Posted on 05/13/2005 6:29:41 AM PDT by SLB
Are you contending that total federal spending has kept pace with inflation? That actual federal spending has not increased in constant dollars?
Pardon me for saying so, but that's just silly.
There are lots of ways to evaluate constant dollars and evaluating the buying power of money. But I can think of no worse way that assuming, for reasons unbeknownst to man, that total federal spending has remained constant, and using that assumption to figure the value of a dollar in each year.
For some reason, you seem to be immune to understanding this point. That's OK. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I stated that whatever the government spends, each agency gets a certain percentage of that spending. Since Defense spending, as a % of total spending has been shrinking since JFK, (broken only meaningfully by Ronald Reagan who increased it), that FACT can't be denied.
You also can't deny that social welfare spending has been soaring, taking a larger and larger % of total spending.
Has the United States become more of a social welfare nation since JFK or has the United States become more of a militaristic Defense spender since JFK? The answer is that the United States has become more socialistic through welfare spending since JFK since the % of total spending on welfare has soared and the % spent on Defense has shrunk.
These are facts and that can't be disputed.
Note: George Bush has increased the % spent on Defense also, like Reagan, but unlike Reagan who spent the $ on procurement, design and development of new weapon systems, much of the increase in George Bush's spending on Defense has gone to the war in the Middle East and has gone to bribe money to Pakistan and other nations that does NOT increase the military capability and force projection capability of our nation. In fact, major weapon systems are being reduced or eliminated and bases are being closed, even though "raw dollars" spent on Defense are increasing.
These also are facts that can't be denied.
Aw, jeez. Our tax $$ at waste.So sorry to hear that, Commish. :(
It's called SUBASE New London, but it's actually located directly across the Thames in Groton.
Back in the Reagan years, there was a facility called State Pier that was over in New London. The tender Fulton was there and one squadron (can't remember which).
I'm going to try this one more time, before concluding that you just want to refuse to see the obvious for reasons of your own. I, too, support increased defense spending, but I think it makes us all look like liars to use such blatantly manipulative figures to promote our position.
I will of course acknowledge that the proportion of federal outlays going to defense has decreased year after year. However, that is a completely meaningless statement, since it has nothing to do with national security. It is an artifact of the explosion of non-defense governmental spending.
Will you, at least, acknowledge that defense spending, corrected for inflation, has gone up year after year? Will you admit that this, too, is a fact that cannot be denied?
Since actual expenditures for defense have gone up year after year, isn't it manipulative to present a graph that shows that trend going down?
I see Sub Base New London, but Groton is a separate command. Which one is closing?
Say what? Surely you jest!
Since actual expenditures for defense have gone up year after year, isn't it manipulative to present a graph that shows that trend going down?
Where is your foundational education? How can you say this?
There was NOTHING manipualtive about the graph/chart. It was a mathematical represenation of accurate numbers. Since when is math "manipulative"? Since when are FACTS manipulative? I thought only Marxist Democrats saw FACTS as manipulative.
Regarding "spending going up"-- . . .
JFK spent $51 billion on Defense, Bush is spending $444 billion. However, JFK spent "MORE" since that $51 billion was more than double Bush's spending in REAL INFLATION ADJUSTED DOLLARS".
What is the difference today between a first-class stamp at 37 cents versus a first-class stamp at 5 cents during JFK's time? It buys you the same amount of goods, since that increase is roughly the amount of inflation. More pennies--yes. Does it get you more? No! You fail to understand that raw dollars of spending can't be compared era to era but you must use % of total spending to get some meaningful comparison--using percents has a built-in inflation adjustment!
When I went to school, they taught me that percentages are the only way to represent changing trends over long periods of time. It is INCREDIBLE that you do not understand this. You must be a lot younger than me and attended modern day public schools where they don't teach math and science.
The % of total spending Defense receives today is less than HALF what it received during JFK's time and far less than what Reagan devoted to Defense. Social welfare is soaring. We have gone from about 57% of all spending directed to social welfare (just domestic, not counting global) to about 68% just since Clinton's first term. If this trend continues, welfare could be gobbling up 80% of all spending in the next 20 years. If you think this nation can afford to defend itself with 80% of all spending going to welfare, then you lack common sense.
Inflation plays tricks on you. Unless the United States can raise and keep the percent of spending devoted to Defense at the 25% level or higher, we will NOT be able to defend this nation in the coming years. Forget "raw dollars"! Raw dollars means nothing comparing period to period, due to inflation (and currency changes as noted below).
You make a gross error again when you claim "raw dollars" spent is meaningful. Not only is not inflation adjusted, but George Bush's increase in Defense spending (remember--raw dollars, not REAL dollars) has gone to the war in Iraq, has gone toward logistics moving supplies, has gone to terrorist nations as bribe money (like Pakistan), and has NOT been used to increase our military capability.
We have reduced the F-22 to insignificant numbers, we have cut back on naval procurement, we are falling behing Russia and China in advanced ICBMs, we are now closing military bases again, etc. Our increase in spending (raw dollars) has NOT increased our capability. It has decreased our capability since most of this money is NOT going to procurement, design and development, but to waging a war--$300 billion for the war in Iraq does not buy one bit of increased military capability. Reagan's increase in Defense (REAL dollars by the way), was spent on procurement and new weapon development.
When the value of the dollar dropped, what does that do to foreign built compnents for our defense industry? It makes them MORE EXPENSIVE! Right? It is not just inflation, it is also the value of the dollar that comes into the equation. This is why you MUST look at period to period as what % of total spending is going to each agency since it automatically adjusts for inflation and the increase or decrease in the currency rates. Actual dollars--raw dollars-- is meaningless taking currency changes and inflation into account.
You miss the core points because you are showing an inability to incorporate basic mathematical concepts into our discussion.
I don't recall it that way. The SUBASE signage may say New London, but the map says Groton. Like I said in a previous post, there was a squadron based at State Pier in New London, but that's been shut down for quite awhile.
If you want to maintain that the real value of total federal spending has remained constant since 1964, that's you're business. But you are living in fantasy land. If you cannot see how this effects the computation in question, and I have given you several chances, it is pointless to continue to argue the point.
I think that you are married to this deceptive argument because you think it helps you prove your point with regard to the need for increased defense spending. But people don't like being lied to, and such an obvious manipulation as this has the added offense of showing very little regard for the intelligence of the reader.
It is you who does not understand the concept of inflation and currency adjustments.
It is you who feels that $1.00 in 1966 is the same as $1.00 in 2005.
You fail in basic conceptual understanding of numbers, especially how that relates to Fed spending. Military spending is shrinking in REAL dollars and social welfare spending is increasing in REAL dollars. Those are facts.
Your argument is fundamentally dishonest. You do not appear to be a stupid person, so I am just going to have to assume that you are making a dishonest argument in order to pursue an agenda.
That is your right. Just don't expect me to respect you for it.
I have the FACTS. You have an opinion, wrong as it may be.
In most areas of the natural, physical world, math does rule. But you're talking federal budget numbers over time here... and economics! Federal budget bureaucrats & bean counters have been manipulating math all along...and mesmerizing the masses AT LEAST since I studied the Keynesian model in the mid-Sixties. Example...
A potential problem (my opinion) with your numbers is that back in the early '60s SOCIAL SECURITY expenditures were NOT considered part of the Budget (not "spending"). Back in those days the Feds still had most people convinced that SS was not spending at all but, rather, money stored in their "SS Account" for them to draw on in retirement.
As more people became better educated in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and SS was exposed for the pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme that it is. Congress BROUGHT SS INTO the overall Federal Budget sometime in the late 60s or early 70s and, needless to say, this throws all sorts of calculations (and comparisons such as yours) all out of whack and squarely into the realm of Federal Budgetary 'Voodoo' mathematics...
A better indicator would be Defense Spending as a % of GDP over time...I think...
Things do change, but the OMB knows that.
One of the key things that the OMB does is make historical numbers comparable. They often go back and normalize the numbers when an accounting change or other type of change occurs.
Historical comparisons are very important and the OMB knows this. They do go back and make the necessary changes so that an "apples-to-apples" comparison can be made when a department, agency or the whole government itself changes something to cause the numbers to be altered (or accoutning differences and changes) from previous years.
Case in point: you can look at the historical data tables and see agency breakdown for the, e.g., Dept of Energy, even before the agency was created. What they did was breakdown historical spending in those years before (e.g.) the Dept of Energy was cereated and realigned the categories and numbers so historical patterns and their integrity can be maintained.
Your theory is correct, but you failed to know that the OMB takes great pains to make sure that historical comparisons are kept intact after changes to the system occur or the law changes.
I agree, though, that we should be spending MORE on Defense, not less. These proposed base closures are the wrong way to go...I hope President Bush rejects the whole lot & closes the BRAC instead...and, he could throw in the Dept. of Education, too. I'm sure Reagan--the Master of Better Living Through Increased Defense Expenditures--would approve...
Yes, be assured, that historical numbers are recalculated to accomodate changes within the government, e.g., Homeland Security departments going from one agency to another. OMB will have to go back and restructure all past historical data so that past years can be compared to future years, etc. They did this in the 2006 FY Budget.
On the second point re base closings, I would be all for this if this cost savings would be applied to Spec Ops, security, border control etc. but we know it will not.
The cost savings will find its way into even more gigantic social welfare. The U.S. is fastly reaching the point where global and domestic welfare is swallowing up all spending, and that we don't have enough money to develop and design and produce and maintain modern weapon systems. China and Russia both know this.
The decline of our military is masked by its spending on the war on terror. Large $$$ of spending does not equate to greater miltary capability since it is going for the war effort and logistics and building construction in Iraq, not production and development of modern weapon systems and defenses.
The recommended list is the list for congressional vote and there will be no change. Georgia got clobbered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.