Slashdot Mirror

I want to understand your approach to arguments because you don't make any sense

I suspect that's because you lack reading comprehension.

You're asking parent to argue why you should broaden your admittedly narrow mind in regards to political discourse.

No, actually I didn't ask that. Saying things like this is what made me question your reading comprehension. I didn't say anything like that at all. I asked the parent to come up with a better argument to support any point than, "Europe does it." Europe has kings. The fact that Europe does something doesn't make it necessarily better or worse.

Just because it's done in Europe isn't an argument alone but there are a great many examples of centralized health-care for instance that haven't bankrupted countries. Hell, a friend of mind got mugged in Barcelona, she was even a foreigner and they took care of her injuries and helped her in a number of ways from assisting her to the embassy since her passport was stolen. Just an example, there are failures in the Spanish system too but arguably they relate directly to funding but it means that health-care won't bankrupt people. Many call this socialist but in reality it is quite centrist, it only appears socialist due to the narrow range inflicted on the political spectrum in the U.S.

Indeed, and if it were compared to communist Russia it would be far on the right of the spectrum. Left and right are by nature relative. In the United States, it makes sense to call people who want a single-payer system on the left, because otherwise you would just be saying everyone is on the right, and the terms would use their usefulness. 'Left' and 'right' are different in every country, because every country has different issues they are dealing with.

Completely off-topic, but it's rather ironic that you pick the case of Spain to talk about healthcare, since Spain is right behind Greece on the bankruptcy list. Germany, England, Spain, and France all have larger public debts as percentage of GDP than the US, although the US has certainly made an effort to close the gap in the last year.

Course going to war means we can't afford it now, but taxes are gonna go up so that should help ease the pain a bit.

This is also off-topic, but look at taxes as a percentage of GDP sometime. Although the tax rates have varied greatly, the income doesn't change too much. Here is a graph. Look at 1945, when congress raised the maximum tax bracket to 94%....it stayed over 94% until 1964 (look at the federal government revenues, the blue line). If you look at the timeline of the Bush tax cuts (easier to see here), you can see that at first revenue dropped, but by 2005 it had already reached average levels. It is not likely that the Democrats will be able to enact a tax increase that raises revenue the needed amount without plunging the country into a severe depression.

Also, the main problem the US is facing fiscally is not "Bush tax cuts" or "Obama overspending" but rather it is the fact that baby boomers are retiring and stressing the system.....the US for years has promised to pay for their retirement without saving enough money to actually pay for it. Other countries are facing this problem as well.

No, what I would really do is have DC do its usual appropriation/authorization shenanigans as usual, but add a third step where they carve up the cost against the states.
Force the states to tax farm all of the desired federal spending.
This would effect a badly needed negative feedback loop to drive the system towards a gazinta==gazouta state.
Sure, you need exception handling for situations like a No Kidding Declaration of War, (which hasn't been seen since FDR), and times when states default on their "fair share".
But if you want social spending, and haven't told me how you're doing it without chronic deficit spending, you haven't told me much.
Returning to your post, you seem to be arguing transactional trees at the expense of the financial forest, ignoring intrinsic infernos.

That's really rich that you'd post that, considering the Democratically controlled Congress just passed this travesty:

Full Report
Summary Graph
In dollar amounts instead of GDP Percent

The Democrats can no longer cry about the budget. Now that they're in control, it's three or four times as bad.

Given that your other graph is about how 'unfair' the United States is (What do you think life is, Kindergarten?), I'm pretty sure you're fine with any government spending, as long it's of the redistributionist variety.

I second this. IMO, the only way to significantly put a dent in the budget would be to cut back on defense spending.

Then you have no actual knowledge of the Federal budget. Defense spending has decreased as a percentage of discretionary spending every year for the past 42 years, while entitlement programs have ballooned to make up the vast majority of the federal budget. Cutting more defense spending would be cutting a small chunk off of a small chunk.

Now I'm not saying we couldn't/shouldn't cut back on defense spending, but to imply or state that it would be the *only* effective measure in reducing the deficit is just not factual.

http://perotcharts.com/category/federal-budget-charts/page/9/

2007 Defense spending is approx 20% of federal spending as a whole, so even a 25% cut in defense spending would only have a net effect of a 5% reduction in spending. Not nearly enough to put a 'significant dent' in the budget.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14
The tumorous growth of entitlements grows unabated.
http://www.pensiontsunami.com/
Here is a crowning look at doom:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/supercycle
So, we're all kind of baked.
Cheers,
Smitty

Excuse me?

It looks to me like spending has gone up every year since 1968 regardless of who was in congress or the whitehouse. I don't know where people got the idea that Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than democrats.

The data at the link is not in current dollars, if one wishes they could go get the data direct from GPO, in adjusted or non adjusted dollars and then graph it. I for one would welcome my new energetic overlords if someone did that and posted it somehow. I was going to but got too lazy.

Amend. XVI, furthermore, is a change in the method of raising the taxes to fund Article I spending, and has no substantive impact on what the taxes are raised for.

I couldn't agree with you less. Pandora's box, once opened, has made societal tinkering the favorite pastime of DC. The electrical circuit, if you will, is short-circuited, and issues that have little federal bearing now absorb significant federal time.

Because it is a program for the general welfare, it is implemented federally through an executive agency, directly under the Article I umbrella permitting it.

Then just what is the point of the tenth amendment, sir? If _everything_ is general welfare, was it simply a joke?

Where? The "sub-prime meltdown" is a result of the lack of federal regulation.

It was the federal government operating in an area where it very arguably had no business of any sort. Look at these lying lips in motion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Truly, P.J. O'Rourke has the right of it:
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

I ask again, where was the amendment violated? How is Social Security not an Article I power? What is general welfare, if not health, safety, and maintenance of basic human dignity?

My contention is that the chain of command has been violated, and a state-level authority has been usurped by the Fed.
While I cannot deny the existence of your "general welfare" argument, my point is that somebody a couple hundred years back foresaw the disasters that would follow an overly broad interpretation of that, and put Amendment 10 in place to curb the scope creep of the Fed, lest DC turn into the tyrannical sort of place that London had been.
Now, the rolling disaster that has been Fannie/Freddie has occured, and we've seen the House of Representatives look a godforsaken circus, and the real doom is just a few years out:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14

I don't see any state turning down the money in favor of its own solution.

And why might that be? Have you looked at this post?
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/supercycle Now, I may be an ignorant redneck, but I'm bettin' that the printin' press we got spewin' money could run out o' ink on o' these days.
Seriously, though, should not the budget balance, and the money originate in the states, and the states manage their own populations?
I'm guessing in advance that you would find this an oversimplification.
At any rate, I thank you for a more serious debate on the matter than I typically enjoy.
Here are a couple of humorous links in an otherwise humorless period:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3130
http://www.buymyshitpile.com/

Accoring to http://perotcharts.com/challenges/ this is only the beginning

http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14

If you really want to reduce government spending, decrease the DoD budget.

The only way I've seen anyone support such a claim is to game the numbers so that all DoD (including things that might be questionable as such) are compared with individual programs such as NASA, AIDS research, school lunch programs, etc.

A fairer analysis in my opinion can be fund here:

http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/35xx/doc3521/352101.gif

As it shows a steadily declining outlay for defense and a rapid increase in "social spending" (since the 50s!). What's really interesting are the projections for the future, for which defense and everything else are lumped together into one steadily decreasing pool, but note, that in order to not have this forecast seem totally laughable they halt the decrease in "everything else" sometime during the next few years.

http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/35xx/doc3521/352102.gif

The above graphs can be seen in in context here:

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3521&type=0

You might also fnd these interesting:

http://perotcharts.com/

At the founding of the country "defense" spending was the one thing the federal government was supposed to do. Obviously a lot has changed since then. People seem to forget that prior to 9/11 and during the former BUSH administration a bipartisan commission decided on the closure a lot of military bases around the country, saving billions of dollars. Those closures didn't actually complete until sometime during the Clinton administration though and he takes delight in claiming to have single handedly reduced the size of government. I don't know of anything else done during that administration to reduce the size of government. Bush II hasn't done much either but again, people forget that before 9/11 they were planning further cuts to the military, even to the point of merging the four major branches in some way to save duplication of efforts. Rumsfeld was far from popular with military brass at the time.

The left has painted a distorted picture of these events. While it may be possible to have a rational argument regarding the distribution of wealth in this country (as you mentioned) such an argument can only be rational if people are using actual facts, and not hyperbole from the Daily Kos.

In any event, the issue raised by the title to your original post can be answered by reviewing the moderator guidelines. Things can get modded up based on the fact that they are interesting, even if you don't happen to agree with them (and with your user number I'm shocked that you don't know this). If you want a pure popularity contest, go visit Digg. Slashdot's moderation system is far from perfect but for a semi-automated system it is about as good as you can get. Some of us aren't only interested in reading things we agree with, again there are well established political blogs where you can do that.

I'd like to see some links supporting your claims, that at least would make your posts more interesting to me.

Luther Martin of Maryland, a slaveholder, said that the slave should be subject to federal regulation since the entire nation would be responsible for suppressing slave revolts. He also considered the slave trade contrary to America's republican ideals. "It is inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution," he said, "and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the constitution."

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_slavery.cfm
So, for all one might concede a theoretical point to Southern States for arguing some 10th Amendment separation of powers, that Civil War (and the Civil Rights Movement a century later) is simply fruit of a bad seed planted in earlier.
Of course, our modern shackles are so much more refined:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/14

The percentage of the federal budget devoted to mandatory spending has increased markedly over the past 40 years. Mandatory spending has doubled during the period, while discretionary spending has almost been cut in half. The increase in mandatory spending is due primarily to the growth of the three major entitlement programs. These programs are growing for several reasons:
New programs have been added to provide benefits to individuals deemed to be in need of assistance who were previously not covered by other programs.
Existing programs have been expanded to provide more benefits deemed to be necessary to fulfill the primary mission of the programs.
The retirement of the Baby Boomers (those born from 1946 through 1964) are beginning to swell the ranks of the entitlement programs.
Medical and prescription drug costs have outpaced the growth of the economy.
Improved medical procedures and healthier lifestyles have increased life expectancies to all-time highs, thereby extending the coverage period of many beneficiaries.

"I've found you can find happiness in slavery"--Reznor

Just set up a national tip jar on something akin to PayPal.
Citizens actually want to fund space activities, not the stuff that's killing us: http://perotcharts.com/
Dis-intermediating DC is step #1 in carrying out the will of the people.

The smashing success of ethanol certainly argues in favor of expanding government control of everything.
Ol' Ross even lays out the good news with charts:
http://www.perotcharts.com/

Ah, but at least you'll vote.
Participation matters as much as the outcome, and it's win-win:
You either feel like you've chosen correctly, or that you did what you could to prevent the slide of the country in a subjectively odious direction.
Just don't mention the elephant herd in the room: http://perotcharts.com/