Dougie93 Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: His abuse of power will be controversial. What did you think I meant?? It's not an abuse of power when its constitutional, by definition. Based on your assertions I'm not getting the impression that you understand what separation of powers means. Edited January 24, 2019 by Dougie93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: It's not an abuse of power when its constitutional, by definition. Based on your assertions I'm not getting the impression that you don't understand what separation of powers means. Abuse of power isn't constitutional. As you said, there's supposed to be checks and balances in the American system. Edited January 24, 2019 by JamesHackerMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 20 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: No, it proves nothing. The United States isn't more or less "wrong" because it has or has not maintained its infrastructure to your liking, just like any other nation. U.S. federal, state, and local jurisdictions fund projects based on many different criteria and priorities. It proves one of my my many points exactly, which thanks to overspending on defence and a lack of planning, the US is literally falling apart in many areas. Eventually something will have to be done about its decaying infrastructure, but having delayed so long in so many areas it is going to be much more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, Iznogoud said: It proves one of my my many points exactly, which thanks to overspending on defence and a lack of planning, the US is literally falling apart in many areas. Eventually something will have to be done about its decaying infrastructure, but having delayed so long in so many areas it is going to be much more expensive. Defense spending is 12% of the federal budget, and 4% of GDP, give or take. However, I agree with you about the infrastructure decay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: Abuse of power isn't constitutional. As you said, there's supposed to be checks and balances in the American system. And the check is that the joint session may at any time rescind their joint Resolution concerning the war powers, thus, all is well, and balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: And the check is that the joint session may at any time rescind their joint Resolution concerning the war powers, thus, all is well, and balanced. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying about our checks and balances. Care to clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: Defense spending is 12% of the federal budget, and 4% of GDP, give or take. However, I agree with you about the infrastructure decay. Even so, that 4% of GDP is almost 600 billion. A lot of bridges could be repaired with just half that money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, Iznogoud said: Even so, that 4% of GDP is almost 600 billion. A lot of bridges could be repaired with just half that money. I just said I agreed with you about the decaying infrastructure. Not to get off topic, but yes there is waste in the defense budget (e.g., the F-35). How much would you slash the defense budget, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 15 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: I'm not sure exactly what you're saying about our checks and balances. Care to clarify? The Congress can take the authority away, by holding another joint session and withdrawing the authority to take military action by any other means than formal declaration of Congress. Congress gave the President the power, they can take it away any time, hence the checks and balances are entirely in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: The Congress can take the authority away, by holding another joint session and withdrawing the authority to take military action by any other means than formal declaration of Congress. Congress gave the President the power, they can take it away any time, hence the checks and balances are entirely in place. That's what I was trying to tell you. The president acting contrary to the intent of the act would be abuse of power. Edited January 24, 2019 by JamesHackerMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: I just said I agreed with you about the decaying infrastructure. Not to get off topic, but yes there is waste in the defense budget (e.g., the F-35). How much would you slash the defense budget, then? I think that rather than attempting to get NATO allies to increase their spending to US levels I would be more in favour of gradually decreasing it to the NATO average. A great deal of US spending goes into maintaining a global presence; something that none of its rivals even attempt and its military R&D alone is almost greater than the entire military budget of nations like Russia and China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, JamesHackerMP said: That's what I was trying to tell you. The president acting contrary to the intent of the act would be abuse of power. The intent of the act was to give him freedom of action, it's not an abuse just because you are a cry whining panic monkey, that the President then use the freedom of action mandated to him by act of congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, Iznogoud said: I think that rather than attempting to get NATO allies to increase their spending to US levels I would be more in favour of gradually decreasing it to the NATO average. A great deal of US spending goes into maintaining a global presence; something that none of its rivals even attempt and its military R&D alone is almost greater than the entire military budget of nations like Russia and China. That's likely because we're the remaining global superpower. When they were a superpower the Soviets did the same thing, spending to maintain their global presence to check the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: The intent of the act was to give him freedom of action, it's not an abuse just because you are a cry whining panic monkey, that the President then use the freedom of action mandated to him by act of congress. I don't think that was necessary. If you cannot argue like an adult, find another message board. In the mean time, I'm so terribly sorry I had the gall to disagree with you. I hope you weren't offended. Edited January 24, 2019 by JamesHackerMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, JamesHackerMP said: I don't think that was necessary. If you cannot argue like an adult, find another message board. Anytime you want to stop crying, whining and panicking, we can commence to arguing about something, in the meantime you're just blabbering hysterically about "abuse of powers" which prima facie are not the case by even cursory glance at the constitution. If you do not wish to be an embarrassment to the American republic, perhaps you should do some more research before you publish to the internet prattling nonsense in the name of Americans. /shrugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Anytime you want to stop crying, whining and panicking, we can commence to arguing about something, in the meantime you're just blabbering hysterically about "abuse of powers" which prima facie are not the case by even cursory glance at the constitution. If you do not wish to be an embarrassment to the American republic, perhaps you should do some more research before you publish to the internet prattling nonsense in the name of Americans. /shrugs OK....this has degenerated into a personality conflict. I refuse to get involved. There's plenty of other people here I can debate with. The rest of us have been acting like adults. Edited January 24, 2019 by JamesHackerMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 No response is required, most Americans are familiar with the intricacies of their constitution, apparently you flunked civics. It's no skin off my teeth, it's simply not possible to argue civics with the civically illiterate. /shrugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Iznogoud said: It proves one of my my many points exactly, which thanks to overspending on defence and a lack of planning, the US is literally falling apart in many areas. Eventually something will have to be done about its decaying infrastructure, but having delayed so long in so many areas it is going to be much more expensive. Nope...the United States actually spends more on infrastructure than many other nations in the world, and has done so fairly consistently since the bulk of the interstate highway system was competed in the early 1970's. https://www.enotrans.org/article/70-year-trend-federal-infrastructure-spending/ Edited January 24, 2019 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 24, 2019 Report Share Posted January 24, 2019 Apparently not enough, BC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2019 On 1/23/2019 at 9:41 PM, JamesHackerMP said: That's likely because we're the remaining global superpower. When they were a superpower the Soviets did the same thing, spending to maintain their global presence to check the United States. The USSR was completely outgunned in the arms race. At one time it was spending over 20% of its GDP in an attempt to keep up with the US while the US never went higher than 6%. The nuclear arms race itself never did make much sense - it was purely a contest of terror. With tens of thousands of weapons on each side the overkill factor was ridiculous. By comparison Britain and France stopped at just a few hundred, believing that was a sufficient deterrent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2019 23 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Nope...the United States actually spends more on infrastructure than many other nations in the world, and has done so fairly consistently since the bulk of the interstate highway system was competed in the early 1970's. https://www.enotrans.org/article/70-year-trend-federal-infrastructure-spending/ Ahh, but does it spend enough? The US can easily outspend nations like Italy or Germany which are only a fraction of its size and population but still be lacking in many areas. From your graph it appears that infrastructure spending in the US peaked about 50 years ago. Given the fact that this infrastructure is now very old and outmoded why aren't there higher levels of spending? Mind you I will concede that a good deal of modern infrastructure spending in the US seems to be coming from the private sector, especially in the realm of green tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 25, 2019 Report Share Posted January 25, 2019 Just now, Iznogoud said: Ahh, but does it spend enough? The US can easily outspend nations like Italy or Germany which are only a fraction of its size and population but still be lacking in many areas. From your graph it appears that infrastructure spending in the US peaked about 50 years ago. Given the fact that this infrastructure is now very old and outmoded why aren't there higher levels of spending? Mind you I will concede that a good deal of modern infrastructure spending in the US seems to be coming from the private sector, especially in the realm of green tech. That is the entire point of the graph....much higher spending levels are associated with early construction of the massive U.S. interstate highway system, which is now funded by a Highway Trust Fund from fuel taxes that also go to fund transit. The federal government provides matching funds for state/city projects. Also significant to any criticism about defense spending priorities instead, the interstate highway system was built with national defense in mind. Transit now has a permanent funding piece that takes resources away from other projects and maintenance. My own metro area now has three light rail commuter lines that did not exist 20 years ago, and another is planned/funded to start building next year. Funding levels have been fairly consistent over the past 50 years, with "problems" and new infrastructure co-existing the whole time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted January 25, 2019 Report Share Posted January 25, 2019 11 hours ago, Iznogoud said: The USSR was completely outgunned in the arms race. At one time it was spending over 20% of its GDP in an attempt to keep up with the US while the US never went higher than 6%. The nuclear arms race itself never did make much sense - it was purely a contest of terror. With tens of thousands of weapons on each side the overkill factor was ridiculous. By comparison Britain and France stopped at just a few hundred, believing that was a sufficient deterrent. You're right about that. Maybe that was part of what Eisenhower warned about (the "military-industrial complex and its threat to democracy"). Some defense contractors got rich off of building all those ICBMs and nuclear warheads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iznogoud Posted January 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 20 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: That is the entire point of the graph....much higher spending levels are associated with early construction of the massive U.S. interstate highway system, which is now funded by a Highway Trust Fund from fuel taxes that also go to fund transit. Transit now has a permanent funding piece that takes resources away from other projects and maintenance. My own metro area now has three light rail commuter lines that did not exist 20 years ago, and another is planned/funded to start building next year. I think you are missing the point. One of the infrastructure problems listed was the lack of maintenance on bridges and highways. Apparently the level of spending is simply not enough to deal with all of the deterioration of the system. And transit in the US still lags behind of other industrialized nations, especially in high speed rail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 26, 2019 Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Iznogoud said: I think you are missing the point. One of the infrastructure problems listed was the lack of maintenance on bridges and highways. Apparently the level of spending is simply not enough to deal with all of the deterioration of the system. And transit in the US still lags behind of other industrialized nations, especially in high speed rail. And I think you are missing the point.....high speed rail is not and has not ever been a high priority in the United States. The United States has almost double the OECD average for passenger miles travel per year, leading all OECD nations by far: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26192 Edited January 26, 2019 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.