3rd debate

[dogtowner]

You mean the sequestration obama lied about?

yes ma'am

I doubt it... But even if they did happen, we'd need to cut at least an equal amount from social spending to come close to a balanced budget and that's definitely not going to happen. If anything, Obama will ensure that the welfare state will grow even faster to ensure that a solid majority of the country is dependent on government and thereby ensure Democrats will dominate all future elections (until they run out of other peoples money).

no argument on the social spending, now that he's so expanded the dependance class he'll have his hands full trying to keep them fed and not getting restless. going to be harder to do when Bernake can no longer print money though.

 

[BigRob]

Revenue as a % of GDP - 18%
Spending as a % of GDP - 24%

Feel free to nit pick about defense spending being a smaller % of GDP but that does nothing to mitigate the fact that we're OVER spending in actual dollars ever year to the tune of 1 trillion plus dollars, putting us on the high speed lane towards fiscal insolvency. Drastic cuts need to be made to both the defense budget and the welfare state in order to put us back on a path of fiscal solvency. The amounts we're looking at are simply too large to realistically think we could grow the economy enough to make a difference, especially since we can look forward to four more years of massive deficit spending and anemic economic growth.

I'm not going to argue that we are not overspending -- but the only "plan" I seem to hear about is "cut some defense and raise taxes on the rich" -- and problem solved. That is (as you will probably agree) simply not true. I will support some additional military cuts, but only if we get entitlements on the agenda as well.

What indicators suggest that we're "far off" from rising interest rates? The fed is talking about having to raise rates in 2014-15... Is that "far off" to you?

I should clarify -- simply rates going up is not a huge problem -- it depends on the level. Long term interest rates are around 2.5% -- I think we would need to be seeing 6% rates to really be on the verge of a serious problem.

 

[BigRob]

It would STILL Be an increase of 3%. . .
We already have TOO MUCH of everything . . .and it gives us a very negative incentive to "USE" what we have before it becomes absolete. . .and we need to replace it!

And what would the big drama be if we no longer adopted the role of policing the world. . .especially in places where they DON'T WANT US policing the world?

We protect our interests - we do not "police the world." If we did -- we would be pouring trillions in Africa.

As Russia pulled back on its defense spending after the cold war, it became economically stronger than it EVERY had been. Same with China. . .it is not the inventory of tools of war that makes China so powerful and ready to overtake us as the "leader of the world," it is ECONOMICS, and while they are getting stronger in economics. . .we are getting stronger with our war machine. . .but MUCH weaker in economics wealth!

There is more to Russian and Chinese growth than limited defense spending. And don't pretend that China is not making huge investments into weapon systems that are designed solely to limit our ease of access.

It is NOT our stock pile of nuclear weapons acquired at high cost that defeated the Soviet Union! It is the desire of the people in Soviet Union to live the "good life" and be free to migrate to the much weaker (point view of defense) Europe, but much stronger (economically and in terms of quality of life and freedom) Europe.

And we still insist in considering the number of ship and the number of bombs we have as our insurance of our superiority. . .while we ruin our REAL chances to keep our leadership through ECONOMIC GROWTH!

Dumb!

We have been cutting our nuclear arsenal -- basically on our own. It is vital that we maintain a credible nuclear arsenal, to keep up our nuclear deterrent commitments, and this limits proliferation all around the world.

In terms of the ships comments, I can only assume you are referencing the comments Romney made. I've addressed this in other forums -- but he has a solid point. Right now we cut a carrier, and lost another while we await delivery of our new one in 2014. This limits our ability to quickly respond, increases deployments times, hurts retention rates, makes maintenance more costly (because we have to keep carriers out when they are scheduled for maintenance) .

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not going to argue that we are not overspending -- but the only "plan" I seem to hear about is "cut some defense and raise taxes on the rich" -- and problem solved. That is (as you will probably agree) simply not true. I will support some additional military cuts, but only if we get entitlements on the agenda as well.

balanced ? yeah that makes sense

I should clarify -- simply rates going up is not a huge problem -- it depends on the level. Long term interest rates are around 2.5% -- I think we would need to be seeing 6% rates to really be on the verge of a serious problem.

when do you see bernake's money printing as tipping us to higher rates ? Moody's etal have already made it clear a rating cut is not far off.

 

[BigRob]

balanced ? yeah that makes sense

when do you see bernake's money printing as tipping us to higher rates ? Moody's etal have already made it clear a rating cut is not far off.

It is tough to say exactly -- the market all but wrote off the the last credit downgrade, and the world seemed quite happy to loan us money at 2%. Really it is just a confidence issue, and despite all the issues, the world still seems to have confidence in the US economy and dollar.

 

[dogtowner]

It is tough to say exactly -- the market all but wrote off the the last credit downgrade, and the world seemed quite happy to loan us money at 2%. Really it is just a confidence issue, and despite all the issues, the world still seems to have confidence in the US economy and dollar.

you do realize that Bernake has been printing money to "pay" the deficit for a year now, right ? China stopped buying quite a while ago.

 

[BigRob]

you do realize that Bernake has been printing money to "pay" the deficit for a year now, right ? China stopped buying quite a while ago.

Yea, I've seen estimates as high as we buy 80% worth of our own debt -- but I've also seen from credible sources its closer to 50-55% -- either way, its a shell game for sure.

That said, China did indeed resume buying some treasuries this year, and foreign holdings of treasuries still account for over 50% of the ballpark 11 trillion in marketable securities -- and those figures are not really changing.

Point being, confidence seems to remain in the dollar -- certainly this can change, but it seems like a safe bet still at this moment.

 

[Openmind]

We protect our interests - we do not "police the world." If we did -- we would be pouring trillions in Africa.



There is more to Russian and Chinese growth than limited defense spending. And don't pretend that China is not making huge investments into weapon systems that are designed solely to limit our ease of access.



We have been cutting our nuclear arsenal -- basically on our own. It is vital that we maintain a credible nuclear arsenal, to keep up our nuclear deterrent commitments, and this limits proliferation all around the world.

In terms of the ships comments, I can only assume you are referencing the comments Romney made. I've addressed this in other forums -- but he has a solid point. Right now we cut a carrier, and lost another while we await delivery of our new one in 2014. This limits our ability to quickly respond, increases deployments times, hurts retention rates, makes maintenance more costly (because we have to keep carriers out when they are scheduled for maintenance) .

And all that for what?

What interest did we REALLY have in Iraq? OIL?

Don't tell me that we are keeping a military force 5 times more expensive than the next one in the world to protect "PRIVATE OIL CORPORATIONS INTEREST?"

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprise!

I'm just wondering if you really think that it would be morally acceptable to kill foreign nationals, let thousands of our soldiers die and tens of thousands of soldiers and their families be disabled or traumatised for life, forgoe spending on SAVING PEOPLE's LIFE in AMERICA, give up our economic dominance in the world, Irritate and lose the trust of our allies, . . .and ALL of that to "protect our ECONOMIC interests of big oil corporations in the world?

This is sick! Probably true, but SICK!

I was mostly blaming the defense industry. and now you are telling me that it is ALSO the OIL industry?

And what "national interest" do we protect by keeping tens of thousands of troops in Italy and Germany (among others?)

Do you really think that all the negative impacs on so many aspects of American life are really worth. . .a few more years of OIL, just because we cannot curb our greed for the ugly, stinky, damaging stuff?

Just because we refuse to follow (I would have prefer to say "lead," but it's already too late for that!) our allies in Europe into alternative forms of energy, like solar panels and other NON toxic forms of energy?
Because we are "too great" to buy hybrid cars, or smaller, more gas efficient cars instead of our gaz guzzlers?
Because we feel it is our "right" to live two elderly people in a 7000 square foot home that is either heated or air conditioned 12 months a year?
Because we feel that we need to have refrigerators large enough to keep, not only our daily, or even weekly food, but the old food that will eventually end up in the trash once it is thoroughly spoiled?
Because we would rather take our cars to travel 2 miles instead of walking or bicycling?

Is that the "RIGHTS" our forefathers were talking about? Is that what represents our "pursuit of happiness?"

SICK!

 

[BigRob]

And all that for what?

What interest did we REALLY have in Iraq? OIL?

Don't tell me that we are keeping a military force 5 times more expensive than the next one in the world to protect "PRIVATE OIL CORPORATIONS INTEREST?"

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprise!

I'm just wondering if you really think that it would be morally acceptable to kill foreign nationals, let thousands of our soldiers die and tens of thousands of soldiers and their families be disabled or traumatised for life, forgoe spending on SAVING PEOPLE's LIFE in AMERICA, give up our economic dominance in the world, Irritate and lose the trust of our allies, . . .and ALL of that to "protect our ECONOMIC interests of big oil corporations in the world?

This is sick! Probably true, but SICK!

I was mostly blaming the defense industry. and now you are telling me that it is ALSO the OIL industry?

I'm not sure how this suddenly became all about oil -- but to get a quick overview of our national security interests abroad you can read the National Security Strategy of the United States. The White House puts it out.

And what "national interest" do we protect by keeping tens of thousands of troops in Italy and Germany (among others?)

Do you really think that all the negative impacs on so many aspects of American life are really worth. . .a few more years of OIL, just because we cannot curb our greed for the ugly, stinky, damaging stuff?

Again, not sure how this is all about oil again -- although oil is important.

That said, troops in Germany and Europe are important for NATO in my opinion, having the ability to quickly respond all over the world...there are plenty of reasons.

Just because we refuse to follow (I would have prefer to say "lead," but it's already too late for that!) our allies in Europe into alternative forms of energy, like solar panels and other NON toxic forms of energy?
Because we are "too great" to buy hybrid cars, or smaller, more gas efficient cars instead of our gaz guzzlers?
Because we feel it is our "right" to live two elderly people in a 7000 square foot home that is either heated or air conditioned 12 months a year?
Because we feel that we need to have refrigerators large enough to keep, not only our daily, or even weekly food, but the old food that will eventually end up in the trash once it is thoroughly spoiled?
Because we would rather take our cars to travel 2 miles instead of walking or bicycling?

Is that the "RIGHTS" our forefathers were talking about? Is that what represents our "pursuit of happiness?"

SICK!

People are free to buy a hybrid, live in a smaller house, bike to work, whatever they want -- they are also free to do the opposite.

 

[Openmind]

I'm not sure how this suddenly became all about oil -- but to get a quick overview of our national security interests abroad you can read the National Security Strategy of the United States. The White House puts it out.



Again, not sure how this is all about oil again -- although oil is important.

That said, troops in Germany and Europe are important for NATO in my opinion, having the ability to quickly respond all over the world...there are plenty of reasons.



People are free to buy a hybrid, live in a smaller house, bike to work, whatever they want -- they are also free to do the opposite.

Not if it cost the life of our soldiers, and the future of our kids, and the health of the Earth do do so.

Again, no wonder Americans are considered like selfish big kids with not too much brain!

 

[BigRob]

Not if it cost the life of our soldiers, and the future of our kids, and the health of the Earth do do so.

Again, no wonder Americans are considered like selfish big kids with not too much brain!

If I want to pay for it -- why can't I?