Comments on: Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th

By: tazzzzz

tazzzzz — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:38:55 +0000

You’re right that the US is not entirely out of line when it comes to military vs. GDP. And also that entitlements are harder to control.

But, military spending as a percentage of the budget is pretty high (one site put the figure at 30% in 2004).

By: Keith Casey

Keith Casey — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:50:49 +0000

Nope… try again: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/global%20spending.html

Look at the graph labeled: “Military Spending as % of GDP”

And the difference between military spending and something like Social Security is that military spending is a line item that can grow or be cut… entitlements are terribly difficult to cut.

When was the last time *less* dollars were spent on Social Security than the year before? (Reduction in the rate of growth is not a cut.)

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:42:10 +0000

Just take a look where the money is going: The military, the military and the military. What the US spends on its military is not normal for a nation.

By: tazzzzz

tazzzzz — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:04:39 +0000

“Yes, but there is significant evidence that the concept of “decreasing rates increases revenues” actually works… JFK demonstrated it first. Reagan did again. And Bush just did it a third time. I believe it was about 18 months ago (not sure on that) where revenues passed the levels prior to the tax cuts.”

Interesting. So, that means that whatever tax cuts Reagan, Bush I and Bush II enacted were more than offset by additional spending.

By: Keith Casey

Keith Casey — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:51:14 +0000

“The President has even more control over policy when the same party controls both Congress and the Presidency.”

Yep, definitely. I wasn’t trying to deflect blame at all, just trying to point out all the guilty parties.

“That said, even though all bills begin in Congress, the President certainly holds considerable influence on the shape of policy. The rise of the debt in the 80s was referred to as “Reaganomics�?. ”

Yes, but there is significant evidence that the concept of “decreasing rates increases revenues” actually works… JFK demonstrated it first. Reagan did again. And Bush just did it a third time. I believe it was about 18 months ago (not sure on that) where revenues passed the levels prior to the tax cuts.

“You’ve got a scary point about the future liabilities. It’s the same bit that corporate America is dealing with.”

Yep, and when you consider things in that light, the “surpluses” of the late 90’s don’t have much meaning.

By: tazzzzz

tazzzzz — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:44:57 +0000

You’re correct about funding bills beginning in the house. One other thing worth pointing out is that Clinton had the benefit of a fantastic economic climate, so his performance on the debt is not completely attributable to him either.

That said, even though all bills begin in Congress, the President certainly holds considerable influence on the shape of policy. The rise of the debt in the 80s was referred to as “Reaganomics”. The President has even more control over policy when the same party controls both Congress and the Presidency.

You’ve got a scary point about the future liabilities. It’s the same bit that corporate America is dealing with.

By: Keith Casey

Keith Casey — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:36:43 +0000

One correction though… funding bills are required to begin in the House.

While Bush is to blame for quite a bit of the drunken spending and/or not vetoing it, Congress must be held accountable also.

What’s even worse is the fact that none of these numbers are accurate as they are based on the CBO and/or the OMB which use a cash method of account (cash out - cash in = balance) when this hides future liabilities which don’t have a price ceiling… such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.