The Next President is...

[Weapons Away]

9 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

You're quoting a summary statistic that conveys information about groups who use any program and collecting it all underneath one metric. This incorporates social security. Which basically includes anyone who worked and paid taxes at some point in their lives. It's a bit of a stretch to consider SS under the same banner as food stamps, SNAP, WIC, or Section 8 benefits. Anyway, the more subsets you include in any statistic, the more it will display convergence towards the underlying population. So that's the literal, mathematical reason you're seeing that effect.

The same exact site you provide allows you to answer your own question. If you select "Filter by Characteristics - Race" you'll be able to dig into the stats. For instance, you can see what @blueingreen is talking about if you look at WIC/SNAP by race:

Section 8 benefits show a similar pattern. Effectively, you're missing examining the underlying populations, or stated differently, not restricting the data by subset.

Ah gotcha, appreciate the breakdown!

[brabus]

56 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Let’s quit Lockheed now. No more F-35. Who will you turn to?

I was more addressing the way forward, using the failures of the F-35 program as an example of what not to repeat. How are relatively recently written contracts written, and have we learned anything from previous fiscally retarded contracts (the answer is no)? Many weapons programs are also great examples of what not to repeat. We absolutely can start today not signing contracts that don’t include favorable condtions for the gov. We kick cans down the road so egregiously already, so fuck it, I’m fine with kicking some stuff down the road a few years until primes start bending the knee a bit. 

 

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

And - contentious opinion here - if Lockheed and Boeing essentially have monopolies on critical national defense systems, we need to seriously consider government control of those things while we fix the free market that we allowed to essentially wither away post Cold War. They can have their bespoke defense arms portions of their companies back when we have essentially trust busted these shitty organizations.

I’m with you on that. There does need to be some trust busting done with the big primes. It has become well out of control. I read a book about industry leading up to WW2, the differences in mindset is staggering - they were whole heartedly pro-America; current day LM, Boeing, etc. execs do not GAF about America. 

[blueingreen]

4 hours ago, Weapons Away said:

Genuinely curious as to where you are seeing this data at. Every time I've checked the census on this particular subject, I haven't seen the per capita numbers you describe. I'm seeing the following:

Among the population receiving social safety net benefits in 2022 (most recent data) 75.6% white, 13.4% black, 6.3% asian, 4.6% some other race (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html). When paired with most recent census data on the racial makeup of the U.S. population (2020), I'm seeing the white alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%, hispanic population at 18.7%, and the black population at 12.1% (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html). Unknown if the white population in the safety net numbers included white hispanics, but assuming it does for now, those population numbers seem to align with the social safety net numbers.

What am I missing?

Edited for spelling

Fair question. The Census Bureau's interactive data visualization site isn't my favorite. The tool itself doesn't work too well. Try selecting specific categories of welfare programs to do a more granular analysis and the tool starts spitting out "no data available" depending on the combination of programs you select. And like you pointed out, it puts Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites into the same category, which isn't helpful. I'm not entirely sure how they built this tool, but it seems like they're not accounting for the relative size and scale of each program. When presenting data without weighting important information like beneficiary counts or spending shares, you can easily create a misleading sense of equivalence between programs like Medicaid (85 million beneficiaries, 50% of welfare spending) and smaller programs like TANF or WIC (less than 2% of welfare spending). This lack of context is pretty obfuscating. 

The Census data itself isn't bad -- it's great and offers a tremendous sample size, but the Bureau does a poor job of communicating that data. There are other organizations that take the same valuable data and communicate it better. Let's look at some of the biggest public assistance programs to get an idea of what's going on:

Medicaid

Spending FY 2023: $880 Billion

Utilization: White 39.5%, Black 18.5%, Hispanic 29.9%, Asian 4.7%, Native American 1.0%, Multiple Races 6.0%

Source: Kroger Family Foundation (Utilization), Kroger Family Foundation (Spending)

 

Medicare

Spending FY 2023: $1 Trillion

Utilization: White 72.3%, Black 10.1%, Hispanic 9.8%, Asian 4.6%, Native American 0.4%, Multiple Races 2.7%

Source: Kroger Family Foundation (Utilization), CMS.gov (Spending)

 

Social Security

Spending FY 2024: $1.5 Trillion

Utilization: I couldn't find a simple breakdown except for at the Census Bureau site. Their numbers are: White 81.1%, Black 12.1%, Asian 3.7%, Other 3.0%. We know that non-Hispanic Whites are probably a large majority of that 81.1%.

Source: CBPP (Spending), Utilization (Census Bureau)

 

SNAP (Food Stamps)

Spending FY 2023: $113 Billion

Utilization: White 35.3%, Black 26.0%, Hispanic 15.1%, Asian 3.7%, Native American 1.4%, Multiple Races 0.6%, Race Unknown 17.6%

Source: USDA (Spending), USDA (Utilization, Table 3.6, Page 29)

 

There's a pretty clear pattern emerging here: Universal public assistance programs designed for old people who have worked and paid taxes their whole lives are utilized the most by Whites, but not at exceedingly disproportionate rates when you account for the racial demographics of the elderly (75% of Americans age 65+ are non-Hispanic Whites). Other public assistance programs are disproportionately used by Blacks and Hispanics, often at rates that are 1.5 - 2.0x higher than you would expect for a population of their size; AKA higher per capita consumption.

[Banzai]

50 minutes ago, brabus said:

I was more addressing the way forward, using the failures of the F-35 program as an example of what not to repeat. How are relatively recently written contracts written, and have we learned anything from previous fiscally retarded contracts (the answer is no)? Many weapons programs are also great examples of what not to repeat. We absolutely can start today not signing contracts that don’t include favorable condtions for the gov. We kick cans down the road so egregiously already, so it, I’m fine with kicking some stuff down the road a few years until primes start bending the knee a bit. 

 

I’m with you on that. There does need to be some trust busting done with the big primes. It has become well out of control. I read a book about industry leading up to WW2, the differences in mindset is staggering - they were whole heartedly pro-America; current day LM, Boeing, etc. execs do not GAF about America. 

Fair enough. We just have to be pragmatic about where we are: to fix this problem we have to either decide to continue funding this system for a while while we work on incremental change OR we can rip the bandaid off but must be aware we are consciously taking a hit in our war fighting capabilities over the next decade.

This is made tougher by the current competition we are in with China.

[Weapons Away]

50 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

Fair question. The Census Bureau's interactive data visualization site isn't my favorite. The tool itself doesn't work too well. Try selecting specific categories of welfare programs to do a more granular analysis and the tool starts spitting out "no data available" depending on the combination of programs you select. And like you pointed out, it puts Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites into the same category, which isn't helpful. I'm not entirely sure how they built this tool, but it seems like they're not accounting for the relative size and scale of each program. When presenting data without weighting important information like beneficiary counts or spending shares, you can easily create a misleading sense of equivalence between programs like Medicaid (85 million beneficiaries, 50% of welfare spending) and smaller programs like TANF or WIC (less than 2% of welfare spending). This lack of context is pretty obfuscating. 

The Census data itself isn't bad -- it's great and offers a tremendous sample size, but the Bureau does a poor job of communicating that data. There are other organizations that take the same valuable data and communicate it better. Let's look at some of the biggest public assistance programs to get an idea of what's going on:

Medicaid

Spending FY 2023: $880 Billion

Utilization: White 39.5%, Black 18.5%, Hispanic 29.9%, Asian 4.7%, Native American 1.0%, Multiple Races 6.0%

Source: Kroger Family Foundation (Utilization), Kroger Family Foundation (Spending)

 

Medicare

Spending FY 2023: $1 Trillion

Utilization: White 72.3%, Black 10.1%, Hispanic 9.8%, Asian 4.6%, Native American 0.4%, Multiple Races 2.7%

Source: Kroger Family Foundation (Utilization), CMS.gov (Spending)

 

Social Security

Spending FY 2024: $1.5 Trillion

Utilization: I couldn't find a simple breakdown except for at the Census Bureau site. Their numbers are: White 81.1%, Black 12.1%, Asian 3.7%, Other 3.0%. We know that non-Hispanic Whites are probably a large majority of that 81.1%.

Source: CBPP (Spending), Utilization (Census Bureau)

 

SNAP (Food Stamps)

Spending FY 2023: $113 Billion

Utilization: White 35.3%, Black 26.0%, Hispanic 15.1%, Asian 3.7%, Native American 1.4%, Multiple Races 0.6%, Race Unknown 17.6%

Source: USDA (Spending), USDA (Utilization, Table 3.6, Page 29)

 

There's a pretty clear pattern emerging here: Universal public assistance programs designed for old people who have worked and paid taxes their whole lives are utilized the most by Whites, but not at exceedingly disproportionate rates when you account for the racial demographics of the elderly (75% of Americans age 65+ are non-Hispanic Whites). Other public assistance programs are disproportionately used by Blacks and Hispanics, often at rates that are 1.5 - 2.0x higher than you would expect for a population of their size; AKA higher per capita consumption.

Awesome explanation. I was getting those "no data available" results when I tried to filter the data down initially. Your point about the per capita consumption makes sense though given the data.

Greatly appreciate the thorough response and additional sources of info!

[brabus]

39 minutes ago, Banzai said:

we can rip the bandaid off but must be aware we are consciously taking a hit in our war fighting capabilities over the next decade.

 

I’m in that camp. There will always be threats and there is never a good time. I think we can do it without crippling ourselves, but maybe that means we don’t go shoot X% of WRM at OWA drones from Iran, we don’t spread ourselves around the world at the rate we have for so long (e.g. where did 20+ years of spending like a drunken sailor in OEF, OIF, OIR, OFS, etc. get us), we stop sending hundreds of billions around the world and getting little to nothing in return, etc. There will be tough decisions to make, we can’t “save them all,” and bad things will happen to good people. We won’t turn off the lights by any means, but we will tighten the belt. We’ll come out much better on the other side in the mid 2030s.

Edited Sunday at 10:14 PM by brabus

[nsplayr]

Re: international competition & budget cuts, I honestly believe Trump will do us a huge favor in terms of needing to spend to keep up with the current pacing threat. I really think based on what he's said that he'll just let Xi walk into Taipei unopposed, which will really save us in terms of ships/aircraft/missiles.

The downside is completely abandoning Taiwan to Chinese domination and the global economic and military consequences of that. But if I were a betting man, I would bet that's what will happen if/when China kicks off their long-planned "reunification" campaign.

So I guess what I'm saying is we can go ahead and slash PACOM joint exercises, JASSM purchases, shipbuilding, etc. 🙄

To be clear - I do not support this course of action.

[nsplayr]

Honest question for those here who sincerely believe we need to reign in the budget. The framework GOP proposal for their NLT March 14th spending bill is $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, with $1.5 trillion in planned discretionary spending cuts and a "goal" of $2 trillion in additional mandatory spending cuts. The net effect, even absolute best case, is a $1 trillion increase in the annual deficit compared to baseline now i.e. the TCJA expires on time. Let alone getting to a balanced budget, let alone paying down the national debt after running a surplus, etc., all of which Trump has at various times talked about or promised, albeit I'm sure unseriously.

Does that plan work for you? Do you support adding $1 trillion annually to the deficit? And that's AFTER severely cutting discretionary spending, which includes DoD spending? AND after cutting mandatory spending, which as you know is unlikely to be popular with older folks either.

My POV is that every time a Dem is in the white house, a large segment of the GOP wants everything paid for, cut, trimmed, etc., but as soon as a Republican is in the seat they will happily deficit spend (usually by cutting taxes, but also spending on other things they like) with nary a peep. I know many of you here are likely more intellectually honest and consistent than your average member of Congress, so I'd love to hear a rationale for what is likely to happen on or around March 14th.

My plan would be to raise taxes modestly and keep mandatory & discretionary spending relatively flat. Perhaps work around the edges of mandatory e.x. raising the social security age by 6 months or a year for the youngest workers today, etc. That has a much bigger long-term effect than cutting the EPA or CFPB down to zero.

[BashiChuni]

Look at the waste doge is finding and convince me the government deserves more of my money. 

[nsplayr]

26 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Look at the waste doge is finding and convince me the government deserves more of my money. 

The government deserves more of your money, especially if you are a high earner, based on what the American people expect the government to do and provide. If you want to become a second-rate power relegated to the sidelines of world affairs, go ahead and austerity yourself there I guess. I however do not want that fate.

We need more ships, more jets & flying hours, more munitions, more space launch & satellites, more primary care & preventive medicine, more rural hospitals and medical providers, more support for farms & farmers, better disaster response, more basic scientific research, more investment into AI and AI safety, and more support for hungry and poor children in particular. Just the first handful things off the top of my head.

If we can find efficiencies, which we can, great, I'm for it. We've all seen wasteful stuff in the course of government employment. I've also seen waste in the private sector that would rival any government department.

But "finding efficiencies" is not a mission for an axe, that's a mission for a scalpel. Our capitalist economic system and the overall entrepreneurial drive of Americans can provide a lot of that stuff (for a price), but the government needs the resources to make that stuff happen too - you don't get a new sub or F-35 or rural hospital from the free market alone. You don't get any of that stuff by wantonly firing government employees, cancelling contracts, or otherwise destabilizing an otherwise steadying piece of our overall economic castle. Burn it all down with vague promises to built it back better & more efficient is a strategy you can try with a little bird app or a small company - it's not a good idea for the government of the world's premier superpower. There's a reason some things are designed to move fast and other things are designed to move slow.

That's my view - I'm very sure I can't convince you of anything though so I'm sure you will disagree.

Edited Monday at 01:38 AM by nsplayr

[Smokin]

7 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

The government deserves more of your money, especially if you are a high earner, based on what the American people expect the government to do and provide. If you want to become a second-rate power relegated to the sidelines of world affairs, go ahead and austerity yourself there I guess. I however do not want that fate.

We need more ships, more jets & flying hours, more munitions, more space launch & satellites, more primary care & preventive medicine, more rural hospitals and medical providers, more support for farms & farmers, better disaster response, more basic scientific research, more investment into AI and AI safety, and more support for hungry and poor children in particular. Just the first handful things off the top of my head.

If we can find efficiencies, which we can, great, I'm for it. We've all seen wasteful stuff in the course of government employment. I've also seen waste in the private sector that would rival any government department.

But "finding efficiencies" is not a mission for an axe, that's a mission for a scalpel. Our capitalist economic system and the overall entrepreneurial drive of Americans can provide a lot of that stuff (for a price), but the government needs the resources to make that stuff happen too - you don't get a new sub or F-35 or rural hospital from the free market alone. You don't get any of that stuff by wantonly firing government employees, cancelling contracts, or otherwise destabilizing an otherwise steadying piece of our overall economic castle. Burn it all down with vague promises to built it back better & more efficient is a strategy you can try with a little bird app or a small company - it's not a good idea for the government of the world's premier superpower. There's a reason some things are designed to move fast and other things are designed to move slow.

That's my view - I'm very sure I can't convince you of anything though so I'm sure you will disagree.

The government doesn't "deserve" anything and telling high wage earners that they need to pay more so we can give their money away to people that didn't earn it is what started our country down this dangerous road that we're currently on.  Wealth redistribution (Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, and other income security programs) in 2023 expended 75% ($3.3B) of the tax collected ($4.4B).

You will never find enough efficiencies with a scalpel.  I don't think an axe is a big enough tool.  I'd prefer they use a bulldozer.  Bureaucracies naturally grow bigger and try to empire build, it is just part of the build of a bureaucracy.  Go cut a small chunk of the mold off of old bread and the next day it'll have grown back again.  Our government bureaucracies have grown to the point that we need to cut entire agencies to stem the growth.

[blueingreen]

1 minute ago, Smokin said:

The government doesn't "deserve" anything and telling high wage earners that they need to pay more so we can give their money away to people that didn't earn it is what started our country down this dangerous road that we're currently on.  Wealth redistribution (Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, and other income security programs) in 2023 expended 75% ($3.3B) of the tax collected ($4.4B).

You will never find enough efficiencies with a scalpel.  I don't think an axe is a big enough tool.  I'd prefer they use a bulldozer.  Bureaucracies naturally grow bigger and try to empire build, it is just part of the build of a bureaucracy.  Go cut a small chunk of the mold off of old bread and the next day it'll have grown back again.  Our government bureaucracies have grown to the point that we need to cut entire agencies to stem the growth.

Couldn't agree more. The scalpel-based approach would have worked maybe 60 years ago, probably even longer. But the cancer has metastasized beyond belief and we're now at the point where the whole system is going to need to suffer to rid ourselves of the rot. It's easy for me to say as a young and healthy guy with little invested / little to lose thus far, but I would gladly forfeit social security, medicare, and medicaid entirely if it meant that future generations wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of our irresponsibility. We're headed into South Africa territory where a shrinking subset of the population is going to be called upon to shoulder an increasingly impossible financial burden.

[Lord Ratner]

@nsplayer I'm against cutting taxes until we clean up spending. I'm also against raising them. But they do need to be standardized and lowered soon after getting debt levels down. 

 

We need a constitutional amendment that absolutely nothing can be funded for longer than ten years, and all funding must be a specific dollar amount. No future adjustments for inflation, no COLA, no fixed percentages, no per capita budget, nothing. Every single program and expense gets a fixed dollar amount in the budget, and can't exceed 10 years of funding. Right now it takes an act of God to get a program defunded. It should take an act of God to get the program funded. Yes this includes SSI and Medicare/Medicaid.

 

You will always have rot and bloat and ancient politicians rape the future to fund their bullshit, but it should be just as easy for the next generation of politicians to turn off the spigot.

 

 

Edited Monday at 02:52 AM by Lord Ratner

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

@nsplayer I'm against cutting taxes until we clean up spending. I'm also against raising them. But they do need to be standardized and lowered soon after getting debt levels down.

At least that's an honest position! The current GOP plan looks nothing like that unfortunately...perhaps you didn't vote for them. I'm pretty confident you didn't vote Dem.

break break

Apparently Elon, wants an 8% cut at DoD, while the House GOP are looking for an almost 12% boost. Unclear what Trump's position is, per usual. Probably depends on the last person who talks to him before he fires up his phone for some "executive time" tweeting.

Good luck reconciling that discord with full GOP control of the government and a 3-seat House majority! Soon to be 2, when Stefanik is confirmed for the UN & resigns from the House, maybe they'll continue to string her along for another month plus just to have her vote available.

Elon's proposal would cut almost the entire USMC and Space Force...there may be efficiencies to be found, but not that many! IMHO the 12% boost is more in line with what is being asked of DoD - I think we need more end strength as well as many more weapons, prioritizing volume of specific capabilities over a couple additional of the biggest-ticket items. There's a quality to quantity and we don't currently have it.

I could be convicted of a smaller increase, but I don't see how we stay flat, let alone cut 8% without basically forfeiting upcoming conflicts in advance. Russia is not cutting defense budgets. China is not cutting defense budgets. Hell, Europe is not even cutting defense budgets!

Trifecta shutdown on March 14th here we come...

Edited Monday at 04:24 AM by nsplayr

[Banzai]

2 hours ago, Smokin said:

The government doesn't "deserve" anything and telling high wage earners that they need to pay more so we can give their money away to people that didn't earn it is what started our country down this dangerous road that we're currently on.

Something about ask not what your country can do for you…

It seems like many here love the benefits of living in a superpower (cheap prices, lots of earning potential) but can’t seem to grasp that hard and soft power - as well as the maintenance of society - have real costs. Also ironic you talk about roads - how would you propose those be funded if the government doesn’t deserve anything?

[Smokin]

4 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Something about ask not what your country can do for you…

It seems like many here love the benefits of living in a superpower (cheap prices, lots of earning potential) but can’t seem to grasp that hard and soft power - as well as the maintenance of society - have real costs. Also ironic you talk about roads - how would you propose those be funded if the government doesn’t deserve anything?

You find it ironic I talked about roads in a post highlighting problems with our government spending?  I find it extremely ironic that you referenced the 'ask not what your country can do for you' quote when talking about the budget when the majority of the federal government budget is purely wealth redistribution under various names.  That is 100% people asking what their country can do for them and many of them do virtually nothing for their country in return.

I gave the best 20+ years of my life defending this country; I've asked and answered what I can do for my country.  I'm not asking anything of my country now other than to stop taking my money and giving it to people that haven't done a thing to deserve it.  As @blueingreen said, I'd gladly forfeit everything I've contributed to social security in order to kill all wealth redistribution plans.

I'm just fine paying taxes for things like roads, national defense, etc.  I fully grasp that those have real costs that I've paid for, both in taxes and service.  But the majority of our budget is not roads and such.  And the enormous bureaucracy gobbles up significant portions of the very small portions of our budget that are allocated for what the federal government actually should be doing.  If our government doesn't start focusing on what it should be doing and cutting out the rest of the BS, we're going to be in a world of hurt.

[ViperMan]

57 minutes ago, Smokin said:

You find it ironic I talked about roads in a post highlighting problems with our government spending?  I find it extremely ironic that you referenced the 'ask not what your country can do for you' quote when talking about the budget when the majority of the federal government budget is purely wealth redistribution under various names.  That is 100% people asking what their country can do for them and many of them do virtually nothing for their country in return.

I gave the best 20+ years of my life defending this country; I've asked and answered what I can do for my country.  I'm not asking anything of my country now other than to stop taking my money and giving it to people that haven't done a thing to deserve it.  As @blueingreen said, I'd gladly forfeit everything I've contributed to social security in order to kill all wealth redistribution plans.

I'm just fine paying taxes for things like roads, national defense, etc.  I fully grasp that those have real costs that I've paid for, both in taxes and service.  But the majority of our budget is not roads and such.  And the enormous bureaucracy gobbles up significant portions of the very small portions of our budget that are allocated for what the federal government actually should be doing.  If our government doesn't start focusing on what it should be doing and cutting out the rest of the BS, we're going to be in a world of hurt.

[blueingreen]

41 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Something about ask not what your country can do for you…

It seems like many here love the benefits of living in a superpower (cheap prices, lots of earning potential) but can’t seem to grasp that hard and soft power - as well as the maintenance of society - have real costs. Also ironic you talk about roads - how would you propose those be funded if the government doesn’t deserve anything?

This argument doesn't even make sense in 2025 when you consider the many ways in which our standard of living has declined while our tax burdens have increased. And don't give me some bullshit about cheap toys like consumer electronics and the like. I want affordable homes, reliable cars, and cheap energy, not a $100 LCD monitor or a $15 polyester sweater made in Bangladesh.

What's the point of my taxes going up, of seeing the numbers on the GDP chart go up every year, if I can't even do something as simple as ordering a beautiful and affordable kit home from the Sears catalog anymore? This house would cost $45,000 today after adjusting for inflation. According to your logic, life in 2025 should be better than it was in 1995, 1985, or 1955 because we pay more taxes, but a man in 1940 could live better than me...

The whole point of "hard power" and "soft power" is to enable us to live in peace and prosperity, either through the carrot or the stick. But instead of building onwards and upwards from the success of our predecessors, we chose to coast on their legacy. Now I have to regularly worry about something as ridiculous as being accosted by a drugged out schizophrenic when taking public transportation in most major cities, which would have been a once-in-a-lifetime experience for my grandfather. It's just death by a thousand little cuts with this kind of stuff, and it fatigues the collective consciousness of our society... and empties our wallets...

We need to seriously rethink our approach to these things. Higher taxation is not the answer. We need less spending, but it's almost impossible to achieve because people can't fathom the thought of losing enormous cash cows like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. "I paid into it, other people should too!!"

And while we're figuring out this domestic spending crisis, we certainly shouldn't be spending any money on condoms for Gaza, transsexual theater troupes, DEI bullshit, and countless other misallocations of taxpayer money.

[Boomer6]

[O Face]

12 hours ago, Smokin said:

You find it ironic I talked about roads in a post highlighting problems with our government spending?  I find it extremely ironic that you referenced the 'ask not what your country can do for you' quote when talking about the budget when the majority of the federal government budget is purely wealth redistribution under various names.  That is 100% people asking what their country can do for them and many of them do virtually nothing for their country in return.

I gave the best 20+ years of my life defending this country; I've asked and answered what I can do for my country.  I'm not asking anything of my country now other than to stop taking my money and giving it to people that haven't done a thing to deserve it.  As @blueingreen said, I'd gladly forfeit everything I've contributed to social security in order to kill all wealth redistribution plans.

I'm just fine paying taxes for things like roads, national defense, etc.  I fully grasp that those have real costs that I've paid for, both in taxes and service.  But the majority of our budget is not roads and such.  And the enormous bureaucracy gobbles up significant portions of the very small portions of our budget that are allocated for what the federal government actually should be doing.  If our government doesn't start focusing on what it should be doing and cutting out the rest of the BS, we're going to be in a world of hurt.

Don’t try to get up Banzai

[Banzai]

Does Medicare/Medicaid/Social security have any positive effects on society? Do you benefit from those things?

Does the removal of Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security have any negative effects on society? Do those effects reach you?

Do you see people making $30k a year working a minimum wage job as members of the society you live in? Or are they just sucking up your resources?

Also, spare me on the twenty years. We have all served, been there - got the t shirt.

[Banzai]

12 hours ago, blueingreen said:

This argument doesn't even make sense in 2025 when you consider the many ways in which our standard of living has declined while our tax burdens have increased. And don't give me some bullshit about cheap toys like consumer electronics and the like. I want affordable homes, reliable cars, and cheap energy, not a $100 LCD monitor or a $15 polyester sweater made in Bangladesh.

What's the point of my taxes going up, of seeing the numbers on the GDP chart go up every year, if I can't even do something as simple as ordering a beautiful and affordable kit home from the Sears catalog anymore? This house would cost $45,000 today after adjusting for inflation. According to your logic, life in 2025 should be better than it was in 1995, 1985, or 1955 because we pay more taxes, but a man in 1940 could live better than me...

The whole point of "hard power" and "soft power" is to enable us to live in peace and prosperity, either through the carrot or the stick. But instead of building onwards and upwards from the success of our predecessors, we chose to coast on their legacy. Now I have to regularly worry about something as ridiculous as being accosted by a drugged out schizophrenic when taking public transportation in most major cities, which would have been a once-in-a-lifetime experience for my grandfather. It's just death by a thousand little cuts with this kind of stuff, and it fatigues the collective consciousness of our society... and empties our wallets...

We need to seriously rethink our approach to these things. Higher taxation is not the answer. We need less spending, but it's almost impossible to achieve because people can't fathom the thought of losing enormous cash cows like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. "I paid into it, other people should too!!"

And while we're figuring out this domestic spending crisis, we certainly shouldn't be spending any money on condoms for Gaza, transsexual theater troupes, DEI bullshit, and countless other misallocations of taxpayer money.

How is giving more money to the owning class and taking away resources from the working class going to get us back to the affordability you claim existed in the 1940s?

Edited Monday at 05:58 PM by Banzai

[nsplayr]

12 hours ago, Smokin said:

...when the majority of the federal government budget is purely wealth redistribution under various names.  That is 100% people asking what their country can do for them and many of them do virtually nothing for their country in return.

...I'd gladly forfeit everything I've contributed to social security in order to kill all wealth redistribution plans.

But the majority of our budget is not roads and such.

Well, that's a position you can take I guess, it's just not a popular one at all.

You're right that a majority of our budget is not roads. An exact majority, 50% of our budget, is social security, medicare and national defense, just those three things. Those are the big levers to pull. You're not gaining much at all by firing all the probationary employees at the Park Service or cancelling a program to provide condoms to Mozambique or whatever. Those are grains of sand on the beach. Sure "eVeRy DoLlAr CoUnTs" but some smart tweaks to the big things are 1,000x more powerful than absolutely slashing the small stuff, so we should focus on the stuff that matters.

• Social security is extremely broadly popular, and a majority of all Americans think we spend too little rather than too much. Approx 80%+ approval.
• Medicare is extremely broadly popular. Approx 80%+ approval.
• National defense is extremely broadly popular and also one of the things that's pretty inarguably required by the Constitution, even amongst conservatives who think the federal government does too much. We're also all very familiar with what this type of spending entails & the benefits it provides.

So, yes, you can be an extreme libertarian miser and say "cut the guvment to the bone!" and live your life that way. But don't pretend that point of view is popular, it's very much not.

I for one want to live in a country that is the world's preeminent superpower both militarily and economically - there's a cost to that and we pay that for national defense. I want to live in a country that secures a dignified degree of income security and medical care for the elderly because having destitute and sick/dying older folks on every corner is not what successful countries do.

If only there were a document that stated that the founding purpose of the United States was to do these things. Something something, IDK, spitballing here..."...insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Damn that would be sweet.

Obv you can play around at the margins and adjust all spending categories to ensure fiscal stability, and I support some measures to do that, but the overall intent of a civilized nation is to make life better for its citizens, and the framers of the Constitution that we all swore to defend agree. If you want to be in your own self-sufficient bubble unburdened by having to care about other people, you can take a boat to Antactartica or a rocket to the Moon, setup camp, and best of luck to ya!

[HeloDude]

12 minutes ago, Banzai said:

How is giving more money to the owning class and taking away resources from the working class going to get us back to the affordability you claim existed in the 1940s?

Reducing taxes on people who make more money is not “giving” them anything…it was their money to begin with.  And “taking away” from the poor is not taking anything from them as was never their resources to begin with.

[Banzai]

Just now, HeloDude said:

Reducing taxes on people who make more money is not “giving” them anything…it was their money to begin with.  And “taking away” from the poor is not taking anything from them as was never their resources to begin with.

Then do you think we as citizens of the USA don’t have a duty to the debt we have accumulated? Who does?