are represented in the free market only to the extent represented by currency. Which is to say, you gotta have money for your demands to be counted. And the market is all private: the external effects of private interactions can be enormous, but they're not accounted for by the market.
The desire to shrink the government essentially just because you don't like it is illegitimate on its face. Just as much as communists, rare as they are these days, who dislike the free market just because. They're both equally irrational, except that one is politically legitimate in this country.
Everything is complicated. I don't want to increase or decrease the size of the government generally and nor should anyone else. Every situation is simply too complicated, and you have to look at the particulars to determine whether and to what extent the government's role should be increased or decreased. But some people don't see it this way. Some people think of the government as a pure cost, and to the extent we reduce it, we save money. This is just not very thoughtful.
Sorry again for my condescension. I was being an asshole. Next time I get pissed like that, I'll just let you have the last word and walk away.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
I would buy one of these just for the aneurysms it would give you guys. 
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Dan: Haha. I wouldn't come over to watch you test it out! :-p
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You might have a good time, you never know. 
When I grow up I want to have a plinking range in my back yard like this guy:
[youtube][/youtube]
When I grow up I want to have a plinking range in my back yard like this guy:
[youtube][/youtube]
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
I would love to shoot that thing. That would be fun. Doing it in video games just isn't the same.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Agreed!Nodack wrote:I would love to shoot that thing. That would be fun. Doing it in video games just isn't the same.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
I have a friend who's restoring a WW2 Army Jeep, including a .30-caliber Browning on a pipe mount. De-milled ones with semi-auto sideplates are surprisingly reasonable. The big expense comes into getting a link machine to put belts together and replacing links. Brass you can reload, links not so much AFAIK.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
My dad was in the Korean War and used to restore Willy's Jeeps to look like they did in the war. He collected all kinds of things before he passed away. He had a collection of around 50 old tractors. Some of them really old and real obscure.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You wouldn't believe the market for old Jeep parts out there. You can make them pretty much pristine as they were when initially off the line.
The one my buddy has is a 1938 model, I believe after WW2 it was transferred to the US Forest Service, then transferred to his volunteer fire department. The layers of paint on it were interesting when he started stripping it down.
The one my buddy has is a 1938 model, I believe after WW2 it was transferred to the US Forest Service, then transferred to his volunteer fire department. The layers of paint on it were interesting when he started stripping it down.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
The paint is like a time capsule.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Dan H wrote:You might have a good time, you never know.
When I grow up I want to have a plinking range in my back yard like this guy:
[youtube][/youtube]
Nodack wrote:I would love to shoot that thing. That would be fun. Doing it in video games just isn't the same.
Indy wrote:Agreed!
Dan H wrote:Nope. Not even close.OE32 wrote: Far as I can tell, the vast majority of people who prize the second amendment to such absurd degrees that any regulation of guns whatsoever is thought to be violation own guns principally for recreational purposes. Think it's worth acknowledging that.
The 2nd Amendment is not for recreational, target shooting, or hunting purposes. It is intended to allow sovereign citizens to defend self and property against criminals, miscreants, and yes, the government if and when it becomes necessary.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
OE: That's just it. They talk about some kind of "militia" and "2nd Amendment," but at the end of the day, guns are toys to them, and they don't want to be told that they aren't allowed to play with them.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Mori is right though. Guns are a hobby to most of those people. I don't own a gun, but I did have fun shooting them at targets. Lots of guys like shooting and blowing up things. Ask a typical guy what kind of movie he wants to see and it better have lots of action, T&A and blowing up things.
I come from the center I think. I see both sides. When it comes down to it I care more about saving lives than any hobby. There are places you can go and shoot guns without owning them I believe. If I were to come up with a happy medium I would go that route. Go to a range, rent the 50cal. for a while and get your thrills and then go home to your normal gun for defense. That won't happen. I think we will battle with this for a long time and line as to what you are allowed to own will fluctuate with theologies of the day. The far left will want all guns banned and the far right won't want anything banned. Somewhere in the middle is where the line is drawn like it should be and is right now.
I come from the center I think. I see both sides. When it comes down to it I care more about saving lives than any hobby. There are places you can go and shoot guns without owning them I believe. If I were to come up with a happy medium I would go that route. Go to a range, rent the 50cal. for a while and get your thrills and then go home to your normal gun for defense. That won't happen. I think we will battle with this for a long time and line as to what you are allowed to own will fluctuate with theologies of the day. The far left will want all guns banned and the far right won't want anything banned. Somewhere in the middle is where the line is drawn like it should be and is right now.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Mori is right though. Guns are a hobby to most of those people. I don't own a gun, but I did have fun shooting them at targets. Lots of guys like shooting and blowing up things. Ask a typical guy what kind of movie he wants to see and it better have lots of action, T&A and blowing up things.
I come from the center I think. I see both sides. When it comes down to it I care more about saving lives than any hobby. There are places you can go and shoot guns without owning them I believe. If I were to come up with a happy medium I would go that route. Go to a range, rent the 50cal. for a while and get your thrills and then go home to your normal gun for defense. That won't happen. I think we will battle with this for a long time and line as to what you are allowed to own will fluctuate with politics of the day. The far left will want all guns banned and the far right won't want anything banned. Somewhere in the middle is where the line is drawn like it should be and is right now.
I come from the center I think. I see both sides. When it comes down to it I care more about saving lives than any hobby. There are places you can go and shoot guns without owning them I believe. If I were to come up with a happy medium I would go that route. Go to a range, rent the 50cal. for a while and get your thrills and then go home to your normal gun for defense. That won't happen. I think we will battle with this for a long time and line as to what you are allowed to own will fluctuate with politics of the day. The far left will want all guns banned and the far right won't want anything banned. Somewhere in the middle is where the line is drawn like it should be and is right now.