4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
It's a microscopic amount of money relative to the US budget.
You mean like the tax on the rich?
If we add up every single item that you disregard as tiny when it comes to government largess, then we actually get into some real, actual money..
No not even a little bit like that.
No, not really. Medicare/Medicaid/Defense/retirement/social security simply make up far too much of the budget for anything else to matter much.
That's why we can't fix anything...
Either spending is mandatory (third-rail stuff when your party is in power) or it is inconsequential (like UN Resolutions)...
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/27/why-are-keynesians-of-all-people-calling
The US gives about $2.5 billion total to the UN ($2.1 billion of which goes to peacekeeping which given our history we might end up doing ourselves if there wasn't a UN). The solution to the deficit isn't going to be found here, especially when you account for the political, social, military, and economic costs associated with withdrawing from the UN.
Meanwhile the CBO put the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the rich at $719 billion through 2022; about twenty-nine times the value of the UN budget. It's bizarre that you insist on comparing the costs of these two things when they're on two completely different scales.
Tell me again how Republicans got mandatory spending under control when they had all branches of government. The fact is, not even Tea Party constituents want it curtailed.
You keep acting like I supported Republican spending...
Did you not see the Cassandra line in the text of the link or are you still only answering to the voices in your head?
Now I did support the partial privatizing of SS so that the common man could benefit from the FED inflation the same as the rich man...