If you Google "War Resisters League" "Republican Convention" it looks like they are pretty into partisan politics. - Noumenon

Simply because one group criticizes another doesn't make them 'partisan'. As I correctly mentioned, "[the league has]not affiliated itself with, given credit to, or patronized any political party within it's 73 year existence."

The appeal to universal values is standard. Listen to Bush talk about democracy and freedom some time, doesn't mean he's a liberal. - Noumenon

I agree, but isn't that obvious? I really don't care if Bush is liberal, neo-con, whatever, it wouldn't matter to me one bit what label people applied to him if he simply helped run the country in a way I could agree with.

I'm sorry, Deference. It was a cheap shot, shorthand for my dissatisfaction with the discussion. - Noumenon

Understood. I'd say we're even, now, anyway.

Noumenon:

Thanks for the updated chart:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8

You are right that things have changed more than I had originally described but it's still pretty close in terms of %'s.

Deference: I provided a direct link the the about page of WarResistors.org. It states that it was founded by socialists. The agenda of WarResistors is spelled out. It is a far left-wing organization. if you don't agree with that that is fine but there's no point in continuing to argue it.

The fact is, you put up a chart that implied that up to 80% of our budget is spent on the miltiary which is nonsense and easily refuted. You can't pick and choose which things should be counted in the budget. The fact is, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is the source for these numbers. Cherry picking what should really count is partisan -- they have an agenda and are using data selectively.

By contrast, I am putting the numbers out there and readers can make their own distinctions.

For the record: I don't like how our taxes are spent. I think we spend too much on the military and I think we are taxed too high.  But that doesn't mean I will suddenly pretend that medicare and medicaid aren't taxes. They're confiscated from us forcibly and thus should be included (and ARE included) in any official pie chart of what the government is doing with the money it collects from us.

The issue of the trust fund for SS is a complex issue. There has been a SURPLUS that developed over the years that amounts to about $1.6 Trillion. In 2005 it was about $175 Billion. The problem is the trust fund consists of IOU'S from the Fed. When it comes time to cash in those IOU'S the Fed will either have to sell more public debt of increase taxes to make good on the IOU's. The reason the Trust Fund is IOU’s is because we refused to BALANCE THE BUDGET and used the SS Surplus to help plug up the annual budget deficit!

However, the amount in the trust fund, even with the Fed honoring their obligation, is not enough to pay the SS benefits to the Baby Boomers. For people that say the Fed will not honor the SS IOU's then what do you think about all the Treasury Bonds people hold as ASSETS? Even if the $1.6 Trillion were AAA Corporate Bonds the issue of funding the Baby Boomers is not solved. There are only two options- Do not fully meet the promises to pay 100% of the SS benefits (The Bush Solution) or add tax money to fund the system.

Sorry DrGuy you are wrong. The American Bar Association, 14 legal journals, 8 legal thinktanks, and 19 constitutional scholars have ruled Bush's signing statements unconstitutional (and illegal). As Americans, we should be bloodly scared to death about this..

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00211

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html
A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15106725.htm
American Bar Association denounces Bush's signing statements. He has issued more than 800 challenges to bills that he has signed into law with formal "signing statements," more than all of his predecessors combined.

Bottom line, the constitiion and laws of the land are in severe peril under "King Bush", never before has there been a power grab of this magnitude from the executive branch. So much so, it is undermining the very fabric of our country.

Sorry DrGuy you are wrong. The American Bar Association, 14 legal journals, 8 legal thinktanks, and 19 constitutional scholars have ruled Bush's signing statements unconstitutional (and illegal).

Sorry James, you are wrong. None have legal standing. (do you understand that concept?). it has been used by past presidents, and until SCOTUS RULES, it is just a stupid opinion. How stupid? Google the colleges vs the armed forces and tell me who called that one right! Hint, none of your sources.

Our defense budget isn't "Slightly" higher, it is almost double, and about as high as every other country in the world combined. What in gods name do we need to spend money on defense like that for?

There are American troops on nearly every battlefield in the world. You don't get that kind of worldwide coverage cheap, and trust me - the rest of the first world is grateful that US soldiers are there. If it weren't for the US' burning desire to be a superpower the world wouldn't be such a stable place.

Although a lot of people think of, and call, the Social Security a trust fund, it is not in the sense of a dedicated fund that one contributes to during one's lifetime which remains untouched until one retires and proceeds to withdraw those funds and the accumulated interest.

Instead, as stated before, everyone's contribution goes into one fund having continual and immediate withdrawl for disbursement to retirees who are presently collecting SS.

The idea that SS is your personal trust fund held until you retire is a myth; one that is intentionally been presented as such in order to distance its method from general tax revenue, which it essentially is in spite of being accounted for differently.

Anyone who says differently is either misinformed or participating in perpetuating the myth.

pictoratus

You are correct. That however does not change the promise made that when you retire your Social Security benefits will be paid. If we had not had the unprecedented population spirit that took place after WWII, the system would be fine. Today with about 3.5 working for each retired is not only paying the benefits promised but is producing a surplus of $175 Billion in 2005.

does not change the promise made that when you retire your Social Security benefits will be paid.

Put the promises made by the Federal Government in one hand and sh*t in the other and see which one fills up the fastest, or at all. :lol

For the record: I don't like how our taxes are spent. I think we spend too much on the military and I think we are taxed too high. But that doesn't mean I will suddenly pretend that medicare and medicaid aren't taxes. They're confiscated from us forcibly and thus should be included (and ARE included) in any official pie chart of what the government is doing with the money it collects from us. - Draginol

I agree, and thanks for your time.


There are some finer points about S.S. and the way the government presents it's budget figures to us that I think need to be explained.

Needless to say, doing so will be an article in the making if one is to do it correctly, then presented to the cool headed JU citizens for peer review.

Understood. I'd say we're even, now, anyway.

Just because you called me a pokemon? I kind of like Pokemon. Maybe I'll change my name to Noukachu.