>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.


That's why you have to pay attention to what you're looking at. My link and your first link are pretty much doing the same thing -- looking at the actual budget, and rolling things up into broad categories, while still telling you how the categories are comprised. Both show military spending to be sizable, but far less than a "majority" of spending. They both show a majority of spending going to social saftety net programs, too.

Your second link does claim military spending is a majority of government spending, but to do that they have to really twist the numbers. For example, they refuse to count outlays from "Trust Fund" programs as spending. That means they don't include Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid in their pie chart at all. Add that back in, and even their doubled figure for military spending still falls short of 50% of all spending.

The majority of our taxes go towards social safety net programs, not the military.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.


The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.

But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.

>> ^blankfist:

One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.

I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.

Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".

If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.

Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

>> ^shogunkai:

>> ^blankfist:
I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.
I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?
I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?

Yes, I'm sure if you get rid of income taxes people will donate money to build roads and fund schools. I'm sure the person making 600k a year would gladly give the same percentage of their income as someone making 40k a year.


maybe roads, but not the schools... slaves need to be able to get from pyramid to pyramid... they don't need to read roadsigns... there are slave drivers with whips for that

>> ^blankfist:

I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending not look elsewhere for more money.
I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?
I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?


Can you really not differentiate between how the money is collected and what it's spent on? It is possible to be against militarism, the war on drugs, etc, and not have a problem with how the money is collected.

As for taxing income, I have no problem with it whatsoever. I earn good money and I have no problem contributing money to the society in which I reside. Taxes as a general rule are a good way to insure that everyone pays.

I fully agree about the War thing.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:

One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?

I'm still not sure why people think taxing income is okay. And I'm speaking about federal income tax, not state and local. I think in times like this when the country is running record deficits, it should cut spending instead of looking elsewhere for more money.

I don't care about the guy in the video, I'm just curious what people's reasoning is on this because it seems to be such a hot button issue these days. That people really, really, really want taxes to be raised, and I don't understand it. Without spouting some tenuous social contract talking point, is there some reason why government should own the product of our labor? Keep in mind income tax only makes up a third of the federal revenue, although some charts go as high as 45%. And most states and local governments collect income tax already, and that's where we already fund the important stuff like police, fire departments and roads.

One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars. I'm okay with creating an excise tax for paying for roads, police, etc. But that's not what federal income tax goes to. Why can't we work on cutting the bad spending first (wars being number one on that list)? And then we can have a dialog about what we need to fund after that?

I just think all this chest thumping to raise taxes is silly when it's being spent for shit most of you hate. Anyone? Anyone?

I see a lot of self-righteous posturing over this trivial snippet of video. When the debate for raising taxes and increasing government's scope is about lifting up the fringes of society, those in favor of raising taxes like to thump their chests with indignation and take the grossly sanctimonious position their somehow kinder, morally superior and more generous.

But this is misdirection and a deceptive argument they play. Because they rarely point out that the majority of your taxes are already spent on things you dislike like militarism, hegemony and building the US empire. Yet they speak barely at all in objection to that.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The only outrage is Mexico didn't pay for this vermin's incarceration.
Plenty of ordinary Americans and not a few American police officers have been killed by illegal vermin who then fled back to the lawless craphole that is mexico.
Unfortunately only mexico understands mexico is at war with the U.S. Our near-worthless federal mafia is more worried about monitoring junk food and school bullying than the border.

The death penalty is punishment for a heinous crime.
You want to abolish the death penalty? Then support a federal gulag in Alaska.
I wouldn't have minded this vermin living out the remainder of his natural life in an icy wilderness, bare necessities, hard labor, no parole, unless new evidence freed him.


You do realize that Mexico is a lawless craphole largely because of America and NAFTA right? America even saw this lawlessness coming when it enacted NAFTA it militarized the border.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

>> ^shuac:

Matthews says that the CIA is using “psy-ops” to put out “little colonels of information” to humiliate Bin Laden...

If you wouldn't re-militarize the Rhineland and invade Poland, you probably shouldn't be uploading Cat/Dog videos.*

They have oil? Those poor bastards, we gotta help them!
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^gwiz665:
But do they have anything valuable?

If they had oil, I wonder if we'd see more of an humanitarian effort? Maybe even a militarized intervention by the US?

>> ^gwiz665:

But do they have anything valuable?

If they had oil, I wonder if we'd see more of an humanitarian effort? Maybe even a militarized intervention by the US?