US Government is WAY too big (Poll Added)

[Snorri1234]

So what makes up the bigger portion of the budget?

Defense... or entitlements?

Do we need to determine what elements of that list are defense and what elements are entitlements?

I think it's rather silly to include "entitlements" as part of the budget to be honest.

dumbness

Please tell me why money that can't actually be spent by the government should be included on a list of things the government spends money on.

[joecoolfrog]

2008 GDP was 14.2 trillion.

Government spending 37% of 14.2 trillion is 5.254 trillion. If I cut out that 62%, then the government would be spending 38% of 5.254 trillion, which is about 2 trillion. 2 Trillion is about 14% of the GDP. That fine with me.



Government spending is currently 37% of 14.2 Trillion = 5.25 Trillion.
OP wishes 62% decrease so we would have 62% of the current 37% = 23% of 14.2 Trillion = 3.26 Trillion . 3.26 Trillion as a percentage of 14.2 Trillion = 23% NOT 14% as indicated by the OP.
I trust you can follow that , with or without the help of your Niece and her building bricks

Read it again. Slowly. Then have your mother explain to you that a decrease means that you take away a number from another number.

62% decrease. You are right, 62% of 37% = 23% multiplied by the 14.2 trillion = 3.26. That's the DECREASE. Subtract that from 5.25, and you get about 2 trillion, WHICH IS WHAT HE FUCKING SAID.

No he Fucking didn't say that !
Ha Ha you really are a Moron
Current Percentage of GDP 37% = 5.25 Trillion
OP says that 62% reduction in GDP % = 2 Trillion ( False )
Comic shows that 62% reduction in GDP % actually = 3.26 Trillion ( correct )
You amazingly take the existing spend ( 5.25 T ) Randomly decide to subtract the correct reduction spend ( 3.26 T ) in order to prove that the OP false figure ( 2 T ) is correct
Just think about it ;
1) If you think the OP claim is correct (2T ) then thefigure ( 3.26 T ) is incorrect and no part of any equation.....so why are you using it ?
2) How on Earth can you think that taking an existing figure (5.25T ) then subtracting a proposed reduction figure ( 3.26 T ) can prove another proposed reduction figure (2T ), it doesn't make any sense and shows you have no understanding whatsoever in this regard

[Snorri1234]

No he Fucking didn't say that !
Ha Ha you really are a Moron
Current Percentage of GDP 37% = 5.25 Trillion
OP says that 62% reduction in GDP % = 2 Trillion ( False )
I show that 62% reduction in GDP % actually = 3.26 Trillion ( correct )
You amazingly take the existing spend ( 5.25 T ) Randomly decide to subtract my correct reduction spend ( 3.26 T ) in order to prove that the OP false figure ( 2 T ) is correct
Just think about it ;
1) If you think the OP claim is correct (2T ) then my figure ( 3.26 T ) is incorrect and no part of any equation.....so why are you using it ?
2) How on Earth can you think that taking an existing figure (5.25T ) then subtracting a proposed reduction figure ( 3.26 T ) can prove another proposed reduction figure (2T ), it doesn't make any sense and shows you have no understanding whatsoever in this regard

Dude you're on the wrong account.


(I was gonna make a multi-joke but yeah....)

[joecoolfrog]

Hee Hee yes ....stupid dads not logging out

[72o]

No he Fucking didn't say that !
Ha Ha you really are a Moron
Current Percentage of GDP 37% = 5.25 Trillion
OP says that 62% reduction in GDP % = 2 Trillion ( False )
I show that 62% reduction in GDP % actually = 3.26 Trillion ( correct )
You amazingly take the existing spend ( 5.25 T ) Randomly decide to subtract my correct reduction spend ( 3.26 T ) in order to prove that the OP false figure ( 2 T ) is correct
Just think about it ;
1) If you think the OP claim is correct (2T ) then my figure ( 3.26 T ) is incorrect and no part of any equation.....so why are you using it ?
2) How on Earth can you think that taking an existing figure (5.25T ) then subtracting a proposed reduction figure ( 3.26 T ) can prove another proposed reduction figure (2T ), it doesn't make any sense and shows you have no understanding whatsoever in this regard

Jesus Christ. This is not that difficult.

The government's total spend today is 5.25 trillion, 37% of the nation's 14.2 trillion GDP. Do you agree that 37% of 14.2 = 5.25? Ok.

Bedub wants to remove 62% of that total spend. 62% of 5.25 trillion = 3.26 trillion. Say it with me so you'll get it...that's the part that is removed.

You should be able to get this one, although you do have to carry the number, so maybe you haven't gotten to that level of math yet in 2nd grade. 5.25 trillion - 3.26 trillion = 1.99 trillion. That's the leftover amount that would be the new total spend.

Bedub's new total spend, as a percentage of total GDP, is about 14%. 2/14.2 = .1408 = 14%.

If you can't grasp this, I am at a loss as to how better explain it.

[Baron Von PWN]

At least you see the DoD slice is too big. And look how much is allocated just for the "war on terror."

I always feel like "war on terror" should be written in blood red font with a dripping effect.

Why isn't the war on terror 4.75% in with the DOD? We should cut out that 4.75 percent too.

EDIT: Did you know that Social Security has a negative return on investment(ROI). IE if you put in 100k, you get out 80k. That blows. That's not an investment. Plus the government doesn't save it, they spend it. You are better off putting that 100k under your mattress, because even with inflation killing it you will still end up with more than 80k.

The economist recently(in the last year) did an article which talked about what would happen if the US gov were to make drastic cuts to balance the budget. Essentially the models they were referencing had the US economy dropping back into a severe recession. Besides that there may be very positives externalities related with these things, for example IE could be a contributing factor in crime reduction (fewer desperate people) it reduces social inequities leveling societies incomes somewhat, this is important as it reduces the chances of radical political movements. It isn't for nothing that the few successful communist revolutions have been in societies which were highly stratified.

[Titanic]

Now, do you need a math lesson also?

Maybe you need an economics lesson. 2010 is a horrible year to look at a budget to prove the effects of social spending. It was written in the middle of the largest recession in 70 years and as anyone with a basic economic understanding knows during recessions tax receipts go down and social spending goes up, thus making the proportion allocated to social spending higher during those years then in the norm (which is why I used the 2008 budget).

I was comparing dollars, not proportions. You're making the claim that if the economy was better, we'd be spending less on Social Security and more on defense spending?

Dollars and proportions will be exactly the same. If you are spending more dollars on one thing then another then the proportion for that thing is going to be larger....

If the economy is bad we will spend more on social programmes, if it is good we spend less on social programmes. Defence will stay pretty constant unless there are planned cuts or increases by the politicians. The social programmes costs are fairly automatic in the budget, the defence can be artificially decided.

[Phatscotty]

This is a list of Public debt loads around the world complied by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... rank=61#us

It seemed relevant to the conversation. In it it appears the US public debt is rather modest at 37% of GDP, compared to the Extreme case of japan at 172% of GDP. it looks like very few rich countries have lower debt burdens.

this is a list of median incomes on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Did you happen to find anything that says from whom Japan is borrowing most of its money? Is it the US or China or private lenders? I have no ulterior motive, just curious.

The only number I've found is one from the economist which says 94% of the debt is owned domestically. I did find an academic journal "Public Debt and the Macroeconomic Stability of Japan" but not being an economist it's a bit over my head.

It also appears that Japan pays very low interest for it's debt, only 1.1% and sometimes lower so this is how they can manage such a high debt load. The Japanese just keep buying government bonds and aren't being very pushy about being paid back.

EDIT**

Baron, it's tough to be pushy when you can't even stand up....

Japan LOST an entire decade, nothing happened. Oh yeah, they printed a lot of paper.

[Titanic]

Baron, it's tough to be pushy when you can't even stand up....

Japan LOST an entire decade, nothing happened. Oh yeah, they printed a lot of paper.

That wasn't because of their debt, it was a failing financial system (like we have had) that they never sorted out properly, a lack of confidence from international markets and small business's not being able to borrow credit from banks at worthwhile prices.

[Baron Von PWN]

The only number I've found is one from the economist which says 94% of the debt is owned domestically. I did find an academic journal "Public Debt and the Macroeconomic Stability of Japan" but not being an economist it's a bit over my head.

It also appears that Japan pays very low interest for it's debt, only 1.1% and sometimes lower so this is how they can manage such a high debt load. The Japanese just keep buying government bonds and aren't being very pushy about being paid back.

EDIT**

Baron, it's tough to be pushy when you can't even stand up....

Japan LOST an entire decade, nothing happened. Oh yeah, they printed a lot of paper.

I was just providing an answer as to who owns the Japanese public debt, as well as how they have managed not to default on their debts.I don't know anything about the lost decade, however Titanic appears to, see his response.

[rockfist]

Baron, it's tough to be pushy when you can't even stand up....

Japan LOST an entire decade, nothing happened. Oh yeah, they printed a lot of paper.

That wasn't because of their debt, it was a failing financial system (like we have had) that they never sorted out properly, a lack of confidence from international markets and small business's not being able to borrow credit from banks at worthwhile prices.

Because the government was borrowing all the available credit....

[Phatscotty]

Baron, it's tough to be pushy when you can't even stand up....

Japan LOST an entire decade, nothing happened. Oh yeah, they printed a lot of paper.

That wasn't because of their debt, it was a failing financial system (like we have had) that they never sorted out properly, a lack of confidence from international markets and small business's not being able to borrow credit from banks at worthwhile prices.

like i said....paper.....paper....and PAPER. that accurately respond to your "rebuttal" of my statement of "paper"??? somone claim this child!

[Phatscotty]

some of you mutherfuckers are in for one hell of a rude awakening. Seriously, if you don't have a single clue by now, you never will. And don't you dare fucking turn to Socialism/Communism when your time comes and you can't pay the piper.

[Pedronicus]

don't you dare fucking turn to Socialism/Communism when your time comes and you can't pay the piper.

Why shouldn't we turn to Socialism? Pure Capitalism has failed. With such a large number of devout Christians in America, I fail to understand why Socialism isn't more widely accepted as an alternative to capitalism.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

[Snorri1234]

Baron, it's tough to be pushy when you can't even stand up....

Japan LOST an entire decade, nothing happened. Oh yeah, they printed a lot of paper.

That wasn't because of their debt, it was a failing financial system (like we have had) that they never sorted out properly, a lack of confidence from international markets and small business's not being able to borrow credit from banks at worthwhile prices.

like i said....paper.....paper....and PAPER. that accurately respond to your "rebuttal" of my statement of "paper"??? somone claim this child!

Dude. Your point is "paper"???

[Titanic]

like i said....paper.....paper....and PAPER. that accurately respond to your "rebuttal" of my statement of "paper"??? somone claim this child!

Wth has paper got to do with anything?

That wasn't because of their debt, it was a failing financial system (like we have had) that they never sorted out properly, a lack of confidence from international markets and small business's not being able to borrow credit from banks at worthwhile prices.

Because the government was borrowing all the available credit....[/quote]

Not entirely. The government did run severe deficits for a long time but most of the banks and large corporations all had huge debts made up of bad assets that they purchased during the housing and asset bubble in the 1980's, thus meaning that the credit that they would normally be transferring was being kept within the company. Amazingly during this "lost decade", it did not really have any impact on the common Japanese worker. The unemployment rate rose slightly, but apart from that on a micro level it was all fairly normal.

[Phatscotty]

don't you dare fucking turn to Socialism/Communism when your time comes and you can't pay the piper.

Why shouldn't we turn to Socialism? Pure Capitalism has failed. With such a large number of devout Christians in America, I fail to understand why Socialism isn't more widely accepted as an alternative to capitalism.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

the pure form wasn't perfect, so we should flip it upside down.....got it

[Phatscotty]

Not entirely. The government did run severe deficits for a long time but most of the banks and large corporations all had huge debts made up of bad assets that they purchased during the housing and asset bubble in the 1980's, thus meaning that the credit that they would normally be transferring was being kept within the company. Amazingly during this "lost decade", it did not really have any impact on the common Japanese worker. The unemployment rate rose slightly, but apart from that on a micro level it was all fairly normal.

Fascinating how you hold up complete failure as an example of success. Do you take the time to realize what you write? Holy shit dude

[Titanic]

Not entirely. The government did run severe deficits for a long time but most of the banks and large corporations all had huge debts made up of bad assets that they purchased during the housing and asset bubble in the 1980's, thus meaning that the credit that they would normally be transferring was being kept within the company. Amazingly during this "lost decade", it did not really have any impact on the common Japanese worker. The unemployment rate rose slightly, but apart from that on a micro level it was all fairly normal.

Fascinating how you hold up complete failure as an example of success. Do you take the time to realize what you write? Holy shit dude

Where did I hold it up as a success???

[rockfist]

don't you dare fucking turn to Socialism/Communism when your time comes and you can't pay the piper.

Why shouldn't we turn to Socialism? Pure Capitalism has failed. With such a large number of devout Christians in America, I fail to understand why Socialism isn't more widely accepted as an alternative to capitalism.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Socialism and Communism amount to slavery of the talented by the brainless masses...yet slaves don't work very hard or very creatively so the system fails. They are immoral systems of government. They fucking failed in Russia and Eastern Europe...

[bedub1]

No he Fucking didn't say that !
Ha Ha you really are a Moron
Current Percentage of GDP 37% = 5.25 Trillion
OP says that 62% reduction in GDP % = 2 Trillion ( False )
I show that 62% reduction in GDP % actually = 3.26 Trillion ( correct )
You amazingly take the existing spend ( 5.25 T ) Randomly decide to subtract my correct reduction spend ( 3.26 T ) in order to prove that the OP false figure ( 2 T ) is correct
Just think about it ;
1) If you think the OP claim is correct (2T ) then my figure ( 3.26 T ) is incorrect and no part of any equation.....so why are you using it ?
2) How on Earth can you think that taking an existing figure (5.25T ) then subtracting a proposed reduction figure ( 3.26 T ) can prove another proposed reduction figure (2T ), it doesn't make any sense and shows you have no understanding whatsoever in this regard

Jesus Christ. This is not that difficult.

The government's total spend today is 5.25 trillion, 37% of the nation's 14.2 trillion GDP. Do you agree that 37% of 14.2 = 5.25? Ok.

Bedub wants to remove 62% of that total spend. 62% of 5.25 trillion = 3.26 trillion. Say it with me so you'll get it...that's the part that is removed.

You should be able to get this one, although you do have to carry the number, so maybe you haven't gotten to that level of math yet in 2nd grade. 5.25 trillion - 3.26 trillion = 1.99 trillion. That's the leftover amount that would be the new total spend.

Bedub's new total spend, as a percentage of total GDP, is about 14%. 2/14.2 = .1408 = 14%.

If you can't grasp this, I am at a loss as to how better explain it.

That's an interesting way to calculate it. They way I figured is this:

If I remove the 62%, then I'm left with 38%. 38% of 5.25 trillion is 1.99trillion. 1.99 trillion out of 14.2 trillion is about 14%.

So I did my "subtract the two numbers" at the "%" level not the "number" level. But either way we get to the correct answer. I'm glad you helped me check my math so I'm not fighting this stupid shit on my own.

I'm just waiting for the day the people of the country decide to pass a law making pie equal to 3 instead of 3.14etc since it's easier to work with and more fair to the mathematically challenged....

EDIT: I just added a poll.

[Titanic]

don't you dare fucking turn to Socialism/Communism when your time comes and you can't pay the piper.

Why shouldn't we turn to Socialism? Pure Capitalism has failed. With such a large number of devout Christians in America, I fail to understand why Socialism isn't more widely accepted as an alternative to capitalism.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Socialism and Communism amount to slavery of the talented by the brainless masses...yet slaves don't work very hard or very creatively so the system fails. They are immoral systems of government. They fucking failed in Russia and Eastern Europe...

They were extreme socialist states with dictators (and not communist at all). Having elements of socialism is actually good for an economy imo. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are both as bad as each other, you need a mix of the two.

[Phatscotty]

don't you dare fucking turn to Socialism/Communism when your time comes and you can't pay the piper.

Why shouldn't we turn to Socialism? Pure Capitalism has failed. With such a large number of devout Christians in America, I fail to understand why Socialism isn't more widely accepted as an alternative to capitalism.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Socialism and Communism amount to slavery of the talented by the brainless masses...yet slaves don't work very hard or very creatively so the system fails. They are immoral systems of government. They fucking failed in Russia and Eastern Europe...

They were extreme socialist states with dictators (and not communist at all). Having elements of socialism is actually good for an economy imo. Pure socialism and pure capitalism are both as bad as each other, you need a mix of the two.

What kind of wealth does socialism create?

[jimboston]

The poll is ridiculous in its' extremes.

[jimboston]

Why shouldn't we turn to Socialism? Pure Capitalism has failed. With such a large number of devout Christians in America, I fail to understand why Socialism isn't more widely accepted as an alternative to capitalism.

You don't honestly believe this... do you?