Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Car Tech: ethenol gas in the USA
ethenol gas in the USA
by tripzero - 12/27/07 9:02 AMI've been looking into this as we recently have a station that provides this form of gas. Right now it isn't any cheaper than normal gas. But I imagine as the process for manufacturing it gets better (right now it almost takes as much, if not more energy to manufacture it than you get from it).
As far as I know, the government it subsidizing the production in the USA. US mfgs use corn which is a poorer source of ethenol. Wouldn't we benefit more if we used sugar cane? Countries like Brazil and the Philippines mass produce sugar cane which is a much better source than corn. Are we trying to become energy independant is that why we don't import from these countries?
Ethanol has many problems...
by Andy77e - 12/28/07 2:49 PM In reply to: ethenol gas in the USA by tripzeroEthanol is not 'new'. Ethanol was first produced in 1826, and the process we use today to make it, is similar to how Michael Faraday made it in 1828. Ethanol has been used as a fuel since 1908 with the Model T Ford. Point being, don't hold out much hope of manufacturing getting much better, since it would have improved by now, and it has not.
Ethanol has huge subsidies. Not only does the government exempt Ethanol from the same full $1 per gallon of sales tax on gasoline, but the producer gets money directly from the government (your tax money). This money goes to such poor, down home, farmers like David Rockefeller ($500K) and Scottie Pippen ($210K) and Ted Tuner ($206K), plus 5 of the 'lawmakers' on the Agriculture Committee who effectively voted themselves to get money. Neat setup really... they get money from the government to make the product, and they get money from you to buy it. Cool deal eh? Just think, you get to pay them for the product they used your tax money to make.
Yes sugar cane is a better source of Ethanol, but even so the fuel production would still be horribly low. The problem with sugar tends to be that the cost in producing the crop is much higher than corn, and corn ethanol already can't compete without subsidies. So even though the fuel would be better quality, the cost would be prohibitive. This according to a USDA report.
Finely the amount of land needed. Currently we are mandated to make 8 Billion barrels of Ethanol a year (we do not yet, but that's the mandate). Sounds like lots? The US uses more than 140 Billion gallons of gas a year. Follow me: one acre of corn makes only 50 gallons of Ethanol. In order to make 140 Billion gallons of ethanol, you will need 2.8 Billion acres of land, about 5 times the current crop land across the entire nation. Further, Ethanol has 33% less energy than Gasoline. Meaning 140 Billion gallons of ethanol does not equal 140 billion gallons of gasoline. You would need 186 Billion gallons of Ethanol.
Last of all, every acre of land used to make corn for ethanol, is one less acre producing food. Over the past 8 years, the price of corn has doubled. But not just corn, the price of beef will increase because cattle ranches must purchase corn feed at a higher cost. Even Coke and Pepsi will increase in cost because of high fructose corn syrup is increasing in price. The price of other products is increasing as well. This year alone, news from the farmers market indicates a record number of farmers switching to corn for ethanol from Soy beans, Rice, but also Cotton. With growers moving away from cotton, the cost of a wide range of products like clothing will also increase in cost from Ethanol. Remember the Mexican Tortilla riots?
Ethanol is a bad deal. It will not end, or even help our dependence on oil, and at the same time it will cause a world of problems.
thank you
by batman823 - 1/3/08 10:30 AM In reply to: Ethanol has many problems... by Andy77eThat was very informative and thorough, plus it wasn't the same old song you hear in many places.
I agree with almost the entire post, but have one point.
You mention prices of many products going up and the possibility of them being driven further by increased production of Ethanol. you and I both know, from experiance and other conversations, that wages have not increased an appreciable amount in the last decade. But prices have, very much so. I mention this because ALL prices have, not just a specific few. Gasoline, clothes, food, and housing have all gone up considerably with little or no increase in wages.(none in most places according to the DOL)
I know it's a small point to pick and that you didn't necessarily say otherwise, but it might clear up something for you or others who read these posts.
Sure.
by Andy77e - 1/5/08 12:26 AM In reply to: thank you by batman823How goes it Batman? Last time we talked, you were about to go in for surgery. Hope you are well.
I would suggest that in some of those, the government has caused higher prices, and not just through taxes.
As I outlined before, the cost of gas has increased due to government regulations and taxation. Food is increasing due to a number of factors including minimum wage, subsidies, and of course the Ethanol issue mentioned above.
The only area not really governments fault is housing. That's merely free market and the evolution of the modern American home. We started out just wanting a place to live with windows. Now it's gotta have separate bedrooms for each of our kids, with 3 and 1/2 baths, phone jacks, power outlets, and Cable TV in 4 rooms. Finely, we demand a home within 10 minutes from the city, but away from unpleasant areas, same as everyone else. High demand, low supply, equals high cost of homes.
Lastly, I would suggest lowering taxes would solve the lack of wage increases. When people lose 1/3 to 1/4 of their income in taxes, it tends to cause lack of funds problems.
taxes, taxes, and taxing the taxes
by batman823 - 1/8/08 7:43 AM In reply to: Sure. by Andy77eI agree about the taxes... but there are quite a few problems that will not be fixed in the near future.
Those who are in charge make these rules, and profit from their existance, so where is the mechanism which America can use to change them? There is none. If another revolution were to happen, it would be a blood-bath because nobody can own a gun. And force is apparently the only way to express politics in this modern world. That's what we're doing right now in many countries around the world.
In the military, we have stock systems with product manufacturers that are contracted. Since the US gov't wasn't smart enough to make those contracts have fair trade agreements or compete, things like $0.25 washers get "inspected" and put into little bags and now cost $5. The $100 hammer and $600 toilet seat come to mind. Just to name a couple, personally I've seen several $5,000 chairs and $500,000 for a heater that was made in 1970. That's just one reason taxes can't go down.
Another is that our elected 'king' spends more than $1 trillion per year on foreign wars that can't be won because of politics that 90% of the entire world doesn't agree with. I know that the politics are up for debate, but it's inargueably a huge bill which most people see as not only unreasonable and unnecessary, but unwanted. On the other hand, it's not going away unless our system of so-called "checks and balances" actually gets used.(grow a spine, congress)
We also have a large list of things we consider standard that the gov't takes care of. This is a range from police and medicare to road construction.
When you add up all that with the miniscule aid that goes back into our own country, you get a deficit that no pres or gov't has ever matched.
The point being that you are correct. We do pay a very large part of our money in taxes and see very little for the money we have no choice but to pay. Inflation is also the governing authorities' fault. A middle class family pays 45% to 60% of their earned income in taxes while a lower class person pays 20-30%. This range is proportionately correct, but the percentage is WAAAYY TOO HIGH. We can't even afford to get proper health care, let alone college for our kids. This forces everyone into debt, if they have any real standard of living and want it badly enough to sign their name. But since there are so many people in debt and everything costs so much, millions up millions of people are actualy fighting to get a crappy job that pays a disrespectful $10/hr with no benefits. At that point, you're just working to pay taxes on the money you earn and the gas it takes to get to work.
You also mention the gas tax. I know that a portion goes to roads and DOT, etc.... but what does the rest go to? I don't think that it actually costs the gov't $1.00 to $1.50 for each gallon of gas that I choose to use. Some of the rediculous income tax that I pay goes to the roads. That is why the drinking age in all states is 21yrs old and speed limits are so low. The fed gov't gives the states money so they'll keep the limits where the federal gov't wants them.
I get about 25mpg city and 35mpg highway. I know it's better than most but say 30 as an average. I drive 30 miles for each gallon of gas that I use. In driving that 30 miles, what do I do that costs the government $1.50? I don't think anything. There's a cop every once in a while. I might see a cop twice on a fill up. so the gov't(state and fed combined) might see me, just maybe, for a total of 5-10 seconds during the time that I pay $15 to them. But the cops get paid by income tax, so that can't be what my money goes to. They also get money from fines anytime somebody does something wrong. Maybe those road signs for speed limits that have been up for 15 years are ordered through the military stock system and somebody gets paid $500,000/yr to put them up. From the way they dress, I doubt they get paid a lot. But it's a little odd to think we can quench our thirst for oil with extremely wasteful corn fields to produce ethanol and producing hybrids that people can't afford if they think about the cost of gas.
Sometimes I see a few rode-cones and a sign that says "construction ahead." But only a couple of times a year I see some guys standing around or a street getting painted. But, rarely, I will see something actually getting done. I don't believe that the money we all pay is actually getting utilized for something worth-while. I wouldn't mind paying the $3.00/gal if it went to something I thought was worth it. Same thing with the 10%-20% state and 20%-30% federal income tax. English and Canadian citizens pay less taxes while they don't have to afford $1,000/mo for a family health insurance plan. They don't have to sign up their kids on Medicaid just to get second-class health care. They're doing something different then us, that's for sure. Maybe it's that they don't have 80% of the world's military force fighting battles for people who don't want their "help".
But I suppose that's enough of a rant...
The surgery went very well and I'm now walking without a cane and have recently stopped using my backbrace. Also, I'm taking fewer narcotics for pain. I feel more like a normal person. Thank you for asking.
Sorry about the rant, I just missed it so much. It's good to hear from you too andy.
lol nothing changes.
by Andy77e - 1/8/08 10:33 AM In reply to: taxes, taxes, and taxing the taxes by batman823First, the Military does not spend $100 for a hammer. This was a accounting numbers fudge. What they did was take the total budget for a project and divide that number by the number of tools purchased. If I buy 2 mig welders at $1000, and two hammers for $10, then divide $1010 by 4 tools, you end up with $252 dollar hammer. It was typical government fuzzy math.
But before I move on, I am not, nor ever would suggest there isn't waste. Of course there is... this is government. Government by it's very nature is wasteful. Saying XXX government program is wasteful, is like saying fast food isn't the most healthy... no kidding. This is why I support the smallest government possible. The best way to reduce government is by cutting taxes and giving them less of our money to blow.
Next, in '07 the federal government spent $2.902 Trillion.
The total Department of Defense (DOD) spending was $0.717 Trillion.
Of the DOD budget, the spending for the War on Terror was $0.145 Trillion.
Lastly, within the budget for DOD, $0.091 Trillion did not even go to defense. (read pork spending)
Comparatively, $2.185 Trillion was spent on non-military related outlays. So what is our government really over spending on?
Last, we are winning the war. Anyone can see this if you listen to the people in Iraq. Didn't you hear Osamas recent tape? He complained and condemned that the people of Iraq are turning against al qaeda! Our military people are sending messages back to the US saying they walk freely in Iraqi towns with civilians. The good news coming out of Iraq is astounding. Interviews with Iraqi people constantly say the thing they fear most is the US pulling out too soon.
One final point, if we had national health care, you would not have gotten the great medical treatment that is allowing you to return to a normal life. That much I know for sure. Yes Canadians don't pay for medical treatment, and there is a national shortage of doctors, there are long waiting lists for basic treatment, and rich government officials come to the US for care. One Canadian reported she went to the ER at the hospital and waited 4 hours to... get a prescription refilled! Why? Because to go to a family doctor would have taken 2 months due to the doctor shortage. Another Canadian citizen needed a hip replacement and discovered he would have to wait a year under the socialized system to get it done because it was 'non-emergency', further was enraged to find he couldn't legal pay for the surgery himself.
But it's funny you bring up Canada since the Canadian high court, just recently struck down the law banning private medical care. I wager you will see a two-tier medical system in Canada in a short time, because people who pay for service, get served. Those that don't end up on waiting lists.
Glad to hear you are doing well. Chat to you later.
no, I guess things don't change.
by batman823 - 1/10/08 9:29 AM In reply to: lol nothing changes. by Andy77eI'm sorry for coming off that way.. I didn't mean literally $100 for a hammer, I just remember seeing that a lot in movies and media. But it's not that rediculous.
The military uses a stock system called FedLog Interactive. Using a hammer as a base, the cost at Home Depot is maybe $10 or $15 but it would cost $30 or $45 in FedLog, depending on the type and length. But the heating system I mention was one bank of heaters that only heated a space for one man. So the submarine had to take $500,000 out of its budget so one man could sit in a stateroom without having to wear a jacket. I ordered a stainless steel solenoid-operated needle valve for $5,000. That part for a car costs $50 or $150 with the starter attached. But in general, the stuff the military has to buy costs about 3x-5x what it costs through the fair market. The reason is that the manufacturers are contracted and generally have no limits on what they can charge. They have no competing companies and the military is bound by these contracts so they can't buy from anyone else. The fuzzy math may have been a thing of the past, but they don't do it that way now. But because so many forces are deployed to the middle east, home-base defense has to take a gigantic budget cut. In the last two years my command lost almost 20% of it's funding because of the GWOT.
From the US Treasury reports,veiwable at www.ustres.gov, DOD was budgeted $439billion and expected to recieve an additional $80billion in emergency funds. That doesn't include the $125billion last spring to keep the troops in Iraq through the summer until September and the funding after that. The $1trillion dollars is just an estimate that includes the many billions of dollars given to other countries like Pakistan for boosting their military.
But in contrast, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education was budgeted for a combined total of only $142billion. I take care of myself and family before I stretch out an open palm. One would be lucky to get any help from another person at all, just because others don't want to. I think that our gov't should have the same attitude. With some hot topic that the American poeple actually care about, we shouldn't be spending such a huge amount of money keeping troops over seas. Most Americans want health care and don't want the war. Yet our tax dollars mostly go to what we don't want. The Iraqi people may not be killing our troops as much anymore, but shouldn't be there to get shot at in the first place. I know they need to have a legitimate gov't too, but it's their responsibility to do it. We've given them plenty of help, and they are still taking their sweet time. If their people don't want a gov't then no amount of money we spend will institute one that will remain in power. If we carry Iraq all the way, then their gov't will just collapse because they don't want it bad enough. That's one of the biggest reasons why I don't agree with what we're doing.
But other than that I agree with you almost completely. The governing unit should be kept as small as possible. I think our military is way to big and it may ultimately lead, or at least partake in, the country's downfall.
As far as healthcare goes, I know we don't agree on that. But I think we both have valid points as well. The people I've spoken to in norway and england, for example, had nothing but good things to say about their medical systems. That includes private civillians as well as military.
I don't disagree with a two-tier system either. That would satisfy all those involved. People like you who think that you should get better care because you have more money would get that. But that effectively turns our society to an empirical one. That just proves as onee more stepping stone for the "Social Elite." Those of us who think that anybody should get up-to-date care would get that too.
I might have gotten the surgery I actually needed instead of settling for the one that the insurance company said they'd pay for. But who is the insurance company? Some general practitioner said that they don't pay for a surgery and I don't have a choice... That's just not right. The prosthetic discs are FDA approved and new generations are on the verge of that as well. When it is FDA approved and a Neurosurgeon says that's the best course of action, the insurance company should have to pay out. Basically, you and I shouldn't have to suffer because some jerk in an insurance company wants to own another BMW this year. Also, the people who review these claim shouldn't be able to get a bonus or incentive pay for denying more claims. I don't know about you, but that's just sickening to me. Nobody should ever be allowed to profiteer on other people's health problems, whether it be cancer or a combat-related injury, like mine. It's totally unregulated and I gaurantee it's not the Social Elite who pay the price.
But before you get your books out, this is just my personal experience. When I was Med-Evacuated from Gibralter, the Royal Naval hospital was fine. After that I was given a 2.5hr ambulance ride with NATO travel orders to Cadiz, spain. Spain has the socialized medicine too. The hospital was completely packed with no standing room in the hallways on a saturday night. It took 3 hours for me to get a bed and I couldn't even use my legs at that point. I literally had to have help from my escort(A Chief Petty Officer in the Royal Navy) to use the restroom.
But what I think is more disgusting is that a person in one of the wealthiest countries in the world can make a "good living" and still not be able to get themselves or their children health care. The hospitals don't ask what's wrong and take care of you, they ask for your insurance. (which you and I can't afford) Sure there might be a two-tier system in Canada in the future. But somebody can go to a surgeon if they need to. In an emergency, you get emergency care. So if you go to an E.R. here or Canada, you will wait at least 4hrs for something that's not urgent. It's not any worse there than here. And for other things, I'd rather wait a month and get the right thing done (socialized) than pay $1000/month to have somebody tell me I can't have the operation I need.(capitolist)
I know it's a little lengthy and intense, but I hope you find this a good argument and not a personal attack. I didn't intend it as such. Also, it's good to finally come in contact with another person who can debate a sensitive sensibly and with some intelligence.
Nice chatting with you
I understand. (military)
by Andy77e - 1/15/08 1:16 PM In reply to: no, I guess things don't change. by batman823Like I said before, there is no question about government waste in the Military, because it's part of government. Government by its very nature is wasteful.
The point is, if we are going to cut wasteful programs, start with the ones not in the Constitution. Military is constitutionally mandated duty of our federal government. Social Insecurity is not. Cut that first.
The feds are blowing money. Right. But as I pointed out, we spent $2.902 Trillion last year. Less than one third of that went to Military. Two trillion dollars was unconstitutional spending. Let's cut things, the constitution says our federal government shouldn't be doing anyway, first. After we cut out $2 trillion in unconstitutional spending, then we'll worry about $439 billion spent on the military.
It's true most of our tax money goes to things I don't want, namely the two trillion in unconstitutional spending, but as for the military, I do want that. Further, I do not pretend to know how one goes about helping another nation setup a completely new government, with as much internal strife, as Iraqis have to deal with. I can only imagine that the new government is walking a thin line to try and gain the support of the people, many of whom, used to believe Americans were there to colonize, rather than reconstruct, the Iraqi nation. It's amazing how demanding Americans can be for a situation so difficult as Iraq, and yet be so impatient.
How many year did it take to rebuild Japan and how much did the Japanese hate and distrust America after we dropped two nuclear bombs on highly populated cities? Yet here it hasn't even been 4 years since the interim Iraqi constitution was signed, and you think they should be completely self sustained? And Iraq has far more internal issues to sort through than Japan did.
Yet even so, the news from Iraq is so good we actually had a report on the news that funeral homes were starting to run out of business. Not enough people dieing apparently. Every few months we return another province over to Iraqi self rule.
We have so much invested interest in Iraq, there is no way we can pull out without huge long term ramifications. If we leave, the once pro-American support within Iraq will feel abandoned, becoming hopelessly bitter toward us. Terrorist groups will swoop in to gain support of the people, accusing us of using them and deserting them. Iraq will be heavily influenced by Iran, already anti-American and have nuclear weapons to support their hostility. Iran and terrorist groups will gain the technologically advanced nation of Iraq to help support their activities, and export their terrorist plans to not only surrounding nations and our allies, but likely here in the US.
To not support our efforts in Iraq, really is to support terrorism. Whether you buy it or not, that is what will happen. Why do you think Osama Bin Laden held such a high contempt for the people of Iraq revolting against him? Do you think for even a second, that will continue if we pull out before Iraq is able to fend for itself?
Now in all truth, you are right about one thing... there is no way we can know for certain if the Iraqi people will ultimately stand on their own. However, I would rather do everything we can to make it right, make it work. It would be far better to, if the government should fall, and things not turn out for the best, to know that we did all we could, rather than to know we pulled out too soon, before they were ready, and wonder if things might have worked if we had stayed.
very good
by batman823 - 1/16/08 7:47 AM In reply to: I understand. (military) by Andy77eI agree almost completely about the government waste. I didn't see the numbers you posted. On the US Treasury site, it was much smaller. But that makes no real difference.
The point is that the budget allocated more money to the military than it did to all other departments combined. And, of course we overspent and went way over the budget. Since there are only 300million people in our country, it seems that 3trillion is a bit much. I don't really think that each citizen paid $10,000 in taxes. being in the lower class, you and I pay much less and get most of that back in our returns. So that must be a huge burden on the middle class, since the upper-class gets pretty good tax breaks. That doesn't sound like "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability". It sounds like "If you make the laws, just make another law that exempts you from the ones you don't want to be subject to," and I don't remember reading that in the constitution.
I am not sure about what you mean by "unconstitutional spending" or that unauthorized spending even makes up a relativant portion of the tax dollars. But I agree completely that much of our budget(whatever the number) goes to waste, even if it is provided for specifically by the constitution.
I am glad that you recognize the waste in the military and I hope I cleared up the mechanism in which it is primarily wasted for you.
Also, the military is a very necessary thing for our country. My beef with it is how much we actually spend. Do we REALLY need half of our budget allocated to military? Shouldn't that be the limit? Why are we so quick to spend more money than we alloted? It seems that the budget doesn't even matter, it's all just made up anyway, right?
YES!!! We should definitely cut wasteful programs. I am not counting on Social Security, I hope nobody I know is. We need our police, but do we actually need such a huge military? Even if you say yes, consider this. We could easily keep our current military force, even raise the pay of those willing to serve, if we could just manage to pay fair-market value for the equipment and parts our military uses.
Our country formed its own government with very little help. In fact, that's pretty much how it's always been done. The people organize and tell the current gov't that they aren't listening and form their own governing body.
The main point is that we've done more for them than any country should expect and they are yet to step up to the plate. It's never easy, but it's worth it fro freedom. If they don't want it bad enough then they don't deserve it. They are all free to come here in a legal fashion and try to become citizens on their own accord.
But on the other hand, it must be very difficult for a new gov't to gain control without using absolute force. I couldn't imagine being in charge of that. So I do see your point. But when did it become our responsibility? I don't think it is just because the big, powerful retard says "If we don't, the terrorists win!"
But that's just my opinion that 90% of the world happens to have.
If it really were true and if other countries believed it, then we wouldn't be the dominant occupying force, we would be contributing instead of mandating.
Nonetheless, I may not be happy with the situation, but I am happy for the people over there. They are getting babysat by the most powerful country in the world and they don't even have to shed their own blood for their own freedom. What a sweet deal! I wish the french had just sent over their entire military and screwed their own country over when we were declaring our independence.
Even though I don't agree with it, I hope it works since we're doing it anyway. After that they will be more free and we can establish commerce. We can buy oil from an ally who owes us a HUGE favor. Maybe then our oil prices will be secured, if not lowered.
You do have one valid point. If we suddenly pull out, we would have sent all those brave americans over to die or come home mamed or permanently injured(like I did) and it all will have been for nothing. We simply cannot just leave all at once. It'll backfire worse than you and I could imagine. We could start though, it would satisfy both party lines. It would encourage the Iraqis to do their own part and the people who want our soldiers home would be abated because there would be light at the end of the tunnel.
But people fail to see the big picture. Britain sends some people, but other than that tiny bit, we are the only ones over there. The "terrorists" don't just hate america, the attack each other, Britain, Scotland, etc... So I think those countries who like having their children and buildings intact should be helping too.
Whether it is terrorist groups or local warlords, there will always be strife in the holy land, and everywhere around it. It's a hard thing to accept, but we can't stop it. We never will, no matter how hard we try or how many soldiers and dollars we sacrifice.
Al Qiata has a lot of power in somalia(soomalya) because the warlords over there make the citizens so miserable that they'd rather be pawns in the terrorist organizations than live under current gov't rule. They get treated better and nobody kills them just to prove a point. So if you and I lived there, we just might be praying for Al Qiata to save us. In the last year, we've done a lot in somalia, but it goes on all over. Those are the people that really need our help, if we're just determined to be the world police force.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Confusing me (military)
by Andy77e - 1/17/08 8:23 PM In reply to: very good by batman823BUDGET=
I figured a few things out. First, I mistakenly hit the 2008 budget instead of the 2007 one. Second, I was using lump sum of all direct/indirect military costs. Most people who hate the military, add in all non-current military expenses in order to inflate the numbers to support their view we spend too much. So here is a summery as best I understand it, straight from CBO and US Treasury.
$115 Billion
CBO estimates this is how much money was spent on the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as of Aug '07.
$549 Billion
This is the official budget for the DoD for all current military. (this includes the $115 above)
$678 Billion
This is everything above plus things not directly related, such as Veterans Affairs, Foreign affairs, National Guard, Homeland Security, and nuclear missile maintenances that is under DOE budget.
Ok so if you include everything, the total is:
$ 678 Billion Military
$2,887 Billion... that's total outlays for '07.
$678 Billion is not 1/2 of $2,887B, it's not even 1/3... it's *less* than 1/4 the budget.
CONSTITUTION=
Unconstitutional spending, is any spending for things not mandated by the Constitution as a duty of the federal government. Currently, roughly 75% (about $2 Trillion) of the budget is unconstitutional spending, which is the following things:
Social Insecurity, Mediscare, Medicaid, Welfare, Low income housing, Education and Training, Unemployment, US Post Office, Science and Technology grants, Agriculture subsidies, and interest on a national debt that would not exist if not for the afore mentioned unconstitutional spending. National Health Care would fall under unconstitutional spending.
I would argue that nearly all our budget should go to the military. That *IS* the primary purpose of federal government. Read the history of the Constitution. Before that, we had the Articles of Confederation, which was so weak that they couldn't even raise enough money for a basic army, and even then they couldn't legal form a military if they had the money. This is the *ONLY* reason they replaced it with the Constitution which was supposed to give the federal government *only* enough power to form a military. That's it... no welfare or health care... just a military.
In effect, I would support leaving or increasing military spending to where it roughly is, but cutting taxes by about $2 Trillion. Because that is what the federal government is *supposed* to do. Give the rest of that money back to the people who rightfully earned it.
WORLD OPINION=
I still do not give a rats *** about 'opinions' when defining what is best for our security. In case you are not up on WW2 history... the world opinion was against confronting Hitler's world domination, and the result was he defeated nearly all of Europe before we finely figured out we need to do anything.
World opinion resulted in Normandy. If we had ignored the world opinion, and kicked Hitlers butt before he got past Poland, there would not have been a "World War 2". Sometimes I wonder if history is even taught anymore.
World opinion would have us leave, a horrible brutal dictator that supported terrorist attacks against American targets, in power. Real leaders do not follow 'opinion'. Real leaders lead. National security policy should never be determined by 'opinion polls' like Clinton used to do. "Should I defend the nation or not? What do the polls say?" That's not a leader, that's an idiot.
So please spare me the 'world opinion' says garbage. It's a waste of forum space. You mention our own revolution. Public and world opinion, was no one can defeat the British empire. Even the French who supported the colonies thought we were crazy. If our colonial leaders had been like you and Clinton, taking an opinion poll to determine what's best for us, the United States would never have existed.
IRAQ=
Last, Iraq is a special case. You are right that most reforms come from within. But that's because normally when an external force takes over a country, they keep it. Only Americans take over countries and leaves them to self rule once our issues with that nation is fixed. Japan, South Vietnam, Cuba, Panama. Remember Germany right after WW2? We left Germany, while the Russians (USSR) owned it.
So unlike a revolution that comes from within, we cause revolutions from the outside. By returning the nations back to the people after dismantling the prior government.
But I think you are way too hard on the Iraqi people. Japan required far more time than this to become a stable self sustained government, and Iraq has far more large issues to overcome. You should be more sensitive to that.
Iraq has 3 peoples groups, and Saddam was a master at pitting them against each other. So the current government is carefully trying to unify the people, while healing the scars inflicted by a dictator in charge only 6 years ago. Iraq, unlike Japan, is surrounded by a few enemies. Iran would like nothing more than to plunder Iraq and slaughter Iraqis for the loss during the Iran-Iraq war. So we just disarmed them, now we have to re-arm them so they do not get slaughtered. Finely terrorist groups are actively trying to find ways to gain control of any of the vast resources in Iraq.
So I still think your expectations are way too high. Plus, I don't know what information you have, but Iraqi military and police forces are fighting with us, and they have had many causalities. I totally do not get where the strange idea that Iraqis are just sitting watching soccer, drinking a beer, while we fight, is coming from. Not only do the reports from Iraq not support that, but Osama's video decrying the resistance by the Iraqi people, makes it clear they are fighting too.
Anyway, see you later.
Now we're getting somewhere.
by batman823 - 1/18/08 6:31 AM In reply to: Confusing me (military) by Andy77eI am not sure where you get your budget information, but it doesn't seem that it's too far off from what I got on the official publication.
I found the actual expendature table in the US Treas report.
I was wrong about a couple of things. Therefore, I feel I should correct myself.
The three heavy-hitters were social-security($626.4Bil) DOD ($689Bil) and Department of Health and Human Services($718.6Bil) and the total spent was $3.16Trillion. So I was wrong about the percentage spent on DOD.
Remember that SS is a separate tax from income tax and would not effect the budget if it were simply chopped off or dismantled.
The other budget numbers I quoted were the "President's Budget" Which is simply the executive branch's portion of the budget request. According to that budget, it only makes sense that the DOD would recieve more than all others combined because that's the primary purpose of the executive branch.
There was also another $50Bil that was the "discretionary budget." 51% of that was also spent in DOD.
The principle holds true for me that we are very wasteful in our military spending. Roughly 1/5 of the DOD budget is spent on personnel. The 81% that's left was spent on the other stuff I spoke of earlier. We could drastically reduce the total DOD budget(my ideal guess would be 40-50%) while increasing pay for the military members and still not reduce the forces or R&D. That would leave more than enough to fund the VA and properly take care of those like me and those who are worse off.
A veteran who has a disability from serving our country has the highest right to a comfortable lifestyle provided by the gov't. It's only fair that if a person sacrifices having a normal life protecting our freedom, our country takes care of them in return. Again, Anybody who doesn't agree needs to be on the front lines until they come home missing a limb or don't come home at all.
IRAQ
I know I have a high expectations, but I don't think that's unfair.
We are doing a great thing for them, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's completely our responsibility.
I feel pretty strongly that if a country doesn't want to be oppressed, they should step up with guns blazing, if necessary. That's what we did.
On the other hand, it is too late for that. You may be right about Iran and other countries. They may very well just step in and crush them if we weren't there. And since we've taken it this far, we should finish the job.
But finishing the job doesn't mean sticking around indefinitely. Where is your threshold? If they never get to the point of self-sufficiency, should we just stick around forever? I don't think so. There's got to be another solution and a reasonable cutoff.
Nobody babysat Japan during their reconstruction. Nobody did that for us after our civil war, either. But that's why those reconstruction periods took so long.
The more I research and read, the more I agree with you on those subjects. I don't believe the "Terrorists will win" crap. That never was the reason why we were over there and it never will be. But since we dismantled their gov't without giving them a choice, I guess it's our responsibility to enstate a good one. I am frustrated that we're the only country really giving a hand. It's as if the rest of the world isn't worried about terrorism. That's because they aren't. It's not really that big of a threat to begin with and we're doing all the policing. They don't hold a candle to the threat the Nazis imposed.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
I didn't mean that I didn't actually understand the term "unconstitutional spending". I meant that I don't think most of those programs are unconstitutional. You seem to be knowledgable and I know my fair part. The federal gov't has to provide services mandated by the constitution and is allowed to provide services implied by it. Lastly it is prohibited from doing things not expressed, directly or implied.
I'm not going to pretend that I konw the whole constitution, but I am pretty sure that services for the benifit of the people are generally allowed. Although, I do agree that some of the programs you listed are not constitutional, or that they are at least wasteful.
I agree with you that the military is necessary and should be a big thing. But I do think that it is too big right now and that it is way too wasteful. We give the military all the money it wants, with no audit or limitation, and no second thought. Of course it's going to be wasteful because the contracted, no-competition manufacturers can gouge prices as much as they want and nobody's going to say anything.
OPINIONS
Opinion is the only thing that drives our policies. Granted, world opinion was wrong during the WWII beginning. But if you are such a big history buff, you'd know that we were the LAST to join the fight. We said "F you, Europe" It's not our problem. We were the ones who waited until Hitler had taken over a major portion of europe and made powerful allies. It was the US who screwed up and waited untill it was too late. That's actually why normandy happened, because we let Hitler gain control. We had "REAL LEADERS" then and they were the ones who didn't give a "rat's a**" about world opinion.
The only thing that comes out of ignoring other people's input is ignorance. Any president who disregards the American public and the rest of the world is a terrible leader, like our special-ed, drug abusing, alcoholic texan. That is exactly why the world has NATO and UN, so good leaders can help out the bad ones, so smart leaders can guide the stupid ones and big countries can help little ones. But our special friend wanted his own vietnam, and he got it.
--Your two paragraphs where you compare me to clinton--
That is one subject where you are drastically wrong. If the Founding Fathers hadn't gone with public opinion, the USA would not exist. The were regular people who were tired of their gov't taxing and controlling them without having a say. That sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? They saw that the people wanted freedom and the said "Come hell or high water, we're going to be FREE." And the next thing you know, we were giving all that we had and sacrificing our lives because it was the right thing to do.
That's what patriotism is and how dare you say that I am not a patriot. Are you really that distorted?
I would never claim that I was a person of the Founding Fathers' caliber, but you have no right to criticize a veteran, EVER, especially one who comes home injured.
2 Notes on that-
1)I didn't say that Clinton was an excellent leader, but he was a good president and did more about the terrorists than Bush did until 9/11/01 and he did a great job with the economy. He was a good president because he put people with real opinions in his cabinet and he listened. Bush just fires people if they disagree with him, like so many Generals in the Iraq War and the scandal with the lawyers. If you just disregard all opposing opinion, you only become more ignorant and only bad can come from that.
2)Maybe I took your 'me = clinton = failed revolution' statement wrong but you should choose your words carefully when speaking about the Founding Fathers. And you should never make such a statement about a veteran. Even if you were right, you have no place saying such a thing to me or anybody who has served. Those kind of statements are just unpatriotic and line you up right next to Jane Fonda. I would expect much better etiquitte from a fellow patriot. Patriots never challenge the dedication of another. You would know that if you had spent any time around 'Real Leaders' or veterans.
Iraqi police.
You are right, I didn't mean to put that out the way it came off. I definitely don't think that they are just sitting on their couch with A/C and drinking martinis. But their parlaiment/congress should not be taking vacations while the majority of the people fighting for their freedom are still getting shot at 10,000 miles away from their homes. I highly doubt that our gov't took a vacation during our revolution when the french showed up.
I do know that the iraqis have police and that they are helping. I've stated before that we're training them. On that note, it's pretty tough seeing the kurds get sh*t on and not allowed their own freedoms. Same with the shiites and sunnis. It's the extremists of those three that are the main concern, they are the make-up of the various terrorist groups in that area. It does seem like it would be hard to give them freedom, get them to get along, subdue the extremists/fundamentalists, and all-the-while set up a centralized government that they don't even want. I think that in the end, they will like and utilize the central gov't. And they won't be able to stand on their own feet if they don't have a central gov't, so we are doing the right thing there.
I look forward to hearing from you
Not sure where we got...
by Andy77e - 1/18/08 9:46 PM In reply to: Now we're getting somewhere. by batman823BUDGET
Those number must be the 2008 budget... Since nothing I have read anywhere says that we spent even close to $3.16 Trillion.
I do not use 'projected' budgets. The FY '08 budget is worthless to me. The reason is, Bush can write down anything he wants, but when congress over spends by billions, what can he do? Wave the budget around? Moreover, there is no way to predict future events. What if the war goes south and more money is required? What if another Katrina type event occurs? What if the war goes great and less money is needed? What if congress spends less? (hahaha) What if they spend more? (not a big 'if') What if the economy goes up or down?
So I will always use the prior years 'actual' budget numbers, rather than next years projected budget. Why use numbers in a budget, that history has shown, Congress never follows?
I have a link that I hope we both can agree to as the source for budget numbers.
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp603.htm
$ 530 billion -Military outlays
$ 621 billion -Social Insecurity outlays
$2,731 billion -Total outlays
Military is less than 1/5 the total budget.
CONSTITUTION
Actually no. There is no 'implied' services allowed. I would suggest reading the Federalist Papers. A group of papers written by the signers of our Constitution in order to give greater clarity as to the meaning, while explaining the reasoning behind the choices made.
In our Constitution, every purpose and duty of the federal government is explicitly spelled out. The phrase "all other rights are reserved for the states", is a catch all, designed to make clear that no other duty is allowed to be performed by the federal government.
Now I will grant you, there are some things that should be added to the duties of the federal government, but only under the exiting mandates. For example, the regulation and monitoring of nuclear power plants. But only because it's a possible national security threat, and national security is a duty of the Fed. Gov.
However, only a small, and I mean tiny, hand full of situations like that exist. Most are not. Some situations existed, but no longer fall under that category. US Post Office. It was a matter of national security that we be able to quickly get information to and from western states like California. But our military has no need of the post office today, and Fedex is a million times more efficient. USPS should be phased out and dismantled.
OPINION
"Opinion is the only thing that drives our policies." What? Seems to be contradicted by our leaders stance.
WW2... ok I know socialized public schools are bad, but one of us is so far off the mark, it's not funny.
When Hitler started rebuilding their military, opinion here and abroad was, don't do anything, make treaties. Poland made a treaty with Germany, and got invaded. After that, the public opinion was... don't do anything, make treaties. Norway and Denmark fell and opinion was... do nothing, make treaties. France fell, now it is just the UK.
Meanwhile Churchill many other were shouting out that there was a problem. Of course they were labeled tyrant warmongering and other names. Instead they followed public and world opinion.
"We had "REAL LEADERS" then and they were the ones who didn't give a 'rat's a**' about world opinion."
Where do you get this stuff? FDR made the case over and over for stopping Hitler as soon as he invaded Poland. He warned Europe to do something, and they followed public opinion, and ignored him. Further, after our allies woke up and realized they were in trouble, it was still US public opinion that said do nothing, leave it alone. FDR never supported that. He always said we needed to get over there.
Sounds familiar... yes? In fact, they called FDR a warmongering dictator just like Bush, because FDR started building our military long before Pearl Harbor. He knew that we would be attacked no matter what the opinion was.
In fact, what made FDR a great leader was that he didn't follow public opinion. Due to public opinion, our spineless congress passed the Neutrality Act, that said we wouldn't help anyone in Europe, nor would we get involved. This is why FDR secretly linked up with Churchill and sent aid to our allies. It was the WW2 version of Iran-Contra.
Point being, no FDR didn't say to Europe, we don't give a 'rat ***', it was public opinion that said that. FDR was right. Bush is right. Public and world opinion was/is wrong.
CLINTON
"(clinton) put people with real opinions in his cabinet and he listened"
Name one. Clinton did not have people with opinions in his cabinet. He had pollsters in his cabinet. Whichever way the political wind blew, regardless of anything, that is the way he went. When people were concerned that Saddam was getting WMD after he kicked out the UN inspectors, Clinton 'blew' to the right making the case for war in 1998. But when the political winds 'blew' left and the polls said opinion was against it, he was suddenly against his own plans. Then 9/11 and Hilliary claimed they were always in favor of the war against Saddam. Now recently Clinton said he was always against the war.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bill-clinton-claims-he-opposed-iraq-war
That is not a leader... that is a spineless idiot. I did not mean to imply you are no better than Clinton. However, you are doing exactly what Clinton was known for, which is to make really important, life or death choices, based on the ignorant opinion of the masses, and the opinion of nations that have no interest in our security.
etc. etc.
by batman823 - 1/22/08 11:03 AM In reply to: Not sure where we got... by Andy77eThe president's budget has two forms, requested and approved. The approved budget is the one that I first mistook for the whole budget.
The $3.1Tril budget I quoted were the 2007 actual expenditures.
But your link is to the same site that I looked up my figures. Again, the particular numbers aren't relavent. It's the percentages that really matter.
Since the 2006,'07 and '08 budgets were similar and congress has shown a tendancy to overspend by roughly the same amount in a particular year, I could look at one or the other and feel confident that my money is going to be wasted in the same manner.
I did state that my original figures were wrong and that the 50% was the pres's budget, not the total. The pres's budget should be >50% military because that is the entire purpose of the executive branch.
I apologize for mixing up my statements. The states are granted "implied" authority, as well as "expressed" and I meant to say that the federal gov't still has power but is limited to only those "expressed" and not 'implied'. sorry for the confusion. I agree with your statement about the constitution.
OPINION
Opinion is the only thing that drives our policies. Public opinion elects our officials. The opinion of those officials are the opinions which form new policies and actions. The opinions of world leaders combining together are the ones which create peace and deter unfavorable action. Our president ignored all those opinions and created a precedent in 2001/2002 that he gets to do what he wants and congress has to supply bill after bill to fund it.
"WW2... ok I know socialized public schools are bad, but one of us is so far off the mark, it's not funny."
Just to check.. You don't think the concept is bad, do you?
I hope you were referring to the damage that Bush has done to them or at least the quality during my upbringing and after. But I know you wouldn't insult my intelligence. I consider us in the same category on that subject, varying in some respects.
You do have some credits, though.
You went to public school probably a decade or more before I did, so you were probably taught WWII in more detail than I was. I gaurantee that most of the people I went to school didn't do as much reading on the civil war as I did. But no, WWII is not my Forte`.
In reality, our public schools are considered a good thing.
True, kids don't learn as much as they used to, especially in history. And I'm the first to admit that I'm not a buff. But what is clear about WWII is that we could have nipped it in the bud when Hitler started invading, or even before that. I'm not going to pretend that public schools taught the opinions of each world leader or each congressmen, let alone FDR.
The idea behind treaties was to keep Hitler's army small and move under the assumption that he would obey those treaties. It was a better option than just going to war because some crazy failed artist was mad at the jews. But Murphy's Law plays out and showed that was the biggest mistake they could make. Germany kicked everybody's butt until we realized Hitler wasn't going to stop. That's sadly a little beyond the extent to what public schools teach now, or at least what kids get out of it.
Sometimes, a president does need to do something, even if it makes him unpopular. Without this quality, a person shouldn't be in office. But after so much time, I think he's just a stubborn prick, not a good leader. There's a big difference.
I am doing more and more research on almost a daily basis. The more I read, the more I realize that the Iraqi occupation is a situation that we created and shouldn't back out of. We needed to get Saddam out, and this is the result. We destroyed their gov't and we should fix what we've done. That's the right thing to do because other groups would crush an unorganized, inferior population in Iraq.
Maybe we could have been more efficient, but it's just how it ended up.
Clinton vs. Bush
Let's not ring the bell. We've already had this discussion before. Clinton had his own initiatives and reprimanded others for criticizing his plans. They said it was unnecessary. He ended up settling on the issue because he listened to his advisors. This caused a smaller homeland security organization in the gov't than clinton wanted. www.whitehouse.gov
It is true that he listened to public opinion, maybe too much. But he didn't change policy based on a pole result, as you state. At least he listened.
Bush just fired everybody who disagreed with him so he could have the ironically labeled "patriot act" and wire tapping initiatives. I like that I can be jailed without Habeus Corpus. no trial, no rights, just jail. That seems GREAT. Oh, wait, it's bad and I don't want that. But since bush is a real leader, it's ok.
We've said plenty before on that tired subject. I would prefer to just leave our differing opinions as just that.
The point I was making with the Founding Fathers and Patriots is that even if you are a true veteran, you don't have the right to speak of one like that. I meant exactly what I said. Just choose your words carefully on those subjects, especially when looking a vet in the face. Coming from anybody else, I would not have cared. But I hold a degree of respect and social etiquitte for you. I just ask the same in return.
We are both obviously intelligent patriots who enjoy a heated debate. But I prefer it stays away from offensive behavior. That takes away from the conversation.
I agree that our permanent policies should not be based on the ignorant, temporary waning of public opinion. But that's what we did to make this country. It never would have happened if the public opinion was anything but distrust. You and I could sit in our garage with some guys from other states and declare ourselves free, but what would it accomplish? Nothing.
If the people didn't feel oppressed, nothing would have happened at all. We never would have had the numbers in our forces/militia required to enforce our Declaration of Independence.
On the other hand, I do not think that Clinton could/would have gotten the job done either.
Blast it... forgot some stuff (military)
by Andy77e - 1/18/08 10:46 PM In reply to: Now we're getting somewhere. by batman823Military cutting waste, and why I do not separate Social Insecurity from the general budget.
I was saving those for last, but clicked submit by accident. The reason a saved them is because it shows idealism. I love that. I really do. It's good to have high standards and goals. And if an ideal world could ever exist, you'd have my vote to be in charge of it.
Ideal Military:
In an ideal world, you could simple go through and eliminate all the waste in the military, cut the budget, give everyone raises, and yet have money left over. This is true.
But reality is, government... is *always* -inherently- wasteful.
If you were to cut the DoD budget, waste would still happen, and over priced tools would still be bought... they would simply run out of money and cut benefits for VA, or stop fully supplying the troops, or cancel purchases for new equipment.
Let me give a similar example. Many years back now, during the late 90s, we passed Welfare reform. This put tougher rules on who could qualify for welfare, but didn't change the budgeted money for welfare.
As a result, welfare recipients dropped. What did the welfare agencies do with the money? Be frugal and use it wisely? Return it to the tax payer?
No, instead many purchased large ads in news papers, advertising that welfare was available. In California, and a few other states, the welfare agency actually purchased a 30 second ad on TV during prime time. The government agency systematically blew through hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This is reality. Government will always be wasteful.
Ideal Social Security:
In an ideal world, people would pay into social security from their paycheck. The money would go to a trust fund account with their social security number on it. In that account, it would grow at a standard interest rate per year, until they reached 65 years of age. At which point they would then retrieve their money from their account that they funded.
If that was the case, then yes: Leave Social Security off the budget, in a separate room, completely autonomous from the rest of the government.
Reality again, is a bit different. In the real world, the money that is taxed from you, on your pay check labeled FICA, is taken to the same central account with all the rest of the general funds. Further, all Social Insecurity payouts are cut from the same general fund.
There is no 'trust fund', it's merely the name of a government program. There is no bank account somewhere with your SS# on it, with all the money you have contributed in it. Every year that Social Insecurity collects a surplus, it is spent in the general budget and is gone. Every year that Social Insecurity spends a deficit, it borrows money off the general budget and increases our national debt.
So that is why I do not separate Social Insecurity from the general budget. I do not because... it isn't separate. Yes they might move it around on paper... and maybe they put it under the 'off-budget' category. But that is simply an accountant game. Traditional government 'fuzzy math' system.
idealism
by batman823 - 1/22/08 9:52 AM In reply to: Blast it... forgot some stuff (military) by Andy77eIn forums like this you only have a few options with these subjects.
These are what I generally see.
You can help - tech questions and such.
You can debate things in how they work. - learn and teach
You can discuss how you think things should work.
I've more or less been using the third and dipping into the second.
Ideally, yes, even the gov't would pay fair market prices for equipment and tools. That in and of itself would be a simple legislative action and easily put into action. That would greatly reduce the spending.
Social security is what it is. It does not work and will never have the appropriate amount of money to pay out what it promised.
But to cut it off completely means to dismantle it. To get rid of SS would not affect the primary budget and spending in the long term because it is not a factor now and would not be(for sure) if it were gone.
The mechanics of it are well-known and easy to understand, and obiously there's no acct w/your name or my name on it. But there is a record of what we pay in. It's just that the money will be all gone by the time it's our turn. So all that money that goes away labeled as FICA goes towards the old farts rusting away now and we don't get it, ever. That money is money I could use for my retirement funds or for paying bills, or whatever I want. It's my money and I should be able to use it how I please.
At the very least, SS should be optional. I didn't agree to give $200/mo to somebody I'll never meet and nobody will be doing it for me when I retire.
Yes, the gov't should be very tiny and have authority over only what the constitution says, but that's not how it works now. They just vote to create laws and spend money if it can be construed as not blatently violating the constitution.
But in whole, the waste will be there no matter what. The extent can be controlled if the people who have the ability to do so actually care about where the tax dollars are going. Good luck getting that to happen.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
