• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Want to make a deal on cutiing defense spending?

See OP: Are you willing to make that deal?


  • Total voters
    10

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is directed mostly for those on the left who (supposedly) care about the federal deficits and the national debt, but all may feel free to respond...

FY2009
Total defense spending was $655.8B
Total spending on entitlements was $2288.7B

How much do -you- want to cut defense spending?

-I'll- agree to cutting defense spending by any amount -you- care to specifiy, so long as -you- then agree to cut entitlement spending $3.48 for each $1 cut from defense.

Further, I'll let YOU choose what programs are cut from defense, so long as I get to choose what programs are cut from entitlements.

Are you willing to make that deal?

If so, how much to you want to cut...?
 
Last edited:

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
25,463
Reaction score
6,281
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This is directed mostly for those on the left who (supposedly) care about the federal deficits and the national debt, but all may feel free to respond...

FY2009
Total defense spending was $655.8B
Total spending on entitlements was $2288.7B

How much do -you- want to cut defense spending?

-I'll- agree to cutting defense spending by any amount -you- care to specify, so long as -you- then agree to cut entitlement spending $3.48 for each $1 cut from defense.

Further, I'll let YOU choose what programs are cut from defense, so long as I get to choose what programs are cut from entitlements.

Are you willing to make that deal?

If so, how much to you want to cut...?
I want to point out that the "entitlement spending" you mention probably includes a tiny bit for roadways and transportation systems.

I am 100% sure that at least some roadways are used for transportation purposes by the military, and I'm fairly sure that the various defense contractors use them as well.

I'm not as sure, but it seems quite likely that other transportation methods are used as well.

So perhaps adding the transportation spending to the defense spending is warranted?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I wouldn't make this deal. I believe we should increase defense spending and vastly decrease entitlement spending. We also need to reform government employment and cut out waste/pork.
 

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
53,315
Reaction score
21,342
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Is the point of this thread is to demonstrate that military spending is just as important or wasteful as social spending even though the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world disagrees?
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,493
Reaction score
50,041
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We need a new amendment:

Entitlement spending cannot exceed Defense spending. :mrgreen:
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In the fiscal year 2009 budget Department of Housing and Urban Development medicaid, medicare and unemployment/welfare totaled $1031 million. The defense budget, off budget spending, GWOT, homeland security and army core of engineers cost about $741 billion. The War is both Iraq and Afghanistan were considered appropriations and were not included in the defense budget. Social security costs $953 billion. I fail to see where you obtained 2288 billion in "entitlement" spending from. Social security has its own revenue stream, so you can't use it to fix our deficit problems. Even if you include it, your numbers are still off by around 300 billion.

I would support a spending plan that cut every single one of the programs I just mentioned, but that doesn't excuse your inaccurate figures.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,187
Reaction score
32,352
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, I was about to say, your numbers are way off, OP!
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,899
Reaction score
32,554
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We need a new amendment:

Entitlement spending cannot exceed Defense spending come from the federal government. :mrgreen:
:D fixed it for you.

In the fiscal year 2009 budget Department of Housing and Urban Development medicaid, medicare and unemployment/welfare totaled $1031 million. The defense budget, off budget spending, GWOT, homeland security and army core of engineers cost about $741 billion. The War is both Iraq and Afghanistan were considered appropriations and were not included in the defense budget. Social security costs $953 billion. I fail to see where you obtained 2288 billion in "entitlement" spending from. Social security has its own revenue stream, so you can't use it to fix our deficit problems. Even if you include it, your numbers are still off by around 300 billion.
the idea that social security has it's own revenue stream is, at best, a polite fiction masked by naming a tax after it.
 

fredmertz

Active member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
358
Reaction score
115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I want to point out that the "entitlement spending" you mention probably includes a tiny bit for roadways and transportation systems.

I am 100% sure that at least some roadways are used for transportation purposes by the military, and I'm fairly sure that the various defense contractors use them as well.

I'm not as sure, but it seems quite likely that other transportation methods are used as well.

So perhaps adding the transportation spending to the defense spending is warranted?
I believe roads are entitlement spending that would be better off in the private industry.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is directed mostly for those on the left who (supposedly) care about the federal deficits and the national debt, but all may feel free to respond...

FY2009
Total defense spending was $655.8B
Total spending on entitlements was $2288.7B

How much do -you- want to cut defense spending?

-I'll- agree to cutting defense spending by any amount -you- care to specifiy, so long as -you- then agree to cut entitlement spending $3.48 for each $1 cut from defense.

Further, I'll let YOU choose what programs are cut from defense, so long as I get to choose what programs are cut from entitlements.

Are you willing to make that deal?

If so, how much to you want to cut...?
How about we make this deal instead? We'll make no-bid contracts for entitlement programs illegal along with no-bid contracts for defense spending. Is that fair?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,187
Reaction score
32,352
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I believe roads are entitlement spending that would be better off in the private industry.
I think defense spending is an entitlement, then. Why is it my responsibility to make sure that YOU are protected? Or the state of Ohio? I don't even like Ohio. Charge me like 30 bucks to drive across your flat, boring, forever-lasting state....
 
Last edited:

peepnklown

Frankernaut
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
177
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Did you include how much is spent per month on the 2 wars?
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
4,073
Location
Denton, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
No, because I think we should double the spending in both categories. It's just cloth/paper and ink.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I want to point out that the "entitlement spending" you mention probably includes a tiny bit for roadways and transportation systems.
Not accroding to the numbers I have. Transportation is listed seperately under "domestic" spending.

I am 100% sure that at least some roadways are used for transportation purposes by the military, and I'm fairly sure that the various defense contractors use them as well.
Yes... but that doesnt mean the funds for them come out od the defense budget.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Is the point of this thread is to demonstrate that military spending is just as important or wasteful as social spending even though the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world disagrees?
The point was to present an issue that you would refuse to address in any meaningful way, as is your custom. Good to see you contine to live up to your reputation.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
In the fiscal year 2009 budget Department of Housing and Urban Development medicaid, medicare and unemployment/welfare totaled $1031 million.
This information is all from the CBO historical budget data tables.
Historical Budget Data

The $2288.8B entitlement figures include:
Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicade, unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, foster care, and miscallaneous government retirement programs not otherwise specified.

The defense budget, off budget spending, GWOT, homeland security and army core of engineers cost about $741 billion.
All defense spending, includng supplemental wartime spending bills, totalled $655.5B

I would support a spending plan that cut every single one of the programs I just mentioned, but that doesn't excuse your inaccurate figures.
My figures are accurate.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How about we make this deal instead? We'll make no-bid contracts for entitlement programs illegal along with no-bid contracts for defense spending. Is that fair?
I'll take that as a "no deal".
Whatsamatter?
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think defense spending is an entitlement, then.
This only means you dont understand what an entitlement is, and you're trying to avoid the issue put to you.
 

Gray_Fox_86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
282
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is directed mostly for those on the left who (supposedly) care about the federal deficits and the national debt, but all may feel free to respond...

FY2009
Total defense spending was $655.8B
Total spending on entitlements was $2288.7B

How much do -you- want to cut defense spending?

-I'll- agree to cutting defense spending by any amount -you- care to specifiy, so long as -you- then agree to cut entitlement spending $3.48 for each $1 cut from defense.

Further, I'll let YOU choose what programs are cut from defense, so long as I get to choose what programs are cut from entitlements.

Are you willing to make that deal?

If so, how much to you want to cut...?
Goobie,
The last individual I would want to make a deal with is someone with a signature like yours.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Goobie,
The last individual I would want to make a deal with is someone with a signature like yours.
Yeah.... the truth is often a difficult thing.
 

Gray_Fox_86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
282
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This information is all from the CBO historical budget data tables.
Historical Budget Data

The $2288.8B entitlement figures include:
Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicade, unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, foster care, and miscallaneous government retirement programs not otherwise specified.


All defense spending, includng supplemental wartime spending bills, totalled $655.5B


My figures are accurate.
Child credits we need. Obviously because we need a population to keep growing or to remain consistent. But should we offer child credits to whoever has them? No. Child credits should be given to the couple or individual who can support their children without government assistance. Now you may say but then what is the point of child credits? Easy, child credits makes the burden less on the supporter of the child. He or she or they are supporting their own, so their burden to society as a whole should be less.
 

Gray_Fox_86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
282
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yeah.... the truth is often a difficult thing.
It is not the truth because you say it or feel that way. The truth is the whole species is weak and was never strong so we take that truth in order to make life less difficult for all is not a bad thing.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is not the truth because you say it or feel that way.
No... it is the truth becuse it must be.

Resources -are- limited. Spending them on those less able to contribue effectively to the furtherance of the species takes them away from thoise who are more able to contribue more effectively - thus weakening the species by arificially supporting those that would naturally be weeded out.

Nature doesnt hold the human race in some higher regard just because we've been to the moon.

The truth is the whole species is weak and was never strong...
It is not the truth because you say it or feel that way
 

Gray_Fox_86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
282
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No... it is the truth becuse it must be.

Resources -are- limited. Spending them on those less able to contribue effectively to the furtherance of the species takes them away from thoise who are more able to contribue more effectively - thus weakening the species by arificially supporting those that would naturally be weeded out.

Nature doesnt hold the human race in some higher regard just because we've been to the moon.
No. Resources are not really limited. Right now we are throwing away more food and clothing to the garbage or to the oceans not because they are rare but because they are too common.


It is not the truth because you say it or feel that way
It is closer to the truth then blanket statement like your own. I am not trying to offend you or anything. But what I am asking for is that you change your thinking in that believing we have limited resources. Resources are limited but that does not mean we are not providing enough for the world or that the rest of the world can't catch up on.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
No. Resources are not really limited.
Yes they are. There is only so much food, so much water, so much fuel, so much medicine, so many educators, etc. Each of these items are -absolutely- finite; our present (and situational) state of plenty in no way changes this.

It is closer to the truth then blanket statement like your own.
Thus far, you havent shown this to be the case.
 
Top Bottom