Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Also, if you are making that argument, you would have to say the same about medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc.

To an extent, yes, but not entirely. I think medicaid/medicare are terrible programs and that there are better solutions where sufficient coverage is still provided for the elderly/poor.

I am not arguing that there isn't waste in the military budget. There is tremendous waste that needs to be trimmed, but to cut it in half would be disastrous. I'm for cleaning up as much government waste as possible.

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Also, if you are making that argument, you would have to say the same about medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc.

To an extent, yes, but not entirely. I think medicaid/medicare are terrible programs and that there are better solutions where sufficient coverage is still provided for the elderly/poor.

I am not arguing that there isn't waste in the military budget. There is tremendous waste that needs to be trimmed, but to cut it in half would be disastrous. I'm for cleaning up as much government waste as possible.

Tang is so stupid. Why do you bother. Military keeps companies like Lockheed Martin in business and thousands of its subcontracts. That is just ONE example. Cut the fat in Medicare and Medicaid. Increase the retirement age to collect SSI. Stop letting illegals in.

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Also, if you are making that argument, you would have to say the same about medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc.

To an extent, yes, but not entirely. I think medicaid/medicare are terrible programs and that there are better solutions where sufficient coverage is still provided for the elderly/poor.

I am not arguing that there isn't waste in the military budget. There is tremendous waste that needs to be trimmed, but to cut it in half would be disastrous. I'm for cleaning up as much government waste as possible.

Tang, in this instance, is right. There’s arguably just as much waste in defense spending. Any cut to federal spending results in lost jobs.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t or can’t cut spending, we just can’t pretend that we can cut Medicare without economic impact.

I am not saying "cut" I am saying revamp. Its like when you own a car. If you proactive maintain it will ultimately cost you less than if you allow stuff to go so bad that you end up paying more.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Also, if you are making that argument, you would have to say the same about medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc.

To an extent, yes, but not entirely. I think medicaid/medicare are terrible programs and that there are better solutions where sufficient coverage is still provided for the elderly/poor.

I am not arguing that there isn't waste in the military budget. There is tremendous waste that needs to be trimmed, but to cut it in half would be disastrous. I'm for cleaning up as much government waste as possible.

Tang, in this instance, is right. There’s arguably just as much waste in defense spending. Any cut to federal spending results in lost jobs.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t or can’t cut spending, we just can’t pretend that we can cut Medicare without economic impact.

I feel like you just repeated what I said, except for the fact that I am advocating for a replacement of medicare/medicaid.

Yeah, I guess.

Revamp not necessarily replace. Military is only 16% of the budget. Keep it where it is.

In terms of medicine you can get 2 out of 3. Which two would you take.

1. Quality
2. Affordability
3. Universality

Cannot have all 3.

You just said we need to increase the budget.

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:11:00 PM (view original):
I admittedly am not a finance expert, but I don't see your logic here. There's only 1 million potential jobs at risk. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to restructure it to spend less but keep the most amount of jobs possible? Please, someone explain it to me.

No, there are 4M jobs at risk. Cutting the budget affects the whole military, not just private contractors. Also, the military needs many of those private contractors.

We spend 100 billion of the military budget on troops. Keep that. Cut 300 billion of the rest of that. Or we could do it slowly instead of all at once.

Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/13/2018 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:11:00 PM (view original):
I admittedly am not a finance expert, but I don't see your logic here. There's only 1 million potential jobs at risk. I don't see why we wouldn't be able to restructure it to spend less but keep the most amount of jobs possible? Please, someone explain it to me.

No, there are 4M jobs at risk. Cutting the budget affects the whole military, not just private contractors. Also, the military needs many of those private contractors.

We spend 100 billion of the military budget on troops. Keep that. Cut 300 billion of the rest of that. Or we could do it slowly instead of all at once.

Sunset clause the military budget when we sunset clause some of the entitlement and welfare programs.

Posted by tangplay on 8/13/2018 3:40:00 PM (view original):
You just said we need to increase the budget.

I said from when Trump took over. He already did that. Sorry if I was not clear.

Revamp not necessarily replace. Military is only 16% of the budget. Keep it where it is.

In terms of medicine you can get 2 out of 3. Which two would you take.

1. Quality
2. Affordability
3. Universality

Cannot have all 3.

Anyone want to tackle this?

I mean, all we really have from that list is #1. There’s no rule that says we can’t have all three.

In fact, the only way to have both universal and affordable healthcare is to have some sort of public plan. Because private insurance companies literally can’t cover everyone at an affordable rate.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/13/2018 4:05:00 PM (view original):
I mean, all we really have from that list is #1. There’s no rule that says we can’t have all three.

In fact, the only way to have both universal and affordable healthcare is to have some sort of public plan. Because private insurance companies literally can’t cover everyone at an affordable rate.

I agree again.

I'd also add that I somewhat object to the use of arbitrary terms. For example, affordable is a rather insipid word. How do you define affordable?

IMHO, this is why politics are so contentious. Everyone speaks in generalities when they should be applying semantics.

You cannot have all 3. If you have universality and affordability there will be fewer good doctors so you won't get the same quality. "You get what you pay for". Right now we have the best doctors in the world.