The General US Politics Thread

This is not actually that entertaining. Listening to Bill O Reiley talk for a few minutes on end is aneurysm inducing.

Deficit spending isn't in itself a bad thing. What matters is where the money goes. If you're borrowing to build things like roads, schools and public services, then that's fine, because it increases your national economic output and improves the standard of living. It's also fine in a national emergency, like a war or major disaster, because you're using it to protect the well-being of the citizens and your national integrity, and once the crisis passes, you can pay it back or direct the resources elsewhere.

Where you get major problems is when the national debt is being used to fund entitlements, like social security and senior pensions. While I'm not opposed to those things, they need to be funded with currently-generated revenue, not debt. You're paying people, but they're spending the money on the necessities of life, which means the debt isn't increasing your future productivity. With a population that is getting older and retiring, they're not producing as much, so the younger workers need to pay more to take care of the old people.

But since you can't just cut elder entitlements, you need to cut discretionary spending and raise some taxes in order to balance the budget. The military is our largest discretionary expense. Why do we need eleven nuclear-powered aircraft carriers again?

Honestly, if I were in control of the US budget, I'd balance it by cutting the military out entirely.

While I think that's overkill, the military definitely has too many cool toys. Sure, the United States is currently pretty much invincible from a military standpoint. Which is why if someone wanted to attack, they'd do so from a digital or economic angle, where we are far weaker.

Mind, as others in this thread have already noted, the myth about China just "buying" the US is completely unfounded (they need us more than we need them), but you get my point.

you can't do that, we'd be utterly fucked.

besides, that means you'd kill off the coast guard too.

We could afford to cut back though. EG, does the Navy really still need the enterprise? we could do with just 10 full-sized carriers.

Yeah, that's not going to lead to problems.

Look I get that you think the military is a waste of money but not having it is going to cause far more problems than having it. What happens if we're invaded? What if one of our allies really needs our help? You just can't feasibly do that.

edited 7th Oct '12 10:27:31 AM by Kostya

Not to mention you'd be laying off a shit ton of people.

The Navy is replacing the Enterprise with the Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship in a new class of supercarrier. So we'll still have the same number. Really, the military could be cut in half without substantially impairing our national security.

That's what I said a few weeks back. If our goal is to bring the military back to pre-Iraq war levels then it could easily take a 500 billion dollar cut. The budget in 2001 was somewhere around 300 billion so even adjusting for inflation I think 500 would be a good number.

edited 7th Oct '12 10:31:23 AM by Kostya

We can junk the military-industrial complex almost entirely, and start over with rational procurement rules. That would save a bundle.

Also, social security and other forms of income support are the best use of government dollars next to pure infrastructure. Why? Because that money gets spent immediately, creating a very significant economic multiplier.

It's nonsensical to say that any particular program is "paid for" by debt versus some other program that's paid for by revenue. In the end, it's X dollars in and Y dollars out.

What matters (from a Keynesian perspective) is whether the economy is operating at peak capacity. That should be the goal. If it's below peak, then spend money to boost demand to get it there. If it's running too hot (over peak) then withdraw the money supply to put the brakes on.

Yea, Which I think we should reduce the size, but just slightly. maybe 5-10%. enough to still be ahead of the rest by a long shot.

Cutting a half a trillion dollars would not put us in danger of being overtaken any time soon.

Mitt Romney debates with Mitt Romney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&hd=1

Oh, I know. I just think that we SHOULD have large lead.

We will still have a large lead though. When you look at all the stuff we already have stockpiled you notice that even if we got rid of all further weapons development we'd probably be good for a while.

There's even less reason for a large budget now that the wars are coming to a close. The only reason I can think of for continuing on our current course is to prepare for the next war which is something we certainly do not need right now.

edited 7th Oct '12 10:41:51 AM by Kostya

I honestly think we could stand to cut the military budget in half, considering that we'd still have a little bit more than China's, Russia's, Britian's, and France's budgets combined. Not quite as extreme as axing 500 billion/all of it, but still pretty significant. Of course, keeping VA benefits should be a top priority no matter what we do. *coughGOPcough*

@Joe: Right, because we need the military to defend ourselves from all those invasions that keep happening to the US. All the US military is used for is foreign wars. All those wars have been doing, as of late, has been making us look bad with other nations.

I should note that I don't mean to cut it all immediately. I'd start with scaling it back slowly, but I'd eventually scale it back to nothing.

Anyone who is for getting rid of all of of our armed forces is putting idealism over reality. Also N.Korea would probably invade the South.

Plus 8 different nations would probably announce the start of there new nuclear program. And China & Russia would act like even bigger dicks than they currently do now (And That's Terrible)

I'm for cutting 25% of our military budget. And none of those cuts effecting the Airforce and Weapons Development.

" prepare for the next war which is something we certainly do not need right now. "

You do realize what's going on in Syria and Iran right now?

edited 7th Oct '12 11:13:49 AM by DeviantBraeburn

There is too much crap going on in the world for us to cut out our military completely. I am not one to jump on the "making America look weak" bandwagon, but it is true that fear of our might is one factor keeping various regional conflicts (North Korea vs South Korea, the Middle-East in general vs Israel, etc) from blowing up. The idea that lots of countries have a "big brother" who can step in on their behalf is fundamentally a good one, because it keeps things stable.

Now, I don't believe this state of affairs is good in the long term, but in the short term it's unfortunately very necessary.

There are enough countries who believe in "big stick" diplomacy that we can't afford not to have a stick to back up our words and our money. Of course, our stick doesn't need to be nearly as expensive as it is now.

edited 7th Oct '12 11:11:48 AM by Fighteer

Don't put words into people's mouths. Nobody who matters says that.

I'm for keeping the military, but just cutting back. At the very least, we need to drastically reduce expansion, and focus on maintaining defense and our current foreign forces.

By the way, is it considered a war in Syria right now?

If it is, it feels strange. I mean, we're feeling nothing over there while people die every day over there.

Did you just imply that @deathpigeon doesn't matter?

Kinda harsh.

It's considered a Civil War. It may become a full out war, if Turkey continues to get involved.

edited 7th Oct '12 11:17:52 AM by DeviantBraeburn

We're stuck in an ideological debate over here about whether Syria's problems are its own to deal with or the world's as a whole. We also have the problem that U.N. action is being blocked by Russia in the security council. It's kind of heartless to say it, but people die all the time in these types of conflicts. We can't intervene in all of them, so we have to pick our battles. Syria may not be worth it.

It's exactly these kinds of tensions — between the extremes of invading every country that looks at us funny and withdrawing from international affairs entirely — that invalidate the simplistic thinking of people on the conservative side (and some on the liberal side). This is one point that Jon Stewart made in last night's debate that I completely and totally agree with: these are complex, nuanced issues. They cannot be solved by sound bites and rhetoric, nor by reaching for the first answer that appeals to a particular ideological bent.

edited 7th Oct '12 11:20:32 AM by Fighteer

@Braeburn: All that would only happen if we cut it off immediately. If we slowly phase it out, and give more support behind different international organizations that would be able to do peacekeeping, such as the UN and the ICC. With them slowly taking on the responsibilities that the US military has been taking on, such as helping the South Koreans.

In Syria, a large segment of the Syrian people, with the help of the Turkish government, are in the middle of an uprising against the authoritarian regime in Syria. If things continue as they are, the Turkish government will end up sending troops into Syria on the side of the rebels, and the rebels will probably win, since the Turkish military is, to my knowledge, more powerful than the Syrian military.

In Iran, they may or may not be building nuclear weapons, but, in all probability, they aren't, and are just making it seem like they are because they want to look strong. In addition, economic sanctions imposed by various governments has led to major economic problems, which, in turn, has led to widespread protests.

I don't see how either of those require an intervention by our military.

@No Name: Hey! D: Are you saying I don't matter?

"In Iran, they may or may not be building nuclear weapons, but, in all probability, they aren't, and are just making it seem like they are because they want to look strong."

And if they are? We need a contingency plan.