JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 3rd December 2012, 08:52 PM   #161
Outback Jack
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
… what is the thesis that people who were born disadvantaged should pay some tax even if they are struggling to survive?
Originally Posted by Profanz View Post
Its an opportunity to be patriotic for real for once.
Or perhaps more importantly, as the Vice President has said, a government
Quote:
"Where everyone, and I mean everyone, has skin in the game and no one gets played for a sucker."
Outback Jack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 08:55 PM   #162
Outback Jack
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Conservatives don't think it's theft to take 700 billion from people to spend on misadventure so excuse me if I don't buy into the "they're stealing my stuff" nonsense.
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I see no evidence of a correlation that could justify supply side economics.
RandFan, what is your opinion of the 750+billion/year 'stimulus'? Do you think that was justified? And, in you opinion, how is the 'stimulus' different than supply side economics?
Outback Jack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:01 PM   #163
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,367
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Defense spending actually creates jobs and increases revenues as opposed to handing it out to people who don't work..
Yes it does. But very inefficiently. Suppose a $1 million creates x jobs. That same mil spent in, say, education, will create much more than x. One reason is that defense spending has a large non-labor element whereas teaching is almost all labor.

Hang on ....

Yes, here is the data I was remembering.

If you distrust that data, the Heritage Foundation posted five ways for the government to create more jobs. None of them were military spending.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:36 PM   #164
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Can you provide an example of how a poor idiot can affect millions of people, often. I can only think of one way but it doesn't happen very often.
How does Adelson affect millions of people often?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:31 PM   #165
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 15,650
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
So, did you complain when your money was taken from you and used to start a war in Iraq on false pretenses?
I'd need the rest of the details of your counterfactual before I could give it due consideration.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 12:27 AM   #166
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bohemian Grove
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I realize how easy it is to become distracted by shinny objects and squirrels. But this thread is about the apparent lack of evidence for supply side economics.
Yes, there is a considerable lack of evidence that the government can cause supply curves to shift as predicted by supply side economic theory.

But you don't seem to be interested in talking about flaws in the actual theory, rather you want to talk about the strawman version from liberal talking points.
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 12:29 AM   #167
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bohemian Grove
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Ever notice how Republicans are so happy to have their taxes used to kill people but they don't like their taxes used to feed people. *What's up with that?
No. I haven't noticed that and neither have you, it is a strawman.
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 12:53 AM   #168
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,367
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How does Adelson affect millions of people often?
I'm happy to reply as soon as you can cite a post where I said that.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:00 AM   #169
respect
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bohemian Grove
Posts: 3,856
Originally Posted by Outback Jack View Post
Do you think that was justified? And, in you opinion, how is the 'stimulus' different than supply side economics?
Supply side economics places considerably less importance on demand that most schools of thought and is more fearful of interest rates and future taxes quickly turning spending multipliers negative, that's a real concern but most recognize that there are exceptions where the multiplying effect can be positive. The Keynesian fiscal stimulus argument hinges on the spending being coherent and the economy being in a liquidity trap but supply side economic theory is highly skeptical of this. While data will be revised a lot in coming years the early returns suggest that the multiplying effect has been positive, although the stimulus was not as successful as the Obama Administration predicted because they wildly overestimated how positive the effect would be. The concern with more is if people expect higher tax rates in the future and/or the borrowing decreases demand for Treasury Bonds the multiplying effect will decline and can turn negative. While it appears to have had some positive effect it is nowhere near as simple as the people saying, "some spending did okay so more should be even better" think.
respect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 05:02 AM   #170
Virus
NWO Inquisitor
 
Virus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,875
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
[*]People have to spend the money on something (ostensibly it will be given to people who work).[*] People have to work to administer social programs.[*]Providing social services often gets them back on their feet. When you kill a child that child is just dead.[/list]
Transferring wealth ≠ creating wealth.
__________________
"They say the right things. They ‘speak truth to power’, ‘transgress boundaries’, and all the rest of it. But you will have noticed that they are careful only to challenge religions that won’t hurt them (Christianity) and governments that won’t arrest them (democracies)." - Nick Cohen.
Virus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 07:06 AM   #171
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The White Zone
Posts: 46,655
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Is it obtuse Monday? People born INTO wealth are advantaged.
It must be obtuse money. Because Randfan said rich people were born advantaged. No where did he limit it to only those who were born into wealth. Words have meaning, if you read them.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 07:55 AM   #172
Modified
Illuminator
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Yes it does. But very inefficiently. Suppose a $1 million creates x jobs. That same mil spent in, say, education, will create much more than x. One reason is that defense spending has a large non-labor element whereas teaching is almost all labor.
Not to mention, the physical products are not directly useful. If you spend money to build a (needed) road, you have a road that people use and that will save money every year for shippers and commuters. If you spend that same money to build a tank, there are no similar benefits.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:03 AM   #173
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Outback Jack View Post
RandFan, what is your opinion of the 750+billion/year 'stimulus'? Do you think that was justified? And, in you opinion, how is the 'stimulus' different than supply side economics?
The stimulus puts money into the hands of people who will spend it directly into the economy.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:09 AM   #174
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Outback Jack View Post
Or perhaps more importantly, as the Vice President has said, a government
Are you telling me that the Vice President is against social social safety nets? In any event, if Biden is against providing social safety nets and if this his is argument it's a pretty pathetic argument. I seriously doubt that the VP is against social safety nets and I suspect you do also.

That said, poor people pays taxes including payroll taxes (as opposed to income taxes) sales and other local taxes. So they have plenty of "skin" in the game.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:10 AM   #175
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
You say you want a serious discussion and then you post something as ridiculous as that?
Why do you say it's ridiculous? It was posted in all seriousness and I stand by it. Do you have something more substantive?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:13 AM   #176
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Virus View Post
Transferring wealth ≠ creating wealth.
I've already addressed this.

The Economic Case for Food Stamps


Originally Posted by The Atlantic
Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:15 AM   #177
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Yes it does. But very inefficiently. Suppose a $1 million creates x jobs. That same mil spent in, say, education, will create much more than x. One reason is that defense spending has a large non-labor element whereas teaching is almost all labor.

Hang on ....

Yes, here is the data I was remembering.

If you distrust that data, the Heritage Foundation posted five ways for the government to create more jobs. None of them were military spending.
Thanks. And the Heritage Foundation posting how govt can create jobs is great.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:32 AM   #178
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 36,170
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
I don't think they have much of a problem with someone extending a hand to the poor; the problem is being forced to extend their hand to the poor. It's called stealing their stuff, and giving it to someone else.
Well, they can cry me a river. We live in a society. No man is an island and all that.
__________________
End of line, man.

"Scientists have a poor understanding of science." - Justintime
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:40 AM   #179
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 36,170
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
It must be obtuse money.
Hilarious typo.

Quote:
Because Randfan said rich people were born advantaged.
No he didn't.
__________________
End of line, man.

"Scientists have a poor understanding of science." - Justintime
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:42 AM   #180
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
It's not that difficult folks:

  • If you are born into wealth you are born advantaged.
  • If you are born into poverty you are not.
Any questions? Not every rich person was born rich and/or advantaged. I've stated that on more than one occasion.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:30 AM   #181
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I'm happy to reply as soon as you can cite a post where I said that.
Short memory?

Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like.
I eagerly await your reply.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:33 AM   #182
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
Not to mention, the physical products are not directly useful. If you spend money to build a (needed) road, you have a road that people use and that will save money every year for shippers and commuters. If you spend that same money to build a tank, there are no similar benefits.
Until a foreign power seizes your land and roads for itself because you have no tanks (or other weapons) to stop them.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:35 AM   #183
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I've already addressed this.

The Economic Case for Food Stamps
By that math you could have a thriving state with a growing economy based on nothing but transfer payments.

Maybe the math is wrong?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:35 AM   #184
Kaosium
Philosopher
 
Kaosium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,568
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Is it possible you might have heard that wrong, or the person misspoke? The top 1% had an adjusted gross income in 2010 (last year I can find the final data on) of 1.517 Trillion, which would be slightly less than the entire budget deficit for 2011, though it's hoped the 2012 deficit will be more on the order of 1 Trillion. The top 10% had an adjusted gross income of about 3.6 trillion.

They could have meant that the total confiscation of the top ten percent's income wouldn't make a dent in the debt which is currently figured at 16 Trillion though of that 5 Trillion is money the government has 'borrowed' from itself or already 'promised' to pay such as the Social Security 'Trust Fund' and other federal pensions and things like nuke plant decommissioning costs. The reason I make the distinction is that the 11 Trillion of Public Debt means we pay interest out on it, whereas the other 5 Trillion we do not, however the Social Security 'Trust Fund' accumulates 'interest' for reasons not germane to this post, however that just adds to the amount kept track of in the fund which is to ensure that every dime plus 'interest' that had been raised from 1983-2010 gets paid to social security recipients as we deliberately ran a surplus those years. For all other intents and purposes that five trillion is just 'debt in waiting' as we have to borrow it when it comes time to pay out, which is why most simply refer to the debt as 16 Trillion.



Regarding the issue of 'fairness' and the rich 'paying their share' the top 1% with that income of 1.517 trillion, which as you can see was 18.9% of the total AGI of all filers, paid 37.4% of the total income tax. The top 10% with ~45% of adjusted gross income paid ~70% of the total income tax. The bottom 50% of filers had 11.7% of the AGI and paid 2.4% of the total income tax. However the FICA tax is capped at 102k or so, thus anyone making more doesn't pay more in payroll taxes, meaning that tax is not nearly as progressive as the income tax and the bottom 50% pay a much more significant portion.

Just FYI as I happened to be looking at it earlier.
Crap, I blew the link, this is what should have been in the first one where it said 1.517 trillion.
__________________
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
Kaosium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:37 AM   #185
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
  • If you are born into wealth you are born advantaged.
  • If you are born into poverty you are not.
Any questions?
So we should ban rich people from having children so no one is born advantaged?

Seriously, what is the purpose of posting this amazing discovery of yours?

Next we can tackle the problem of tall people being unfairly advantaged at basketball.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:59 AM   #186
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 10,204
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
As far as I know, entitlements exceed defense ( killing other people ) spending by a fair margin.
This page at the GAO's web site contains reports on the U.S. government 2011 fiscal year. From the financial statements, here are the top five departments in the U.S. in terms of net expenditures (including any changes to assumptions), and the percentage of total expenditures for which that department accounted in the 2011 fiscal year.

Department of Health and Human Services: $877.1 billion (24.0%)
Social Security Administration: $782.5 billion (21.4%)
Department of Defense: $718.7 billion (19.6%)
Interest on Treasury Securities Held by the Public: $250.9 billion (6.9%)
Department of Veterans Affairs: $178.5 billion (4.9%)

If "interest on treasury securities held by the public" represents the cost to the U.S. government of servicing its debt, then at present it consumes about 7% of government expenditures. By way of comparison, in Canada currently the cost of servicing the nation's debt is about 13% of government expenditures (down considerably from the roughly 33% of the early 1990s).
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:08 AM   #187
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 36,170
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So we should ban rich people from having children so no one is born advantaged?
Non sequitur of the year.
__________________
End of line, man.

"Scientists have a poor understanding of science." - Justintime
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:23 AM   #188
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Quote:
So we should ban rich people from having children so no one is born advantaged?
Non sequitur of the year.
Straw men are his specialty.

RandFan: Social programs are important to help improve outcomes for poor people.
Response: Social programs are unfair because they take the fruits of the rich to give to the poor.
RandFan: Being born poor is unfair.
Response: So we should ban rich people from having children?
RandFan: WE SHOULD HAVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS TO HELP THE POOR.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:30 AM   #189
Modified
Illuminator
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Until a foreign power seizes your land and roads for itself because you have no tanks (or other weapons) to stop them.
Do you think we are any where near that level?

Would the danger be significantly greater if we had half the weapons we have now?

Would doubling the number of weapons we currently have significantly reduce the danger?

Does it just happen that we currently have the ideal amount of weapons?

I would answer "no" to all of those. For the most part it's money better spent.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:33 AM   #190
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
Do you think we are any where near that level?
No.

__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:25 PM   #191
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Straw men are his specialty.
It's not a strawman, it's a rhetorical device to get you to reveal what you think should be done about this amazing discovery of yours that rich people are advantaged.

You keep bringing it up, is there an actual point?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:35 PM   #192
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
Do you think we are any where near that level?

Would the danger be significantly greater if we had half the weapons we have now?

Would doubling the number of weapons we currently have significantly reduce the danger?

Does it just happen that we currently have the ideal amount of weapons?

I would answer "no" to all of those. For the most part it's money better spent.
The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel. Something the people who like to pull out charts comparing US military spending with China and Russia and such either don't understand or understand but wish to deliberately mislead.

We spend a lot on the people in our military - we pay for their health care for the rest of their lives, we send them to college, we help them buy homes, etc etc. China and Russia pay them squat by comparison, they draft them, use them, and spit them out. You don't have to attract recruits with pay and bennies when you have a draft.

The low-hanging fruit in reducing the military budget is by consolidating bases, reducing their number so the ones left can be run more efficiently. But it takes a herculean effort by Congress to agree to even modest base closings, though everyone agrees the bases in the other guy's district should be closed. Just not their own.

eta: lol, I didn't even see before I wrote that that RandFan had pulled out the infamous chart. So predictable!

Last edited by WildCat; 4th December 2012 at 01:39 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:49 PM   #193
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,367
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Short memory?
No, a misunderstanding. But you were right to call me on it so I apologize for the confusion.

We got crossed up at #164. I asked:

Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Can you provide an example of how a poor idiot can affect millions of people, often. I can only think of one way but it doesn't happen very often.
to which you replied:

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How does Adelson affect millions of people often?
and I replied:
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I'm happy to reply as soon as you can cite a post where I said that.
which was inane. Of course I said that about Adelson. In fact, I would SWEAR I wrote up a reply about Adelson instead of that actual post but I cannot find it . Poor finger/mouse work? Low quality moonshine? I dunno. Anyway, I posted the wrong reply there. Sorry.

But your question about Adelson was a non sequitor. I was talking about poor people and you responded with a question about Adelson. Adelson is not poor so he is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

If you want, I'll try to answer your question about Adelson (again?) but by now the thread has moved on and sir-drinks-a-lot, to whom I was originally replying to, has not responded to me so this subthread hardly seems worth pursuing.

Last edited by SezMe; 4th December 2012 at 01:50 PM.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:54 PM   #194
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
No, a misunderstanding. But you were right to call me on it so I apologize for the confusion.

We got crossed up at #164. I asked:



to which you replied:



and I replied:

which was inane. Of course I said that about Adelson. In fact, I would SWEAR I wrote up a reply about Adelson instead of that actual post but I cannot find it . Poor finger/mouse work? Low quality moonshine? I dunno. Anyway, I posted the wrong reply there. Sorry.

But your question about Adelson was a non sequitor. I was talking about poor people and you responded with a question about Adelson. Adelson is not poor so he is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

If you want, I'll try to answer your question about Adelson (again?) but by now the thread has moved on and sir-drinks-a-lot, to whom I was originally replying to, has not responded to me so this subthread hardly seems worth pursuing.
Your claim is that poor people being idiots don't affect millions of people, but that rich people do and that's why you're not concerned about poor idiots. You offered Adelson as an example of a rich idiot affecting millions.

Now you're denying all of this?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 03:38 PM   #195
Modified
Illuminator
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 4,562
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
The problem with your analysis is that the bulk of the military budget is not in weapons, but in personnel.
The same issues apply to personnel. You can pay someone to train to fight, or pay them to mow my lawn. If you don't need them to fight, then either way the result of their spending is the same, but one way I get my lawn mowed and the other way I get nothing. And the same questions of amount also apply. It is improbable that we have the ideal number of soldiers, so we either have to many or too few. Closing bases and reducing personnel may be politically difficult, as you point out, but would probably be less so if we put those people to work at the same pay doing public infrastructure upgrades.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 03:43 PM   #196
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
The same issues apply to personnel. You can pay someone to train to fight, or pay them to mow my lawn. If you don't need them to fight, then either way the result of their spending is the same, but one way I get my lawn mowed and the other way I get nothing. And the same questions of amount also apply. It is improbable that we have the ideal number of soldiers, so we either have to many or too few. Closing bases and reducing personnel may be politically difficult, as you point out, but would probably be less so if we put those people to work at the same pay doing public infrastructure upgrades.
I would not advocate for drastic change. First and foremost the growth needs to stop. Let attrition do much of the heavy lifting. But we would need to phase in cuts to current levels of spending. It can be done without too much pain. We closed all kinds of bases just before we saw one of the biggest economic booms in recent history. I'm not claiming cause and effect just noting that we can do it and it will probably be easier on the economy than cutting social programs.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 03:46 PM   #197
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past 'Resume Speed'
Posts: 13,607
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
The same issues apply to personnel. You can pay someone to train to fight, or pay them to mow my lawn. If you don't need them to fight, then either way the result of their spending is the same, but one way I get my lawn mowed and the other way I get nothing. And the same questions of amount also apply. It is improbable that we have the ideal number of soldiers, so we either have to many or too few. Closing bases and reducing personnel may be politically difficult, as you point out, but would probably be less so if we put those people to work at the same pay doing public infrastructure upgrades.
Put them to work ? Like the WPA ?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of Heaven, is the thought of spending
eternity with most of the people who claim they are going there. "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Skeptical Greg is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 06:43 PM   #198
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,967
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Your claim is that poor people being idiots don't affect millions of people, but that rich people do and that's why you're not concerned about poor idiots. You offered Adelson as an example of a rich idiot affecting millions.

Now you're denying all of this?

Um ... is there another explanation for what happened on November 6th?

__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell

Last edited by balrog666; 4th December 2012 at 06:43 PM. Reason: Just trying to make it more racist!
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:01 PM   #199
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 18,367
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Now you're denying all of this?
Now the problem is 100% yours and I won't bother to reply on this silliness anymore.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 08:47 PM   #200
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,861
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Now the problem is 100% yours and I won't bother to reply on this silliness anymore.
So the following wasn't actually a claim that Adelson affects people "far and wide" with his idiocy?

Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
They are. A poor idiot affects virtually nobody. A rich idiot can spread his/her inanity far and wide. I offer Sheldon Adelson as Exhibit A. I can pretty much consume the rest of the alphabet if you'd like.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.