3 ms·

That is counterfactual. Since the 1970s, military spending has decreased as a percentage of government spending and as a percent of GDP, while "for the people"

That is counterfactual. Since the 1970s, military spending has decreased as a percentage of government spending and as a percent of GDP, while "for the people" spending - social security, healthcare, etc. - have risen dramatically in both measures. See http://metrocosm.com/history-of-us-taxes/ http://metrocosm.com/history-of-us-taxes/ and scroll down to the spending breakdown.

slg 7y ago
Pure spending numbers are a little misleading. One reason is that spending is often dictated by need. Military spending, for example, is hugely influenced by the current political environment so a reduction in military spending from the levels of the 40s-80s is not really a "for the people" change as it is more a "we don't need to fight the Axis/Soviets anymore" change. Similarly spending on social security and healthcare is something that is hugely impacted by the age of the population. The second big factor is revenue generation. "For the people" spending might not be a huge benefit to the middle and lower classes if that program is funded by revenue from the middle and lower classes. If you only look at that spending chart you do see a dramatic increase in social security spending, but there is also a large increase in the social security revenue side that helps pay for it.
- kbutler 7y ago
  So your position is that post 1970s increases in government transfer payments are "not a huge benefit to the middle and lower classes" and represent "austerity", and that major reductions in spending are "largesse for the military". Interesting.
  - slg 7y ago
    I don't agree with OPs entire point and certainly wouldn't use such extreme language, but I also don't think you can dispute that point while only looking at spending like you did in your response.
    - kbutler 7y ago
      Spending trends were sufficient to refute the OPs assertion. To go deeper, take spending (here's another link - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-t... basically 65% of federal spending is now for social welfare, rising from about 5% of GDP in 1970 to 15% of GDP in 2016) and add in who pays the majority of taxes (the top 20% pay almost 70% of taxes https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes). The progressivity (rate of upper income taxes vs lower income taxes) has also increased in the time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_US_Federal_Tax_Rates_1979_to_2013.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_US_Federal_Tax_Ra... So the upper classes pay more taxes in both rates and absolute dollars, those rates have increased, and the social welfare programs are the largest and increasingly largest categories of spending. See also the growth in income of the various quintiles after taxes and transfers, and the trends over these decades: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55413#section2 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55413#section2 To credibly assert "Post 1970s...austerity for the people, largesse for the military, corporations, and ruling class", you'll need to provide some strong opposing facts.
      - slg 7y ago
        To reiterate and clarify the point from my original comment, you need to ask why and to what effect spending is done. The population of the US is much older and much unhealthier today than it was in 1970 and healthcare is more expensive. So increased spending on healthcare doesn't necessarily prove an increase in commitment to serve the people and can instead simply be a result of rising costs. Also that Wikipedia link you included conveniently doesn't start until the very late 70s just after the top rate saw a huge drop from the levels established in the post-depression era. Lastly you need to factor in growing income inequality in these numbers. It is possible for the top tax bracket to collectively pay both a higher share of taxes in both percentage and absolute dollars while each individual person in that tax bracket sees their tax rate decrease.
      - kbutler 7y ago
        If I used to give 5% of income and now I give 15% of income, my commitment has increased, even if the need has also increased. 5% GDP to 15% GDP shows a pretty dramatic increase in commitment, especially with the economic growth in that time frame. OP asserted "Post 1970s", so starting in the late 1970s is the appropriate starting point (quibbling?). The progressivity rate link above was tax rate, not percentage of taxes paid.
abathur 7y ago
Can you clarify which statements in the parent you're asserting are counter-factual? The parent seems to assert: 1. the parties function as controlled opposition 2. the Democratic Party is pseudo-left 3. after the 1970s, the two parties have had ideological continuity 4. one example of this ideological continuity includes some (preference for? belief in? rhetorical advocation of?) austerity* "for the people" 5. another example of this ideological continuity includes largesse (i.e., generosity) "for the military, corporations, and ruling class" 6. the ideological continuity is obvious, but obfuscated in public discourse through various culture wars * I'm not clear on what definition(s) of austerity the parent has in mind here. This could be the general pol/econ definition, but the direct contrast with largesse makes me wonder if the more general "severity" definition is also important.

slg 7y ago

Pure spending numbers are a little misleading. One reason is that spending is often dictated by need. Military spending, for example, is hugely influenced by the current political environment so a reduction in military spending from the levels of the 40s-80s is not really a "for the people" change as it is more a "we don't need to fight the Axis/Soviets anymore" change. Similarly spending on social security and healthcare is something that is hugely impacted by the age of the population. The second big factor is revenue generation. "For the people" spending might not be a huge benefit to the middle and lower classes if that program is funded by revenue from the middle and lower classes. If you only look at that spending chart you do see a dramatic increase in social security spending, but there is also a large increase in the social security revenue side that helps pay for it.

kbutler 7y ago
So your position is that post 1970s increases in government transfer payments are "not a huge benefit to the middle and lower classes" and represent "austerity", and that major reductions in spending are "largesse for the military". Interesting.
- slg 7y ago
  I don't agree with OPs entire point and certainly wouldn't use such extreme language, but I also don't think you can dispute that point while only looking at spending like you did in your response.
  - kbutler 7y ago
    Spending trends were sufficient to refute the OPs assertion. To go deeper, take spending (here's another link - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-t... basically 65% of federal spending is now for social welfare, rising from about 5% of GDP in 1970 to 15% of GDP in 2016) and add in who pays the majority of taxes (the top 20% pay almost 70% of taxes https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/who-pays-taxes). The progressivity (rate of upper income taxes vs lower income taxes) has also increased in the time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_US_Federal_Tax_Rates_1979_to_2013.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_US_Federal_Tax_Ra... So the upper classes pay more taxes in both rates and absolute dollars, those rates have increased, and the social welfare programs are the largest and increasingly largest categories of spending. See also the growth in income of the various quintiles after taxes and transfers, and the trends over these decades: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55413#section2 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55413#section2 To credibly assert "Post 1970s...austerity for the people, largesse for the military, corporations, and ruling class", you'll need to provide some strong opposing facts.
    - slg 7y ago
      To reiterate and clarify the point from my original comment, you need to ask why and to what effect spending is done. The population of the US is much older and much unhealthier today than it was in 1970 and healthcare is more expensive. So increased spending on healthcare doesn't necessarily prove an increase in commitment to serve the people and can instead simply be a result of rising costs. Also that Wikipedia link you included conveniently doesn't start until the very late 70s just after the top rate saw a huge drop from the levels established in the post-depression era. Lastly you need to factor in growing income inequality in these numbers. It is possible for the top tax bracket to collectively pay both a higher share of taxes in both percentage and absolute dollars while each individual person in that tax bracket sees their tax rate decrease.
    - kbutler 7y ago
      If I used to give 5% of income and now I give 15% of income, my commitment has increased, even if the need has also increased. 5% GDP to 15% GDP shows a pretty dramatic increase in commitment, especially with the economic growth in that time frame. OP asserted "Post 1970s", so starting in the late 1970s is the appropriate starting point (quibbling?). The progressivity rate link above was tax rate, not percentage of taxes paid.

abathur 7y ago

Can you clarify which statements in the parent you're asserting are counter-factual? The parent seems to assert: 1. the parties function as controlled opposition 2. the Democratic Party is pseudo-left 3. after the 1970s, the two parties have had ideological continuity 4. one example of this ideological continuity includes some (preference for? belief in? rhetorical advocation of?) austerity* "for the people" 5. another example of this ideological continuity includes largesse (i.e., generosity) "for the military, corporations, and ruling class" 6. the ideological continuity is obvious, but obfuscated in public discourse through various culture wars * I'm not clear on what definition(s) of austerity the parent has in mind here. This could be the general pol/econ definition, but the direct contrast with largesse makes me wonder if the more general "severity" definition is also important.