Support NeoGAF

[Flying_Phoenix]

I didn't realize that the U.S. defense budget use to be so high. How was it able to sustain itself before?

 

[elrechazado]

I didn't realize that the U.S. defense budget use to be so high. How was it able to sustain itself before?

Because the budget wasn't being spent on as much other stuff as it is now.

 

[PantherLotus]

Panther ain't really known for his smart predictions.

I know you're doing your best to punch upward here, but you really can't point to a single prediction I've ever made.

 

[empty vessel]

I didn't realize that the U.S. defense budget use to be so high. How was it able to sustain itself before?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

DO NOT. TAKE. THE BAIT. PHOENIX!

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I didn't realize that the U.S. defense budget use to be so high. How was it able to sustain itself before?

I am becoming convinced that you make no effort whatsoever to actually read things before you post links to them. The chart is very clearly labeled spending as a percentage of government outlays. It says nothing about the absolute level of spending. If the federal government is spending more money on other stuff, than that percentage will drop. Duh.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Serious question: why do you do this? Anyone who's familiar with the point you're making understands what you're hinting at, but don't you feel like you could just go directly to explaining what is a very interesting theory without the initial coy posting?

 

[Chichikov]

Okay, I'll admit, that's a little bit childish, but I also think hilarious (as long as you don't take it too seriously) -

A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney
By DAVID JAVERBAUM

THE recent remark by Mitt Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom that upon clinching the Republican nomination Mr. Romney could change his political views “like an Etch A Sketch” has already become notorious. The comment seemed all too apt, an apparent admission by a campaign insider of two widely held suspicions about Mitt Romney: that he is a) utterly devoid of any ideological convictions and b) filled with aluminum powder.

The imagery may have been unfortunate, but Mr. Fehrnstrom’s impulse to analogize is understandable. Metaphors like these, inexact as they are, are the only way the layman can begin to grasp the strange phantom world that underpins the very fabric of not only the Romney campaign but also of Mitt Romney in general. For we have entered the age of quantum politics; and Mitt Romney is the first quantum politician.

A bit of context. Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force — the Tea Party, say, or a six-figure credit line at Tiffany — compels him to alter his stance, at a speed commensurate with the size of the force (usually large) and in inverse proportion to the depth of his beliefs (invariably negligible). This alteration, framed as a positive by the candidate, then provokes an equal but opposite reaction among his rivals.

But the Romney candidacy represents literally a quantum leap forward. It is governed by rules that are bizarre and appear to go against everyday experience and common sense. To be honest, even people like Mr. Fehrnstrom who are experts in Mitt Romney’s reality, or “Romneality,” seem bewildered by its implications; and any person who tells you he or she truly “understands” Mitt Romney is either lying or a corporation.
​

Rest of the article at the link (yeah, I'm still not sure what's the proper e-etiquette is for posting NYT articles these days, I'm going with partial posting).

Oh, this is also there -

Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.


Man, this shit is so much in my wheelhouse, it's like it's been written for me personally.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I am becoming convinced that you make no effort whatsoever to actually read things before you post links to them. The chart is very clearly labeled spending as a percentage of government outlays. It says nothing about the absolute level of spending. If the federal government is spending more money on other stuff, than that percentage will drop. Duh.


Serious question: why do you do this? Anyone who's familiar with the point you're making understands what you're hinting at, but don't you feel like you could just go directly to explaining what is a very interesting theory without the initial coy posting?

Could you try acting any more like a dick?

Because the budget wasn't being spent on as much other stuff as it is now.

Yes I know that but didn't many things still needed funding?

In short: The United States was spending a large portion on its budget on military, much more so then now. They have since started investing it on other things. My question is how could they spend so much on the military viable in the first place as things such as medicare, social security, and the like suffering significantly due to it which I would imagine needed much more of the federal budget during that time?

My original question should have been phrased: "How could the U.S. afford to spend such a high percentage of its budget on military without having other segments (SS, Medicare, Schooling, etc.) suffer significantly?

 

[Chichikov]

Could you try acting more like a dick?

Don't you think that calling someone a dick for being a dick defeat the purpose of the point you're trying to make?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Don't you think that calling someone a dick for being a dick defeat the purpose of the point you're trying to make?

Fair point. I should have approached it differently like "there is no use to act so smarmy because you misunderstood what I was asking" or "well that was uncalled for, lets try and act like grown ups".

 

[empty vessel]

Serious question: why do you do this? Anyone who's familiar with the point you're making understands what you're hinting at, but don't you feel like you could just go directly to explaining what is a very interesting theory without the initial coy posting?

No, I really don't understand the question. I don't know what his substantive question is.

My original question should have been phrased: "How could the U.S. afford to spend such a high percentage of its budget on military without having other segments (SS, Medicare, Schooling, etc.) suffer significantly?

Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist until the mid-1960's, and they were much cheaper then because the cost of health care was much lower. I think the answer to your question is just that the federal government was spending less money on other things. Unfortunately, unnecessarily rising health care costs undoubtedly represent a big chunk of the reduced national defense spending as a percentage of the overall budget. (Also note the caveat in your link, which is that when you include Iraq, Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and the VA, the total share of spending in 2008 was up to 30%, not 20% as reflected by the chart).

 

[adamsappel]

My question is how could they spend so much on the military viable in the first place as things such as medicare, social security, and the like suffering significantly due to it which I would imagine needed much more of the federal budget during that time?

They spent less on those other things? There were less people needing them? Taxes were much higher?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

No, I really don't understand the question. I don't know what his substantive question is.

From a previous post:

"The United States was spending a large portion on its budget on military, much more so then now. They have since started investing it on other things. My question is how could they spend so much on the military in the first place as things such as medicare, social security, and the like suffering significantly due to it which I would imagine needed much more of the federal budget during that time?

My original question should have been phrased: "How could the U.S. afford to spend such a high percentage of its budget on military without having other segments (SS, Medicare, Schooling, etc.) suffer significantly?"

After all weren't those times seen as the "Golden Age" of America?

 

[RDreamer]

Yes I know that but didn't many things still needed funding?

In short: The United States was spending a large portion on its budget on military, much more so then now. They have since started investing it on other things. My question is how could they spend so much on the military viable in the first place as things such as medicare, social security, and the like suffering significantly due to it which I would imagine needed much more of the federal budget during that time?

My original question should have been phrased: "How could the U.S. afford to spend such a high percentage of its budget on military without having other segments (SS, Medicare, Schooling, etc.) suffer significantly?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't taxes quite a bit higher during those years, especially taxes on the higher income earners?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't taxes quite a bit higher during those years, especially taxes on the higher income earners?

Yes. For the rich it was 90% or something like that in the 1950's. It took all the way to Reagan to get to the 50% line.

Here's a graph.

I'm just curious to how so much of the budget could go to military at the expense of other programs.

 

[empty vessel]

From a previous post:

I edited above based on your earlier question.

 

[Jackson50]

Fair point. I should have approached it differently like "there is no use to act so smarmy because you misunderstood what I was asking" or "well that was uncalled for, lets try and act like grown ups".

Perhaps you could put a bit more effort into making your questions lucid? This isn't the first time one of your queries elicited confusion.

Okay, I'll admit, that's a little bit childish, but I also think hilarious (as long as you don't take it too seriously) -

A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney
By DAVID JAVERBAUM

THE recent remark by Mitt Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom that upon clinching the Republican nomination Mr. Romney could change his political views “like an Etch A Sketch” has already become notorious. The comment seemed all too apt, an apparent admission by a campaign insider of two widely held suspicions about Mitt Romney: that he is a) utterly devoid of any ideological convictions and b) filled with aluminum powder.

The imagery may have been unfortunate, but Mr. Fehrnstrom’s impulse to analogize is understandable. Metaphors like these, inexact as they are, are the only way the layman can begin to grasp the strange phantom world that underpins the very fabric of not only the Romney campaign but also of Mitt Romney in general. For we have entered the age of quantum politics; and Mitt Romney is the first quantum politician.

A bit of context. Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force — the Tea Party, say, or a six-figure credit line at Tiffany — compels him to alter his stance, at a speed commensurate with the size of the force (usually large) and in inverse proportion to the depth of his beliefs (invariably negligible). This alteration, framed as a positive by the candidate, then provokes an equal but opposite reaction among his rivals.

But the Romney candidacy represents literally a quantum leap forward. It is governed by rules that are bizarre and appear to go against everyday experience and common sense. To be honest, even people like Mr. Fehrnstrom who are experts in Mitt Romney’s reality, or “Romneality,” seem bewildered by its implications; and any person who tells you he or she truly “understands” Mitt Romney is either lying or a corporation.
​

Rest of the article at the link (yeah, I'm still not sure what's the proper e-etiquette is for posting NYT articles these days, I'm going with partial posting).

Oh, this is also there -

Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.


Man, this shit is so much in my wheelhouse, it's like it's been written for me personally.

That was not childish so much as spectacular. Really, it encapsulates Romney. It was damn hilarious, too.

 

[RDreamer]

Yes. For the rich it was 90% or something like that in the 1950's. It took all the way to Reagan to get to the 50% line.

Here's a graph.

I'm just curious to how so much of the budget could go to military at the expense of other programs.

I think you're thinking in reverse, in a way. Now if we made military that percentage of the budget those things would suffer, but that's because costs on those other things have gone up, and revenue and taxes have gone down. They were able to do that back then because, as EV said some of those things were a lot cheaper and just started back then. I think social security and medicare costs became large problems and inflated the overall budget.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Perhaps you could put a bit more effort into making yours questions lucid? This isn't the first time one of your queries elicited confusion.

I guess after the private healthcare comment (that was marked as a joke) and the previous event I guess I'll be more clear.

I edited above based on your earlier question.

I think you're thinking in reverse, in a way. Now if we made military that percentage of the budget those things would suffer, but that's because costs on those other things have gone up, and revenue and taxes have gone down. They were able to do that back then because, as EV said some of those things were a lot cheaper and just started back then. I think social security and medicare costs became large problems and inflated the overall budget.

Thanks.

It may sound simple but I just can't believe things as basic as medicare for example didn't exist back then. I always thought that America was a much more, how do I say this, state aid-like nation back then. I would imagine without those programs the nation would be in huge huge trouble.

You really need to read - there weren't those other programs, that's why.

I guess I'm shocked now to as of how those programs couldn't have existed.

 

[elrechazado]

Yes. For the rich it was 90% or something like that in the 1950's. It took all the way to Reagan to get to the 50% line.

Here's a graph.

I'm just curious to how so much of the budget could go to military at the expense of other programs.

You really need to read - there weren't those other programs, that's why.

 

[Chichikov]

You really need to read - there weren't those other programs, that's why.

The last big expansion of the federal government (as far as non military spending goes, stuff like the EPA is small peanuts in term of money spent) was in 1965 with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid.
The top marginal federal tax rate remained much higher than it is today for over 20 years after that.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

The last big expansion of the federal government (as far as non military spending goes, stuff like the EPA is small peanuts in term of money spent) was in 1965 with the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid.
The top marginal federal tax rate remained much higher than it is today for over 20 years after that.

Yeah. It actually rose after 1965, and didn't start going back to sane percentages until ten years later. That's why I was shocked that it was so high at first. I know people say that medicare and the like started costing the nation more as time has gone by but I couldn't imagine it would balloon to the extent it has.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Where do you people in America live where you don't already have these things?

I waited 5 weeks for ingrown toe nail surgery.
I've waited 6 weeks to see a urologist.
Twice I've waited 2 months to see a GP.
It took 15 months from diagnosis to final surgery to have my cubital tunnel syndrome fixed.

Wtf? Where do you live and who is your provider? I have never had to wait more than a couple weeks for anything, and even then it was only because my doctor had gone on vacation!


My recommendation: move

 

[Aaron Strife]

New polling out from Gallup shows Romney cruising to a landslide victory in twelve swing states (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI). Contributing to this boost in support are women, union members, and PhoenixDark.

Also April Fools, Obama leads 51-42.

 

[FLEABttn]

Wtf? Where do you live and who is your provider? I have never had to wait more than a couple weeks for anything, and even then it was only because my doctor had gone on vacation!


My recommendation: move

Albuquerque. Anthem BCBS as my provider through work.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

[Also April Fools, Obama leads 51-42.

If the economy keeps improving Romney's done.

 

[Black Republican]

cant believe its been so long without a debate


thank god

 

[PhoenixDark]

New polling out from Gallup shows Romney cruising to a landslide victory in twelve swing states (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI). Contributing to this boost in support are women, union members, and PhoenixDark.

Also April Fools, Obama leads 51-42.

I don't see how Romney can repair his standing with women; only outside circumstances can save him with them at this point. Obviously he won't lose by 18 points among women in November, but even a 8 point loss would probably be too much to overcome.

Yet instead of facing reality and saying "maybe we should keep our contraception opinions to ourselves..." republicans continue to double down. It seems pretty obvious most people don't see this as a religious issue

 

[entremet]

New polling out from Gallup shows Romney cruising to a landslide victory in twelve swing states (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI). Contributing to this boost in support are women, union members, and PhoenixDark.

Also April Fools, Obama leads 51-42.

Makes sense considering the GOP's ridiculous obsessions with female uteruses of late.

 

[AlteredBeast]

He tried to keep it to himself. He even said, "why the heck are we even talking about this?!?" But then stupid Tea Party republicans and Santorum took the bait and ran with it, and Romney just HAD to pander to the idiotic base.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't see how Romney can repair his standing with women; only outside circumstances can save him with them at this point. Obviously he won't lose by 18 points among women in November, but even a 8 point loss would probably be too much to overcome.

Yet instead of facing reality and saying "maybe we should keep our contraception opinions to ourselves..." republicans continue to double down. It seems pretty obvious most people don't see this as a religious issue

And yet you think Obama is losing.

 

[Suikoguy]

That was not childish so much as spectacular. Really, it encapsulates Romney. It was damn hilarious, too.

That might be the best political satire I've read this election.

 

[Chichikov]

And yet you think Obama is losing.

President Romney will coast to the White House on the strength of his bros before hos strategy.

 

[Jackson50]

And yet you think Obama is losing.

Right. There's scant congruity between his analyses and projections. And reality.

That might be the best political satire I've read this election.

It was good, man. It's hilarious how that truly analogizes Romney.

 

[Oblivion]

cant believe its been so long without a debate


thank god

NO. The Republican debates were our best weapon against getting a Republican elected!

 

[NullPointer]

cant believe its been so long without a debate


thank god

I'm already hoarding popcorn in bulk in preparation for the first Obama/Rmoney debates.

Can't wait.

 

[Oblivion]

Oh, I wanted to mention. Yesterday, I went to a gathering of friends of mine from the entertainment industry. I caught up with some people I haven't seen in years, including one who happens to be a movie producer, and she's looking for a script.


How'd ya'll like to help me brainstorm?

 

[Chichikov]

I'll get the ball rolling -
"In a world that..."

That would be 20 gross points, non negotiable.

 

[Clevinger]

New polling out from Gallup shows Romney cruising to a landslide victory in twelve swing states (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI). Contributing to this boost in support are women, union members, and PhoenixDark.

Also April Fools, Obama leads 51-42.

*points out how a couple months ago when Romney was within a couple points of Obama how everyone in here was like, "polls don't mean anything right now!"*

 

[Oblivion]

Well, to give some more details, there were two directions I wanted to choose from.


1. This would basically be a re-telling of everything that went down from the election in 2000, to the election in 2012. The first 10-15 of the movie would cover the Bush year, and the rest will focus on the last 4. The story focuses on a guy (let's call him "Bob") who was apolitical prior to 2001, but the tragedy of 9/11 caused him to go full ditto head. Feeling betrayed by the country who turned their back on his hero, George W. Bush, and elected Obama, he feels it's his civic duty to do what he feels the founding fathers would have done in the same situation: Assassinate the president.


2. This would be on a much smaller scale. It takes place in some random city where an evil defense contractor CEO or Oil CEO or whatever, who has this plan to loot the city's treasury by helping elect the dumbest, most flat earthery candidate imaginable (and taking advantage of him the whole way). The person in question would be identical to the character of Bob from above. Think of it as a different take on Idiocracy.


edit: oh and one other

3. Basically a re-telling of A Christmas Carol by Tea Party eyes. (this one was stolen from Bill Maher, for the record).

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

1. This would basically be a re-telling of everything that went down from the election in 2000, to the election in 2012. The first 10-15 of the movie would cover the Bush year, and the rest will focus on the last 4. The story focuses on a guy (let's call him "Bob") who was apolitical prior to 2001, but the tragedy of 9/11 caused him to go full ditto head. Feeling betrayed by the country who turned their back on his hero, George W. Bush, and elected Obama, he feels it's his civic duty to do what he feels the founding fathers would have done in the same situation: Assassinate the president.

This one by far.

2. This would be on a much smaller scale. It takes place in some random city where an evil defense contractor CEO or Oil CEO or whatever, who has this plan to loot the city's treasury by helping elect the dumbest, most flat earthery candidate imaginable (and taking advantage of him the whole way). The person in question would be identical to the character of Bob from above. Think of it as a different take on Idiocracy.

Nah.

3. Basically a re-telling of A Christmas Carol by Tea Party eyes. (this one was stolen from Bill Maher, for the record).

Too late.

The film was so bad that they didn't have any recommendation quotes for the movie so they had to use the film's director as one:

 

[Aaron Strife]

*points out how a couple months ago when Romney was within a couple points of Obama how everyone in here was like, "polls don't mean anything right now!"*

I've always maintained Obama will win by about five points. The main thing I focus on is Romney's shitty approval ratings and the economy getting better. If that holds Obama's got this shit.

 

[Oblivion]

Too late.

The film was so bad that they didn't have any recommendation quotes for the movie so they had to use the film's director as one:

Oh, I'm aware of that movie, but the one I'd make wouldn't be SUPPORTED by the Tea Party.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Okay, I'll admit, that's a little bit childish, but I also think hilarious (as long as you don't take it too seriously) -

A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney
By DAVID JAVERBAUM

THE recent remark by Mitt Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom that upon clinching the Republican nomination Mr. Romney could change his political views “like an Etch A Sketch” has already become notorious. The comment seemed all too apt, an apparent admission by a campaign insider of two widely held suspicions about Mitt Romney: that he is a) utterly devoid of any ideological convictions and b) filled with aluminum powder.

The imagery may have been unfortunate, but Mr. Fehrnstrom’s impulse to analogize is understandable. Metaphors like these, inexact as they are, are the only way the layman can begin to grasp the strange phantom world that underpins the very fabric of not only the Romney campaign but also of Mitt Romney in general. For we have entered the age of quantum politics; and Mitt Romney is the first quantum politician.

A bit of context. Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force — the Tea Party, say, or a six-figure credit line at Tiffany — compels him to alter his stance, at a speed commensurate with the size of the force (usually large) and in inverse proportion to the depth of his beliefs (invariably negligible). This alteration, framed as a positive by the candidate, then provokes an equal but opposite reaction among his rivals.

But the Romney candidacy represents literally a quantum leap forward. It is governed by rules that are bizarre and appear to go against everyday experience and common sense. To be honest, even people like Mr. Fehrnstrom who are experts in Mitt Romney’s reality, or “Romneality,” seem bewildered by its implications; and any person who tells you he or she truly “understands” Mitt Romney is either lying or a corporation.
​

Rest of the article at the link (yeah, I'm still not sure what's the proper e-etiquette is for posting NYT articles these days, I'm going with partial posting).

Oh, this is also there -

Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.


Man, this shit is so much in my wheelhouse, it's like it's been written for me personally.

This article is fucking amazing. It deserves it's own thread. Could a non junior please start one?

 

[GhaleonEB]

*points out how a couple months ago when Romney was within a couple points of Obama how everyone in here was like, "polls don't mean anything right now!"*

In absolute terms, that is correct; the election is a long ways off still. But I think the trend is noteworthy, in particular how women have swung hard away from Romney. I do not think it is a coincidence that such a shift comes on the heels of the GOP's contraceptive fiasco. To the extent that it might foreshadow some of the challenges Romeny will face in the fall, I think it's worth noting.

 

[Oblivion]

What the hell?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dk4l2PXS_gk

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

What the hell?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dk4l2PXS_gk

They probably had Romney go to Paul's event instead.

 

[makingmusic476]

So that Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (called the United States National Health Care Act in its latest version) I posted about yesterday would require the issuance of national insurance cards and ID numbers.

Maybe the Dems backing it can get together with some Republicans and be like, "Yo, if you help us pass this bill, we'll let you pass legislation that will require people to show these cards when voting."

Surely the Republicans would go for it.

 

[DEO3]

What the fuck was up with the GoP's war on women this Spring? How did they think that was a good idea? Like seriously, what did they it would accomplish?

 

[Fox318]

They probably had Romney go to Paul's event instead.

Is Paul still sitting in that chair alone.