This Whole Debt Limit Thing

[JoeTheJuggler]

Evidently, it's not quite that simple:

"A sprawling coalition of Wall Street and Main Street business leaders sent an unmistakable message to lawmakers Tuesday: Enough squabbling. Get the debt ceiling raised."

"Many of the House GOP freshmen most opposed to a compromise were swept into office with the help of financial support from groups behind the letter."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-and-deficit/2011/07/12/gIQAiVGpAI_story.html

Which is precisely why I fear the ideology-driven politics of many House Republicans.

 

[Upchurch]

Evidently, it's not quite that simple:

"A sprawling coalition of Wall Street and Main Street business leaders sent an unmistakable message to lawmakers Tuesday: Enough squabbling. Get the debt ceiling raised."

"Many of the House GOP freshmen most opposed to a compromise were swept into office with the help of financial support from groups behind the letter."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-and-deficit/2011/07/12/gIQAiVGpAI_story.html

Just like I said on page 4:

Warren Buffett: Do away with the debt ceiling

 

[Bri]

A vote whether or not to raise the debt ceiling is kind of a ridiculous concept to begin with. The time to balance a budget is before the budget is passed, not once the money has already been spent. Defaulting on obligations already made shouldn't be an option.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A vote whether or not to raise the debt ceiling is kind of a ridiculous concept to begin with. The time to balance a budget is before the budget is passed, not once the money has already been spent. Defaulting on obligations already made shouldn't be an option.

And actually a vote to raise the debt ceiling has nothing to do with a balanced budget. We knew in April this budget would increase the debt. (It wasn't a balanced budget!) The conflict with the debt ceiling is about how much the current budget would raise the total debt.

Even fiscal conservatives who think we should seriously reduce federal spending don't all necessarily think a balanced budget amendment (in particular this one) is a good idea. But really that debate shouldn't hold up raising the debt ceiling to avoid the uncertainty that defaulting would entail.

 

[lomiller]

If Democrats in congress are in favor of mooching off of hardworking people for the rest of their life while they sit on their butts eating bon bons and doritos then they should just come out and say it during an election campaign.

Yeah because democrats are the self entitled "moochers" when republicans are the ones who want all the spending and insist they not be taxed for it.

It's the Democratic states like California, New York New Jersey and Illinois that pay more then their share and Republicans States like Alaska that "mooch"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

 

[USEagle13]

Yeah because democrats are the self entitled "moochers" when republicans are the ones who want all the spending and insist they not be taxed for it.

It's the Democratic states like California, New York New Jersey and Illinois that pay more then their share and Republicans States like Alaska that "mooch"

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

Well I am from TX and ranked around California etc. We do our fair share as well as creating most of the jobs during this recession bro.

Also because California, etc. has tons of welfare citizens while at the same time has super duper high concentration of super rich (they all wanna live either there or NY) you are going to see numbers like that bro.

The super rich pay more in way more than anyone and get nil back and ppl on welfare don't pay in hardly nothing and get back some but not alot of money when you match it up to how much comes from the super rich dude.

You evidently don't understand how rich multi millionaires and billionaires are apparently.

Also why they hell does Hawaii and especially Washington D.C. get so much per dollar paid in?

 

[lomiller]

Well I am from TX and ranked around California etc. We do our fair share as well as creating most of the jobs during this recession bro.

Since 2000 Texas has received 95 cents for every dollar in taxes compared to 80 cents for California. With population taken into account California is contributing 6X as much as Texas, New York is in the 4X range, Illinois is 2-3, New Jersey is contributing more despite having less then half the population. All this even though the US oil industry is still centered in Texas and has been making record profits on record oil prices.

at the same time has super duper high concentration of super rich (they all wanna live either there or NY) you are going to see numbers like that bro.

Texas has it's own share of the very rich because it tax rate for them is so low. California, however is simply better at producing innovative new businesses and ideas. You may want to think a bit about what that is...

Also why they hell does Hawaii and especially Washington D.C. get so much per dollar paid in?

DC obviously is going to be dominated by government offices, all national capitols are that way. Hawaii is on the high side but not in the top 10 IIRC. The large US navy presence and smallish population probably account for why they are above average.

 

[USEagle13]

Since 2000 Texas has received 95 cents for every dollar in taxes compared to 80 cents for California. With population taken into account California is contributing 6X as much as Texas, New York is in the 4X range, Illinois is 2-3, New Jersey is contributing more despite having less then half the population. All this even though the US oil industry is still centered in Texas and has been making record profits on record oil prices. .

Yeah California pays in 6x as much because of the high concetration of elitists and Hollywood types that live there plus silicon valley and alot of the big media corps.

Look at the states with all the most rich ppl
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/109083/the-richest-states-in-america


http://financialedge.investopedia.c...Top-9-States-With-The-Most-Billionaires-.aspx


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/54/rich-list-09_The-400-Richest-Americans-California_7Rank.html

Texas has it's own share of the very rich because it tax rate for them is so low. California, however is simply better at producing innovative new businesses and ideas. You may want to think a bit about what that is....

And Texas, Lousiana, and the rest of the Gulf coast has the majority of the chemical plants that makes plastics and such so ppl can use the plastic made products that even make these ideas feasable.

DC obviously is going to be dominated by government offices, all national capitols are that way. Hawaii is on the high side but not in the top 10 IIRC. The large US navy presence and smallish population probably account for why they are above average.

Why is New Mexico always #1? What is so special about NM?

 

[icerat]

The super rich pay more in way more than anyone and get nil back and ppl on welfare don't pay in hardly nothing and get back some but not alot of money when you match it up to how much comes from the super rich dude.

1% of nothing is nothing, 1% of zillions is zillions.

Basic math.

And of course, the oft repeated fact that the poor picked on zillionaires are now paying even more of the tax pie is a direct result of them having more zillions than before.

The rich get richer the poor get poorer and we're supposed to feel sympathy for the rich because it means a greater share of tax comes from them?

 

[USEagle13]

1% of nothing is nothing, 1% of zillions is zillions.

Basic math.

And of course, the oft repeated fact that the poor picked on zillionaires are now paying even more of the tax pie is a direct result of them having more zillions than before.

The rich get richer the poor get poorer and we're supposed to feel sympathy for the rich because it means a greater share of tax comes from them?

Where did I claim the rich need sympathy dude?

 

[Cain]

1% of nothing is nothing, 1% of zillions is zillions.

Basic math.

Not how I learned it.

One percent of jack-**** is still jack-****. But one percent of a ****ton is an assload.

 

[lomiller]

Yeah California pays in 6x as much because of the high concetration of elitists

Don't you mean "job creators"?

Look at the states with all the most rich ppl
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/109083/the-richest-states-in-america

Your list has them behind Alaska in % of it's population that are millionaires. the same Alaska that is consistently near the top of the "moocher" list despite it's former Governor's stance "against federal government spending"

Why is New Mexico always #1? What is so special about NM?

Wow you managed to find a Democrat leaning (slightly) state in the, are your fingers sore from picking all those cherries?

In any case New Mexico is probably a function of low population and lots of people employed by the border patrol.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
If you look at Figure 1 in this report: http://faculty.unlv.edu/mccorkle/Dec...20in 90s.pdf, you will see that prior to the start of the War On Poverty in 1964, the murder rate in the US was relatively low. And you will see that after the WOP began, the murder rate immediately started rapidly rising. By the early 70's it had doubled. In fact, there is a direct correlation between the ramping up of WOP spending between 1964 and the early 70's, and the rise in the murder rate. Likewise, Figure 1 shows that robbery rates were relatively low prior to 1964. And again you can see a dramatic rise in the robbery rate (a quadrupling) and it correlates with the period when WOP spending grew most dramatically. So are you certain that welfare spending didn't in fact lead to the high murder rates?

Want to know what else happened demographically during that time period? Of course not, who needs conflicting data when you can be ideologically pure.

So far, I'm the only one here who has offered ANY specific data of what happened demographically or otherwise during that time period. The only one who has carefully explained his logic and matched it to actual data. If you have some "conflicting data" and logic to offer, then do so. Don't assume you know how I'll respond to your evidence and logic, and think that's "data" that proves anything.

Now, should you offer actual data to support your claims, IF your data and logic are sound, then obviously I'll have no option but to accept your view. But if not, then I should be able to formulate a response with data and logic that conflicts to it. I can't help but notice that you didn't do that with regards to the facts and logic that I already offered. You simply ignored both … dismissed them out of hand. Which suggests a weakness in your position.

No need to be reminded about the Great Depression (when murder rates were much higher) for just one example.

First of all, I can't be sure what you are trying to claim besides claiming that murder rates were "much" higher *around* the time of the Great Depression. You need to be more specific in stating your position and not depend on me to express it for you.

But I'll take a chance and assume that you were really trying to claim that the murder rate went down during the Great Depression as a result of increased government social net spending during that time. Afterall, you were trying to link social spending and violent crime before you mentioned the Great Depression.

But is that the only possible explanation?

Here's a figure that shows the US murder rate going all the way back to 1900:

http://kondratiefflongwave.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ushomicide20101.jpg

As one can see, the murder rate climbed steadily from 1910 to about 1933. From 1920 on, that's a time when the economy was booming and the overall poverty rate was dropping as a result of the boom). So if you're trying to make a connection between poverty and murder, it seems to me that the murder rate should have been dropping between 1920 and 1933. But it didn't, which suggests other factors in play.

Now it's true that when the Great Depression hit, the murder rate plummeted. So, yes, on the surface one might claim increased social spending during the Great Depression led to the observed reduction in the murder rate … IF nothing else had changed in the economy during that time. But something did happen. The US entered a significant downturn, so that even with increased government social spending, most people were still considerably poorer than they were before the Great Depression began. Thus, again, if being poor is what increases the murder rate (as I think you are really claiming), then even with the extra government social spending, the murder rate shouldn't have gone down like it did, but been higher during the depression. Which suggests other factors in play.

During the current recession (the Great Recession, if you will), violent crimes rates have also fallen … counter to many liberal expectations (there have been articles expressing surprise in the NY Times, for example). And here again, despite higher social spending (thanks to Obama and partly Bush) during this period, the overall plight of the people has still been worse than it was before the recession began. People are poorer than they were. So by your underlying logic, shouldn't the murder rate be higher than it was before the recession began?

You see, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the logic I *think* you are trying to suggest, tyr_13.

Now, here's a chart that shows how welfare spending and the poverty rate varied from 1964 to about 1995:

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/12C8BF372772E8472BD86BF1DEA5EF8B.gif

You can see that welfare spending kept climbing past the early 70s.. Again, if welfare spending correlates with murder rate, then why didn't the murder rate fall during that time? It only leveled off.

As indicated in that chart, welfare spending increased 7 fold between 1965 and 1995, yet the poverty rate didn't drop but consistently remained between 12-16%. So again, it doesn't appear that trillions and trillions of dollars that were spent in the WOP over these years solved the problem they were supposed to solve … namely, eliminate poverty … especially amongst blacks where much of that social spending was targeted. And since your assertion seems to be that poverty leads to murder, if the poverty rate didn't drop in the 90s, why should you believe the murder rate dropping at that time was because of increased social spending during that time. No, this again suggests there must be another cause for that than the one you think.

Quote:
And maybe there's something else going on that you haven't considered? Now you'd think that the most liberal cities in the US would be the most "giving" to the poor and needy. In which case, you'd expect, if what you are claiming is true, that the crime rate in the most liberal cities would be the lowest in the nation. But ...

From freerepublic AND irrelevant to the topic.

No, only via freerepublic. The article links the raw data from which those numbers were extracted. And it's quite relevant because I think you are essentially claiming that the liberal policy of providing higher government social spending leads to less violent crime. That data suggests just the opposite is true, assuming that liberal cities are more generous with government welfare programs than conservative cities (which I imagine is a safe bet).

Originally Posted by tyr_13
So more people must be starving now than in the past right? Oh, no, they aren't?

BeAChooser Quote:
Then why are more people on food stanps in the US than since records were first kept in 1969? Here is a chart that shows that statistic over the past 30 years.

Yeah, just some more people kept from starving. And here I thought you were going to disagree with me.

And here I thought you were claiming that government social spending has led to better conditions in America so fewer people lack enough food. I though you were claiming that social *engineering* works.

My point remains that despite all the trillions and trillions that have been spent by the government to *solve* the problem of poverty, more people apparently are at risk of starving today (if we believe that all claims for food stamps are legitimate) then ever before. All that social welfare *engineering* has been waste. It FAILED. It didn't solve the problem that the liberals *promised* it would solve. It likely made it worse.

Quote:
As you can see, all that welfare spending during that time didn't seem to reduce the the percent of the population who were recipients of food stamps. The percentage was about the same in 2006 as it was in 1980. It was even higher than in 1994 than it was in 1980. So all the TRILLIONS of dollars in welfare that was spent in that timeframe doesn't appear to have even started to solve the underlying problem. It was wasted.

No, it stopped them from going hungry.

You are avoiding the issue of WHY they would go hungry in the first place. Back in 1964, when the WOP started, President LBJ said this:

"Negroes are trapped--as many whites are trapped--in inherited, gateless poverty. They lack training and skills. They are shut in, in slums, without decent medical care. Private and public poverty combine to cripple their capacities. We are trying to attack these evils through our poverty program, through our education program, through our medical care and our other health programs, and a dozen more of the Great Society programs that are aimed at the root causes of this poverty. We will increase, and we will accelerate, and we will broaden this attack in years to come until this most enduring of foes finally yields to our unyielding will."

In short, LBJ (and advocates of the WOP since) promised to fix the root causes. But after several tens of trillions of dollars has been spent in the WOP, the root causes remain untreated. The cancer is worse today than it ever was, if the Food Stamp data actually represents the percentage of people who are starving. It's as I said. Government social spending hasn't solved ANYTHING. Compared to government defense spending.

What did you think it was supposed to do? Food stamps get food, they don't get you a job. I'm glad you're finally out as stating that feeding people is a waste of money though.

And now you are moving the goal posts and trying to suggest the WOP wasn't about solving the problem, but just keeping people fed. And that's a LIE. And trying to paint me as callous won't alter that fact. It's just a dishonest tactic. Because you have no "data" to offer, you substitute red herrings, strawmen and slander.

Quote:
I didn't say we don't enjoy new technology. What I said is that it's mostly the result of defense related technology development. The Internet was a defense program (ever hear of ARPAnet?). The first modern computer was the result of defense spending. The first integrated circuit came out of a defense program. So did the first transistor. So our ability to "freaking" communicate with each other did NOT result from spending on welfare or social security or medicare or medical. But from defense spending. Now what was that you were saying about drivel and fools?

Yes, drivel and foolishness indeed. Started by defense spending.

Yes, STARTED by defense spending. Not government social spending. Like I said, at least the defense spending can be said to have resulted in something of value for the money.

Developed by other means and through other grants

You are wrong. Most of the core development of the integrated circuit and transistor was funded by defense spending. Sure, NOW there is enough market in the commercial arena to justify companies spending BILLIONS to improves those things, but the root developments were mostly the result of defense-related funding. Not spending on social welfare.

like to link up the colleges that did result in the internet as well

The concept of an internet and the initial installations that demonstrated that concept were defense related. ARPANET was the first. And while the first ARPANET link connected two colleges (UCLA and Stanford) and later others, it was a defense contract and only for government use on defense related projects. And it led to MILNET, NIPRNET, SIPRNET, and JWICS in the 1980s … ALL defense-related networks. It was only in the mid to late 80s when the modern, public access internet began to take shape. And even that didn't come about because of social program spending. You can't claim that social program spending led to us "freaking" communicating as we are now.

That you want welfare spending to be about technology is the problem in the first place.

I don't need welfare to be about technology. It just needs to accomplish it's goals, rather than making matters worse over time as it appears to have done. You don't fix poverty by making people more dependent.

And yes, I noticed that you've shifted the goal from 'social spending' to 'social security and medicare'.

I only mention SS and Medicare because you liberals have turned the two programs into forms of welfare, rather than programs that only people who contribute to, benefit from, and in an amount to some some extent commensurate with their contributions. You are the ones moving the goals, here. And bankrupting the country in the process.

Quote:
And by the way, here's another chart comparing welfare and defense outlays (from http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-size-and-scope-of-means-tested-welfare-spending ):

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/18F8675C9F2089842452D5FE17DB4701.gif?w=370&as=1

It doesn't quite paint the picture the BTD tried to paint.

Really, the heritage foundation disagrees?

No, the data they present disagrees with you. I can't help but notice that I'm still the only one in this exchange who has actually presented any numerical data. You've just been hand-waving. *Quell surprise.*

 

[tyr_13]

So far, I'm the only one here who has offered ANY specific data of what happened demographically or otherwise during that time period. The only one who has carefully explained his logic and matched it to actual data. If you have some "conflicting data" and logic to offer, then do so. Don't assume you know how I'll respond to your evidence and logic, and think that's "data" that proves anything.

You haven't carefully explained anything. You've carefully picked some stuff off of other conservative talking pages, spouted some nonsense that you claim is connected to it, then proclaim yourself the victor. You've controlled for no conflicting factors, and ignore what the actual goals of 'social spending' is.

Now, should you offer actual data to support your claims, IF your data and logic are sound, then obviously I'll have no option but to accept your view.

BaC, I'm not new here. Why would you expect anyone familiar with your posting history believe the highlighted? Other people have done this time and again, yet you refuse to alter your views or assertions in the least. This is why I'm not taking your claims seriously. I realize now that I should have just kept ignoring you like I do with some other posters because I really don't have much interest in trying to argue with you. I was worried about someone lurking mistaking your assertions not being challenged as tacit approval of them, but that's not much of a danger.

But if not, then I should be able to formulate a response with data and logic that conflicts to it. I can't help but notice that you didn't do that with regards to the facts and logic that I already offered. You simply ignored both … dismissed them out of hand. Which suggests a weakness in your position.

Your data was invalidly narrow, and some of it was irrelevant. Some supported my points. So, yes, they should be dismissed.

First of all, I can't be sure what you are trying to claim besides claiming that murder rates were "much" higher *around* the time of the Great Depression. You need to be more specific in stating your position and not depend on me to express it for you.

Yes, they were much higher then, as were almost all violent crime rates. There were strong confounding factors in the seventies and eighties. It would be pretty much impossible for you to have not noticed them when looking for the data you posted.

But I'll take a chance and assume that you were really trying to claim that the murder rate went down during the Great Depression as a result of increased government social net spending during that time. Afterall, you were trying to link social spending and violent crime before you mentioned the Great Depression.

And they did. Give the starving people food and some spending cash (through the work projects), and they stop killing each other for food and spending cash. Simple and obvious.

But is that the only possible explanation?

Here's a figure that shows the US murder rate going all the way back to 1900:

http://kondratiefflongwave.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ushomicide20101.jpg

As one can see, the murder rate climbed steadily from 1910 to about 1933. From 1920 on, that's a time when the economy was booming and the overall poverty rate was dropping as a result of the boom). So if you're trying to make a connection between poverty and murder, it seems to me that the murder rate should have been dropping between 1920 and 1933. But it didn't, which suggests other factors in play.

There were other factors at play. Obviously.

Now it's true that when the Great Depression hit, the murder rate plummeted. So, yes, on the surface one might claim increased social spending during the Great Depression led to the observed reduction in the murder rate … IF nothing else had changed in the economy during that time. But something did happen. The US entered a significant downturn, so that even with increased government social spending, most people were still considerably poorer than they were before the Great Depression began. Thus, again, if being poor is what increases the murder rate (as I think you are really claiming), then even with the extra government social spending, the murder rate shouldn't have gone down like it did, but been higher during the depression. Which suggests other factors in play.

You really don't see the problem with your reasoning there?

During the current recession (the Great Recession, if you will), violent crimes rates have also fallen … counter to many liberal expectations (there have been articles expressing surprise in the NY Times, for example). And here again, despite higher social spending (thanks to Obama and partly Bush) during this period, the overall plight of the people has still been worse than it was before the recession began. People are poorer than they were. So by your underlying logic, shouldn't the murder rate be higher than it was before the recession began?

No, because they have the support system in place needed to prevent catastrophic social unrest because of economic hardships. You know that 'useless' social spending that 'only' keeps people from 'starving' and 'going without healthcare'.

You see, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the logic I *think* you are trying to suggest, tyr_13.

Now, here's a chart that shows how welfare spending and the poverty rate varied from 1964 to about 1995:

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/12C8BF372772E8472BD86BF1DEA5EF8B.gif

You can see that welfare spending kept climbing past the early 70s.. Again, if welfare spending correlates with murder rate, then why didn't the murder rate fall during that time? It only leveled off.

Social spending can effect violent crimes (no I won't let you reduce it to murder rates), but it is far from the only factor. Now what else happened in the 70's that might be a confounding factor?

As indicated in that chart, welfare spending increased 7 fold between 1965 and 1995, yet the poverty rate didn't drop but consistently remained between 12-16%. So again, it doesn't appear that trillions and trillions of dollars that were spent in the WOP over these years solved the problem they were supposed to solve … namely, eliminate poverty …

Wait, what? Who said that spending was going to 'solve' poverty? And who says it wouldn't have increased if not for the spending? You think food stamps are supposed to solve poverty?

especially amongst blacks where much of that social spending was targeted. And since your assertion seems to be that poverty leads to murder, if the poverty rate didn't drop in the 90s, why should you believe the murder rate dropping at that time was because of increased social spending during that time. No, this again suggests there must be another cause for that than the one you think.

Because even though they were still poor, the negative impacts of poverty were reduced in part because of the spending. You are trying to mischaracterize my argument, the goals of these programs, and the values that would constitute advancement. Crime is reduced when people can get the support they need to live (remember, food, housing, and medical care are necessary for life), not when they get out of poverty. So just because they are still in poverty doesn't mean I believe they will still be more prone to commit crime.

You sure do love the plight of the poor don't you?

No, only via freerepublic. The article links the raw data from which those numbers were extracted. And it's quite relevant because I think you are essentially claiming that the liberal policy of providing higher government social spending leads to less violent crime. That data suggests just the opposite is true, assuming that liberal cities are more generous with government welfare programs than conservative cities (which I imagine is a safe bet).

Or the conservative cities just drive their problems out. Or they are worse at reporting it. Or bigger cities with larger populations tend to be more liberal. Did you know what churches directly correlate with crime? Do conservative cities also incarcerate more people?

And besides, just because social spending can reduce violent crime, doesn't mean it always will. It can be messed up in any number of ways, and I can tell you it is. Just like water can put out a fire, if used correctly. Used incorrectly, it won't. Does that mean that water can't put out a fire? Duh no.

And here I thought you were claiming that government social spending has led to better conditions in America so fewer people lack enough food. I though you were claiming that social *engineering* works.

And that's why you're so constantly wrong. You fight the argument you wish people were making.

My point remains that despite all the trillions and trillions that have been spent by the government to *solve* the problem of poverty, more people apparently are at risk of starving today (if we believe that all claims for food stamps are legitimate) then ever before. All that social welfare *engineering* has been waste. It FAILED. It didn't solve the problem that the liberals *promised* it would solve. It likely made it worse.

Well our defense spending payed off. It isn't like we have expensive wars or attacks on US soil any more. See how your logic applies there.

You are avoiding the issue of WHY they would go hungry in the first place. Back in 1964, when the WOP started, President LBJ said this:



In short, LBJ (and advocates of the WOP since) promised to fix the root causes. But after several tens of trillions of dollars has been spent in the WOP, the root causes remain untreated. The cancer is worse today than it ever was, if the Food Stamp data actually represents the percentage of people who are starving. It's as I said. Government social spending hasn't solved ANYTHING. Compared to government defense spending.

Presidents aren't Emperors. But to say that life for people is worse today than under LBJ, well, that's just stupid. Breathtakingly so.

And now you are moving the goal posts and trying to suggest the WOP wasn't about solving the problem, but just keeping people fed. And that's a LIE. And trying to paint me as callous won't alter that fact. It's just a dishonest tactic. Because you have no "data" to offer, you substitute red herrings, strawmen and slander.

You're getting really bad at this.

Yes, STARTED by defense spending. Not government social spending. Like I said, at least the defense spending can be said to have resulted in something of value for the money.

Started with defense spending, and then developed with social spending. You can't credit one without the other. Unless you think that colleges aren't social spending.

You are wrong. Most of the core development of the integrated circuit and transistor was funded by defense spending. Sure, NOW there is enough market in the commercial arena to justify companies spending BILLIONS to improves those things, but the root developments were mostly the result of defense-related funding. Not spending on social welfare.

Your problem with spending on social welfare is that it doesn't fund technical development?

The concept of an internet and the initial installations that demonstrated that concept were defense related. ARPANET was the first. And while the first ARPANET link connected two colleges (UCLA and Stanford) and later others, it was a defense contract and only for government use on defense related projects. And it led to MILNET, NIPRNET, SIPRNET, and JWICS in the 1980s … ALL defense-related networks. It was only in the mid to late 80s when the modern, public access internet began to take shape. And even that didn't come about because of social program spending. You can't claim that social program spending led to us "freaking" communicating as we are now.

Colleges are defense spending? Was it defense spending that made it available for the civil market? No, it was many different internal programs at those colleges. Again, you can't credit one without the other.

I don't need welfare to be about technology. It just needs to accomplish it's goals, rather than making matters worse over time as it appears to have done. You don't fix poverty by making people more dependent.

You have a twisted sense of 'goals' for the various social spending.

I only mention SS and Medicare because you liberals have turned the two programs into forms of welfare, rather than programs that only people who contribute to, benefit from, and in an amount to some some extent commensurate with their contributions. You are the ones moving the goals, here. And bankrupting the country in the process.

Well those don't sound like talking points.

No, the data they present disagrees with you. I can't help but notice that I'm still the only one in this exchange who has actually presented any numerical data. You've just been hand-waving. *Quell surprise.*

Hand waving like when someone says goodbye. I don't have to worry about a lurker being taken it by your arguments; the only people who believe them are people who already believe them. So, goodbye!

 

[USEagle13]

Don't you mean "job creators"?




Your list has them behind Alaska in % of it's population that are millionaires. the same Alaska that is consistently near the top of the "moocher" list despite it's former Governor's stance "against federal government spending"



Wow you managed to find a Democrat leaning (slightly) state in the, are your fingers sore from picking all those cherries?

In any case New Mexico is probably a function of low population and lots of people employed by the border patrol.

In Alaska it is always going to be like that because they "Want" more ppl to migrate there than any other state. Seeing as how alot of remote areas you need your own airplane it's usually the wealthier that move there. Land is cheap too.

As for NM I just noticed it stayed at #1 every single year. I was just curious on your thoughts.

I just figured they wanted more of the population to migrate there because of the not so friendly desert parts.

 

[JudeBrando]

Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?

 

[DC]

Not as often as various paid DNC shills.

do they still hire people? got a link?

 

[USEagle13]

Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?

Ron Paul is awesome. I like that guy alot.

They want more debt because they like having economic slavery. Its good for the gooses.

 

[Upchurch]

Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?

Because, while debt is bad, some things are worse.

Conversely, if debt is the problem, why not raise taxes?

 

[Bri]

Because, while debt is bad, some things are worse.

Conversely, if debt is the problem, why not raise taxes?

Raise taxes on "job creators" during a recession? Are you kidding?

I know what you're going to say. If the recession is the problem, why not wait to balance the budget until the economy has recovered as most economists suggest? Because the "job creators" can't hire due to "uncertainty," and require a balanced budget before they can create jobs!

See how that works? Hint: the answer is always "lower taxes!"

-Bri