Bernie Sanders has proposed some changes to the U.S. national budget. Some call them radical but here at the Rockhouse we call them good business. Instead of militarizing the kids and the people in general, invest in them.
Sanders asks about the cost of the military and why not as the fiasco in the Middle East has been draining squillions of dollars for almost fifteen years and it's worse now than when they started. Sanders asks why does not Saudi Arabia take this job when they have the fourth largest military in the world. ISIS is their dog so let them train it.
There are innumerable examples of that from the military in which they cost a fortune but yield little to nothing. Unless there is some significant benefit to the country from doing that, I submit it's an expense to eliminate immediately.
The response from the right is apparent agreement the military costs too much but the observation it's not enough in cutting that to eliminate the national debt. However, the military expenses haven't decreased significantly since Reagan so it also seems apparent no-one has ever tried and the younger generation has no idea.
My focus is largely on the military because it's the most obvious and egregious waste of money insofar as it costs a lot but delivers nothing. Social programs cost a lot but maybe someone in the country benefits whereas the military doesn't benefit anyone. (Insert the obligatory rant on 1% vampirism by weapons manufacturers).
Perhaps it is not possible to achieve all of what Sanders hopes toward higher education but hopefully there is little doubt in people the current system doesn't work very well. Kids end up hopelessly indebted, useless degrees, etc, etc.
There is no particular defense of social programs from here on the wild-eyed socialist left because we do not perceive them to work very well either. Just as unemployment compensation is a buffer for when you lose your job, Social Security became a buffer for when you lose at Life although not a very good one. That fundamental concept is, from our view, deeply-flawed as a well-designed system would have Social Security doing what it was originally intended to do: provide a generic retirement system for the masses. Since then it has been transmogrified into a bloated beast of defense department proportions and it needs to be slashed just as ruthlessly.
The above is not to say social programs should be eliminated but they need to be managed one hell of a lot better than they are now. The reverse is true with the Pentagon as they spend an enormous amount of time managing the problem, to get more money out of it.
A whole lot of people say it has to be one side or the other but the only thing to come from such thing is this: you fall over.
Bernie Sanders looks straight down the middle for what needs to be done. This is not a time for rolling over for the status quo, yet again. America needs a vision and it needs a good and clear one, untainted by corporate influence. Sanders is your man.
Sanders asks about the cost of the military and why not as the fiasco in the Middle East has been draining squillions of dollars for almost fifteen years and it's worse now than when they started. Sanders asks why does not Saudi Arabia take this job when they have the fourth largest military in the world. ISIS is their dog so let them train it.
There are innumerable examples of that from the military in which they cost a fortune but yield little to nothing. Unless there is some significant benefit to the country from doing that, I submit it's an expense to eliminate immediately.
The response from the right is apparent agreement the military costs too much but the observation it's not enough in cutting that to eliminate the national debt. However, the military expenses haven't decreased significantly since Reagan so it also seems apparent no-one has ever tried and the younger generation has no idea.
My focus is largely on the military because it's the most obvious and egregious waste of money insofar as it costs a lot but delivers nothing. Social programs cost a lot but maybe someone in the country benefits whereas the military doesn't benefit anyone. (Insert the obligatory rant on 1% vampirism by weapons manufacturers).
Perhaps it is not possible to achieve all of what Sanders hopes toward higher education but hopefully there is little doubt in people the current system doesn't work very well. Kids end up hopelessly indebted, useless degrees, etc, etc.
There is no particular defense of social programs from here on the wild-eyed socialist left because we do not perceive them to work very well either. Just as unemployment compensation is a buffer for when you lose your job, Social Security became a buffer for when you lose at Life although not a very good one. That fundamental concept is, from our view, deeply-flawed as a well-designed system would have Social Security doing what it was originally intended to do: provide a generic retirement system for the masses. Since then it has been transmogrified into a bloated beast of defense department proportions and it needs to be slashed just as ruthlessly.
The above is not to say social programs should be eliminated but they need to be managed one hell of a lot better than they are now. The reverse is true with the Pentagon as they spend an enormous amount of time managing the problem, to get more money out of it.
A whole lot of people say it has to be one side or the other but the only thing to come from such thing is this: you fall over.
Bernie Sanders looks straight down the middle for what needs to be done. This is not a time for rolling over for the status quo, yet again. America needs a vision and it needs a good and clear one, untainted by corporate influence. Sanders is your man.
12 comments:
He is like any other politician making promises he can not possibly keep. And offering plans he cant pay for
After about thirty years of that and sixty of political incompetence, it's worth going with someone who isn't being bribed by the corporations to find a little honesty in the government. It would be the first time in my life and it would be good to see it, if only once.
He will spend us into obilivion How can he justify increasing the budget by 65% with no increase in revenues
It cant work, no matter how much you want it to
Um, don't look now but the country is already spent into oblivion or no-one would pay much attention to any of their babble.
It's not a matter of wishful thinking but rather an obvious alternative to something which does not work. Maybe there's some justification for blowing sixteen or seventeen trillion dollars with no particular measure of where it went but I'm missing that.
Lets keep spending til we look like greece
with what 25% unemployment even higher for under 25
Your fiscal sense is horrendous
Since it us bad lets make really bad.
Since there are so many guns already lets just give everyone a gun. Or maybe we could work on realistic answers
What's that got to do with Sanders. The great military spendthrift of the last century was Reagan and that enthusiasm for war toys hasn't stopped. If you want to stop the country until sixteen trillion is paid down, it's even more of a fantasy then you envision for Sanders.
The only financial sense I need is what something costs versus what it delivers. Thus far conservatism has delivered a whole ton of expensive and largely useless hardware, distorted tax rates, and very little else.
After reviewing the CBO and other sources for massive costs due to ACA, it's not evident. There are multiple reports on the before / after and any financial disaster is still a promised fury rather than a reality. If you've got a valid link, I'll look but I've not seen one thus far.
The only financial sense is can you pay for it. Not what it costs versus what it delivers.
I am not trying to shut anything down until it is paid off But I am about running a surplus budget to begin paying it off Not continuing to run it up higher
www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/cbo-obamacare-report_n_5146896.html
Lists it at 138b per year over 10 years.
The only financial sense is can you pay for it. Not what it costs versus what it delivers.
I am not trying to shut anything down until it is paid off But I am about running a surplus budget to begin paying it off Not continuing to run it up higher
www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/cbo-obamacare-report_n_5146896.html
Lists it at 138b per year over 10 years.
That's a ten-year aggregate and not so distant from the cost of the F-35 program over the course of its life. The difference is no-one stays anything about the F-35 yet Sanders is held to that standard.
Yep, the F-35 aggregate program cost is projected at $1.5 trillion. You have said already you don't care about getting rid of them but the GOP does do it and neither will the Party nor the right-leaning Democrats.
That 1.5 is aready in the military budget. That you can do away with and still not balance the budget.
The only soution is a 20% across the board reduction in spending or an increase of 20% of all taxes. Or a combination of both for an entire generation Then you can start on the promised land. About 40 years of that to solve the debt.
S
The point is no-one will remove it from the budget since they don't even mention it whereas the ACA is regarded as HUGE cost and is endlessly derided for exactly the same reason as the bloated military programs which never get any attention.
Post a Comment