Boehner loses: time for a TEA party Speaker in '12

[birdman]

bury DOD funds in other areas to hide the size of the military budget"

where did they hide the money for that building out near dulles?  the one thats so secure?

"that" building? Want to be more specific?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Retired and disabled .mil pensions, medical funding, et al. falls under the Department of Veteran's Affairs which accounts for  1.48% of the 2010 budget.

Thanks for the correction.

I'm curious what the view is with regards to VA retirement and disability pensions as it compares to the rest of the welfare spending by big.gov?

You signed a contract to work for an organization, and that organization agreed to a contract wherein you get a salary and a certain benefits package. Services rendered and services compensated. Whether retirement and disability pensions make financial sense versus just jacking up the wages is another story.

[De Selby]

Micro, the military requires intelligence and counter insurgency technologies that are extremely dangerous to liberties.  The BATFE has not armed Obama with the most powerful spying capabilities in the world, a worldwide network of secret prisons into which Americans HAVE been thrown without trial, and new weapons for controlling unruly populations.  The military has, precisely because of our war policy.

Those technologies and techniques are far more dangerous to liberty, and they are slowly being incorporated into our domestic agencies as they learn from military successes and hire ex military personnel.

The money spent on them is, as noted here, substantial.  We could save billions by quitting the two nearly decade long wars we are now in.

How much of the tech we are currently paying for is "necessary" to defend the nation?

[MicroBalrog]

Well, you tell me.

What is your view on network-centric warfare?
How do you view the brigadization process?
Do you believe the Osprey has been useful, or a boondoggle?


Just as a start.

[kgbsquirrel]

What is the comparison between benefits earned/given to veterans and govt mandated charity to poor people and cheats?  I don't see the connection.

I never claimed a comparison, I judge stated that I am conflicted on the matter.

[MechAg94]

I never claimed a comparison, I judge stated that I am conflicted on the matter.

Well, I don't see how you could be conflicted as those two are completely different things.  Would you be conflicted over a person's retirement pension as opposed to welfare? 

[birdman]

I never claimed a comparison, I judge stated that I am conflicted on the matter.

I think the reason for mech's confusion on the confliction is because of the following:
1. When choosing a job, one looks at the total compensation package, if the job has lower pay, but higher job security, and the existence of a defined benefit retirement plan (pension), one might make the choice to forgo a different job with a higher salary, but a defined contribution retirement plan.  In both cases, both the plan/job supplier and the employee understand and agree on the contract arrangements, and understand the trade-off therein.
2. In welfare, no contract is in place, and the outlay is in response to factors beyond the payers control, additionally, the payer in this case also doesn't have a defined tradeoff--what is the consequence to IT (and not it's taxpayers) for promising such a benefit?
3. In the first case, those ultimately responsible (shareholders/owners) for the financial outlay have direct control over whether or not to offer such a benefit, even the "elected" corporate officials have a vested interest in an appropriate contract...too little benefits, and it is difficult to hire and maintain production/profit, too many benefits and both profitability and production cannot be simultaneously achieved due to the limits on how many (more expensive now) people can be hired.  In the case of government welfare benefits, such consequences and economic incentive/disincentives do not really exist.
4. In the first case, those that gain the benefit are those with the most invested in providing for it's economics (years in service atnthe lower pay, thereby allowing for higher "production"), while in the second, those receiving the benefits are the LEAST invested in providing for it's economics (as by definition, those receiving government transfers are not the ones paying taxes).

Overall it's a matter of receiving a benefit DUE TO providing a service at some opportunity cost in order to receive it, vs receiving a benefit while providing no service or opportunity cost to yourself that is "repaid"...so there is a major difference.  While I think defined benefit plans do not have their place in the vast majority of cases (due to the prevalence and advantages in mobility of defined contribution plans) I think the military is one where it does have a place as it encourages an experienced force structure.  However, I think welfare does not have it's place (in it's current form) is a major economic disincentive and should be radically reduced.  The two are fundamentally different, and thus I think that is why the confusion on the confliction

[Perd Hapley]

Micro, the military requires intelligence and counter insurgency technologies that are extremely dangerous to liberties.

And self defense requires weapons that are dangerous to children.

As for the rest of your irrelevant commentary,  you can keep pushing your false dichotomy or you can chew bubble gum.

[roo_ster]

Had the entire American government budget been distributed to homeless dudes who would continue to spend it on meth and hookers, it would do less damage to liberty than the welfare state today .

QFT.  I'd rather have more bums buying hookers & drugs than more welfare state apparatus.

I'm curious what the view is with regards to VA retirement and disability pensions as it compares to the rest of the welfare spending by big.gov? As I've stated to other members of this forum in private conversations, I am personally quite conflicted between my stance on state welfare handouts and my own stipend I receive from the VA.

As other have written, it is part of a contract to work, not an entitlement.  OTOH, I'd gladly give up my present & future VA disability benefits in return for closing down the welfare bits of the budget.  In a second, without hesitation.

To put this into perspective, BATFE consists of 4,559 employees costing $1.5 billion dollars. The United States Marine Corps has a budget of $34 billion, and is comprised of 203,000 Marines.

Which of them is a bigger threat to an American's liberty?

One of the reasons I went .mil rather then LEO was the much lesser likelihood of it being necesary to shoot or otherwise apply force against American citizens.

Those technologies and techniques are far more dangerous to liberty, and they are slowly being incorporated into our domestic agencies as they learn from military successes and hire ex military personnel.
How much of the tech we are currently paying for is "necessary" to defend the nation?

All tech can possibly be used by government to oppress the citizenry.  ARPA's network grew into the internet which can be used by the Red Chinese to seek out dissidents and imprison them.  It can also be used by dissidents to communicate and organize resistance.

Tech is amoral.

[De Selby]

MB, roo, the point is that there are indeed lots of savings to be made there.  You can nickel and dime defense to unlimited levels if "it's for defense!" is said in the sentone as "it's for the children!"

The idea that government is too immoral and incompetent to take your tax money for social welfare, yet that it should be armed to the teeth (on the order of 20 percent of the budget) needs some serious re-examination. You are in effect saying "starve the beast of everything! - except hundreds of billions in weapons and spy gear.  That part is fine."

[MicroBalrog]

MB, roo, the point is that there are indeed lots of savings to be made there.  You can nickel and dime defense to unlimited levels if "it's for defense!" is said in the sentone as "it's for the children!"

The idea that government is too immoral and incompetent to take your tax money for social welfare, yet that it should be armed to the teeth (on the order of 20 percent of the budget) needs some serious re-examination. You are in effect saying "starve the beast of everything! - except hundreds of billions in weapons and spy gear.  That part is fine."

I would not trust a perfectly moral government run by the most competent people in the world to run social welfare.

But please understand: I would like defense to be 80% of the budget of any state I live in.

[seeker_two]

I may have to reconsider my view on Boehner.....he's played this pretty well....by making a counteroffer that he knew Obama would refuse (no tax hikes, no spending increases=no debt ceiling raised), he's pretty much eliminated Obama's typical counterattacks of...

1. the Repubs are the obstructionist party....and,
2. the Repubs have no ideas of their own.

Right now, Obama looks like the one who's refusing to negotiate...and his subsequent press releases are making him look like he's approaching temper-tantrum status....

...maybe Boehner isn't such a Bo**ner after all..... 

[roo_ster]

MB, roo, the point is that there are indeed lots of savings to be made there.  You can nickel and dime defense to unlimited levels if "it's for defense!" is said in the sentone as "it's for the children!"

The idea that government is too immoral and incompetent to take your tax money for social welfare, yet that it should be armed to the teeth (on the order of 20 percent of the budget) needs some serious re-examination. You are in effect saying "starve the beast of everything! - except hundreds of billions in weapons and spy gear.  That part is fine."

I would not trust a perfectly moral government run by the most competent people in the world to run social welfare.

But please understand: I would like defense to be 80% of the budget of any state I live in.

I'm with MB.  Given the US COTUS, war material & expenses ought to be 80-90% of the total.  That doesn't mean I think war expenditures ought to be 80% of what we currently spend, but that everything else that is spent ought to be shrunk until it is only 10-20% of the Fedgov's budget.

Military personnel are no angels, but from my interaction with them & LEOs, the military personnel are a lot less likely to turn their guns on the citizenry if so ordered.

[MechAg94]

I would not trust a perfectly moral government run by the most competent people in the world to run social welfare.

But please understand: I would like defense to be 80% of the budget of any state I live in.


I'm with MB.  Given the US COTUS, war material & expenses ought to be 80-90% of the total.  That doesn't mean I think war expenditures ought to be 80% of what we currently spend, but that everything else that is spent ought to be shrunk until it is only 10-20% of the Fedgov's budget.

Military personnel are no angels, but from my interaction with them & LEOs, the military personnel are a lot less likely to turn their guns on the citizenry if so ordered.

Also, the states themselves do a LOT of welfare, but I would much rather the 50 states pick some of that stuff up rather than the entire nation do the same dumb stuff.  The closer that stuff is to the local level the better.  At least then we would have some choices and it would be obvious what works and what doesn't.  It would also be obvious where the money is coming from.

[MechAg94]

I think the reason for mech's confusion on the confliction is because of the following:
1. When choosing a job, one looks at the total compensation package, if the job has lower pay, but higher job security, and the existence of a defined benefit retirement plan (pension), one might make the choice to forgo a different job with a higher salary, but a defined contribution retirement plan.  In both cases, both the plan/job supplier and the employee understand and agree on the contract arrangements, and understand the trade-off therein.
2. In welfare, no contract is in place, and the outlay is in response to factors beyond the payers control, additionally, the payer in this case also doesn't have a defined tradeoff--what is the consequence to IT (and not it's taxpayers) for promising such a benefit?
3. In the first case, those ultimately responsible (shareholders/owners) for the financial outlay have direct control over whether or not to offer such a benefit, even the "elected" corporate officials have a vested interest in an appropriate contract...too little benefits, and it is difficult to hire and maintain production/profit, too many benefits and both profitability and production cannot be simultaneously achieved due to the limits on how many (more expensive now) people can be hired.  In the case of government welfare benefits, such consequences and economic incentive/disincentives do not really exist.
4. In the first case, those that gain the benefit are those with the most invested in providing for it's economics (years in service atnthe lower pay, thereby allowing for higher "production"), while in the second, those receiving the benefits are the LEAST invested in providing for it's economics (as by definition, those receiving government transfers are not the ones paying taxes).

Overall it's a matter of receiving a benefit DUE TO providing a service at some opportunity cost in order to receive it, vs receiving a benefit while providing no service or opportunity cost to yourself that is "repaid"...so there is a major difference.  While I think defined benefit plans do not have their place in the vast majority of cases (due to the prevalence and advantages in mobility of defined contribution plans) I think the military is one where it does have a place as it encourages an experienced force structure.  However, I think welfare does not have it's place (in it's current form) is a major economic disincentive and should be radically reduced.  The two are fundamentally different, and thus I think that is why the confusion on the confliction

I guess I didn't think my position was that complicated.  If you earned something, it is NOT welfare at all and IMO shouldn't be in the same discussion. 

My boss told me his son or brother (I forget) was at Fort Benning and they got a couple days off after going 90 days without a fatality. I hadn't realized the accident rate was that high.  I know that is a big place, but veterans volunteered for that stuff with little pay, but potentially good benefits.  I see those benefits and earned by a large margin.  I would mention the other, but I'd hate to ruin the paragraph.

[De Selby]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN1E7670UA20110708?irpc=932

649 billion dollar defense budget passed by the house - that would pay off the national debt in 30 years or so. 

There are savings in there for sure.

Default fast approaches...I'm holding off buying dollars for my next trip home in the meantime.

[MicroBalrog]

De Selby: This is a 15 billion-dollar cut from last year's defense budget and a 50-billion-dollar cut from the budget that was originally planned for.

[Scout26]

De Selby: This is a 15 billion-dollar cut from last year's defense budget and a 50-billion-dollar cut from the budget that was originally planned for.

QFT.  Just imagine how small the budget would be if we got rid of all the $900,000 gay men penis studies......

[De Selby]

De Selby: This is a 15 billion-dollar cut from last year's defense budget and a 50-billion-dollar cut from the budget that was originally planned for.

Something tells me the nation can get by just fine with half that amount - another problem with big spending is that it encourages adventurism like we've undertaken in Iraq and Afghanistan.  A less expensive military might have led politicians to think a little harder about the wisdom of those wars.  

Afghanistan and Iraq will themselves create future costs - the strategic victories that were envisioned by some have been snatched (by Iran's non-military means in Iraq, by the warfare of an illiterate gang that will soon be running Afghanistan again), so there's unlikely to be any future budget gain there.

It's sunk cost, more so than welfare, at this point

[Scout26]

See the difference are two:

1.  Providing for the common defense is one of those things required by the COTUS.

2.  It's an actual cut, as in less this year then last year.  Not the Democrat definition of "cut" which is more then last year but not nearly as much more that we wanted.