If we can afford ANOTHER WAR, obviously we don't really need to cut ANY social programs.

[grahamhgreen]

Pretty obvious, isn't it?

The discussion should be about raising revenue, or cutting the war orgy.

In particular, this is how Americans want to do it:

"The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable), eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent), eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren’t necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent). " - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876558/ns/politics

This is a no-brainer.

This is how to win in 2012.

[Autumn]

1. It would be great to hear our

Democratic leaders get out there and talk about raising revenue instead of we all have to get a hair cut, and their one sided "shared sacrifice" bullshit.

[Life Long Liberal]

2. I agree with that!

[Raschel]

3. k & r

[RT Atlanta]

4. K & R

wish I had more to add but the message and the solution is really that simple as you have so eloquently stated.

[CrossChris]

5. I don't think logic, or "no brainers" play into it. They're just going to do what they want to do.

The top 1% is trying to destroy us, and take what they can from the wreckage. Who can really stop them?

[unblock]

6. hardly! we need to cut now to pay for the fourth and fifth wars!

coming soon to an islamic country near you!

:sarcasm:

[anarch]

7. you've got it backwards

we need to cut ALL social programs and eliminate all government regulatory bodies, including the entire EPA, so that we can afford to have even more wars.

Also, we need to raise taxes by 20% across the board for people in the $1.00 - $250,000 annual income range, and cut taxes by 20% for the $250,000 - $4,000,000 income range. Above $4,000,000 a year? No taxes at all, so that jobs will be created. Makes perfect sense, right?

[Zorra]

8. Social Programs do not benefit the multi-national corporations that

the government represents.

Wars do.

[Southerner]

9. We can't afford another anything

I crunched numbers taken from this website:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

The increase in spending between 2008 and 2010 is this:

Pensions 14%
Health Care 22%
Education 39%
Defense 16%
Welfare 56%
Protection 13%
Transportation 19%
General 14%

[TBF]

11. Did you now?

Why don't we look at what the money is actually spent on (as opposed to increases in spending - which disregards the base spending):



Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion (and remember that we paid in extra from our paychecks to cover Social Security/Medicare)

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

At any rate, enjoy your stay.

[Lorien]

12. Lol! That equals 203% of ?

You'd better try "crunching" some new numbers, son. Welfare eats up only a miniscule fraction of our budget compared to the Pentagon and military:

[Southerner]

13. You'd better try a reading comprehension course

My numbers are the INCREASE in spending in those areas. They don't, and will not, add up to 100%. The story being told is that spending has increased drastically in just about every category. Also, my numbers are total spending by the government. Cut it how you want, but we are all taxed for that total spending so that's all that matters.

I'm just trying to make the point that we can't keep harping about spending on wars when it is so easy to point out that spending in all other areas besides the military has increased greatly. I'm worried about 2012.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Give me a break. The Military is over half of the discretionary budget.

Fuck, it IS the discretionary budget.

"WE" can harp on the thing that is the giant friggin' elephant in the room, that for some odd reason is un-fucking-touchable.

[Lorien]

17. It's nice to see that he's still visiting

[Lorien]

18. And you'd better try again. From your own site:

Welfare spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2001_2021&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy12&chart=40-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Defense spending: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2001_2021&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy12&chart=30-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

[Southerner]

20. Try again?

Your links confirm the increases in spending frm 2008 to 2010 for welfare and defense spending I quoted in my original post. What's your point?

[CreekDog]

23. no, you say your link shows 56% increase in welfare --your link says otherwise

why lie? because it makes for a bigger number attributed to welfare? (which you include unemployment insurance, which is about 1/6 --in fact almost all the increase can be attributed to increases in unemployment and food stamps which you don't want to spend on as you'd prefer to have children starve and die than spend more on their care)

[Southerner]

29. Go to my link

Choose 2008 in the pull down menu from my link. Look at how much was spent in the welfare category for 2008 and then for 2010. Do some math. How am I lying?

I am not attacking the spending increase in that category as I realize a lot of it is due to unemployment insurance for a lot of displaced people. What am I pointing out is spending has increased drastically in all categories. How can we go on without facing this fact? I would rather spend time discussing what to do with with the money the government does have instead of abritrarily pointing fingers about what has been spent and where.

[CreekDog]

30. Your link says that you lied about the 56% increase

i'm not monkeying around with your drop downs and so forth.

your link shows welfare spending at roughly 500B in 2008 and roughly 625B in 2010. it's right there on the site you linked to.

[Southerner]

31. Sorry

Your numbers are for total spending (includes state and locals). I should have said click on the Federal tab. The numbers there are 322B and 502B.

[Yavin4]

27. Why Do We Need to Spend $700 Billion A Year on Defense?

Which works out to be $7 trillion a decade. Why? What nation is coming after us? Who is trying to invade and occupy us?

[Shiver]

37. Radical Islamic Atheists, obviously.

And Russia, via Alaska.

[Yavin4]

38. I Think You Mean...

Gay, Radical, Islamic, Athesist, Illegal Immigrants from Mexico.

Still, do we really need $7 trillion per decade to stop them?

[CreekDog]

19. why are you linking a tea partier website?

and why are you using percentages? percentages make the 19B spent on "welfare" after a 56% increase look the largest, but the 16% increase in defense (600-700B!) makes it look small when it's the largest amount of spending increase on the list.

stop being fooled and/or stop trying to fool others.

[CreekDog]

22. why you lying? 56% increase in "welfare" isn't even in the (bogus) link you posted

it shows about a 20% increase.

[grahamhgreen]

32. We can if we tax the rich at the rate of the greatest generation!

We could pay off the debt and deficit in 10 years!

[Lorien]

10. Bringing jobs back to America would raise revenue, as would some WPA

type programs (green energy anyone)? But we don't hear politicians speaking about jobs much anymore, do we?

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I'm of the opinion that until they cut the military in half, end the drug war/legalize & tax pot

they're full of fucking shit that they "need" to cut medicare or pull food out of the mouths of poor kids.

[walldude]

16. +1 There are easy solutions to our problems.

But politics does not care about solutions, just donations and votes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. I've seen the cost of the war quoted as 6x10^8 dollars.

That would be about 2 dollars per person in America, which isn't much of a social programme.

I think there may well be good arguments against American military intervention in Libya, but the cost isn't one of the stronger ones.

[MadHound]

24. Yeah, but that 1.2 trillion plus annual military budget sure is a drain

And social programs aren't about distributing the money evenly amongst every person in the country. Rather, they are about pooling that money and using it for those who are in true need.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Agreed - but Libya is only a tiny fraction of defence spending.

I think that

"Cut defence spending, and use the money to spend more on social programmes"

is a much stronger line of argument than

"Don't intervene in Libya, and use the money to spend on social programmes".

[MadHound]

28. I don't know about that,

Considering that our opening Cruise missile salvo destroyed enough government capital to make up for the cuts in low income heating assistance program.

A million here, a billion there may not sound like much in the greater scope of things, but the fact of the matter is that is money that is being destroyed, money that could be put to better use here at home. A million here, a billion there pretty soon adds up to some real cash. Consider, we've been in Libya for roughly one month. Now multiply that by twelve, then by ten or twenty.

Yet we continue to cut programs that help those poor and elderly. Sorry, it doesn't matter if it is six hundred million or six hundred billion, that is money that is needed here at home.

[truedelphi]

39. You go, MadHound.

I found the latest war really abysmal, because it proves that 96% of the people we have elected don't give a damn about anything other than making cozy with the MIC.

If the war on Libya is all that important, let some other nations fight it. Our nation can hold some type of awards ceremony over at the UN to thank them.

But we just don't have the money right now for more wars.

[EFerrari]

25. We can fund the School of Assassins

but we can't afford health care for seniors.

[sarcasmo]

33. Kick.

[Rex]

34. YES!

I will use this argument! THANKS!

[librechik]

35. yeah, the antiwar vote has always been decisive in elections (horselaugh)

if only...

[leftstreet]

40. See 2006 midterms

That's pretty much how the Dems took over

[raccoon]

36. Amen! nt