And let's make no mistake. Anyone opposed to charging the rich is as unscrupulous and evil as them, since they demonstrate the same lack of moral standards for their odious disregard to the wellbeing of the poor and fragile citizens.
Anyways, I don't know want to link to Wikipedia. But I made it easier for you by marking the relevant parts as red. I trust you don't mind my laziness, and even welcome it.
Not a backbone, but I try to talk with people on the internet like I would if we were face to face. Disrespecting others through an anonymous medium is not being "tough".
It is because of the military industrial complex I think the military would sufficiently defend our country against attack, especially post-9/11, or coordinate humanitarian efforts. But to respond to you directly, it is indeed possible that we can't afford the whole military reasonably anymore. In rather pathetic fashion, you can read about this very subject here and the rest of the article, as well as here. I'm specifically focusing on that because of the research. Even if we could afford the whole military before, recent increases in the defense part of the budget -are responsible for N% of the future debt we will create. I'm still only guessing, but I think the replacement programs are only so expensive because we are routinely using our gear in the war effort, and whether you agree with the effort or not, the temporary things may turn out to be the most expensive things.
Because the extent of my interest only goes so far:
Does the US spend too much because they want to do too much? Almost certainly yes. I've wanted a responsible end to the wars in the Middle East and the situation keeps changing so an abrupt end is not morally responsible, unfortunately. But an abrupt end would be good for us financially.Quote:
So again the question should be "does the US spend too much for what they achieve?" rather just comparing the final budget.
I am actually just responding to your comments through a historical lens. The Congress is granted the power to manage the revenue of the country by the Constitution. You might be afraid of amendments, especially since you're not proposing anything specific, but an amendment is what reform should become, unless Congress actually grants its powers to another institution by law. I can give you two examples: The Federal Reserve was created to handle monetary policy with much controversy, as the Congress also managed monetary policy before then. Also, read the 27th Amendment: very much "a law on how the government should operate financially". Guidelines, being not as binding as laws, you might think are easier to come up with, and while that may be true, I think that you are actually talking about the rules of Congress which is handled by a committee of congresspeople; that is, consisting of your elected representatives. Beyond that you elect such people, it isn't really a power in our hands.Quote:
There is no need to add an amendment on the Constitution just add some laws or even just guidelines on how you want the government to operate financially.
What really took me back on those links was the reality of the bush tax cuts. If I am reading that right then the bush tax cuts eclipsed the Obama stimulus packaged by a full 7%!
List of countries by military expenditure.
I agree that we must spend money on defense, but when the next closest country is 570 billion below you things are getting fairly crazy. We could cut that budget in half and still be sitting on top by quite a bit. My hope is that we can eventually pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you are right in that we don't want to pull out prematurely and cause another Fall of Saigon. Comparing it to Vietnam seems somehow appropriate.
Don't feel bad... nobody else read any of the links either. ;)
I actually read them all so it doesn't bother me much.
I try to read links. Although usually I just skim through them, unless it's something really worth reading in detail. But what I do with links pointing to references corroborating numbers or ideas, is a bit different though: If what the author of the post is saying is to my knowledge, or deemed plausible, I tend to ignore any reference links. But I always appreciate the extra effort in putting them. And depending on how well I know the author of the post, the fact he put up a reference will even have a chance of taking his word for it, without me clicking the link when in doubt.
What I find unnecessary and unnerving is the habit of some to put up links to word definitions. Unless we are talking about an obscure word, I find this act patronizing. Or (take your pick) not very bright; After all, if I feel I'm talking to someone who needs the definitions of the word "plutocracy", "narcissism" or "aristocracy", the fact I decided to have a political discussion with him definitely makes me look like a fool.
All of those insulting messages that had absolutely no content also really made your case, and in no way made you look like a fool.