3 ms·

Better to spend on entitlements than wars. It'd be great if we were eventually forced to stop warmongering because we simply couldn't afford it anymore.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
So elect people who won't use violence for any reason. But writing laws until you're so bogged down in promises that nobody can pay for anything is even more crazy than an unpopular war or two, which causes debt spending for a short time and then subsides. Each generation has a choice in leaders and a decision to make when it comes to using violence. But mandates and entitlements take that choice away from future generations, spending all the money based on things the previous generation thought were a good idea. Not only is the amount of money much greater, it's a different animal entirely.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > than an unpopular war or two, which causes debt spending for a short time and then subsides. You say that so casually; I think the word war is like the word God, it slips right past something in peoples minds that it shouldn't. The slaughter and murder of innocent people shouldn't be so easily shrugged off, and I'm perfectly happy handcuffing future generations from the ability to make war easily. Were our policy on wars different, we wouldn't be having problems paying for the other stuff.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    I don't know how much sorrow and despair you think appropriate. You seem to be making an moral and emotional case. I simply observe that wars occur and have occurred for all of human history. All I'm saying is that each generation should make it's own choices about spending money, and that increased debts are appropriate for short-term recovery of the economy in recession. The next generation may not find it can pay for, say, pensions for people living from 60 until an average age of 100. But war spending will always find a way. That's the nature of wars -- they are deemed more important than other things, including social programs. Look at it this way -- increased debt load means an increased chance of war, as non-violent options are not available due to restricted amounts of money and the only way to access that money is through a national emergency. Please forgive the example, but I think its apt: the nazis, after all, were the nationlist socialist party, not the free enterprise gang. They took control over all industry and turned it into a war machine. This was based on a movement for better social justice, but it easily transformed into a monstrosity. So your idea that somehow you can cripple the economy and prevent wars has not shown itself true in history. In fact, the reverse seems more true.
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. As for the next generation, please, we're all bound by the decisions of previous generations all the way back to the founders; that's just how it is. They can kill any entitlement we enact, so no, I don't feel for them. We should be responsible, and only enact entitlements we can afford, but if cut back on the wars, we can afford a hell of a lot.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        They can kill any entitlement we enact, so no They can, but in practice they do not. In practice politicians who mention killing entitlements do not get elected. Politicians know this, and willingly set up "booby traps" -- entitlements that nobody will ever oppose yet cannot be sustained. That's because it gets them elected in the short term, and who cares what happens in the long term? Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. We should strive to avoid the use of violence when it is not absolutely necessary. Unfortunately for your position, there has never, ever been a period when violence was not necessary somewhere in the world. Now perhaps by working to avoid each individual war we eventually get rid of war altogether, but I find that logic very tenuous. Looking at all the reasons for war, none of them have gone away or lessened at all over the course of thousands of years. In fact, from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I also wish that no innocents would ever get harmed, but I wouldn't run up the debt in an effort to prevent this from happening. To me it seems misguided and doomed to a horrible failure involving just the thing you seek to avoid.
        gnaritas 17y ago
        from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. I agree, however I think we make the choice for war far more often than is morally necessary. We don't seem to draw the line at morals, but at whether it's financially beneficial for us. It feels like war has become America's most exported product. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I think you need to re-read what I said, you seem to be going off on a staw-man of your own creation. I merely mention that it'd be great if we could no longer afford war. I was arguing against war, not for using entitlements to pursue the goal of eliminating war.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    And since the police sometimes murder innocent people, I think we should also eliminate them. I propose increasing the debt in my town so that we won't be able to afford police in the future!
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      If the police killed more innocent people than guilty ones, as the military often does and then just blew it off as collateral damage, yea, I'd be wanting to disband them as well. But they don't, cops rarely kill an innocent.
- eru 17y ago
  In theory you can get rid of entitlements, too.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

So elect people who won't use violence for any reason. But writing laws until you're so bogged down in promises that nobody can pay for anything is even more crazy than an unpopular war or two, which causes debt spending for a short time and then subsides. Each generation has a choice in leaders and a decision to make when it comes to using violence. But mandates and entitlements take that choice away from future generations, spending all the money based on things the previous generation thought were a good idea. Not only is the amount of money much greater, it's a different animal entirely.

gnaritas 17y ago
> than an unpopular war or two, which causes debt spending for a short time and then subsides. You say that so casually; I think the word war is like the word God, it slips right past something in peoples minds that it shouldn't. The slaughter and murder of innocent people shouldn't be so easily shrugged off, and I'm perfectly happy handcuffing future generations from the ability to make war easily. Were our policy on wars different, we wouldn't be having problems paying for the other stuff.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  I don't know how much sorrow and despair you think appropriate. You seem to be making an moral and emotional case. I simply observe that wars occur and have occurred for all of human history. All I'm saying is that each generation should make it's own choices about spending money, and that increased debts are appropriate for short-term recovery of the economy in recession. The next generation may not find it can pay for, say, pensions for people living from 60 until an average age of 100. But war spending will always find a way. That's the nature of wars -- they are deemed more important than other things, including social programs. Look at it this way -- increased debt load means an increased chance of war, as non-violent options are not available due to restricted amounts of money and the only way to access that money is through a national emergency. Please forgive the example, but I think its apt: the nazis, after all, were the nationlist socialist party, not the free enterprise gang. They took control over all industry and turned it into a war machine. This was based on a movement for better social justice, but it easily transformed into a monstrosity. So your idea that somehow you can cripple the economy and prevent wars has not shown itself true in history. In fact, the reverse seems more true.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. As for the next generation, please, we're all bound by the decisions of previous generations all the way back to the founders; that's just how it is. They can kill any entitlement we enact, so no, I don't feel for them. We should be responsible, and only enact entitlements we can afford, but if cut back on the wars, we can afford a hell of a lot.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      They can kill any entitlement we enact, so no They can, but in practice they do not. In practice politicians who mention killing entitlements do not get elected. Politicians know this, and willingly set up "booby traps" -- entitlements that nobody will ever oppose yet cannot be sustained. That's because it gets them elected in the short term, and who cares what happens in the long term? Of course war occurs, but that won't always be true, and we should strive to not need it. We should strive to avoid the use of violence when it is not absolutely necessary. Unfortunately for your position, there has never, ever been a period when violence was not necessary somewhere in the world. Now perhaps by working to avoid each individual war we eventually get rid of war altogether, but I find that logic very tenuous. Looking at all the reasons for war, none of them have gone away or lessened at all over the course of thousands of years. In fact, from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I also wish that no innocents would ever get harmed, but I wouldn't run up the debt in an effort to prevent this from happening. To me it seems misguided and doomed to a horrible failure involving just the thing you seek to avoid.
      - gnaritas 17y ago
        from looking at history it appears there are times when armed conflict is the best moral choice a society can make. I agree, however I think we make the choice for war far more often than is morally necessary. We don't seem to draw the line at morals, but at whether it's financially beneficial for us. It feels like war has become America's most exported product. So I find your position laudable, yet misguided both on its goals and means to achieve them. I think you need to re-read what I said, you seem to be going off on a staw-man of your own creation. I merely mention that it'd be great if we could no longer afford war. I was arguing against war, not for using entitlements to pursue the goal of eliminating war.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  And since the police sometimes murder innocent people, I think we should also eliminate them. I propose increasing the debt in my town so that we won't be able to afford police in the future!
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    If the police killed more innocent people than guilty ones, as the military often does and then just blew it off as collateral damage, yea, I'd be wanting to disband them as well. But they don't, cops rarely kill an innocent.
eru 17y ago
In theory you can get rid of entitlements, too.