Sen. Harry Reid, NV: Wildfires caused by global warming

It's opinion. Your national debt has been built up over a long time - much longer than the period that you have been spending 2/3rds of your budget on what you chose to classify as social programs, and you could attribute each dollar of debt to the expenditure that incurred it. That would be a valid system of amortization, Claiming that the debt should be assigned on the basis of the way you spend money now is not.

An entirely false analogy - resistors are dissipating heat now. If you were to talk about the heat stored in the heat sink, you could find that one resistor had been responsible for getting the heat sink hot, even through the other two are now dissipating as much heat.

You are indulging in the standard right-wing nit-wittery here, and incidentally exploding any claim you might make to exceptional intelligence (as opposed to a capacity to score well on IQ tests).

The primary purpose of a public health system is a defence against epidemics. In order to be effective in this role it has to offer a service to the elderly and the indigient, who are most at risk form infectious diseases, so that they will come to the hospitals when they get sick, rather than staying at home and infecting their neighbours and relatives.

Socialism provides a more positive rationale for offering this service, but intelligent self-interest works just a well. Bismark hated socialism, and invented national insurance in part to reduce the electoral appeal of his left-wing political opponents, but he also saw it as something the national government ought to be doing to improve the effectiveness of the state.

All retirement investment systems have that problem. Sadly, people generally don't save on their own account, so that is a non- solution.

Your explained why you think their accounting is improper. Your own approach is equally arbitrary.

Are you a nitwit or a blackguard?

Willingly.

would

So explain why you think that you are couple of standard deviations above "genius" level. I've not seen your name attached to any great discovery or any other remarkable performance, so I was pretty much compelled to assume that you were basing the claim on the results of some IQ test or other.

So what conclusion should I have leapt to?

You haven't shown that my conclusion was wrong, merely that you don't like it.

Do provide some data to support your point of view.

So prove me wrong ...

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Since to admit error is anathema to Mr. Sloman, perhaps \'side-step\'
might be more accurate than \'back-step\'. ?

I certainly don't like making errors, and I don't do it often - less often than you'd like to think - but I do admit errors when I've made them.

James Arthur hasn't - in fact - shown that I've made an error. He doesn't like the conclusions I've drawn but he hasn't adduced a scintilla of evidence to show that I'm wrong.

If he can produce such evidence then I certainly will admit that I'm wrong, but I'll be a bit surprised if he can come up with anything convincing.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

More like "goal post relocation".

--
  Keith

"Weasel."

John

The numbers (either Sloman's pack of lies, nor the Federal numbers) don't show the state and local portions of social welfare either.

No, he'd blame George Bush.

Not only is it redistribution of wealth, but it's redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest.

And businesses would have use of the money (thus pay that interest).

Sloman is the latter, so what do you expect him to come up with?

--
  Keith

social

Here you have a point--the amount of blame for any annual deficit should be apportioned year-by-year according to each category's proportion of that year's budget.

OTOH, it's preposterous to say that all defense spending is spent on warfare. Comparing war- and peace-time figures clearly illustrates that point. So, properly, your link should only attribute *excess*-- not all--defense spending to warfare.

Also, a large part of defense spending comes back as revenue -- taxes on profits and wages -- offsetting something in the vicinity of 25-40% of the amount actually spent. When it comes to apportioning deficits this revenue should properly be deducted.

Anyway, the site's methods and figures being absurd on their face, I didn't previously bother with the minutiae. Since you insist on pressing the point, I took several hours and investigated.

I complied the following data with the most generous possible assumptions in your favor: a) that all defense spending is for war, and b) that defense spending does not produce any offsetting revenue.

Consider this an engineer's guide to the question; an approximation, not perfect, but close enough for our purposes.

======= RESULTS, adjusted to 2004 dollars per the Consumer Price Index data: ======= (view tables in Courier font)

Historical Budget Data from Congressional Budget Office (1). Inflation adjustment figures per US Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index data (2)

TOTAL EXPENDITURE, 1962-2004, (all figures in 2004 dollars) =========================================================== Social Security 12,541 x 10^9 dollars Medicare 5,079 " Medicaid 2,432 " Income Security 4,301 " Other Retirement and disability 4,099 " Defense 15,699 " ------ TOTAL of above 44,151 "

TOTAL, all outlays, for all purposes 62,269 "

PUBLIC DEBT 1962-2004, (all figures in 2004 dollars) ========================================================== Total debt, 1962 $1,552 " Total increase in debt, 1962-2004: $8,554 "

Total portion of increased debt apportionable to defense (3): $2,096 "

========== CONCLUSION ========== Even if we assume all debt existing in 1962 was war debt, and all defense spending since 1962 has been for warfare, the two together are about $3,600 x 10^9, roughly 1/3rd of the current U.S. national debt.

So: attributing 80% of the interest on the nation debt to past warfare--or even defense spending--is WRONG.

With best regards, James Arthur

~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTES (1) Appendix F of the CBO publication The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2015,

released on January 25, 2005.

(2) ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt, 26-Oct-2007

(3) = sum [1962..2004] of [(defense / budget) * deficit]

Groan--the hazards of posting late and bleary-eyed. Please amend to:

Even if we assume all debt existing in 1962 was war debt, and all defense spending since 1962 has been for warfare, the two factors together would contribute about $3,600 x 10^9 (roughly 1/3rd) to the current U.S. national debt.

James Arthur

I admit--despite myself, this made me laugh out loud.

Best, James Arthur

Excellent point--my figures do not reflect the full extent of the matter.

Cheers, James Arthur

Answer emotion with reason? Attack faith with logic?

To what end? No man could build bridges as quickly as you sell them, and you'd be in the next county before the first footings were laid.

No, I'm content to try my steel against yours, and reap the benefits of your skepticism when you spy a weakness. I'm here to learn, not win.

Cheers, James Arthur

social

Huh? You want to distinguish between spending on warfare, and spending in preparation for war?

As Clausewitz said, war is merely an extension of political activity by other means and peace-time spending on "defence" is part of that ploitical activity.

Nonsense. Peace time spending is devoted to intimidating your enemies and dissuading them from attacking you. The force that never has to fight is extremely cost-effective.

This is true of every other government expenditure, so it is a complete red herring.

No, it is just a point of view. US spending on "defence" has been disproportionately high for a long time now. Spending as much as the combined total of the ten runner-ups in the defence spending stakes isn't defensible, and if you hadn't done it your national debt wouldn't have increased at all.

All the social expenditures in your budgets are cheese-paringly mean, so attributing 100% of the increase in the national debt to your one blatant extravagance seems entirely defensible to me.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

James>>>>>>>>> > We've been protecting the world since WWII. That's expensive.

Bill>>>>>>>>> But that's not where most of the money is going.

James>>>>>>>> True, now. Most of our money is presently spent on ineffectual social James>>>>>>>> programs.

Bill>>>>>>> Not true.

Bill>>>>>>>

James>>>>>> Bill, that link is just plain embarrassing--no wonder you have such James>>>>>> wacky, misbegotten theories.

Bill>>>>> I rather liked the way they lumped the interest on the national debt Bill>>>>> into military expenditure, on the not-unreasonable basis that this was Bill>>>>> just paying for previous wars.

James>>>> That's one of their most glaring errors--wrongly attributing all debt James>>>> to warfare.

James>>>> We've spent a great deal more on welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and James>>>> Johnson's war on poverty. Social programs have been roughly

2/3rds the James>>>> budget for quite some time; by any fair measure, they deserve an equal James>>>> proportion of the debt.

James>>>> That's not opinion, that's accounting...amortization.

Bill>>> It's opinion. Your national debt has been built up over a long time - Bill>>> much longer than the period that you have been spending 2/3rds of your Bill>>> budget on what you chose to classify as social programs, and you could Bill>>> attribute each dollar of debt to the expenditure that incurred it. Bill>>> That would be a valid system of amortization, Claiming that the debt Bill>>> should be assigned on the basis of the way you spend money now is not.

James>> Here you have a point--the amount of blame for any annual deficit James>> should be apportioned year-by-year according to each category's James>> proportion of that year's budget.

James>> OTOH, it's preposterous to say that all defense spending is spent on James>> warfare.

James>> Comparing war- and peace-time figures clearly illustrates James>> that point. So, properly, your link should only attribute

*excess*-- James>> not all--defense spending to warfare.

You've contradicted yourself in just two paragraphs. First you describe defense spending as 'preparation for war,' then here you acknowledge that peace-time spending is the most cost-effective, most certain way to *avoid* war.

And isn't that a good thing? Isn't this exactly what we shold be doing? So surely you must agree that not all defense spending is for war, but quite the opposite: much is spending to *prevent* war.

And so, this basis all by itself is enough to show it's WRONG for your

site to account all defense spending as 'war' spending. Q.E.D.

Absolutely not. Defense spending generates a great deal of offsetting revenue, as detailed above.

The poor pay essentially no federal tax at all, so the dole generates almost no offsetting revenue...it's a straight payment from tax-payers to tax-takers.

The remainder of the sums in question go to retired folks, who pay much less in tax than defense workers in the primes of their careers.

Defense spending generates considerable tax revenue, these others--the bulk of spending--do not.

No it's not a point of view--either the money was spent on war or it wasn't.

Using the exact method you proposed as fair, and with all assumptions(*) in your favor, I've shown that not more than 1/4 of the increase in U.S. debt since 1962 could possibly be attributed to defense spending, much less 'war' spending.

Further, lumping in the prexisting debt of 1962 and treating all of it as due to 'war', not even 1/3rd of the current U.S. debt is due to past warfare.

Therefore, Warresisters' attributing 80% of all debt to past warfare is WRONG. By your standard the correct figure is not more than 1/3rd, and more accurately should be much less. Again, Q.E.D.

(*) Crazy, super-generous assumptions especially crafted for Bill Sloman: all defense spending is for war, defense spending produces no offsetting revenue, and the entire U.S. national debt in 1962 was due to past warfare.

Thank you for making my (much) earlier point: We've been supplying the defense of many other countries with our troops. Naturally that costs more, and they'll spend less because of it.

And much of it was *peace* spending, well-spent. (**)

(**) (How many wars have been fought in Europe post-WWII? How many countries (Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslavakia, Lithuania...) were subjugated by foreign powers in that time? And, how many under U.S. protection were subjugated?)

Again you contradict yourself, acknowledging that money we spent defending cold-war Europe and beyond has added to our debt. By your reckoning, more than anything else.

By my reckoning, if we hadn't embarked on Johnson's 'war on poverty' we'd have saved far more that just our entire national debt: we'd have saved its horrendous human toll. Many who are now destitute, illiterate tax-takers would be tax-payers, happier, and adding their vitality and energy to the nation instead of weighing it down.

That's irrational--the spending you describe as "cheese-paringly mean" is twice the amount you've just called "disproportionately high," and "[in]defensible."

No, if money was not spent on war and is deliberately portrayed as 'spending on war', that's called 'lying,' a criminal accounting offense for a public or private enterprise's books.

Best Regards, James Arthur

James> > > > > > > > > > We've been protecting the world since WWII. That's expensive.

Bill> > > > > > > > > But that's not where most of the money is going.

James> > > > > > > > True, now. Most of our money is presently spent on ineffectual social James> > > > > > > > programs.

Bill> > > > > > > Not true.

Bill> > > > > > >

James> > > > > > Bill, that link is just plain embarrassing--no wonder you have such James> > > > > > wacky, misbegotten theories.

Bill> > > > > I rather liked the way they lumped the interest on the national debt Bill> > > > > into military expenditure, on the not-unreasonable basis that this was Bill> > > > > just paying for previous wars.

James> > > > That's one of their most glaring errors--wrongly attributing all debt James> > > > to warfare.

James> > > > We've spent a great deal more on welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and James> > > > Johnson's war on poverty. Social programs have been roughly 2/3rds the James> > > > budget for quite some time; by any fair measure, they deserve an equal James> > > > proportion of the debt.

James> > > > That's not opinion, that's accounting...amortization.

Bill> > > It's opinion. Your national debt has been built up over a long time - Bill> > > much longer than the period that you have been spending

2/3rds of your Bill> > > budget on what you chose to classify as social programs, and you could Bill> > > attribute each dollar of debt to the expenditure that incurred it. Bill> > > That would be a valid system of amortization, Claiming that the debt Bill> > > should be assigned on the basis of the way you spend money now is not.

James> > Here you have a point--the amount of blame for any annual deficit James> > should be apportioned year-by-year according to each category's James> > proportion of that year's budget.

James> > OTOH, it's preposterous to say that all defense spending is spent on James> > warfare.

You've contradicted yourself in just two paragraphs. First you've described peace-time spending as 'preparation for war,' then here acknowledge that peace-time spending is the most effective, least expensive way to deter and prevent war.

So, clearly, you agree that peace-time spending is at least not necessarily spending for warfare, but can be spending to prevent it.

Isn't prevention better all around? Isn't that a decent investment

*against* war? And, to the point, is it proper for the site you linked to classify 'spending to ensure peace' as 'war' ? (We've already implicitly included peace-keeping duties as such.)

No, that's not true of the 'war on poverty', which is much of the spending in question. Poor people pay essentially no federal tax, so for them it's a straight wealth-transfer.

The rest of the spending in question is on retirement-age folks, who pay a lot less tax than prime-of-their career defense workers.

Defense spending generates much more offsetting tax revenue.

I've just shown, however, that using the method you proposed and with your assumptions, defense spending and interest on prior debt only account for 1/4 of the subsequent increase in debt. Q.E.D.

That's one-quarter by _your_ assumptions (that all defense spending is for war, all debt in 1962 was due to war, and that defense spending generates no offsetting revenue). Your warresisters.org website uses

80%, which is WRONG.

Therefore, describing 80% of the interest on the national debt as 'for warfare' is WRONG.

Thank you for making my (much earlier) point: we were spending to support a number of countries. Obviously we'd spend more than those we were protecting for free.

If we hadn't embarked on Johnson's 'war on poverty' we'd have saved much more than just the entire current national debt: we would've avoided its terrible human toll. Of those who are presently tax- takers we'd have many more taxpayers, adding their energy to the nation rather than holding it back.

Cheers, James Arthur

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:42:37 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote: [snip]

That could lead to some interesting legal battles. Since the tribes are soverign "nation within nation" would they have to permit with the NRC or could they just go to GE and say "build me a reactor to power my casino"?

--
Joe Chisolm
Marble Falls, TX

As someone who sent this 2nd-to-appear post 5 hours earlier, thought it was lost, and who just finished re-typing it, I'm kind of annoyed with GoogleGroups...grrrr!

I think the first attempt more artful, but the second makes more points.

Sorry for the double post.

James Arthur

They should just go ahead and build them, like the casinos. They are sovereign nations, after all.

Problem is Czar Dick and his band of paranoid psychopaths will decide to invade - well, maybe we'd better watch Iran, to see how much respect the Cheney regime has for sovereignty.

Thanks, Rich

And should they reprocess the fuel into weapons-grade as well?

"Blackguard" is an interesting - and inappropriate - term of abuse.

Do you have any specific reason for applying it to me? or is it just a handy term of abuse whose meaning you don't actually understand, like "socialist"?

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen