Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RF]

Hey, guys, I heard modern economics was more sustainable than medieval economics.

[Duuvian]

Nice sentence.

[Lord Shonus]

Good job putting words in my mouth You cut spending in a depression when what you're spending does nothing to return us to normal, i.e, our obsession with having the largest military in the world. Who cares now? Nuclear and biological weapons have changed the equation, no one will risk a full invasion of a developed country like the US or Russia. Our paranoia has been out of hand for years.

I've been trying really hard to stay out of this argument, because I know it will lead nowhere, but I just have to respond to this.

Where would you cut the military? The Army that is already stressed to the breaking point dealing with two relatively minor wars and would be hard-pressed to respond to even one of the nation's many, many treaty commitments? The Navy, which is the more survivable part of that nuclear deterrent you seem so proud of, not to mention the main means of keeping those weapons away from US shores AND the second of the two main means by which the US can honor those many treaty commitments? The Air Force, which, save for the handful of F-22 fighters and the vaunted drones has virtually no aircraft designed less than 30 years ago, and most are over 40? The Marines, that's so below strength itprobably couldn't assault even one beach? The R&D programs that are designing new weapons to replace very outdated weapons in not just the US but most European arsenals?

Yes, there's bloat in the US military. Yes, the last 30 years have been built designing and building weapons for a completely different war than it turned out would be needed. None of that means that you can just take an axe to the budget with no consequences. Look how close a second Korean War came to breaking out last year. Not to mention the second- and third-line US equipment that forms the backbone of many of our Allies' arsenals, which contributed greatly to the fact that non-US nations have such low defense expenditures, as they did not have to design and build their own fighters and warships, just like Soviet equipment did with many other nations.

[mainiac]

Good job putting words in my mouth

Dude I didn't put words in your mouth.  Your post was very confusing, read it again.

[mainiac]

Okay counting, what the hell was that post about.  Like seriously.  There's only two things I'm going to even bother to respond to.

Including state and local budgets in a discussion of federal budgets as if they were the same thing is problematic to say the least.

Hyperinflation?  Really?  Hyperinflation?

At this point I have no interest in even talking with you.  At no point have you ever advanced an argument that the economy is in recovery (The original point of contention if you recall) and I can't even begin to comprehend what you are saying at this point which lacks either rhyme or reason.

I will just with this one partian shot.  You go into hysterics about government taxation and revenue habits that are COMPLETELY NORMAL.  Every successful government operating a modern economy for the past two habits has behaved in relatively this same fashion.  Yet you are acting like we are behaving like a basket case.  If you look at the actual basket cases, they act far far worse.  Read some gorram history!

[counting]

Okay counting, what the hell was that post about.  Like seriously.  There's only two things I'm going to even bother to respond to.

Including state and local budgets in a discussion of federal budgets as if they were the same thing is problematic to say the least.

1. it's for the sake that we are using different terms but have the same name as "government expenditures", thus further the disagreements. And by the way, either of them calculated into % of GDP is lower than 20% as you mentioned.

Hyperinflation?  Really?  Hyperinflation?

At this point I have no interest in even talking with you.  At no point have you ever advanced an argument that the economy is in recovery (The original point of contention if you recall) and I can't even begin to comprehend what you are saying at this point which lacks either rhyme or reason.

I am posting the opinion that include hyperinflation discussion, since you brought up the topic first. And I DID specifically indicate that it's not happening in US, or in any developed modern countries. (And for others that are not familiar with what's hyperinflation). Also its just 1 paragraph in my long text wall. And I am famous for the text wall. (How about the rest 90% of my arguments and posts about the cause of economic recession and its related factors to inflation?)

And my point is always that the recession is continuing, not back to prosperity, since it's only the government expenditure keeps the show looks good on the surface. And it has to stop at some point, or we will fall harder in the future. (I did not refer inflation as the signal of the economy is "recovery" back to an expansion period)

I will just with this one partian shot.  You go into hysterics about government taxation and revenue habits that are COMPLETELY NORMAL.  Every successful government operating a modern economy for the past two habits has behaved in relatively this same fashion.  Yet you are acting like we are behaving like a basket case.  If you look at the actual basket cases, they act far far worse.  Read some gorram history!

Normal? You called the Chimerica normal? Loo into it, it's quite interesting, or find "the ascent of money - part 06" by Niall Ferguson. And European countries which operate in this excessive expenditures are sinking into credits troubles already. It's not news anymore. European country monetary system is not so successful, and they are crashing now. (50% expenditure to GDP like Italy, its crazy!). And yet there are indeed many countries seems backward in the 80s and 90s who didn't like expenditure policies till now, such as India and China with only 20% expenditure, and they are fast growing.

[counting]

@mainiac

I believe there is a blind spot here which is my fault due to my poor English expression, since I am not a native-English speaker, and may lead you to misunderstood my point in the beginning. What I mean by A recession period can still means working toward a healthy economy ("recovery" in economic indicators do NOT equal to economic growth or out of recession in my thoughts, it just means stable at some degree, like your wound stop bleeding, doesn't mean it's healed).

We see the constant growth for 20 years of prosperity in the past, and easily view it as norm, forgetting that it's not always possible staying in perpetrate growing. Instead, economy can also stay strong but slowly reduce economy size in recession, waiting for a better opportunity in the next prosperity period. In my opinion, It's a time for new thoughts and less aggressive economic policies, or it can keep trying pushing to the limit and crash. 

[timotheus]

I've been trying really hard to stay out of this argument, because I know it will lead nowhere, but I just have to respond to this.

Where would you cut the military? The Army that is already stressed to the breaking point dealing with two relatively minor wars and would be hard-pressed to respond to even one of the nation's many, many treaty commitments? The Navy, which is the more survivable part of that nuclear deterrent you seem so proud of, not to mention the main means of keeping those weapons away from US shores AND the second of the two main means by which the US can honor those many treaty commitments? The Air Force, which, save for the handful of F-22 fighters and the vaunted drones has virtually no aircraft designed less than 30 years ago, and most are over 40? The Marines, that's so below strength itprobably couldn't assault even one beach? The R&D programs that are designing new weapons to replace very outdated weapons in not just the US but most European arsenals?

Yes, there's bloat in the US military. Yes, the last 30 years have been built designing and building weapons for a completely different war than it turned out would be needed. None of that means that you can just take an axe to the budget with no consequences. Look how close a second Korean War came to breaking out last year. Not to mention the second- and third-line US equipment that forms the backbone of many of our Allies' arsenals, which contributed greatly to the fact that non-US nations have such low defense expenditures, as they did not have to design and build their own fighters and warships, just like Soviet equipment did with many other nations.

I would suggest the US prune back its bases in foreign countries. The current number is 865, but if one includes the newer bases in Afghanistan and Iraq the number is closer to 1000. See article. That is excessive. Our military presence in Europe specifically is overblown; a hold over from the cold war.

As to your point about a near Second Korean War, that is valid. I personally have a real struggle with idealogy in keeping the peace about the world, in general. Obviously, peace is a good thing. War is a needless loss of life in many cases. However, is it the United States obligation to be the worlds police? We should back out of treaty obligations that require us to deploy our soldiers half-way around the world. On the other hand, WW2. Assisting in defeating the Axis powers was an imperative thing to do. Probably worth a thread on it's own.

[Africa]

If our military is really as ass-backwards as you say, then we REALLY shouldn't be spending such astronomical amounts of money on it.

[Eagleon]

If our military is really as ass-backwards as you say, then we REALLY shouldn't be spending such astronomical amounts of money on it.

This. I don't really need to say any more, thanks.

Dude I didn't put words in your mouth.  Your post was very confusing, read it again.

I wasn't saying anything more than what I posted. The post you originally quoted had a little snip towards the nation's intelligence spending, and that should kind of have hinted where I think we need some of our cuts.

[Nadaka]

I am in favor of reducing the military budget, as long as they don't reduce the funding for any of the project that I work on for them.

[PTTG??]

I am in favor of reducing the military budget, as long as they don't reduce the funding for any of the project that I work on for them.

I think that everyone thinks something like a more generalized version of that. Maybe this:

I am in favor of reducing the deficit, as long as they don't reduce the funding for any of the services I use or departments I work for.

If we give everyone what they want, we don't actually reduce the deficit at all.

[Nadaka]

I am in favor of reducing the military budget, as long as they don't reduce the funding for any of the project that I work on for them.

I think that everyone thinks something like a more generalized version of that. Maybe this:

I am in favor of reducing the deficit, as long as they don't reduce the funding for any of the services I use or departments I work for.

If we give everyone what they want, we don't actually reduce the deficit at all.

Thing is, I am willing to pay more taxes to fix the deficit, I am not willing to loose my job to fix the deficit. I face that very real possibility if the military research, development and procurement budget is slashed. Especially because most of what I do is intended to save both lives and money in the long run.

[PTTG??]

I wanted to bring in some numbers. I got these from Wikipedia, they are the 2010 spending budget statistics:

19% - electives (federal services not mentioned below, including (at fractions of a percent each,) NASA, NPR, PBS...

20% - DoD
20% - Soc. Sec.
23% - Medicaid
16% - Mandatory overhead (legally required, cannot be cut)
6% - Interest (cannot cut- that would by definition be a default.)

Naturally, we cannot cut the DoD, since without us the world will fall into chaos. We cannot cut Soc. Sec. because short-sighted baby boomers failed to save anything voluntarily. We cannot cut Medicaid because it is a fantastic cash cow for everyone involved.

We are 40% over budget.

If we shut down EVERYTHING we can, sell every remaining piece of NASA equipment, flog the Big Bird Suit to a furry shop in New Jersey, and turn off the FBI, CIA, and the BBC, and eliminate every federal service other than the Big Three...

We would be 21% over budget.

I think it's fair to say we're doomed.

[Glowcat]

Or we could just close off tax loopholes and bring in more tax revenue.

*Washington goes berserk at mention of obvious solution*