This is me. This is who I am. This is how I live. This is what I believe.
Some people have short memories. They forget what happened the last time a VitriolBot badgered me for data to support my thesis.

Part one of this post was inspired in part by Brad whining about taxes. It was also inspired by the Point Whores who have been attacking the less fortunate in order to score cheap points on the JoeUser board.

I posited that American taxes are not nearly as low as they should be, partially on account of military spending. Military spending has increased because of Bush foreign policy.

So when I see people whinging about taxes and blaming welfare moms and the mentally ill for their onerous tax rates, I feel their anger is misdirected.

Here is a nice pretty picture supporting my thesis:



Notice how military spending accounts for almost eighty percent of the deficit.

Here are some sample quotes from a well researched and sourced article found here: Link

An August 2003 Congressional Budget Office estimate put the FY2004 deficit at $480 billion. This estimate did not include the recent request for $87 billion to occupy and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan next year, boosting the projected deficit to $567 billion. ..Nevertheless, the Bush Administration is pushing for another increase in military spending after a 17% rise this year (excluding costs in Iraq and Afghanistan). When these factors are included, next years' budget deficit is likely to exceed $600 billion. It will actually exceed $800 billion if the $200 billion borrowed from the Social Security Trust fund is counted as debt.

This deficit is so reckless that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently scolded the United States for fiscal irresponsibility, criticism normally directed at Third World regimes. Last February, a US Department of Treasury report said that income taxes must be raised 66% to balance the budget, yet no one took notice. Few Americans are concerned because corporate cheerleaders like Larry Kudlow at MSNBC and the young models at Fox News tell them everything is great. Many Americans think budget problems can be solved by just cutting welfare and foreign aid. However, if Congress eliminated all federal welfare programs, the military budget would still have to be cut to balance the budget.

While the rest of government can be trimmed, it is obvious that at least $100 billion must be cut from annual military budgets to help save the nation from hyperinflation or bankruptcy. This is not unreasonable since the annual military budget has grown by over $100 billion the past three years; a figure which does not include war costs in the Middle East. In addition, other federal government spending must be slashed, and Congress should scrutinized the outrageous request for $87 billion for colonial adventures in the Middle East; which is several times the annual GDP of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Another $55 billion will be requested early next year unless a fantasy plan succeeds in collecting that much from foreign contributions for the "war on terror." The entire world is perplexed as to why the US Government has asked them for funds and troops to rebuild Iraq after the USA defied the United Nations and international law to conduct an unprovoked bombing campaign and ground invasion.

(G)overnment spending diverts resources and skilled manpower away from America's economic engine. For example, some 200,000 military reservists have been diverted from productive tax paying employment in the private sector to tax absorbing work in the military.

Those in the rapidly growing government sector may feel immune to a faltering economy, yet they should remember that their pay and retirement benefits depend on a healthy economy to generate taxes. Federal workers and military personnel should be alarmed that 27 cents of each dollar they are paid next year was borrowed. ... What is truly alarming is the speed this deficit has grown, from a surplus when Bush took office to a record deficit three years later.

The only thing keeping the nation afloat is a huge trade deficit which pumps a half trillion in surplus dollars overseas, which is used to buy US treasury bonds. China/Hong Kong have $469 billion in foreign currency reserves (mostly US dollars), and lent the poor USA $41 billion last year through the purchase of US treasury bonds. China spent nearly as much on US treasury bonds as it did on its military last year, and billions of US tax dollars now flow to China as interest payments.

The biggest threat to the national security of the United States is exploding debt which will lead to hyperinflation.

If Americans truly care about US servicemen, they should demand higher taxes or reduced military spending to ensure that GIs receive the retirement benefits they expect. Its well past time for American military leaders to rein in plans for bigger budgets and eliminate some programs. Billions of dollars are wasted each year on future military programs when it is obvious there will never be enough money to produce all that equipment. Is it possible that military leaders in the United States can overcome their inbred service loyalty and do something patriotic? They should tell their President that unless taxes are raised, cutting military spending is advisable until the overall budget situation improves. Since the USA spends seven times more on its military than any other nation, a $100 billion a year cut will still allow the USA to spend five times more than anyone else.





Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jul 05, 2004
Can't afford social programs? Pay for 'em twenty years down the road. Can't afford a military? Do it next year....Optimistic? Sure


A reasonable person would surmise this comment and the flippant tone contained therein suggests you don't think deficits are a big deal. Brad's claim is in part one. In your case I should've said "suggested" rather than "claimed".

but you're attacking my intelligence AND assuming I voted for Bush


I said "people who vote for Bush tend to be less intelligent". Notice how I use the present tense, not the past tense. You said "A vote for Bush is, in my opinion, at best a choice of the lesser of two evils", indicating you plan to vote for Bush. That would put you in the "Bush Voter" camp. While the data I presented suggests Bush voters are less intelligent, like all generalizations there are exceptions to the general trend. Your logic fails on two counts: Nowhere did I assume you voted for Bush. And nobody is attacking your intelligence, just the overall intelligence of one demographic you happen to belong to.

Your sole response on that topic has been to toss insults


I'm not sure what you consider an insult but I'm being out-insulted on this and other threads by at least an order of magnitude. Pot, kettle, etc.

You're welcome to post here but please go easy on the logical fallacies in your posts.

on Jul 05, 2004
"And nobody is attacking your intelligence, just the overall intelligence of one demographic you happen to belong to."


Like what he said on the other thread:

"I didn't offer an opinion that Americans are stupid, I stated a fact backed up with data that Bush voters tend to be less intelligent. "


LMAO, gah, it is just the funniest thing I have ever read, honestly. I have never seen anyone so diplomatically inept. My only solace is that everyone I have seen with such a lack of taste and tact eventually got their sorry ass banned...

on Jul 05, 2004
One of the original points in the thread, which has been lost in the ensuing name-calling, is that "welfare" and non-entitlement social programs are *not* a major portion of government spending. If you want to reduce the deficit in a big way, you have to do some combination of:

1) Raise taxes
2) Cut military
3) Cut popular entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid).

In short, the budget-busting social programs are *popular middle-class entitlements.* People love to gripe about how their tax money is going to the undeserving poor. Almost all of it isn't.

This hasn't been refuted or even really addressed.

you just forget that most Americans don't pay taxes at all


How do you figure? I assume you're excluding payroll taxes, gas taxes, and sales taxes in order to come up with this fact, and/or including children and the elderly in the half that doesn't pay taxes. Otherwise there's no way that's true.
on Jul 05, 2004
Mr. Hubbins isn't talking about state and local taxes, he is talking about federal income tax. I assume so since he villifies Defense spending, and posts the federal budget.

Check the percentage of people that get all or most of their federal payroll withholding back. I think you'll be surprised. The point isn't lost. Mr. Hubbins seems to be saying that if we don't want high taxes, we'd better change leadership.

P.S. The data posted to prove that Americans who vote for Bush are less intelligent seems to be "Average income by state; source: '94 World Almanac". Meaning, I suppose, that income is proportional to intelligence...

on Jul 05, 2004
The Wall Street Journal says:

"These numbers represent only people who have a positive adjusted gross income. In 1999, there were 127 million tax filers, 94.5 million of whom showed an income tax liability. That is, 26% had no liability at all. The actual number of people filing without paying comes to 16 million (after subtracting those getting earned income tax credits and thus, presumably, still somewhat sensitive to tax rates). So almost 13% of all workers have no tax liability and so are indifferent to income tax rates. And that doesn't include another 16.5 million who have some income but don't file at all."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937

So maybe a fifth of Americans who had income paid no taxes.

America has about 280 million people. So yes, technically it seems to be correct that "over half of Americans pay no federal taxes" (*if* we continue to exclude the federal gasoline tax, which touches almost everyone). The young (70+ million Americans under 18, and a bunch more college students) and the retired are probably the bulk of that. People who are married, filing jointly, probably also cut into the number of filings by quite a lot. Figuring out the details sounds like a major research project that I'm not up for...

But in short, the bulk of the people who pay no taxes are people who shouldn't be expected to pay taxes. Which basically makes "over half of Americans pay no federal income tax" a meaningless or worse, distorting, factoid.
on Jul 05, 2004
Mr. Hubbins isn't talking about state and local taxes


Another lie, and you know it. I went over this in part one of the thread with Brad. You remember, the part where I showed Brad the combined level of taxation (Fed/Prov/Muni) in Alberta is lower than in Michigan? It was just after the part where Brad made fun of Alberta's tax rate.

P.S. The data posted to prove that Americans who vote for Bush are less intelligent seems to be "Average income by state; source: '94 World Almanac". Meaning, I suppose, that income is proportional to intelligence...


(Reposted from another thread) You suppose way too much. Logical fallacy. The income figures are irrelevant to the discussion at hand but came with the chart. You are the only one suggesting intelligence is directly proportional to income, not me. Telling people in this thread that I based my argument on income rather than the IQ figures I actually provided is deceitful, dishonest, and dishonourable.

For the love of God, man, stop lying about what I say. Do you think you get 3 free lies per post or something? You spew a bunch of lies, get exposed for lying, then spew more lies, like nothing happened. Most people when repeatedly caught lying tend to decrease the frequency of their lies out of shame, as lying is considered to be a bad thing in most cultures. But not you. You just keep cranking them out. Have you no decency?
on Jul 05, 2004
If you are talking about state and local taxes, then you are utterly ignorant about the US tax system, and none of your information here even applies. Sorry, when I said that you weren't, I assumed you had a modicum of knowledge about the US government. Obviously, you don't. Consider the statement retracted, it was overly-optimistic, evidently.

As for the rest, you didn't have to post the income of those who voted for Bush, you opted to, and mentioned it yourself.

You are way out of your element. As I suggested over and over on previous threads, you really should learn about the US before you try and armchair quarterback.
on Jul 05, 2004
Have you no decency?


Most men of honour take great exception to being called a liar.
on Jul 05, 2004

Okay David has descended into just being a troll at this point. Not worth my time anymore.

I don't think I've seen anything quite as idiotic as someone using some state by state IQ test and going by what the state went overall to as a way of "proving" the intelligence of one voting group over another.

on Jul 05, 2004
America's sense of altruism has led us to deficit-spend on a level approaching a pyramid game at least since the years of FDR. Can't afford social programs? Pay for 'em twenty years down the road. Can't afford a military? Do it next year. And, as we've done for decades, we're gambling that a growing economy will reduce the impact by the time it DOES arrive. Optimistic? Sure. But while it's hardly robust at the moment, our economy is strengthening. Check the numbers. The signs simply aren't there to justify a rabid spiral of inflation within the next four years.


A reasonable person would surmise this comment and the flippant tone contained therein suggests you don't think deficits are a big deal.


No, just that it's clear that any crisis isn't due in the next four years, as I stated. "A reasonable person" would note that "Optimistic? Sure." hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of deficit spending. We've been doing this for seventy years, and aren't likely to change because of a vote for Kerry.

Brad's claim is in part one.


OK, let's let him speak for himself. I'm posting from politicalmachine.com, and didn't see the original post until I did some digging.

1) Again, your DEBT (edit: Canada's) as a percent of GDP is about the same as the US's. So you currently have a budgetary surplus. So what. The US had one too until 2001 and it'll probably have them in the future. Your were trying to argue that we Americans have a credit card mentality when in fact we have the same debt level as you do.

2) What would you know about tax rates being too high or too low? What are your credentials to make such a bold assertion? As a % of GDP, the US's deficit isn't particularly high. If GDP grows faster than spending a bit we would be in surplus again.

...

And if that isn't enough, even with all those taxes, Canada's debt is about the same as the US's. And your response? Canada isn't in deficit at this very second. Whoopie. Let me know when you guys pay off that debt. In about a century or two it should be paid down at your current rate (2003 "surplus" was $7 billion). Your INTEREST on your debt is almost 6 times that amount. So your "suruplus" isn't even enough to pay for your interest payments.

What I find particularly amazing is how someone who lives in a country with a national debt that is over 60% of their GDP can possibly be lecturing the United States on tax policy.


No endorsement of a deficit in there. Brad's not stating that a deficit is no big deal, but that the current deficit is small compared to GDP and would be absorbed by even a marginal increase in the GDP. Incidentally, as a Canadian who feels that it's very important to pay down national debts, shouldn't you be endorsing a tax hike in Canada? Or are Brad's numbers more "false, misleading data?"

I really shouldn't have to explain why deficits are bad. But then people who vote for Bush tend to be less intelligent.


I repeat that that's obviously a cheap shot at myself, Brad and our intelligence. Who else, after all, are you accusing of endorsing deficit spending? The irony here is that not only are you creating a category of deficit-lovers and tossing both of us in, but you're implying we're both Bush supporters. From what I know of Brad's politics, I doubt there's much we'd agree on, except that neither of us would be likely to campaign for Bush anytime soon. If I do vote for the man (still undecided, despite the fact that any third-party vote in Presidential elections is a wasted vote), it will indeed be as a choice for the lesser of two evils.

I'm not sure what you consider an insult but I'm being out-insulted on this and other threads by at least an order of magnitude. Pot, kettle, etc.


I responded to your statement "please remember that a vote for Bush is a vote for higher spending, higher taxes, bad fiscal policy, and hyperinflation." with an attempt to address the issues. You're responding by slinging mud and trying to deconstruct my motives rather than talking about the facts in a constructive manner. Until you actually get this thread back to the issues, about all we can do is argue semantics. I thought we were discussing actual issues here.

You're welcome to post here but please go easy on the logical fallacies in your posts.


If you promise to do the same, I'd be happy to. But as long as your starting premise is that anyone who'd vote for Bush (party-line Republicans, those on the right side of the spectrum who don't want to waste their vote on a third party candidate, economic conservatives, etc.) is intellectually deficient, I don't see much point.
on Jul 05, 2004
Okay David has descended into just being a troll at this point.


Nah.

Trolling is when 33 year old men worth 7+ figures engage in month-long mudslinging matches with homeless women, and admit they are "mean" in other people's post (your exact wording - you've actually admitted to leaving mean comments on peoples' blogs. That's trolling).

Trolling is starting a thread on multiculturalism when you clearly demonstrate that you don't even know the meaning of the word.

Trolling is when you say "poor people are just a bunch of losers" (you've said this repeatedly).

Trolling is posting eight year old data on my blog and then having the nerve to call my data 'propaganda'.

I've stayed above the namecalling, putting words in people's mouths, and vitriol that your bunch engage in. My posts are so dispassionate and free of emotion that Bake thinks I'm a "robot".

Take a look in the mirror, Brad; you're the toxic poster, not me. People see you acting this way and think it's ok, even encouraged here at JoeU. That's why people think this place is a warzone.

But as long as your starting premise is that anyone who'd vote for Bush is intellectually deficient,


Lie. This is nowhere near true. My starting premise is:

"I posited that American taxes are not nearly as low as they should be, partially on account of military spending. Military spending has increased because of Bush foreign policy.
So when I see people whinging about taxes and blaming welfare moms and the mentally ill for their onerous tax rates, I feel their anger is misdirected."

We didn't get into the IQ thingie until much later. Claiming my starting premise is 'anyone who'd vote for Bush is intellectually deficient' is false.

I'd prefer you didn't post here anymore as you've been exposed as a liar and logic-challenged. I have enough of those types already. Thanks.
on Jul 05, 2004
Brad: So your "suruplus" isn't even enough to pay for your interest payments.


New Guy: Or are Brad's numbers more "false, misleading data?"


Yeppers, more false misleading data. Our surplus is calculated AFTER our interest payments have been made. Anyone with formal education in Fiscal Policy would know that. So it is false and misleading for Brad to suggest that we still have to pay interest on the debt with our surplus.
3 Pages1 2 3