Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11

 

2011-03-29 14:24:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

Blue Herring wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:


Well, of course we spend more per employee on defense than on welfare. One requires people of a specialized field and the other supplies people who do nothing for it. If we spent as much per person on welfare than we do on defense, then anyone who works for the Department of Defense would be making less than welfare recipients. Why bother working for the DoD then? Might as well just get on welfare.

Not to mention the technology required. What kind of technology does welfare require?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p3493583
I saw that, but again, it's not really relevant. We're never going to spend as much per welfare recipient than we do per DoD employees, even if there's just one employee.
My argument is that we spend significantly less per person on social programs, and while I agree with you that the reasons for the much higher costs per person for the military are valid, I'm just saying people fret too much about social program spending when considering all this.

If we have the money to spend far more on the military than any other nation, I would think social programs are affordable as well just to keep up a minimal quality of life.

Apparently, there are many who disagree with me.
2011-03-29 14:25:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


It's no different than how you chose to measure it, then elected to change the measure when comparing defense, effectively weighting the comparison in favor of the "safety net" no matter what. I'm simply using the same standard for comparison.

Plus, you have to lump it all together. What do you think the $702B consists of?
So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?

If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs.  We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world.  We don't even have an NHS.

So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.
I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing back
That's assuming that everyone who enters welfare stays on it.

The reality is that most people who use it are only temporarily on it.
2011-03-29 14:38:46
Blue Herring
Member
+13|5063

Turquoise wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=3493583#p3493583
I saw that, but again, it's not really relevant. We're never going to spend as much per welfare recipient than we do per DoD employees, even if there's just one employee.
My argument is that we spend significantly less per person on social programs, and while I agree with you that the reasons for the much higher costs per person for the military are valid, I'm just saying people fret too much about social program spending when considering all this.

If we have the money to spend far more on the military than any other nation, I would think social programs are affordable as well just to keep up a minimal quality of life.

Apparently, there are many who disagree with me.
Fair enough, however our high defense spending has more to do with our relative size (we're bigger than most developed countries) and level of advancement. A lot of the DoD has little to do with direct military action as well, such as the missile defense agency, and ARPA.
2011-03-29 14:43:00
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?

If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs.  We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world.  We don't even have an NHS.

So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.
I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing back
That's assuming that everyone who enters welfare stays on it.

The reality is that most people who use it are only temporarily on it.
that would be incorrect. according to this, the 2 highest stats are those that are on for the 2 longest periods including forever http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
by the way, were you going to address the post before this exchange?

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-29 14:44:20)

2011-03-29 14:44:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

Blue Herring wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:


I saw that, but again, it's not really relevant. We're never going to spend as much per welfare recipient than we do per DoD employees, even if there's just one employee.
My argument is that we spend significantly less per person on social programs, and while I agree with you that the reasons for the much higher costs per person for the military are valid, I'm just saying people fret too much about social program spending when considering all this.

If we have the money to spend far more on the military than any other nation, I would think social programs are affordable as well just to keep up a minimal quality of life.

Apparently, there are many who disagree with me.
Fair enough, however our high defense spending has more to do with our relative size (we're bigger than most developed countries) and level of advancement. A lot of the DoD has little to do with direct military action as well, such as the missile defense agency, and ARPA.
Good points, but I'd argue that we could save a lot of money by closing some of our foreign bases and taking a far less interventionist approach in the near future.

I don't mind spending money on things like a domestic missile defense system or on domestic bases, but we really need to draw down our presence in other countries.
2011-03-29 14:46:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6664|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing back
That's assuming that everyone who enters welfare stays on it.

The reality is that most people who use it are only temporarily on it.
that would be incorrect. according to this, the 2 highest stats are those that are on for the 2 longest periods including forever http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
by the way, were you going to address the post before this exchange?
I would address that post, but it seems to contradict some of your other posts.  We go back and forth on this without much progress.

I'll just ask this.  Are we agreeing that temporary help for people actively trying to help themselves and for people literally unable to help themselves is acceptable?
2011-03-29 14:49:44
Blue Herring
Member
+13|5063

Turquoise wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


My argument is that we spend significantly less per person on social programs, and while I agree with you that the reasons for the much higher costs per person for the military are valid, I'm just saying people fret too much about social program spending when considering all this.

If we have the money to spend far more on the military than any other nation, I would think social programs are affordable as well just to keep up a minimal quality of life.

Apparently, there are many who disagree with me.
Fair enough, however our high defense spending has more to do with our relative size (we're bigger than most developed countries) and level of advancement. A lot of the DoD has little to do with direct military action as well, such as the missile defense agency, and ARPA.
Good points, but I'd argue that we could save a lot of money by closing some of our foreign bases and taking a far less interventionist approach in the near future.

I don't mind spending money on things like a domestic missile defense system or on domestic bases, but we really need to draw down our presence in other countries.
I agree, however when defense cuts come around, the MDA and ARPA are the first to see cuts. Why? I don't know. There are plenty of bases that can be shut down, but they never do. Maybe diplomatic reasons.
2011-03-29 15:33:44
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6670|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I suppose if you lump all social programs together (regardless of differences in who they serve and what purposes they serve), you could say that.

That wouldn't be a very accurate way of measuring things though.
It's no different than how you chose to measure it, then elected to change the measure when comparing defense, effectively weighting the comparison in favor of the "safety net" no matter what. I'm simply using the same standard for comparison.

Plus, you have to lump it all together. What do you think the $702B consists of?
So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?

If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs.  We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world.  We don't even have an NHS.

So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.
How many people do you think benefit from defense spending?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-03-29 15:47:05
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5617|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


It's no different than how you chose to measure it, then elected to change the measure when comparing defense, effectively weighting the comparison in favor of the "safety net" no matter what. I'm simply using the same standard for comparison.

Plus, you have to lump it all together. What do you think the $702B consists of?
So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?

If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs.  We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world.  We don't even have an NHS.

So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.
How many people do you think benefit from defense spending?
Since he views it as a form of welfare, approximately 3 million adults. It doesn't benefit the lot of us, it's simply there to be a jobs program.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-29 15:49:51
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6258|...
I haven't really followed the last few pages of the debate but just to be sure, what in the defense industry do you have a problem with? Every aspect of it, or just some projects?

As I said before I do believe a defense industry is necessary to some extent, and fighter jet contracts and the like are bound to haul in massive revenue for a company, effectively making them dependant on the gov. It's a bit unavoidable.
inane little opines
2011-03-29 15:57:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


That's assuming that everyone who enters welfare stays on it.

The reality is that most people who use it are only temporarily on it.
that would be incorrect. according to this, the 2 highest stats are those that are on for the 2 longest periods including forever http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareblack.htm
by the way, were you going to address the post before this exchange?
I would address that post, but it seems to contradict some of your other posts.  We go back and forth on this without much progress.

I'll just ask this.  Are we agreeing that temporary help for people actively trying to help themselves and for people literally unable to help themselves is acceptable?
yes we agree.

Now let me ask this. Do we agree that all others can fuck off?

also, what are my contradictions?
2011-03-29 16:44:35
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6670|'Murka

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


So what you're saying is that, even if we ensured that every single program that qualifies as spending on entitlements was associated with the exact number of people benefiting from it and made an equivalent comparison using military spending on each separate program with the people they benefit, we spend more per person on entitlements?

If that really is true, then we must do a horrible job of implementing social programs.  We have one of the least comprehensive social safety nets among the developed world.  We don't even have an NHS.

So, if we actually do spend more on entitlements per person than we do per person on the military, then our system truly is a failure when looking at our poverty rates and crime rates.
How many people do you think benefit from defense spending?
Since he views it as a form of welfare, approximately 3 million adults. It doesn't benefit the lot of us, it's simply there to be a jobs program.
Well...that's just silly.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-03-29 22:50:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6860|132 and Bush

GE pays no taxes, fires workers, offers their jobs over seas, and Obama appoints CEO to chair the counsel on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-03-30 00:03:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing back
What does the military give back in productivity?

Blue Herring wrote:

our high defense spending has more to do with our relative size
No it doesn't, you have the highest per capita defense spending in the world.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-30 00:05:19)

Fuck Israel
2011-03-30 03:22:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing back
What does the military give back in productivity?

Blue Herring wrote:

our high defense spending has more to do with our relative size
No it doesn't, you have the highest per capita defense spending in the world.
As a vet, I have always recognized that "freedom isn't free" Dilbert. It is a shame you have not.
2011-03-30 03:43:42
Blue Herring
Member
+13|5063

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing back
What does the military give back in productivity?

Blue Herring wrote:

our high defense spending has more to do with our relative size
No it doesn't, you have the highest per capita defense spending in the world.
No, we're not the highest per capita spending in the world.

Furthermore, unlike most countries, our defense budget goes into a lot more than just military.
2011-03-30 03:57:09
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6670|'Murka

Blue Herring wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

I would bet that would be true if we took what was spent on military etc per person and subtract what those people GIVE back in productivity that THATY number would be lower than what we give in welfare per person and get nothing back
What does the military give back in productivity?

Blue Herring wrote:

our high defense spending has more to do with our relative size
No it doesn't, you have the highest per capita defense spending in the world.
No, we're not the highest per capita spending in the world.

Furthermore, unlike most countries, our defense budget goes into a lot more than just military.
Wow. You're right. We're second. I never would've guessed that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-03-30 04:05:44
Blue Herring
Member
+13|5063

FEOS wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


What does the military give back in productivity?

No it doesn't, you have the highest per capita defense spending in the world.
No, we're not the highest per capita spending in the world.

Furthermore, unlike most countries, our defense budget goes into a lot more than just military.
Wow. You're right. We're second. I never would've guessed that.
Most sources put Israel at number one, but whatever. It's clearly a close run between the three.


And, like I said, a lot of the department of defense isn't put into direct military efforts, unlike Israel and UAE, I'm sure.

Of course the DoD can be cut. But just blindly saying "Cut defense spending!" Is as stupid as saying "Cut social spending!" The whole "Taking an entire nation's establishment and representing it into 5 categories" is fundamentally stupid and is bound to lump some things together that maybe shouldn't be.

Last edited by Blue Herring (2011-03-30 04:25:30)

2011-03-30 05:18:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

Blue Herring wrote:

Most sources put Israel at number one.
Except much of their military is funded by your taxes.

Not sure if you should add that to your per capita 'defense' spending. Maybe you'd be ahead of the UAE then.

lowing wrote:

As a vet, I have always recognized that "freedom isn't free" Dilbert. It is a shame you have not.
Does it really have to be so expensive though? Brazil seems to be free enough with ~1/30th of the per capita spending you guys manage.
They've even figured out how to avoid using oil from the ME to run their cars. Clever eh?
Fuck Israel
2011-03-30 05:20:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Blue Herring wrote:

Most sources put Israel at number one.
Except much of their military is funded by your taxes.

Not sure if you should add that to your per capita 'defense' spending. Maybe you'd be ahead of the UAE then.

lowing wrote:

As a vet, I have always recognized that "freedom isn't free" Dilbert. It is a shame you have not.
Does it really have to be so expensive though? Brazil seems to be free enough with ~1/30th of the per capita spending you guys manage.
They've even figured out how to avoid using oil from the ME to run their cars. Clever eh?
ya really wanna compare Brazil and the US? Really?
2011-03-30 05:25:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX
Why not?
Brazilians don't play World Police or have pissing contests with nuclear armed adversaries - does that make them smarter or dumber?
Fuck Israel
2011-03-30 05:27:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Why not?
Brazilians don't play World Police or have pissing contests with nuclear armed adversaries - does that make them smarter or dumber?
Sure compare. Who cares...Not sure how it went DIRECTLY from what the people in the military produce to Brazil but hey....go ahead, and compare and not bother with the discussion at hand.
2011-03-30 05:29:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Not sure how it went DIRECTLY from what the people in the military produce to Brazil but hey
Try to keep up.
Fuck Israel
2011-03-30 05:33:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not sure how it went DIRECTLY from what the people in the military produce to Brazil but hey
Try to keep up.
ok sorry ya lost me, so, go ahead with your point, you think no one in the military produces and to prove this you cite BRazil....no continue with your point.
2011-03-30 05:44:27
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not sure how it went DIRECTLY from what the people in the military produce to Brazil but hey
Try to keep up.
ok sorry ya lost me, so, go ahead with your point, you think no one in the military produces and to prove this you cite BRazil....no continue with your point.
We're talking about per capita defence spending - pay attention.

Were you like this when your sister was home-schooling you?
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard