41–50 of 76 posts
Unfortunately this graph primarily just shows that government handouts to citizens in the form of safety net programs, medicare, and medicaid have gone up in percentage, that defense has gone down in percentage, and that we don't spend enough (in my opinion) on public transportation- but it only looks at three years! Instead, look at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's graphs, like this one of our debt and projected d…
The authors says "Federal spending has grown roughly as fast as the overall economy over the past 50 years." And then immediately after that says spending climbed from 18% of GDP to 24% of GDP, which is a 33% increase.
This is only true because 50 years ago veteran's benefits and many other related military benefits were part of the defense budget. In 2011 this amounted to $141 billion dollars. Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Ot...
This alone represents a false 20% reduction to the "Defense" budget, at the expense of increasing the appearance of social services budgets. If one adds up all defense related spending not by Federally published categories but by actual expenditures then the picture changes radically -- and it looks a lot closer to the budgets of yesteryear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gas is subsidized by wars in the US. If you keep that in mind, the value that they get from their money is not that low. Edit: Please do not down-vote just because you don't agree. The second Gulf War was explicitly called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_... and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM
This is a claim that requires some justification. Gas in many countries is far cheaper than in the US, and the reason it is more expensive in others is heavy taxation and regulation, not lack of coercive negotiations.
Unfortunately this graph primarily just shows that government handouts to citizens in the form of safety net programs, medicare, and medicaid have gone up in percentage, that defense has gone down in percentage, and that we don't spend enough (in my opinion) on public transportation- but it only looks at three years! Instead, look at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's graphs, like this one of our debt and projected d…
I am not sure exactly at what level you wish there would be more spending on public transportation, but spending money in that field could be a big waste of cash in the US. It's way too big and too decentralized. It makes sense in some countries (in Japan, for example, all cities are on the coast because nobody builds stuff in the mountains, so it's easy to connect the dots), but public transportation would not work…
The bulk of the US population live in areas that have population densities at or even sometimes (NYC) above European levels. The entire state of california (not exactly high density at all, given the bulk of the state is just open space) has an average population density slightly higher than Spain, a country that managed to build a national High speed rail network.
The entire eastern sea-board is at roughly european density levels as well. No one is suggesting we build a bullet train that goes to North Dakota.
As for "not being profitable for another 20-30 years", you are arguing from a very short-term mindset about national infrastructure, but also you are pre-assuming that infrastructure should be directly profitable. This is not a commonly agreed idea, rather there is fierce disagreement between fiscal conservatives who think the government shouldn't do ANYTHING, and those (like most of europe) who believe the government should undertake large "public-good" projects precisely because they are not directly profitable, but they are PUBLIC GOODS.
Universal health care is also "not profitable" directly, but the benefit to society of having everyone live decades longer is massive increased economic output, to say nothing of increased quality of life.
The network effect of having efficient rail transportation balloons the entire economy. This is why governments pay for big infrastructure: everyone benefits and the direct revenue and direct costs are high enough to be uninteresting for investors.
Unfortunately this graph primarily just shows that government handouts to citizens in the form of safety net programs, medicare, and medicaid have gone up in percentage, that defense has gone down in percentage, and that we don't spend enough (in my opinion) on public transportation- but it only looks at three years! Instead, look at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's graphs, like this one of our debt and projected d…
I am not sure exactly at what level you wish there would be more spending on public transportation, but spending money in that field could be a big waste of cash in the US. It's way too big and too decentralized. It makes sense in some countries (in Japan, for example, all cities are on the coast because nobody builds stuff in the mountains, so it's easy to connect the dots), but public transportation would not work…
New York is by far the "shining" beacon of mass transit in the US, but even its infrastructure is deteriorating.
We don't build transit here not because it wouldn't work, but because of purely political factors. It's a punching bag for the anti-tax brigade and the NIMBYs (most also in the anti-tax brigade) go apeshit if they think public transit might bring a brown person to their neighborhood. The horror!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a claim that requires some justification. Gas in many countries is far cheaper than in the US, and the reason it is more expensive in others is heavy taxation and regulation, not lack of coercive negotiations.
I'll bite. The second gulf war was officially called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_...
Reality has a liberal bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll bite. The second gulf war was officially called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_...
It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. OIF