Conquer Club

The Government used to spend about 7.5% of the GDP of the country. Last I heard it was nearly 40%. So if you take all the money the entire population creates in a year, the government blows/spends/consumers 40% of it. This number needs to be down to about 10%. If we continue on this trend, then I estimate by about 2110, the government will spend 100% of the nations GDP.

EDIT: Poll Added

Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

ding ding ding

the current level of government spending is due to the institution of infrastructure that supports your doubtlessly sedentary, parasitic lifestyle. in 1903 there were no highways, no municipal water treatment plants, no geologic, meteorological, or cosmological monitoring agencies, no social welfare programs, no internet, no television and radio airwaves, no car or air traffic to regulate, no food and drug safety measures, no medicare, no medicaid. and no regulations on business, leading to this shit

the fact is that without the state spending as much as it does, your life would be immeasurably shittier. this is objective fact. so cry some more you privileged idiot

f*ck the kids; gummint's spending mah money!

Neoteny wrote:f*ck the kids

that's illegal now too

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

ding ding ding

the current level of government spending is due to the institution of infrastructure that supports your doubtlessly sedentary, parasitic lifestyle. in 1903 there were no highways, no municipal water treatment plants, no geologic, meteorological, or cosmological monitoring agencies, no social welfare programs, no internet, no television and radio airwaves, no car or air traffic to regulate, no food and drug safety measures, no medicare, no medicaid. and no regulations on business, leading to this shit

the fact is that without the state spending as much as it does, your life would be immeasurably shittier. this is objective fact. so cry some more you privileged idiot

If you left all the shit in there except the bold words, total government spending would be cut by a huge margin. Just medicare and medicaid is 18% of total outlays. Remove social security as well, and the budget is cut in half.

ref. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... ummary.pdf

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

Neoteny wrote:f*ck the kids

that's illegal now too

Oh shit!

72o wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

ding ding ding

the current level of government spending is due to the institution of infrastructure that supports your doubtlessly sedentary, parasitic lifestyle. in 1903 there were no highways, no municipal water treatment plants, no geologic, meteorological, or cosmological monitoring agencies, no social welfare programs, no internet, no television and radio airwaves, no car or air traffic to regulate, no food and drug safety measures, no medicare, no medicaid. and no regulations on business, leading to this shit

the fact is that without the state spending as much as it does, your life would be immeasurably shittier. this is objective fact. so cry some more you privileged idiot

If you left all the shit in there except the bold words, total government spending would be cut by a huge margin. Just medicare and medicaid is 18% of total outlays. Remove social security as well, and the budget is cut in half.

ref. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... ummary.pdf

so what you're saying is, f*ck the poor and elderly

cool, at least you're honest

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

72o wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

ding ding ding

the current level of government spending is due to the institution of infrastructure that supports your doubtlessly sedentary, parasitic lifestyle. in 1903 there were no highways, no municipal water treatment plants, no geologic, meteorological, or cosmological monitoring agencies, no social welfare programs, no internet, no television and radio airwaves, no car or air traffic to regulate, no food and drug safety measures, no medicare, no medicaid. and no regulations on business, leading to this shit

the fact is that without the state spending as much as it does, your life would be immeasurably shittier. this is objective fact. so cry some more you privileged idiot

If you left all the shit in there except the bold words, total government spending would be cut by a huge margin. Just medicare and medicaid is 18% of total outlays. Remove social security as well, and the budget is cut in half.

ref. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... ummary.pdf

so what you're saying is, f*ck the poor and elderly

cool, at least you're honest

Pretty much, although I'd call it personal responsibility. I guess if you're in favor of enabling and, more appropriately, fostering dependence on the government, you'd say I'm cruel and heartless.

The 65 year old Sultan: "The government's not doing a good enough job of redistributing all the money. Why shouldn't I be able to buy a HoverRound power chair with Medicare funds so I can scoot my lazy ass around my house? My neighbor just bought an RV, he's got more money than he needs, apparently."

You know what would make medicare and medicaid a lot cheaper?

Universal healthcare with the government having the ability to negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals as well as eliminate huge administrative costs.

pimpdave wrote:You know what would make medicare and medicaid a lot cheaper?

Universal healthcare with the government having the ability to negotiate the prices of pharmaceuticals.

If there's only one customer for your product, and that customer has the ability to make laws, it's not so much "negotiation" as it is price mandates.

And the goverment already does this price-fixing with healthcare services (although admittedly not with pharmaceuticals) in our current system. Talk to a doctor about what their fees are for standard services if they don't opt out of seeing medicare and medicaid patients.

72o wrote:

pimpdave wrote:You know what would make medicare and medicaid a lot cheaper?

Universal healthcare with the government having the ability to negotiate the prices of pharmaceuticals.

If there's only one customer for your product, and that customer has the ability to make laws, it's not so much "negotiation" as it is price mandates.

And the goverment already does this price-fixing with healthcare services (although admittedly not with pharmaceuticals) in our current system. Talk to a doctor about what their fees are for standard services if they don't opt out of seeing medicare and medicaid patients.

I have one in my family, and we talk regularly about this. And she would love to see universal healthcare become a reality, instead of having her pay regularly cut into by insurance companies.

She gave up her twenties to pursue a career in medicine, and it's steadily being chipped away at as a viable career by shit heads who only spent 2 years sleeping through their MBAs, and think they know fucking everything and deserve obscene salaries at the expense of everyone else.

But thanks for the input.

Amen brother.

pimpdave wrote:

72o wrote:

pimpdave wrote:You know what would make medicare and medicaid a lot cheaper?

Universal healthcare with the government having the ability to negotiate the prices of pharmaceuticals.

If there's only one customer for your product, and that customer has the ability to make laws, it's not so much "negotiation" as it is price mandates.

And the goverment already does this price-fixing with healthcare services (although admittedly not with pharmaceuticals) in our current system. Talk to a doctor about what their fees are for standard services if they don't opt out of seeing medicare and medicaid patients.

I have one in my family, and we talk regularly about this. And she would love to see universal healthcare become a reality, instead of having her pay regularly cut into by insurance companies.

But thanks for the input.

That's interesting. Every physician I've talked to feels the opposite. Insurance companies don't cut into their pay any more than the government does; in fact, that's why they can do it, because the government has established the precedent and the acceptable pricing structure.

What if we got rid of Medicare and Medicaid altogether? Then this government price fixing would be over, as insurance companies wouldn't be able to force providers to adjust their rates to government mandated rates. Plus, 0 is as cheap as it gets.

72o wrote:That's interesting. Every physician I've talked to feels the opposite. Insurance companies don't cut into their pay any more than the government does; in fact, that's why they can do it, because the government has established the precedent and the acceptable pricing structure.

What if we got rid of Medicare and Medicaid altogether? Then this government price fixing would be over, as insurance companies wouldn't be able to force providers to adjust their rates to government mandated rates. Plus, 0 is as cheap as it gets.

You've got that way backwards. It's litigious scum suckers and their complicit buddies in the insurance industry that set the precedent for the government.

I'm not saying the government is perfect, but at least we have the ability to vote them out when they're misbehaving. But these thoroughly corrupt fuckhead "titans of industry" that have driven us into the Great Recession still have their jobs!

72o wrote:

sultanofsurreal wrote:so what you're saying is, f*ck the poor and elderly

cool, at least you're honest

Pretty much

well that's not very nice, but at least we all know to discount your opinions out of hand in the future

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

ding ding ding

the current level of government spending is due to the institution of infrastructure that supports your doubtlessly sedentary, parasitic lifestyle. in 1903 there were no highways, no municipal water treatment plants, no geologic, meteorological, or cosmological monitoring agencies, no social welfare programs, no internet, no television and radio airwaves, no car or air traffic to regulate, no food and drug safety measures, no medicare, no medicaid. and no regulations on business, leading to this shit

the fact is that without the state spending as much as it does, your life would be immeasurably shittier. this is objective fact. so cry some more you privileged idiot

So you think this is good then? Would you like to see the government continue to provide more and more and more services and grow as it is now and has for the past 100 years? Do you want to be completely dependent upon the government in 100 years? By your logic we should just give all our money to the government and let them provide us with everything. Isn't there a term for that?

bedub1 wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

ding ding ding

the current level of government spending is due to the institution of infrastructure that supports your doubtlessly sedentary, parasitic lifestyle. in 1903 there were no highways, no municipal water treatment plants, no geologic, meteorological, or cosmological monitoring agencies, no social welfare programs, no internet, no television and radio airwaves, no car or air traffic to regulate, no food and drug safety measures, no medicare, no medicaid. and no regulations on business, leading to this shit

the fact is that without the state spending as much as it does, your life would be immeasurably shittier. this is objective fact. so cry some more you privileged idiot

So you think this is good then? Would you like to see the government continue to provide more and more and more services and grow as it is now and has for the past 100 years? Do you want to be completely dependent upon the government in 100 years? By your logic we should just give all our money to the government and let them provide us with everything. Isn't there a term for that?

could you please provide us with the scenario to a plausible alternative world where government spending did not increase at all after 1903, but nevertheless, by 2010, all of the modern technologies that make it possible for you to live past the age of 30 before dying of consumption in the motherfucking woods exist

bedub1 wrote:

The Government used to spend about 7.5% of the GDP of the country. Last I heard it was nearly 40%. So if you take all the money the entire population creates in a year, the government blows/spends/consumers 40% of it. This number needs to be down to about 10%. If we continue on this trend, then I estimate by about 2110, the government will spend 100% of the nations GDP.

Interesting. My first thought was whether it would be possible to figure out what the effective tax rate was with respect to the US GDP (i.e. we have $X GDP and the average tax rate on that GDP is Y%). I'm not sure that's possible (I also think it's much less than 40%).

Does the government spend too much money? Yes. Should the government be spending money like they did in 1910? Not sure.

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

pimpdave wrote:Yeah, cause life was so wonderful, sanitary, and equitable in 1910.

Your definition of "too big" is based on false pretense.

ding ding ding

the current level of government spending is due to the institution of infrastructure that supports your doubtlessly sedentary, parasitic lifestyle. in 1903 there were no highways, no municipal water treatment plants, no geologic, meteorological, or cosmological monitoring agencies, no social welfare programs, no internet, no television and radio airwaves, no car or air traffic to regulate, no food and drug safety measures, no medicare, no medicaid. and no regulations on business, leading to this shit

the fact is that without the state spending as much as it does, your life would be immeasurably shittier. this is objective fact. so cry some more you privileged idiot

So you think this is good then? Would you like to see the government continue to provide more and more and more services and grow as it is now and has for the past 100 years? Do you want to be completely dependent upon the government in 100 years? By your logic we should just give all our money to the government and let them provide us with everything. Isn't there a term for that?

could you please provide us with the scenario to a plausible alternative world where government spending did not increase at all after 1903, but nevertheless, by 2010, all of the modern technologies that make it possible for you to live past the age of 30 before dying of consumption in the motherfucking woods exist

As a relation to GDP you mean. I don't need government to do all that for me, I prefer to do it on my own, or find somebody to pay to do it for me. I don't need to be held up and robbed and have a "service" done for me whether I want it or not.

Do you think we have made the lives of the Native Americans better by introducing them to government?

bedub1 wrote:As a relation to GDP you mean. I don't need government to do all that for me, I prefer to do it on my own, or find somebody to pay to do it for me. I don't need to be held up and robbed and have a "service" done for me whether I want it or not.

Do you think we have made the lives of the Native Americans better by introducing them to government?

what the f*ck are you talking about

look guy, i want to know how the infrastructure of our modern, post-industrial society could possibly exist without substantial investment in it from the state. can you explain that for me? i would really appreciate it

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

bedub1 wrote:As a relation to GDP you mean. I don't need government to do all that for me, I prefer to do it on my own, or find somebody to pay to do it for me. I don't need to be held up and robbed and have a "service" done for me whether I want it or not.

Do you think we have made the lives of the Native Americans better by introducing them to government?

what the f*ck are you talking about

i want to know how the infrastructure of our modern, post-industrial society could possibly exist without substantial investment in it from the state. can you explain that for me? i would really appreciate it

Bedub1 is only talking about spending as it relates to entitlements. He's not talking about spending as it relates to all the other shit our government (and by our government I mean we collectively) spend money on - like, I don't know, fucking roads, our military, police, fire, and other things that didn't exist in 1910 or that we need more of now.

Let's not get confused here bedub, our government is big for the most part because of the military; which is not really an entitlement as you would use that word.

i dont know how its in US,but in mine country(with 8 milion people) 10% of Budget going to gouverment salary(yep they need to live good and rest of people can eat s...).
Now when you count 28000 in administration,and 250 people in Parlament,and add 3400 in Ministry departments(25 Ministry seeds this is not normal).
Well you get number of 31650 in gouverment,who spend 10% of Country Budget for hes salary--Its this Normal??

qwert wrote:i dont know how its in US,but in mine country(with 8 milion people) 10% of Budget going to gouverment salary(yep they need to live good and rest of people can eat s...).
Now when you count 28000 in administration,and 250 people in Parlament,and add 3400 in Ministry departments(25 Ministry seeds this is not normal).
Well you get number of 31650 in gouverment,who spend 10% of Country Budget for hes salary--Its this Normal??

If you live in a small country, yes.

Here are some gov'ment salaries:

Rank and file member of the House and Senate - $174,000
House and Senate leadership - $193,400
Speaker of the House - $223,500
President - $400,000 (also $50,000 of annual expenses, $100,000 non-taxable travel account, $19,000 for entertainment).

Let's see...

98 senators X $174,000 = $17,052,000
2 senators X $193,400 = $386,800
432 representatives X $174,000 = $75,168,000
2 House leaders X $193,400 = $386,800
1 speaker = $223,500
1 president = $400,000

Total = $93,617,100 in salaries

Total expenditures for 2009 = $3,100,000,000,000

Percentage of salaries to government expenditures = 0.003%

EDIT - My math might be bad... but you get the drift.