Revisiting the Shaggy Soothsayers

[Bozo_Casanova 26,284]

8 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

But, how would I know if the market had set the wage or the government?  Or if the government had raised the market wage higher due to external forces...

 

This question doesn’t make sense to me. Could you rephrase? 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

17 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Somehow I missed this little gem of a post and since one of my original posts was used in the OP I feel like responding.  Anyone can go read the exact quotes but I expected the following:

1) There would not be an overall loss in employment in Seattle in most sectors because the white collar jobs influx was/is fantastic.  Seattle could absorb the wage increase better than most communities.

This is exactly what has happened.  Employment numbers in Seattle are up double digits since 2014.
 

2) There would not be losses in employment in the fast food/hospitality industry because the minimum wage increase hit all of them the same but prices would increase significantly compared to neighboring areas.

This is exactly what happened.  Today an average FF meal in Seattle is $10.30 versus $9 in neighboring Bellevue.  In almost every other category, Bellevue is more expensive than Seattle and has an overall higher cost of living than Seattle but not for Big Macs. 

3) There would be a loss of manufacturing jobs, especially those manufacturers that sold their products outside of Seattle.  The wage/cost  increase to them but not their competitors would cause businesses to move or close. 

This is exactly what happened.  Since 2014 employment totals in every single industry tracked by the BLS in Seattle (hospitality, energy, education, finance, professional services, health services, IT etc.) have had 3-5% year over year growth (exclusive of Covid but the percentages are the same).  Over that same time period Manufacturing in Seattle had 3-5% year over year losses.  FYI, overall manufacturing in Washington state as a whole is up 1-2% year over year since 2014.  

I am not opposed to minimum wage increases based on some dumb idea of "pulling yourself up" or "making better decisions etc".  I am opposed to it because it doesn't help the people it is designed to help, those making low wages, but it does increase costs for everyone else.  It is a fools effort that politicians love.  All economists (conservative or liberal) agree that arbitrarily increasing wages will lead to inflation (obviously assumes no govt price caps or something similar). We would be much, much better off as a society and the people affected would be much, much better off if we would put more resources into training and education than arbitrarily raising min wages.  

 

 

 

 

It's telling that nobody can address this lol. good job sheeit, you win this thread. washparkhorn loses.

[Huckleberry 32,703]

22 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It's telling that nobody can address this lol. good job sheeit, you win this thread. washparkhorn loses.

It's telling that somebody already addressed it and you missed it. He was asked for sources, people can't analyze and respond when he didn't cite any sources. It's possible everything he posted was accurate. It's also possible he pulled it out of his ass.

You, as usual, are impressed by writing style and have zero ability to look into the content of the writing.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

It's telling that somebody already addressed it and you missed it. He was asked for sources, people can't analyze and respond when he didn't cite any sources. It's possible everything he posted was accurate. It's also possible he pulled it out of his ass.

You, as usual, are impressed by writing style and have zero ability to look into the content of the writing.

I missed that he was asked for sources and didn't respond. Let's let him provide those and then I can laugh at you people, how is that? I try and assume positive intent, so I think he probably got busy with work and life or maybe missed it as I did.

That said, and I don't want to speak for you, but the writing style wasn't impressive (no offense; it wasn't offensive or substandard either, just nice and functional) so I think you missed the mark on the criticism there. The content is the best part by a country mile and is what I'm celebrating. That and the big brain sheeit, that is.

[elfenix 34,171]

The reason for those $1200 toilet seats was due to government regulations...
The OEMs could have EASILY made them for much cheaper.
Luckily, they government has FINALLY realized that moving to COTS is better for ALL parties (government, contractors, taxpayers, etc)... they still impost too many scope creep requirements that it damps that out, but...it's better.

No, it's because they were buying parts for a plane that was manufactured in the sixties and the parts aren't made anymore. So everything had to be custom designed and manufactured. Which with a limited run is rather expensive. Even for a fucking toilet lid.

Air Force is now 3D printing those at quite a bit lower per part cost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-air-forces-10000-toilet-cover/2018/07/14/c33d325a-85df-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html


And bitching about a total expenditure of $30,000 while having caused massive structural changes that have led to long-term deficits is about the most fiscal conservative thing I can think of.

[Ag with kids 581]

5 hours ago, elfenix said:

No, it's because they were buying parts for a plane that was manufactured in the sixties and the parts aren't made anymore. So everything had to be custom designed and manufactured. Which with a limited run is rather expensive. Even for a fucking toilet lid.

Air Force is now 3D printing those at quite a bit lower per part cost.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/the-air-forces-10000-toilet-cover/2018/07/14/c33d325a-85df-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html


And bitching about a total expenditure of $30,000 while having caused massive structural changes that have led to long-term deficits is about the most fiscal conservative thing I can think of.
 

You're wrong on part and right on part.

WRONG about the parts not being made anymore.  That didn't matter.  What mattered was that COTS solutions were NOT ALLOWED until the past 15-20 years.  

So, you're RIGHT that "so everything had to be custom designed and manufactured. Which with a limited run is rather expensive. Even for a fucking toilet lid."  But, that was because the government regulations MADE them do that.  In many cases they could have found a COTS solution to the problem but were restricted from implementing it.

They did that for tooling in many cases too.  Need a wrench?  Nope, can't buy it from Sears.  You have to make it.  Oh, you only need 6 of them and the tooling to make the wrench costs $24K, well, looks like you've got some $4k wrenches.

And while 3D printing is good for some things, my firsthand experience with it in NUMEROUS applications from large simulators to small UAS it's not the end all be all solution to a lot of issues.  Don't get me wrong, 3D printing CAN be really useful.  We print a lot of smaller things at my current job.  Some are good, some are meh - the carbon fiber ones tend to be better, but more expensive.

I spent 30 years in Aerospace and Defense before moving to a small UAS research center so I've seen this shit for a LONG time.

[bolverk 29,400]

9 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

It's telling that nobody can address this lol. good job sheeit, you win this thread. washparkhorn loses.

I'd be happy to address this and show you that he is absolutely full of sheeeit.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which collects data only at the county level, here are the employment figures among private sector employers for King County, Washington, from January 2014 to January 2020 (prior to Covid).

Seeing a very modest loss in manufacturing jobs, totaling a little over 200, should be of no surprise to anyone as manufacturing employment has steadily shrunk since the 1980s. Those losses are primarily related to technology upgrades and the decreasing need for labor while, at the same time, output has steadily increased. In other words, we make more shit with fewer people.

	2014	2020		% chg	# chg
TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR	1,047,693	1,265,746		20.8%	218,053
Natural resources and mining	2,413	2,643		9.5%	230
Construction	52,094	73,571		41.2%	21,477
Manufacturing	104,735	104,523		-0.2%	-212
Trade, transportation, and utilities	226,506	281,337		24.2%	54,831
Information	83,437	124,843		49.6%	41,406
Financial activities	64,542	68,276		5.8%	3,734
Professional and business services	198,485	231,640		16.7%	33,155
Education and health services	157,814	182,974		15.9%	25,160
Leisure and hospitality	117,959	140,048		18.7%	22,089
Other services	39,708	48,273		21.6%	8,565

I'm happy to walk anyone through the data look-up for verification.

Go to: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?en

Then, select industry sectors (hitting the control key allows you to select more than one at a time).

Click "Next Form"

Choose your geography. Instead of scrolling, you can also type in "King County" in the search text box.

Click "Next Form" and then "Private" for non-government employers.

Click "All Employees" for the total number of workers by selected sector and choose "All Establishment Sizes" which will be your only option.

It'll take you to another page and click "Retrieve Data." There you'll find all your answers and the exact output that I've shown above.

Clearly, from Jan 2014 to Jan 2020, the King County economy lost very, very few jobs and has created a fuck ton for its size (21 percent increase in six years, totaling a net gain of a 218,000 jobs).

EDIT: Again, this is all prior to Covid and captures what would've been wage related. Everything afterwards is a shit show everywhere.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2021 by bolverk

[Ag with kids 581]

20 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

@Ag with kids
 

*aggy

alligator arms

Dammit!

How will I high five anyone watching our game tomorrow.

[elfenix 34,171]

3 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

You're wrong on part and right on part.

WRONG about the parts not being made anymore.  That didn't matter.  What mattered was that COTS solutions were NOT ALLOWED until the past 15-20 years.  

So, you're RIGHT that "so everything had to be custom designed and manufactured. Which with a limited run is rather expensive. Even for a fucking toilet lid."  But, that was because the government regulations MADE them do that.  In many cases they could have found a COTS solution to the problem but were restricted from implementing it.

They did that for tooling in many cases too.  Need a wrench?  Nope, can't buy it from Sears.  You have to make it.  Oh, you only need 6 of them and the tooling to make the wrench costs $24K, well, looks like you've got some $4k wrenches.

And while 3D printing is good for some things, my firsthand experience with it in NUMEROUS applications from large simulators to small UAS it's not the end all be all solution to a lot of issues.  Don't get me wrong, 3D printing CAN be really useful.  We print a lot of smaller things at my current job.  Some are good, some are meh - the carbon fiber ones tend to be better, but more expensive.

I spent 30 years in Aerospace and Defense before moving to a small UAS research center so I've seen this shit for a LONG time.

you're telling me the toilet lid for an aircraft that was made in the 1960s could be replaced with some toilet lid that can be found at home depot?

 

and none of this shit is a structural driver of the deficit.  the structural drivers of the deficit are: the tax cuts we've decided that wealthy people need over the past 20 years and the two wars of choice we decided to jump into without raising a single penny to fund them. 

Edited September 18, 2021 by elfenix

[Nivek 16,860]

^And the war on drugs.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,546]

...and rampant tax evasion.

[SKJ 1,305]

17 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

You're wrong on part and right on part.

WRONG about the parts not being made anymore.  That didn't matter.  What mattered was that COTS solutions were NOT ALLOWED until the past 15-20 years.  

So, you're RIGHT that "so everything had to be custom designed and manufactured. Which with a limited run is rather expensive. Even for a fucking toilet lid."  But, that was because the government regulations MADE them do that.  In many cases they could have found a COTS solution to the problem but were restricted from implementing it.

They did that for tooling in many cases too.  Need a wrench?  Nope, can't buy it from Sears.  You have to make it.  Oh, you only need 6 of them and the tooling to make the wrench costs $24K, well, looks like you've got some $4k wrenches.

And while 3D printing is good for some things, my firsthand experience with it in NUMEROUS applications from large simulators to small UAS it's not the end all be all solution to a lot of issues.  Don't get me wrong, 3D printing CAN be really useful.  We print a lot of smaller things at my current job.  Some are good, some are meh - the carbon fiber ones tend to be better, but more expensive.

I spent 30 years in Aerospace and Defense before moving to a small UAS research center so I've seen this shit for a LONG time.

So,  what you're telling us is that you've been a part of the industry that has sucked the largest amount of our government's budget for a long,  long,  time.  And in that time,  you've remained there,  suckling the government's teat to little or no benefit to us all. And during that time,  all while the defense lobby and the contractors made ungodly sums of money,  while providing very limited good to your country,  and while your whole industry benefited from massive artificial price floors,  that makes you an expert in massive,  artificial price floors. 

Makes sense

[Ag with kids 581]

8 minutes ago, SKJ said:

So,  what you're telling us is that you've been a part of the industry that has sucked the largest amount of our government's budget for a long,  long,  time.  And in that time,  you've remained there,  suckling the government's teat to little or no benefit to us all. And during that time,  all while the defense lobby and the contractors made ungodly sums of money,  while providing very limited good to your country,  and while your whole industry benefited from massive artificial price floors,  that makes you an expert in massive,  artificial price floors. 

Makes sense

That's a whole lot of words to say "I have no idea how the A&D industry works"

[SKJ 1,305]

42 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

That's a whole lot of words to say "I have no idea how the A&D industry works"

Sure.  I don't have very much inside knowledge,  but I do know that industry is a net negative,  and a big ol waste for us as a country. 

Congratulations on being a part of that for so long

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

On 9/16/2021 at 10:00 PM, cactusflinthead said:

Fiscal conservatism is bullshit. They spend plenty, mostly guns and 1200 dollar toilet seats for bombers.

Biggest deficits are under Republican administrations.

Try again.

I thought this was about wages and shit like that?

Fiscal conservative restaurant owners are having to shut down because no one wants to work for their sorry asses any more. Fiscal conservative landscaping companies are finding that they have to pay more to keep workers.

Y'all been paying any attention to the wages it takes to keep your workers? 

Does it worry you?

I sure hope it does. If you aren't thinking about what it's going to take to keep them they are already looking around.

As used in common parlance, I'd agree that there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative, certainly not as practiced by anyone in the GOP.

If bozo says he's a fiscal conservative, I take that very seriously as a principled position.  Bozo knows what's up.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

17 hours ago, bolverk said:

I'd be happy to address this and show you that he is absolutely full of sheeeit.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which collects data only at the county level, here are the employment figures among private sector employers for King County, Washington, from January 2014 to January 2020 (prior to Covid).

Seeing a very modest loss in manufacturing jobs, totaling a little over 200, should be of no surprise to anyone as manufacturing employment has steadily shrunk since the 1980s. Those losses are primarily related to technology upgrades and the decreasing need for labor while, at the same time, output has steadily increased. In other words, we make more shit with fewer people.

	2014	2020		% chg	# chg
TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR	1,047,693	1,265,746		20.8%	218,053
Natural resources and mining	2,413	2,643		9.5%	230
Construction	52,094	73,571		41.2%	21,477
Manufacturing	104,735	104,523		-0.2%	-212
Trade, transportation, and utilities	226,506	281,337		24.2%	54,831
Information	83,437	124,843		49.6%	41,406
Financial activities	64,542	68,276		5.8%	3,734
Professional and business services	198,485	231,640		16.7%	33,155
Education and health services	157,814	182,974		15.9%	25,160
Leisure and hospitality	117,959	140,048		18.7%	22,089
Other services	39,708	48,273		21.6%	8,565

I'm happy to walk anyone through the data look-up for verification.

Go to: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?en

Then, select industry sectors (hitting the control key allows you to select more than one at a time).

Click "Next Form"

Choose your geography. Instead of scrolling, you can also type in "King County" in the search text box.

Click "Next Form" and then "Private" for non-government employers.

Click "All Employees" for the total number of workers by selected sector and choose "All Establishment Sizes" which will be your only option.

It'll take you to another page and click "Retrieve Data." There you'll find all your answers and the exact output that I've shown above.

Clearly, from Jan 2014 to Jan 2020, the King County economy lost very, very few jobs and has created a fuck ton for its size (21 percent increase in six years, totaling a net gain of a 218,000 jobs).

EDIT: Again, this is all prior to Covid and captures what would've been wage related. Everything afterwards is a shit show everywhere.

 

 

The other flaw in that post is to assume that manufacturing employers employ very many people that are impacted by the minimum wage.  Most manufacturing employees are at least semi-skilled and make considerably more than minimum wage.

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As used in common parlance, I'd agree that there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative, certainly not as practiced by anyone in the GOP.

If bozo says he's a fiscal conservative, I take that very seriously as a principled position.  Bozo knows what's up.

I know. There are legit fiscally conservative people. I prefer the word thrifty. I respect Bozo's opinions. It's meant to be disparaging of the way it has been used to shred the social net in the name of saving money. It's the rainy day fund taken away from the schools and sat upon. 

 

[Ag with kids 581]

3 hours ago, SKJ said:

Sure.  I don't have very much inside knowledge,  but I do know that industry is a net negative,  and a big ol waste for us as a country. 

Congratulations on being a part of that for so long

Just because you dislike the military does not mean it's been a net negative.

BTW, the A&D industry also includes commercial aerospace...which still is subject to a large amount of government regulation (Fuck you FAA)

 

[bolverk 29,400]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The other flaw in that post is to assume that manufacturing employers employ very many people that are impacted by the minimum wage.  Most manufacturing employees are at least semi-skilled and make considerably more than minimum wage.

Yep. Going back to the BLS website I linked in that post, the average weekly wage for a manufacturing worker in King County was $1900 per week for both 2014 and 2020 in the first quarter of each year (it actually fell slightly). So those jobs pay about $47/hr.

[SKJ 1,305]

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Just because you dislike the military does not mean it's been a net negative.

BTW, the A&D industry also includes commercial aerospace...which still is subject to a large amount of government regulation (Fuck you FAA)

 

I don't dislike the military.  I dislike this country shoveling billions of dollars in cash into a military industrial complex that is definitely a net negative. 

Trillions of dollars in military spending and thousands of lives lost because your 'industry needed to justify all the spending and flex the 'were the most powerful military in the world' just to lose two wars to rock chucking terrorists. 

All while defense contractors con this budget out of congress with the fear lobby and get rich. 

Yup.  That's a net negative,  for sure. 

You fucking idiots think you're so eBay just because you conned the absolute dumbest people while paying off greedy politicians. 

Fucking bunch if grifting pencildick pussies

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

29 minutes ago, SKJ said:

I don't dislike the military.  I dislike this country shoveling billions of dollars in cash into a military industrial complex that is definitely a net negative. 

Trillions of dollars in military spending and thousands of lives lost because your 'industry needed to justify all the spending and flex the 'were the most powerful military in the world' just to lose two wars to rock chucking terrorists. 

All while defense contractors con this budget out of congress with the fear lobby and get rich. 

Yup.  That's a net negative,  for sure. 

You fucking idiots think you're so eBay just because you conned the absolute dumbest people while paying off greedy politicians. 

Fucking bunch if grifting pencildick pussies

The defense industry kind of exemplifies the worst of government and of private industry at the same time.  It's an unholy mess.

They do some great work technologically that has a lot of civilian benefit, but the sausage making is extra disgusting.

[Ag with kids 581]

39 minutes ago, SKJ said:

I don't dislike the military.  I dislike this country shoveling billions of dollars in cash into a military industrial complex that is definitely a net negative. 

Trillions of dollars in military spending and thousands of lives lost because your 'industry needed to justify all the spending and flex the 'were the most powerful military in the world' just to lose two wars to rock chucking terrorists. 

All while defense contractors con this budget out of congress with the fear lobby and get rich. 

Yup.  That's a net negative,  for sure. 

You fucking idiots think you're so eBay just because you conned the absolute dumbest people while paying off greedy politicians. 

Fucking bunch if grifting pencildick pussies

Yep.  You have no idea about the A&D industry.

You remember that one quote from Ike and run with it.

Now, you can blame the politicians for getting us in wars, but that's separate.  Do you think the A&D companies started the wars or something?  They just provide products that are requested by the Feds.  Guns.  Missiles.  Planes.  Rotorcraft.  The requests come from government.

BTW, just remember that entitlements are the biggest driver of budget deficits - they're double the DoD spending and have been for a LONG time.

[SKJ 1,305]

54 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Yep.  You have no idea about the A&D industry.

You remember that one quote from Ike and run with it.

Now, you can blame the politicians for getting us in wars, but that's separate.  Do you think the A&D companies started the wars or something?  They just provide products that are requested by the Feds.  Guns.  Missiles.  Planes.  Rotorcraft.  The requests come from government.

BTW, just remember that entitlements are the biggest driver of budget deficits - they're double the DoD spending and have been for a LONG time.

You think the defense industry and the government are separate?  

The defense industry permeates the government with its lobby.  Why do the defense industry even lobby the government?  Why do they spend the money in order to affect policy?

The funny thing is that you're bringing up a red herring about entitlements. Let's take a look. 

Break it down by program. 

Social security?  Medicare? Medicaid? Sure,  let's cut all those. 

But when you refer to entitlements you're trying to give us this thought of welfare queens, or welfare.  That's why you use the word 'entitlements.'

At least the 'entitlements' help people.  

Sure,  the military is somewhat a jobs program. 

But the real question is why is there a defense lobby? Why do they spend shitloads of money trying to affect policy?  Is there some sort of vested interest in war? I mean,  gosh,  who would even do such a thing? 

Quit being either naive or disingenuous.  I can't tell which one it is,  but it's shit nonetheless. 

[SKJ 1,305]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The defense industry kind of exemplifies the worst of government and of private industry at the same time.  It's an unholy mess.

They do some great work technologically that has a lot of civilian benefit, but the sausage making is extra disgusting.

It is disgusting. 

I wonder what program gave us more technology.  Defense? Or NASA?

[Ag with kids 581]

2 hours ago, SKJ said:

It is disgusting. 

I wonder what program gave us more technology.  Defense? Or NASA?

I'll give you a hint.  It's neither.  The Aerospace and Defense Industry gave us that technology.  DoD and NASA set requirements (very poorly) and the A&DI supplies the technology.

[Ag with kids 581]

2 hours ago, SKJ said:

You think the defense industry and the government are separate?  

The defense industry permeates the government with its lobby.  Why do the defense industry even lobby the government?  Why do they spend the money in order to affect policy?

The funny thing is that you're bringing up a red herring about entitlements. Let's take a look. 

Break it down by program. 

Social security?  Medicare? Medicaid? Sure,  let's cut all those. 

But when you refer to entitlements you're trying to give us this thought of welfare queens, or welfare.  That's why you use the word 'entitlements.'

At least the 'entitlements' help people.  

Sure,  the military is somewhat a jobs program. 

But the real question is why is there a defense lobby? Why do they spend shitloads of money trying to affect policy?  Is there some sort of vested interest in war? I mean,  gosh,  who would even do such a thing? 

Quit being either naive or disingenuous.  I can't tell which one it is,  but it's shit nonetheless. 

I'm tired tonight, but when I get back to Corpus tomorrow I'll try to remember to respond to all the points you made here...

[washparkhorn 9,935]

4 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

A&D industry

Is Aerospace and Defense Sector or Industry ("A&D") to difficult to define at the outset?  We have SEC lurkers who need clear direction (no kink shaming intended to the SEC lurkers) and definitions.

Present company excluded, of course. There are Aggies who are not aggy. I remember you as one. 

Commercial Aerospace needed government welfare. They got it. As they should have. We need commercial aerospace to bolster readiness - as the World is picking sides presently (and we look quite bad for obvious reasons in the World's eye).

You know the problems created by selling out our industrial manufacturing base to an economic empire looking more like an enemy these days. We need domestic manufacturing. We need agility. We pay for it through efficiency gains in our own manufacturing base. 

The military arm of A&D is doing quite well. As you know. 

I enjoyed this read.    https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/global-aerospace-and-defense-industry-outlook.html   

Do you find it to be a reliable snapshot at the time it was written?

Quote

The commercial aerospace industry could remain challenged, while the defense sector is expected to be stable

The commercial aerospace industry has been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a dramatic reduction in passenger traffic and, in turn, affected aircraft demand. As a result, the commercial aerospace sector is expected to recover slowly, as travel demand is not expected to return to pre–COVID-19 levels before 2024.

The defense sector, on the other hand, is expected to remain stable in 2021, as most countries have not significantly reduced defense budgets and remain committed to sustaining their military capabilities. However, given the disruption in the complex global supply chain, some defense programs could face minor cost increases and schedule delays in 2021.

 

[Ag with kids 581]

23 hours ago, SKJ said:

You think the defense industry and the government are separate?  

The defense industry permeates the government with its lobby.  Why do the defense industry even lobby the government?  Why do they spend the money in order to affect policy?

The funny thing is that you're bringing up a red herring about entitlements. Let's take a look. 

Break it down by program. 

Social security?  Medicare? Medicaid? Sure,  let's cut all those. 

But when you refer to entitlements you're trying to give us this thought of welfare queens, or welfare.  That's why you use the word 'entitlements.'

At least the 'entitlements' help people.  

Sure,  the military is somewhat a jobs program. 

But the real question is why is there a defense lobby? Why do they spend shitloads of money trying to affect policy?  Is there some sort of vested interest in war? I mean,  gosh,  who would even do such a thing? 

Quit being either naive or disingenuous.  I can't tell which one it is,  but it's shit nonetheless. 

Ok...I'm back home in Corpus.

So, to start:

Quote

You think the defense industry and the government are separate?  

 

Yes and no.

They work so closely that there's a lot of incest but they ARE separate.    And what do you mean by "the defense industry"?  Do you not realize that means tens of thousands of companies all over the US?

 

Quote

The defense industry permeates the government with its lobby.  Why do the defense industry even lobby the government?  Why do they spend the money in order to affect policy?

EVERY industry has a lobby,  Lockheed has one.  Planned Parenthood has one.  PETA has one.

Quote

The funny thing is that you're bringing up a red herring about entitlements. Let's take a look. 

So, I don't know where the fuck you got that graphic, but is terribly wrong.  Here is the actual data from the US government.

https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spending/categories/

Defense is $762B. "Entitlements" are $1.9T

Quote

 

Break it down by program. 

Social security?  Medicare? Medicaid? Sure,  let's cut all those. 

 

I have never claimed that.

Quote

 

But when you refer to entitlements you're trying to give us this thought of welfare queens, or welfare.  That's why you use the word 'entitlements.'

At least the 'entitlements' help people.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget#:~:text=Most mandatory spending consists of,Federal government benefits or services.

I called it "entitlements" because that's what they're called....

Quote

Direct spending, also known as mandatory spending, refers to spending enacted by law, but not dependent on an annual or periodic appropriation bill. Most mandatory spending consists of entitlement programs such as Social Security benefits, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs are called "entitlements" because individuals satisfying given eligibility requirements set by past legislation are entitled to Federal government benefits or services. 

 

Edited September 19, 2021 by Ag with kids

[StassneyHorn 6,540]

The FY 2020 graph from SKJ post MATCHES the 6.55 trillion from your link.

[Ag with kids 581]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

The FY 2020 graph from SKJ post MATCHES the 6.55 trillion from your link.

His link has defense at $1.1T.  The government says $762B.

That's a difference of $338B.  Which, in the the federal government is known as a rounding error, but for the rest of us is a. BIG FUCKING NUMBER.

[StassneyHorn 6,540]

Thanks for the link edit, see the difference now. Was looking at final numbers with dots compared to the graph. Look like the source from the graph probably grouped in VA benefits and something else into that.

Pretend I was never here. I like things that fly.

 

 

[SKJ 1,305]

15 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Ok...I'm back home in Corpus.

So, to start:

Yes and no.

They work so closely that there's a lot of incest but they ARE separate.    And what do you mean by "the defense industry"?  Do you not realize that means tens of thousands of companies all over the US?

 

EVERY industry has a lobby,  Lockheed has one.  Planned Parenthood has one.  PETA has one.

So, I don't know where the fuck you got that graphic, but is terribly wrong.  Here is the actual data from the US government.

https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/spending/categories/

Defense is $762B. "Entitlements" are $1.9T

I have never claimed that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget#:~:text=Most mandatory spending consists of,Federal government benefits or services.

I called it "entitlements" because that's what they're called....

 

Here is the article. 

http://federalsafetynet.com/entitlement-spending.html

This is the source for that graphic.  

The main dilemma of calling this group of programs 'entitlements" is that conservatives have turned that term into a dog whistle that means 'the poor that are sucking you dry." When we break out the list of entitlements,  we see actual social programs that most of the rubes think of just welfare and probably school lunch and say to themselves 'we should cut those programs.' 

Then they rally against social security and Medicare cuts. 

But I digress. 

The problem isn't that we have any defense spending,  the problem is that we have a defense lobby that helps shift policy and that has taken every chance they can to help get us into a 2t boondoggle that made us look like complete and utter morons to the world.  These lobbies (looking at you as well,  green energy) take things that are good for the country and turn them into programs that fail their intent. Look at the prison lobby and the war on drugs.  It's a disgusting as the defense lobby. 

The military industrial complex has failed our country.  But it hasn't failed the companies. 

In 2020, the CEOs of the Top 5 — Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing — made more than $150 million. When expanded to other top company officers required to disclose their earnings, that number goes up to an astonishing $276 million.May 5, 2021

[elfenix 34,171]

welfare is $16 billion and has been capped at that amount for the  last 25 years and because it is block granted out to the states with very lax guidance it is often spent on shit that ain't welfare. 

[elfenix 34,171]

also i love when the "you don't count payroll taxes" crowd bitches about social security and medicare spending

Edited September 20, 2021 by elfenix

[Ag with kids 581]

9 hours ago, elfenix said:

welfare is $16 billion and has been capped at that amount for the  last 25 years and because it is block granted out to the states with very lax guidance it is often spent on shit that ain't welfare. 

What in the absolute blue fuck are you talking about?

http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-budget.html

This is the left leaning site I was criticizing and even THEY have Welfare at $847B.

[elfenix 34,171]

24 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

What in the absolute blue fuck are you talking about?

http://federalsafetynet.com/welfare-budget.html

This is the left leaning site I was criticizing and even THEY have Welfare at $847B.

TANF is the only thing that's actually welfare.

[Ag with kids 581]

17 minutes ago, elfenix said:

TANF is the only thing that's actually welfare.

Oh.  Didn't realize you were the only one allowed to define "welfare".

You should tell all those people in the federal government to run statements by you before they make you look wrong.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/temporary-assistance-for-needy-families#:~:text=Under TANF%2C the federal government,as defined by the state.

First, TANF spent $31B in 2019, so it was obviously not capped.

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/04/what-is-snap#:~:text=Totaling %2463 billion%2C or 1.4,week) per person in benefits

Oh yeah, don't forget SNAP.

That's just $63B.

[elfenix 34,171]

4 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

First, TANF spent $31B in 2019, so it was obviously not capped.

you're adding state spending to federal spending.  TANF is capped at $16.5 billion by the 1996 welfare reform act.

Edited September 21, 2021 by elfenix

[wildcat09 29,257]

 

Republican economics proven to be complete bullshit, yet again.