Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,279 posts, read 54,049,347 times
Reputation: 40566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
(patiently)
Because Defense is one of Government's legitimate functions.
Government taking over functions that are not its job (See Article 1, Section 8 for a handly list of its proper functions) is the problem.
I've lost count of the number of times that has been explained in this forum.
You missed ALL of them?
Or are you just pretending you hadn't heard this already, so you can pretend even further, that defense is not a legit govt function?
(impatiently) And Defense like anything else can be OVER-spent on, a fact that apparently sails right over your head. WHERE does the Constitution call for that?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,279 posts, read 54,049,347 times
Reputation: 40566
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777
To answer the first part, because the military is THE ONE THING that our constitution says is the responsibility of the federal government. I dont fear our government, I fear people such as obama in charge of our military , I have much more faith in our military leaders than I do politicians. With exceptions wesleyclark of course.
It's not difficult to find any number of posts in these forums claiming the 2nd Amendment exists to guarantee people the means of fighting the government if necessary. My question is WHY do people who believe that want to give that government even more firepower after national defense needs have been more than met?
It's not difficult to find any number of posts in these forums claiming the 2nd Amendment exists to guarantee people the means of fighting the government if necessary. My question is WHY do people who believe that want to give that government even more firepower after national defense needs have been more than met?
It makes as little sense as liberals claiming to want a decent budget, but going on to agree to financially unsound policies such as ObamaCare.
You seriously misunderstand what government multiplier effects are. Government multiplier effects in the US are typically calculated over lifetime pension returns, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is a multiplier. government multipliers are simply instruments to put leverage on a balance sheet. They are given while ignoring the added liabilities incurred by debt spending. You can't claim a higher income due to government multipliers while ignoring the liability side of that equation.
All leverage increases equity. It does so at the cost of a higher liability. Why do you think that increase in risk is a good thing, when done by government? With all due respect, think about the economics of what you are saying.
See? Now this is what Im talking about a rational argument about multipliers. I disagree with it, but it has a rational basis-thats been argued by the very people that know this stuff. However that argument (made recently by the International Money Fund) has been resolved.
So lets be specific, different activities have different multipliers, and competent ones do take into account what you are discussing. For example:
On military spending it has been stated that the multiplier is.... 0.7
Now the multipliers during recessions and depressions vary from baselines, the best example is when the IMF said that the multiplier effects weren't real, and inflicted immense damage upon Greece and other countries. Heres them admitting they were wrong...much as you are... http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf
The lesson here is.....there is a science to this, and ignoring it because it doesn't agree with your bias while ignorant for the general population, when its allowed to occur in places where people should know better-because of pressures by people like you, has real negative results.
(impatiently) And Defense like anything else can be OVER-spent on, a fact that apparently sails right over your head. WHERE does the Constitution call for that?
Dont worry, they will get an amendment to it eventually, claiming that its needed to help promote our economy.
why do you feel that there are no more international threats to our countries safety?
They gutted our military back in the 1930s saying that nobody would attack us and then Japan bombed us. you have to be really niave to think nobody would attack us anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
Why is it your party so consistently has a plank in its platform calling for MORE defense spending? WHY do you want to give more firepower to the government you fear?
And please spare us the fantasy you'd be able to defend yourself against that very same government's M1 Abrams Tanks, FA-18s, etc. because you have an AR15 or two in the closet.
Thtas because the multiplier effects are bull crap..
If you spend $1 in food stamps on food, or $1 in cash on food, the net increase to the economy is the same.. But left wing kooks want us to believe that food stamps generate $2.50 per $1 spent, but they cant tell me then why we dont just give everyone food stamps so even Warren Buffet can do his part to stimulate spending his food stamps...
It's actually reported to be a $1.75 per dollar in food stamps, but whatever. And the only controversy about the "bull crappiness" of the multiplier effect is in relation to borrowing and deficit spending. And that is really only coming from one guy and very small minority of economists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.