Watch: Clinton's amusing parody of GOP climate change deniers

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/

It’s unclear what you can do about social security

“The argument being used to cut Social Security is that because we have a significant deficit problem and a $14 trillion national debt, we just can’t afford to maintain Social Security benefits. This argument is false. Social Security, because it is funded by the payroll tax, not the U.S. Treasury, has not contributed on nickel to our deficit. In fact, according to a very recent study by the Congressional Budget Office ( CBO) Social Security has a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus and can pay out every penny owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years until 2038.”

link to pdf

What to do?

We should secure Social Security by voting in Bernie Sanders who isn’t a disengenous liar who continues to utilize FUD in an attempt to get average Americans to work against their very own interests.

4 Likes

Well and good, but it changes nothing. We spend a giant chunk of the budget on it, and it’s political suicide to touch it. I am definitely not against cutting it.

How do you fix that? I like Bernie, but I’m not sure he covers enough bases to be electable. We should try, obviously.

It is also slightly inconvenient that your article quotes corporate welfare at 96 billion, when Social Security by itself is 1.3 trillion…

Did you not read the quote? Social Security, because it is funded by the payroll tax, not the U.S. Treasury, has not contributed a nickel to our deficit.

I am definitely not against cutting it. … How do you fix that?

Our problem is corporate welfare. That’s what needs to be fixed.

I like Bernie, but I’m not sure he covers enough bases to be electable.

No, it’s Hillary Clinton that increasingly has an electability problem.

via Kimmo: (CowTip @Kimmo )

Sanders beats all major Republican candidates in major poll:

Meanwhile:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/22/poll-crucial-swing-states-shows-sanders-electable-clinton.html

We should try, obviously.

Do. Or do not. There is no try

1 Like

At 96 billion, I’m not sure you’re right. We spend well over 1 trillion a year on our military in some form or another. (In fact, it’s more like 1.5 trillion)

We’re also assuming that corporate welfare provides 0 benefits.

[quote=“caryroys, post:25, topic:62658”]
We spend well over 1 trillion a year on our military in some form or another. (In fact, it’s more like 1.5 trillion)
[/quote]Sorry, I wasn’t clear. We’re on the same page. I certainly think we need to go after the military-industrial complex.

1 Like

Agree. I’ve gotten small glimpses into the military industrial complex in my career, and what I have seen ranges from perverse to basically OK. (But nothing truly great)

A bizarre WTF moment I had once was a family get-together where my younger Navy-vet brother was complaining about how hard F-16 electrical systems were to service, and it turns out my much older cousin had designed them.

(This isn’t relevant to the conversation, but holy cow, what a story.)

2 Likes

The military-industrial complex is a tough nut to crack. If anyone even attempts to address the very real psy-ops campaigns they levy against our own politicians in order to garner more funding, you get labeled a nut and/or perhaps meet a very untimely demise if enough people listen to you.

With full transcript:

Like what exactly?

“You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”

Yup. This checks out. I roomed with a unix guru and car modder once, and I recall some somewhat disconcerting times where he had me drive while he tinkered on his laptop.

“I need you to take it up to 100 in this gear, so we can get some data”

1 Like

I hope you’re not implying that the republican party is anything resembling fiscally conservative. If you check here:
http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

you can see that, of the 10 states least dependent on the federal government, 7 are blue and 2 are red. Of the 10 states most dependent, 2 are blue and 8 are red. You can easily google several other methods of calculating it, that all yield broadly similar results.

Not to mention that the only two presidents in my lifetime to reduce the deficit are Obama and Clinton.

2 Likes

Indeed I am not. Lip service gets votes and broad ideology is also something to consider.

I am broadly against deficit spending. Broadly speaking, the right hates that and the left doesn’t. The reality is something quite a bit more complicated.

The right panders and says they hate it… while doing it…

I have seen this exact video. Based on what I’ve written do you think I actually like the right wing?

No.

I’m not super pleased with the left either. But they by a huge margin are the lesser of evils.

There is a note within their ideology that I agree with: fiscal conservatism. They pay at best lip service to it.

Cuts to NASA are indefensible, for how little of the budget they take up.

Corporate welfare is a good (but not great) place to start. The best place to start is military spending. Without ANY doubt.

1 Like

I’m not judging whether you like the right wing or not. It seems to me that you have a nuanced view of both parties (which would be similar to me). I just don’t agree with your previous statement about the right in regards to spending.

There is a note within their ideology that I agree with: fiscal conservatism.

If that means spending money more wisely, then I’m all aboard.

For example, I’m not pro-regulation. I’m pro-sensible-regulation. I think regulations should be cut and/or reformed where sensible and expanded and/or reformed where sensible.

Corporate welfare is a good (but not great) place to start. The best place to start is military spending. Without ANY doubt.

Agreed. However, I think cuts in military spending are extremely difficult. Politicians that support cuts can lose their own support very quickly. Until we have true campaign finance reform, politicians are gravely beholden to the military complex. That’s why, as I’m sure you know, they build one military plane’s parts in many different states at once.

More complicated as in, anyone* who votes republican and claims to hate deficit spending and government spending in general is either a liar or a fool.

*I’m aware that there are a very few candidates in that party whos voting records back up their rhetoric, but they are a tiny minority.

Indeed. This is part and parcel of why the F-35 costs so much, and why Challenger happened. It doesn’t have to be this way.

1 Like

I dunno, it could help if we stopped being World Police. I am not blaming the US for this; many of our actions (not all) are what other global powers want, just aren’t willing to pay for. I get why Germany doesn’t want to get on this boat (lord knows they have some baggage to deal with), but weirdly they are the best equipped in the EU to do so.

2 Likes

Amen to that.

1 Like

Related:

How gracious of her. Meanwhile:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-keystone-xl-pipeline

1 Like