EnviroLink Forum

Not weak, just pointing out the criteria listed may not be the most appropriate for the overall view. Many of the "bad" governments were very efficient and inversely many of the "good" governments were not as much.

I'll take the criteria if it means that my government survives. Going broke trying to be "appropriate" ultimately solves nothing.

I'll take the criteria if it means that my government survives. Going broke trying to be "appropriate" ultimately solves nothing.

A huge portion of the current debt is also military related, which some claimed is necessary for survival at the time.

I'd call a 16 trillion debt a fairly polar extreme. How long we've gone without a budget is pretty extreme too.

I mentioned national defense, which of course is necessary for survival. Perhaps you're confusing that with the "wars" in which we've engaged over the last 20 years.

You know, crap that still could have been accomplished militarily, with no loss of life on our side, for less than a single digit fraction of what we spent. I support them on principle, but the way we go about it is ridiculous.

I suppose that would depend on what you call a budget. The government has to have the budget appropriations in order to operate as it has been doing for quite some time.

No, I am looking at the defense spending, which was the way the "cold war" was fought since before President Reagan.

You mean like building equipment the militarty does not even want?

Indeed, as I'm sure you are completely satisfied with the way they've been managing your money.

I didn't have a problem with it before and during the Reagan years. Did you?

Sure, that'd certainly help, but I'm specifically talking about more quickly resolving engagements we get into on the other side of the globe.

No, I have not, but I do know there have been appropriations budgeted or the government would nto be operating.

I didn't have a problem with it before and during the Reagan years. Did you?

Some of the engagements cannot be resolved that quickly or without "boots on the ground".

If someone comes to work and doesn't perform, how long before you stop calling what they doing work?

Then I can't imagine how much of a problem you have with present day spending.

Alright maybe you don't have a problem with present day defense spending...or risking the lives of our own soldiers.

Who does this indicate is not working? The government employees? The Congress? Who?

It doesn't have to do with anyone working or not. My point was that an employee can be employed--working for someone--without doing any actual work. In other words, under performing. In my line of work, there's a significant difference between something functioning and actually performing as expected. In what camp do you see the government of the United States right now?

I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, but once in there was no fast way out once we had broken their government and the means to repair it. I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan, but it should have been the only focus and not a sideshow for Iraq.

Yes, clearly Afghanistan has been the better deal as only half as many service men and women have been killed there as compared to the over 4,400 military deaths in Iraq. We've done such a wonderful job in both countries though!

Again, the government as in the Congress or the government employees? I am not sure what you want to discuss.

Yes, clearly Afghanistan has been the better deal as only half as many service men and women have been killed there as compared to the over 4,400 military deaths in Iraq. We've done such a wonderful job in both countries though!

Will you agree with the invasion of Iran also?

Legislative and executive branches. Are you pleased with their performance?

Do you mean the Abraham Lincoln quote? Is it not appropriate to a discussion where something is being called a term for which it does not meet the definition? I think so.

All right. But I still find it annoying.

Inflation can affect the economy, so does deflation and natural disasters, but they are not called taxes. Stock market declines have an effect, as do wars, pandemics, and many other things which also do not meet the definition of a tax.

Those things you mentioned are not necessarily caused by the government. Inflation is caused by the government, and in part by the economy (but only in part). Therefore, since taxes take money money away from the public, and inflation does take money away from the economy as well, inflation is LIKE a tax.

Wiki articles are nothing but an opinion piece with multiple possibilities for input, but none of which have to be anyone with any real knowledge on the subject.

True, but they reveal what other people believe on the subject.

The inflation tax does not exist because you cannot show the legislation, order, decree, collection method, accounting, or any other reference to the creation of such a tax. The process by which inflation is created is even variable in that it does not appear each and every time with the same characteristics. It may have some similarities with a tax in relation to buying power, but so do house fires, loss, theft, job loss, recession, depression, and many other unrelated actions.