Jan 25 2013: My point Chris was that the Bush administration used the term WMD's to scare people into invading the same way every government uses propaganda to scare its citizens into war. If the Bush administration had said: ' we think sadaam hussein has chemical weapons but no delivery system (or none beyond Kurdistan) but we are still invading anyway' its unlikely the country would have mobilized. Similarly,by labeling the funds I gave the US government for safe keeping as 'entitlements' I think it distances and diminishes the average citizens realization that is his/her's money they are talking about.
Jan 7 2013: I enjoy thinking about linguistics and that's why I wondered why “we” use entitlements to describe Social Security. You speculate its because we are “entitled” to receive the taxes we paid to the government in after age 65. This sounds quite plausible. But it doesn't fully explain why we don't' call other money we are entitled to receive e.g., tax refunds, or Medicaid payments, where we do not contribute to a fund, “entitlements.”
As I said, the psychology of this point may only be of interest to me and a few others, but sometimes pulling on the linguistic thread often yields surprising insight. For example, “WMD” was used as justification for the invasion of Iraq. History shows us there were no WMD's-at least none that we understood that term to mean. Why did almost the entire nation use that term without it being clearly understood (What is a WMD other than a atomic or hydrogen bomb anyway?) Another term bandied about without being defined is “enhanced interrogation techniques” or the word “torture”.
So its fascinating that instead of someone saying: I will vote to cut your Social Security benefits” or “ I believe we should water-board Al Queda suspects”, or “ I believe that Saddam Hussein has a hydrogen bomb” we all use euphemisms. I think it's worthwhile to explore the reasons why we use certain language.
Jan 7 2013: In the law there is a saying: "he who gets to define the question gets to determine the outcome". That's why those who advocate for cuts to Social Security, Medicare and medicaid and prevent the same type cuts to "defense" call those programs "entitlements". Language matters- i.,e "the fiscal cliff". Not identifying the correct level of spending is disingenuous and skews the outcome. .
Jan 7 2013: Right, Ray, the polling questions are vague and shouldn't be used as a basis by any serious analyst or government official for a policy decision. Nor should his pie charts which fail to accurately specify where the US government spends our money. Budget and Finance are not areas conducive for generalization. That being said, his talk is still 10X better than what passes on TV for analysis!
Jan 7 2013: I don't think its correct or fair to say that “defense spending” is 20% of the budget. The term “Defense Department budget” estimated for 2011 at $665 billion traditionally does not include nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production (Department of Energy budget) or Veterans Affairs or the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, or interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. The term likewise does not include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA, the CIA or the NSC. [Even so, the US budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billion of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending.]
If you include the aforementioned excluded items the budget for defense goes up another $1.03-1.40 Trillion. Using figures of $1.7-2.0 Trillion would make the defense budget closer to 35% - 40% of the budget.
TEDCred score: +35.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
As I said, the psychology of this point may only be of interest to me and a few others, but sometimes pulling on the linguistic thread often yields surprising insight. For example, “WMD” was used as justification for the invasion of Iraq. History shows us there were no WMD's-at least none that we understood that term to mean. Why did almost the entire nation use that term without it being clearly understood (What is a WMD other than a atomic or hydrogen bomb anyway?) Another term bandied about without being defined is “enhanced interrogation techniques” or the word “torture”.
So its fascinating that instead of someone saying: I will vote to cut your Social Security benefits” or “ I believe we should water-board Al Queda suspects”, or “ I believe that Saddam Hussein has a hydrogen bomb” we all use euphemisms. I think it's worthwhile to explore the reasons why we use certain language.
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
A comment on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
If you include the aforementioned excluded items the budget for defense goes up another $1.03-1.40 Trillion. Using figures of $1.7-2.0 Trillion would make the defense budget closer to 35% - 40% of the budget.
A reply on Talk: Adam Davidson: What we learned from teetering on the fiscal cliff
A comment on Talk: Ernesto Sirolli: Want to help someone? Shut up and listen!
A comment on Talk: Teenaged boy wonders play bluegrass
A reply on Talk: Jason McCue: Terrorism is a failed brand