Conservatives Answer This; Which Costs More?

Oh Tosh, the Unions would like it. More members more money, the structure for payoffs and bribes is more developed in structural industries than even the military

 

you're kinda right, but you're kinda wrong also...

as long as there is such a great pool of money for welfare of the military, there will NEVER be any improvements in either... why... because nobody has a necessity to change, they can still grab at all the money there and are simply racing to get it ahead of the other guy... creativity and ingenuity are not born from excess resources, they are born from lack of resources...

when people try to compare the two in terms of importance or dollars, there is always one thing they fail to consider... military power is a race of expensive technology over your peers, once you cut back, they WILL advance and be peers or exceed you... so its almost an unfair comparison since military will ALWAYS be a waste by design... however welfare shouldn't have to be a waste from the start, it should want to be the most efficient from the start, thats where it would shine and benefit the most for those who need it... but instead we try to compare them and as a result we've made both bloated failures in a competition for the same dollar, each spending it all so we have a justification to spend more on both...

we could have a very advanced military, but we need to downsize it, however military doesn't want to downsize itself and favor a more technical strike package, versus the all of thee above power all the time... welfare could be solved and much cheaper with a progressive system of advancement instead of the all of thee above all of the time approach... you see how both are faulted with the same logical approach... they both fail in the same way...

welfare could be solved by allowing advancement in it, when someone gets a $1000 raise, we only cut $500 of their benefits, they still advance and come out ahead, instead of making $1 too many and we cut them off for thousands, giving them reason to hang back and never progress, but this isn't what gets proposed, they simply want to spend more per capita for the same programs, with the same limits, and the same faults... thats no less ridiculous than continuing to fund military programs that never seem to reach the intended goal, and simply increasing the per capita spending on them with the same limits, and same faults...

you see how both are plagued with almost identical problems, and both sides argue the same logic, but refuse to apply it to the other... its just funny sometimes...

so in the end, you are both right and wrong...

P.S. I could solve the transportation issues as well, by removing the gas tax, and switching to a small sales tax on all commerce, since all commerce requires the infrastructure thats failing... and instead of having to constantly adjust or fix the gas tax and other means of raising money, you'd have a system that self-increases and adjusts with inflation as sales and commerce increase and inflate... plus you would lower the entry barrier to gasoline and other expenses that would additionally help the poor transport themselves to consume more and better their lives... but the left doesn't want folks to consume "polluting" fuels, and the right doesn't want to increase a sales tax on anyone saying it will stunt the growth... meanwhile, both punish everyone... they are both right, and wrong... got to love it...

 

Putting the unemployed to work building infrastructure is one thing they will not stand for or even giving the bid to the lowest bidder

 

How experienced is any super powers military? Super powers don't go to war with equal opponents, they invade third word countries and go from there.

 

A better idea is to eliminate federal welfare and reduce military spending to an appropriate level. Then, lower taxes and let the private sector create jobs. As with the chipmunks at road stops those looking for freebies will return to self-reliance. States, local governments, churches and charities will see to the truly needy.

 

Now were talking

 

So 56% of people on welfare have jobs (think McDonalds and Walmart), then you have those who are unable to work (disabled / elderly). It should also be noted that cutting taxes doesn't create jobs. Its been tried and it doesn't work. Why? Well because a business is more than "I have 1 million dollars sitting around, think I'll create a company." Sorry but your ideas won't work. It would be nice if things were that simple, but no amount of cutting welfare will heal the sick, youthanize the elderly, and make McDonald's make up the difference. We tried cutting taxes with Bush and all that did was increase debt. Not putting the wars on the books wasn't very fiscally sound either.

 

Total Military Spending is a form of corporate and civil welfare. It is one of the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy fusion monsters that runs this country. This particular head of this monster eats up 1 Trillion per year.

In 2000 TMS was roughly 350 Billion. This quickly ramped up to over 900 Billion under Bush and has been over 1 Trillion since Obama.

Holding the line on TMS (allowing for increase with inflation) would have freed up roughly 550 billion/year over 14 years = 8 Trillion dollars.

This was 8 Trillion dollars that could have been spent on infrastructure, technology, education and revamping our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet by getting involved in a completely unnecessary war, increased bureaucracy, and obsolete technology.

 

Yep. . .and,
Which cost more: educating a young adult or jailing him/her?

And,
Which cost more: preventive care paid by a health insurance, including early detection. . .or caring for a stage 4 cancer, a disabled child due to lack of care during pregnancy, or mass shooting due to lack of affordable and easily accessible mental health care and programs?

 

well first we would have to remove some restrictions on being self-reliant... I mean most populous cities wouldn't let you have a chicken coop, have any type of farm animal, and in many places there are heavy restrictions on to what you can even plant and grow in a garden now... so we'd have to remove all those laws meant to "protect" us as well...

whats my example for this? well my neighbor is a health nut, she grows almost all her own food during the summer and for most of the winter, she turns her entire front yard into a garden, keeping the grass but digging lines out where she planted all sorts of fruits and veggies... I thought it was ugly and awful to see driving home until she gave me a couple pints of strawberries... but some neighbor complained, city came out, told her it was illegal to have her lawn like that, and she would have to remove all the plants and just have grass... city ordinance... and because her plants were above a certain height, they tagged her with a lawn height fine since it exceeded 6 inches for more than 10 days...

so we'd have to do a lot more than just eliminate or reduce welfare, we'd have to make it legal to take care of yourself again!

don't even get me started on property taxes... thats another crime...

 

What about ww1, ww2, the crimea, the napoleon wars, the anglo dutch wars, the russo japanese wars, the seven years war, etc etc etc... the list is endless.

 

depends, does the young adult want to learn and succeed, or do they just want all the success without the work?

because that would dramatically change the costs as well...

lol

and what do we do when we paid once to educate the youth and they rejected it... and then what do we do when we paid a second time to educate the youth and they rejected it... and then what do we do when we paid a third time to educate the youth and they rejected it...

when can we finally just give up and let them live with consequences?

 

I see you are mentioning wars from some seventy+ years ago. Globalization and mutually assured destruction change things.

 

you mentioned we tried cutting taxes with bush and it didn't work... then why did we try cutting taxes with obama too?

is that different? or just more of the same? because I think its more of the same, except you ignored the fact both sides have done it... so if it was wrong of one, why not the other? I'm always fascinated with the reasons people come up for justifying it when you point out "the other guy did it too"...

tax cuts do have some impact when used correctly, but I think people have gotten used to it being a defacto standard solution (basically republicans) as much as people think giving more welfare benefits is a defacto standard solution (basically democrats)... both have long abused these for political gain, and we're all suffering as a result of the incorrect application of both...

you can create hiring with tax cuts applied in some ways, its not the most effective way though... its a longer slower process... demand is what drives job creation, and demand is created through purchasing... so the most direct way to create jobs is to create spending... but not government spending, thats once again one of the least effective methods, longer and slower... cutting taxes that low income people pay, is the most direct and immediate, since they will spend every last cent they have... well we've eliminated many taxes they used to pay, so its hard to cut taxes there anymore since there are so few... so the most effective way to increase immediate spending there is to modify the tax code, so instead of receiving giant refunds, we get that money to them monthly, so they can spend it today on what they need today...

that will have more impact than anything else... since they will use it for things they need, instead of things they want... ever wonder why walmart loves tax time, because its when they sell more flat screen tv's and big ticket items than the christmas season, and they do it at full margin prices instead of the discounted loss leaders they use to bring folks in during christmas... its kind of a sick thing in the retail industry... so after we change the tax code, so people keep more of their paychecks instead of waiting to be refunded overpayments, and any estimated credits like for children are paid out monthly, you would see a dramatic shift in their purchasing power and self-sufficiency...

this would also lower their overall cost of living, as retailers would now be more inclined to target them every week of the month, every month of the year... instead of targeting for the first two weeks of the month, and for the first quarter of the year during refund season when they bring in high margin items to capitalize on the tax returns... more competition every week would stretch their dollars more than any government program with its bloated overhead could do... and we'd still be helping them... so everyone should be happy... but they aren't... because they all want to continue to control them... modern day slavery...

I've already ranted a lot, I could go on for hours... I'm sure you didn't even want to read this far... my apologies...

 

How's that crystal ball

 

It wasn't to long ago there was no such thing as welfare provided by the tax payers. So I suppose there's no such thing as necessary welfare, just unnecessary welfare.

 

As far as roads go, there is an old saying about mankind. Man loves to build things, much less enthusiasm for fixing them.

 

Well while I agree with your assessment that an apples to apples to comparison is over simplifying I believe even your own examples may fall prey to the same folly. Fuel prices really haven't dropped in the long term due to mid east stability. It's mainly been due to increased production in crude oil in other regions including domestically, as well as a huge boom in natural gas, and diversification of the grid. Wind power has established itself in some regions. More houses, and businesses are installing solar panel, and even better, and more fuel efficient vehicles have lowered demand on crude oil as the primary resource powering society.

Even the cash for clunkers program had a hand in it. Now does stable mid east production help. Sure, but really that alone would have just had us treading water or slipping behind as demand increased. Sales of weapons may be a good way to fix the balance sheet, but as far lowering cost again a little over simplified. proxy wars are not cheap, and those weapons are likely the ones to be used in the next conflict we are drawn into.

I don't think it could be reasonably argued that arms sales have done anything to stabilize regions in conflict. What it has done has ensured the need for a massive military industrial complex for another generation. Make no mistakes military conflict is expensive. Actually that fact was Reagan's best weapon in the cold war. If you draw the soviets into enough little skirmishes they would not be able to sustain the spending needed. Where as we would.

Also lastly when we look at the concept of proxy wars replacing wars between great powers. Again i would say consider the role social welfare plays in that as well. There are really only two principles that have cause great powers to launch full scale warfare in the past. Nationalism, or Religion. God, and country as they say. Poverty is the main cause of both becoming the dominant force on a society. Would Nazism taken hold in Germany if the public was well fed, and gainfully employed? I think it can safely be assumed that it would not have. I think that was one of the main lesson's we learned following WWII. That to leave Europe destroyed, and impoverished was only going to breed more nationalism.

In short you don't have to necessarily have a bloated welfare program like we do now, but the needs of the poor should always be considered by a nation lest their ranks swell as wealth becomes more concentrated, and the next revolution will be born.

When discussing problems like this i think it's important to examine the details. It's not outrageous to say we spend too much on either welfare programs or on the military. I wish more people who did however had more specific areas where they think money could be saved without sacrificing a great deal of the service that both provide.

 

Cutting government duties allows for less taxation. The more taxes stay in the private sector the better. What we have today is big intrusive government and the moral hazards that come with it. The invisible hand will reallocate wealth far better than socialistic moral hazards.

 

Yes it could if we would be willing to go all in. America does not have the stomach it once did. We had no problem winning at all costs in WW1 but then in the Korean War we could not half ass it enough.

 

And everyone would magical leave us alone and we can all live happy with our rose colored glass on.

 

How about doing away with both? No more wars in foreign countries, and no more welfare. Just a few national guardsmen, and no more welfare of any kind.

Deal?

 

Ww1 you got thumped and ww2 you won because the enemy was war weary and fighting on two fronts. Don't get me wrong, I watched band of brothers and I get the idea those men were valiant, but the tide of war was in their favour.

Same with Patton. He must have felt like a modern day looney lefty wih his roll of victories. But the true fight was after the war, which he lost.

 

We'd need to spend far more on crime.

 

Why?
Has fallen for many years
And am not convinced that more money yields much better results