Grading the Bugle Boys (and girls)

[N.E. Brigand]

8 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 [...] especially given today's times when the Fed. Gov't has mismanaged our tax dollars to the inexcusable current levels of 19 trillion dollars of overspending Fed. Gov't debt [...]

I'm not saying the debt isn't too large--although there are reasonable people who will make that argument--but I do wish to point out, for general reference, that the $19 trillion figure is meaningless by itself. Although I'm no economist, I do know that economists prefer to describe the debt as a percentage of GDP. (Because if GDP were $100 trillion, then a $19 trillion debt would be low.) Measured that way, it's at about 80%, which is indeed higher than it's been since 1950 or so.

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, garfield said:

I knew this would ##### your bubble.  LOL, it's getting too easy, Stu. (EDIT: What, can't say #####?  OK, how about "pop your bubble" then?)

Trying to guess what ##### could have been. I would have used "burst" or "pop" in that phrase, but if I had to guess...

##### Up Your Ears is the title of a biopic about playwright Joe Orton, author of Loot and What the Butler Saw; it starred Gary Oldman.

And "ears" is an anagram.

Edit: yep, that was the word.

Edited September 6, 2017 by N.E. Brigand

[N.E. Brigand]

From the article:

Quote

Ever since iconic fife-and-drum corps marched into Revolutionary War battles, military bands have inspired American soldiers and citizens alike in war and peace. They are mainstays of state dinners, presidential inaugurations, funerals and celebratory events around the country, including the Super Bowl. 

But are they worth the more than $400 million the government spends on them each year? Is there an objective way to measure how effective these ensembles are at boosting morale and patriotism and spreading goodwill across the globe?

Were they worth whatever they cost in the past, e.g., during the Civil War?

Edited September 7, 2017 by N.E. Brigand

[BRASSO]

17 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I'm not saying the debt isn't too large--although there are reasonable people who will make that argument--.

 .... and many others, that would assess that those who make such claims, ie  19 trillion dollars in overspending Federal Government spending debt " isn't too large " are anything BUT.... " reasonable people ".

Edited September 7, 2017 by BRASSO

[Tim K]

 Very often when budget cuts are needed, symbolic or visible things are the first to go so that in can be shown cuts have been made. Rarely are these cuts significant and often save little money when budget busters that may not be needed are saved. A second way is saying every department has to make, let's say a 5% cut, making it appear everyone is tightening their belts when successful business leaders usually are more strategic and look across the board to see where cuts need to be made. I'm not sure cutting military music programs would save all that much.

Another point. A young marine recruiter at semi's a few years backwho had fun at my expense by making me attempt to do a chin up before giving me a free CD told me DCI is a great place to recruit. Could the young man recruit without the Commandant's Own performing at finals? Most likely but I'm sure it did not hurt matters.  

[N.E. Brigand]

8 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 .... and many others, that would assess that those who make such claims, i.e., 19 trillion dollars in overspending Federal Government spending debt " isn't too large " are anything BUT.... " reasonable people ".

Yes, many people share your view. On the other hand, when the debt reached $1 trillion in the 1980s, I remember people saying that was too large. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But $1 trillion or $19 trillion, that's not how the experts measure national debt. (As a percentage of GDP, that $1 trillion came to about 30%, I think.) And I think I can find you at least one Nobel Prize-winning economist who disagrees with you. And of course, cutting funding to bands, or cutting anything, may not be the right solution. There are plenty of reasonable economists who would argue that taxes are too low, especially on high incomes. (Earlier today I read that the U.S. is 60th on a list of nations with the highest taxes. I think that was based on a Heritage Foundation study. I'm sure it depends on what's being counted.) Raising them would be another way of reducing the debt. Maybe not the right way. But it's all worth discussing.

 

(Also, ahem, isn't "overspending federal government spending debt" doubly redundant?)

[Stu]

2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Yes, many people share your view. On the other hand, when the debt reached $1 trillion in the 1980s, I remember people saying that was too large. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But $1 trillion or $19 trillion, that's not how the experts measure national debt. (As a percentage of GDP, that $1 trillion came to about 30%, I think.) And I think I can find you at least one Nobel Prize-winning economist who disagrees with you. And of course, cutting funding to bands, or cutting anything, may not be the right solution. There are plenty of reasonable economists who would argue that taxes are too low, especially on high incomes. (Earlier today I read that the U.S. is 60th on a list of nations with the highest taxes. I think that was based on a Heritage Foundation study. I'm sure it depends on what's being counted.) Raising them would be another way of reducing the debt. Maybe not the right way. But it's all worth discussing.

 

(Also, ahem, isn't "overspending federal government spending debt" doubly redundant?)

A) The ‘Experts’ with their Keynesian economics philosophies got us started down the road into this mess in the first place!!!

B) Using the GDP as a reference to massive debt being ‘ok’ only works if the tax revenue increases in a manner keeping pace with the debt in order to prevent inevitable collapse.

C) As it stands right now it would take a payment of around $61,000 per citizen, not per tax payer but ‘per citizen’ to pay off the National Debt, and a payment of around $209,000 per citizen to pay off the Total U.S. Debt.  But that would set it at zero for less than a second, because the government still way overspends the revenue collected; so debt would begin to grow again immediately.

D) I have seen this happen to individuals: They borrow, and can pay off the debt per month; then they borrow more and can pay the minimum per month; then they borrow more and do a shell game of payments; then they go bankrupt and recover to either start the cycle over again or they learn their lesson.  The big, huge difference here is that if the United States goes belly-up there is no recovery, no learning, no starting over, no bail-out, just collapse!!

E) We do not have a tax revenue problem, we have a 'Spending' problem!!! So, socking the rich even more, who by the way are already footing the majority of the tax revenue burden, will not solve the 'Spending' problem!!!

F) And as it apples to military band music in relation to the massive, massive, massive, increasing debt, try telling us that program is 'vital' to keep playing while the ship sinks into oblivion.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Stu

[N.E. Brigand]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

A) The ‘Experts’ with their Keynesian economics philosophies got us started down the road into this mess in the first place!!!

This is almost exactly backwards (the debt exists to a large degree due to abandoning Keynesian principles), but arguing about it will only lead us into politics, so I'm going to leave it.

As for the military bands, I think they are a net force for good, but would welcome a more thorough study of costs and benefits that actually tried to attach some numbers to the intangibles mentioned in that article by the bands' defenders.

[BRASSO]

2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I think I can find you at least one Nobel Prize-winning economist who disagrees with you. 

 Oh thats easy, of course. Put 10 economists in a room, and the majority there couldn't agree even among themselves if the commodity prices of sugar is going up or down the next 6 months, or even if the dam heat in the room was too high or two low... lol!. World renowned American Economist Irving Fisher (  Phd, Yale U. ) in Sept of 1929 was telling everyone that the  US Economy was headed for a year of prosperity, Wall Street, and Investor gains. Less than 3 weeks later, the US Stock Market crashed, and set the stage for a major Economic Depression to follow.... lol!.  Anybody that trys to tell you that a 19 trillion Dollar Fed. Gov't debt, is no big deal, with less than half the US Adult population employed, and personal savings so historically low, etc you need to ask yourself who pays them to peddle such indefensible rubbish, imo

Edited September 7, 2017 by BRASSO

[Stu]

25 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

As for the military bands, I think they are a net force for good, but would welcome a more thorough study of costs and benefits that actually tried to attach some numbers to the intangibles mentioned in that article by the bands' defenders.

Parents taking kids to Disney World is also likely a net 'force' for good. But it would be a complete financial disaster and grossly irresponsible if they went even more in debt to take the trip while already being in massive debt prior to going. And yes, it is that simple.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Stu