3rd debate

[BigRob]

Not to mention the speaches he and Hill gave standing on the coffins of the 4 dead Americans at Andrews AFB and the speal they gave at the UN. (not to mention the 70 million they spent on their own propaganda video for Pakistan condeming the video)

Whatever happened to the bogus video maker? Oh.... he's still sitting in jail with his mouth taped shut.

The State Department spent $70,000 not $70,000,000 on the ads in Pakistan condemning the video.

 

[Cruella]

The State Department spent $70,000 not $70,000,000 on the ads in Pakistan condemning the video.

Your right. 70 thousand or 70 million, it's all chump change to Obama anyway.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You can find the complete transcript of President Obama's remarks here....you might note how long it takes him to use the line "no acts of terror" -- and you might note the placement of line -- right after a reference to 9/11 -- easily leading people to conclude that the terror reference was to 9/11. In fact, during his entire opening about the incident, he continually uses the word "attack", he uses "killers" and "brutal acts" -- why no mention of terror at this point? Why does that only come up in passing after he references 9/11?

It is certainly not a strong statement that this was a "terror" attack -- even more so when they spent the next week blaming spontaneous rights and a video.

FIrst of all...new York Times Times reporters still say that the video was talked about in interviews with people from the attack who sited the video as part of inspiration of the attack...The CIA at the time stated this...but you know its just the CIA why would the white house listen to them? Also man I wounder if when he said Acts of Terror the day after the attack..in a statement about the attack...but yea I am sure he was not talking Libya of course. If you want to say he did not say it enough , fine what ever...but fact is he did...he did not wait 15 days, Mitt was wrong..moderator was right. But I am not going to sit and bitch that Obama is at fault for people not knowing exactly what happened and what the inspiration of the attack was for some time. On Sept 11 people did not know right away who was behind the attack...and stories changed about what happened after.. People started blaming Iraq, Iran, and others for being in on the attack only walk them back...then sometimes find new evidence that they did maybe? I recall Reports on Sept 11 that the White House was on fire..So yea, there was confusion...its what I would expect given that we know there where Protests all over the middle east for the video...also there are still reports of Protests in Lybia for them as well...as well as the attack..

 

[BigRob]

FIrst of all...new York Times Times reporters still say that the video was talked about in interviews with people from the attack who sited the video as part of inspiration of the attack...The CIA at the time stated this...but you know its just the CIA why would the white house listen to them?

Intelligence officials are on record testifying before Congress now that was no mob outside the consulate, and the CIA station chief in Libya determined 24 hours after the attack that it was the work of terrorists, and not some random mob incited by a YouTube video.

Also man I wounder if when he said Acts of Terror the day after the attack..in a statement about the attack...but yea I am sure he was not talking Libya of course. If you want to say he did not say it enough , fine what ever...but fact is he did...he did not wait 15 days, Mitt was wrong..moderator was right.

The transcript is above -- people can judge for themselves on his statement.

But I am not going to sit and bitch that Obama is at fault for people not knowing exactly what happened and what the inspiration of the attack was for some time. On Sept 11 people did not know right away who was behind the attack...and stories changed about what happened after.. People started blaming Iraq, Iran, and others for being in on the attack only walk them back...then sometimes find new evidence that they did maybe? I recall Reports on Sept 11 that the White House was on fire..So yea, there was confusion...its what I would expect given that we know there where Protests all over the middle east for the video...also there are still reports of Protests in Lybia for them as well...as well as the attack..

No one would blame the President for not knowing all the details immediately -- the issue at hand is that after the details were pretty clear, the story continued that was just not true -- and it was pushed by the White House.

 

[dogtowner]

And the WH refuses to address this matter now.

he knew and kept up the chrade for weeks including before the UN. there is no explaining this away.

 

[GenSeneca]

And how do you propose to replace all those hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses that will be lost? Spend the military savings on more welfare and unemployement?

Calvin Coolidge slashed government spending, made drastic cuts in taxation, and gave us the "roaring" twenties as a result. That period saw the single greatest economic boom during peace time in American history.

The Depression You’ve Never Heard Of: 1920-1921​

At the conclusion of World War I, U.S. officials found themselves in a bleak position. The federal debt had exploded because of wartime expenditures, and annual consumer price inflation rates had jumped well above 20 percent by the end of the war.​

​

To restore fiscal and price sanity, the authorities implemented what today strikes us as incredibly “merciless” policies. From FY 1919 to 1920, federal spending was slashed from $18.5 billion to $6.4 billion—a 65 percent reduction in one year. The budget was pushed down the next two years as well, to $3.3 billion in FY 1922.​

​

By the end of Coolidge's term, unemployment was at 3.3%, only the richest 2% paid ANY federal income tax, the number of people making more than $10k/yr nearly doubled, the number of people making less than $10k/yr fell dramatically, and, despite his massive tax cuts, revenue to the federal government soared to the point where Coolidge actually PAID BACK 25% of our national debt.

Why didn't we learn about this in school? Because it obliterates the Keynesian concept of having the government grow larger, raise taxes, and deficit spend during times of economic downturns. That's the disastrous policy we followed in the wake of the '29 crash and it gave us the Great Depression. Had we ignored the Keynesians in 1929, we would not have had a "great" depression, it would have been a brief blip on our radar and forgotten in history just as the depression of 1920-21 has been forgotten.

 

[Cruella]

Obama knew. He even said as much in an interview with CBS the next day. But that part of the interview was deleted. So not only did he know, the media helped him scrap his statement on 9/12 and they went on with the video story for the next several weeks.

Rush played the orginal CBS audio from 9/12 on his show today. The one they deleted the reference to the attack from

Obama, Biden and Panetta were all in the Oval office when the first e-mails came in. They knew and chose to do nothing about it.

 

[GenSeneca]

To do this would of course be the end of American dominance in the world...

Nonsense... Unless you wish to argue that "American dominance" only began after 9/11, 2001:

You want to cut 50% of the defense budget -- seemingly by bringing the troops home, but the math does not add up.

I was using that as a glaringly obvious starting point and the savings would not be insignificant.

Here is the DOD budget information for FY2013, where is the $310 billion that we should eliminate -- keeping in mind that ultimately the OCO "savings" cannot be duplicated on a yearly basis.

Rather than putting bureaucrats in charge of the cuts, we should tell the military what their new budget is going to be and allow them to decide which cuts are made and where that way politics doesn't interfere with the procedure. I believe our military leaders are much more qualified to decide those matters than I am and I have total faith in their ability.

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." - Donald Rumsfeld

This all sounds good -- but what is the implication -- and the first question will of course be, where is that $500 billion to cut in the welfare state?

Return spending to 2004 levels:

Because SS is gobbling up a larger share now than it was then, use means testing to reduce that expenditure as much as possible then make cuts from the other 69 welfare programs to reach the goal. We should prioritize phasing out SS but the entire welfare state should be taken off the current path of insolvency and placed on a path to gradual extinction.

We need to address our debt issues, there is no doubt, but with access to basically unlimited credit at 2% currently, we are far from bankrupt.

The most damning conclusion from a study of nations with over 90% debt to GDP is that the period of stagnation and lower growth lasts on average 23 years. Such a conclusion means the U.S. slowdown– which began in 2007– could last until 2030– according to a National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart (co-author of “This Time It’s Different”) and her husband, Vincent Reinhart, chief economist at Morgan Stanley.​

​

“The long duration belies the view that the correlation(between 90% public debt and GDP) is caused mainly by debt buildups during business cycle recessions. The long duration also implies that cumulative shortfall in output from debt overhang is potentially massive. WE find that growth effects are significant even in many episodes where debtor countries were able to secure continual acess to capital markets at relatively low real interest rates. That is, growth-reducing effects of high public debt are apparently not transmitted exclusively through high real interest rates.” - Forbes​

I didn't need a study to know massive debt is a drag on the economy but I guess some people aren't aware of that fact. The US debt to GDP ratio is 92.7% and still growing. The fact that we can still sell bonds (long term debt securities) is not an indication that everything is hunky dory, we're in real trouble.

Then there's interest rates. Interest rates for the bonds we sell to fund our deficit spending will have to get bigger to attract investors. Higher interest rates means a higher debt service bill. We currently pay about $250 billion of the federal budget for debt service but that number will grow exponentially as interest rates are raised to attract debt purchasers. A 1% rise in rates would push our annual debt service to $332 billion, about 1/10 of the entire federal budget. Our AAA rating has already been downgraded and without drastic changes to our spending policy that reduce our debt to GDP ratio, further downgrades are eminent.

The PIIGS - Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain all had their debt to GDP ratio exceed 120%, they saw their bond ratings downgraded accordingly, and they are the drivers of the European debt crisis. Greece has a debt to GDP ratio of 160% and their 10yr bond rate is a staggering 16.98%, Portugal 7.87%, Spain 5.64%, Italy and Ireland both have the lowest debt to GDP ratio of the group and have 10yr bond rates of 4.87%. At 4.87% bond rates, the US would be looking at roughly 3/4 of a trillion dollars annually JUST to service our debt, that would consume nearly 1/4 of our entire federal budget.

So while I know it's tempting to think that because we aren't feeling the sharp pain of debt right this moment, it's coming and it's gonna hurt like hell. It's like falling out of a hot air balloon from cloud level... Freefall doesn't hurt at all, it's the landing that's a bitch. Either we use the time we have to build a parachute or continue to fiddle while Rome burns.

 

[BigRob]

Nonsense... Unless you wish to argue that "American dominance" only began after 9/11, 2001:

All your chart really shows us is the size of the American economy -- to really compare apples to apples, you need to do a comparison on spending levels as a percentage of GDP over this time.

In 2001 -- our spending as a percentage of GDP was 3.1% -- in today's dollars that would be a ball park of $480,000,000,000 a year. When you wind down the OCO figures (which are ending anyway, and are not really savings) -- the military is only asking for $550,000,000,000 as a ball park -- or roughly 3.5% of GDP or so. This puts the figures on a level playing field an allows for a true comparison. A 50% reduction would mean 1.75% ball park in spending, which would put the 2001 spending level at around $180,000,000,000 -- something that I think almost everyone would agree is far to low.

I was using that as a glaringly obvious starting point and the savings would not be insignificant.

Certainly there would be savings with a 50% cut -- but the blowback would be far more costly in my opinion.

Rather than putting bureaucrats in charge of the cuts, we should tell the military what their new budget is going to be and allow them to decide which cuts are made and where that way politics doesn't interfere with the procedure. I believe our military leaders are much more qualified to decide those matters than I am and I have total faith in their ability.

Military planners in the Pentagon and others who would be making these decisions are indeed bureaucrats themselves -- and the idea that politics won't play a role in across the board DOD cuts is absurd. Each branch fights to protect their own "turf" and budgets as it is -- this would simply get worse with far less to go around.

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." - Donald Rumsfeld

Of course we ultimately fight with what we have -- but the whole context of that debate was trying to change the dynamic of the military to be smaller and more efficient - and it quickly became a bureaucratic nightmare -- ended with 9/11.

"The notion that we could transform while cutting the defense budget was seductive but false." -- Donald Rumsfeld

Return spending to 2004 levels:

Because SS is gobbling up a larger share now than it was then, use means testing to reduce that expenditure as much as possible then make cuts from the other 69 welfare programs to reach the goal. We should prioritize phasing out SS but the entire welfare state should be taken off the current path of insolvency and placed on a path to gradual extinction.

Against we encounter the percentage of GDP debate -- and I think it is entirely absurd to ask someone who makes more money to pay more into the system, and then means test them out of receiving any benefit. Why not just let me opt out of the system entirely?

The most damning conclusion from a study of nations with over 90% debt to GDP is that the period of stagnation and lower growth lasts on average 23 years. Such a conclusion means the U.S. slowdown– which began in 2007– could last until 2030– according to a National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart (co-author of “This Time It’s Different”) and her husband, Vincent Reinhart, chief economist at Morgan Stanley.​

​

“The long duration belies the view that the correlation(between 90% public debt and GDP) is caused mainly by debt buildups during business cycle recessions. The long duration also implies that cumulative shortfall in output from debt overhang is potentially massive. WE find that growth effects are significant even in many episodes where debtor countries were able to secure continual acess to capital markets at relatively low real interest rates. That is, growth-reducing effects of high public debt are apparently not transmitted exclusively through high real interest rates.” - Forbes​

I didn't need a study to know massive debt is a drag on the economy but I guess some people aren't aware of that fact. The US debt to GDP ratio is 92.7% and still growing. The fact that we can still sell bonds (long term debt securities) is not an indication that everything is hunky dory, we're in real trouble.

Then there's interest rates. Interest rates for the bonds we sell to fund our deficit spending will have to get bigger to attract investors. Higher interest rates means a higher debt service bill. We currently pay about $250 billion of the federal budget for debt service but that number will grow exponentially as interest rates are raised to attract debt purchasers. A 1% rise in rates would push our annual debt service to $332 billion, about 1/10 of the entire federal budget. Our AAA rating has already been downgraded and without drastic changes to our spending policy that reduce our debt to GDP ratio, further downgrades are eminent.

The PIIGS - Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain all had their debt to GDP ratio exceed 120%, they saw their bond ratings downgraded accordingly, and they are the drivers of the European debt crisis. Greece has a debt to GDP ratio of 160% and their 10yr bond rate is a staggering 16.98%, Portugal 7.87%, Spain 5.64%, Italy and Ireland both have the lowest debt to GDP ratio of the group and have 10yr bond rates of 4.87%. At 4.87% bond rates, the US would be looking at roughly 3/4 of a trillion dollars annually JUST to service our debt, that would consume nearly 1/4 of our entire federal budget.

So while I know it's tempting to think that because we aren't feeling the sharp pain of debt right this moment, it's coming and it's gonna hurt like hell. It's like falling out of a hot air balloon from cloud level... Freefall doesn't hurt at all, it's the landing that's a bitch. Either we use the time we have to build a parachute or continue to fiddle while Rome burns.

You have moved the goalposts from your original post about the pain of default -- to the pain of slow growth and stagnation. These are entirely different matters. Yes all of this is going to be a big problem -- but with access to credit basically for free (which of course will slowly change if we don't make adjustments) -- we are not going to default -- unless we force it on ourselves.

 

[GenSeneca]

All your chart really shows us is the size of the American economy -- to really compare apples to apples, you need to do a comparison on spending levels as a percentage of GDP over this time.

Spending is spending. Using numbers adjusted for inflation shows that we were able to "dominate" the world while spending half as much money as we do today.

I think it is entirely absurd to ask someone who makes more money to pay more into the system, and then means test them out of receiving any benefit.

I agree. Not only is it absurd, its outright immoral, unjust, and unethical. However, means testing is politically expedient, there is wide spread public support for it, and both parties see is as the obvious solution to a third rail issue. I could stomach that immorality if it led to the system being dismantled so that no future generations would be forced to participate in the ponzi scheme.

You have moved the goalposts from your original post about the pain of default -- to the pain of slow growth and stagnation.

No, I have not. Default is not a question of IF but WHEN... That was the point of the 'falling out of a hot air balloon' analogy. Tell me, what exactly is your flashing red warning sign with regard to default? Because whatever it is, you will have already ignored all the other warning signs except that last one, and by then it will be too late.

 

[BigRob]

Spending is spending. Using numbers adjusted for inflation shows that we were able to "dominate" the world while spending half as much money as we do today.

Not really -- it shows me that in 2001 we spent 3.1 cents of every dollar on defense -- and now we are asking to spend 3.5 cents of every dollar on defense.

Plus, with inflation, the things we need to "dominate" the world get more expensive too -- discounting entirely advances in technology etc.

I agree. Not only is it absurd, its outright immoral, unjust, and unethical. However, means testing is politically expedient, there is wide spread public support for it, and both parties see is as the obvious solution to a third rail issue. I could stomach that immorality if it led to the system being dismantled so that no future generations would be forced to participate in the ponzi scheme.

Sadly this doesn't seem to be in cards any time soon it appears.

No, I have not. Default is not a question of IF but WHEN... That was the point of the 'falling out of a hot air balloon' analogy. Tell me, what exactly is your flashing red warning sign with regard to default? Because whatever it is, you will have already ignored all the other warning signs except that last one, and by then it will be too late.

I believe in FY2012 - the cost to service our debt was $350 billion. We take in far more than that in tax revenues at current rates. While certainly we are heading for serious trouble at the rate we are on, there is plenty of time in my opinion to turn things around.

As you mentioned, interest rates are an important tell tale -- but when you can borrow at 2% or so, you are not in much danger. This will change the more we borrow and spend and live beyond our means -- but for now - I see no real risk of a default, unless we force it on ourselves.

 

[dogtowner]

Not really -- it shows me that in 2001 we spent 3.1 cents of every dollar on defense -- and now we are asking to spend 3.5 cents of every dollar on defense.

Plus, with inflation, the things we need to "dominate" the world get more expensive too -- discounting entirely advances in technology etc.

add in that others have been spending more heavily and that we appeared dominan t more from lack of comparison than reality.

you may complain we dont need an arms race but the cost of inaction is higher than what you think.

 

[GenSeneca]

I see no real risk of a default...

Ever? You seem to be concerned only with the next year or so while I'm looking at the next 10 to 20 years.... We're screwed.

 

[GenSeneca]

you may complain we dont need an arms race but the cost of inaction is higher than what you think.

Fine, let's go bankrupt before we consider making any F-ing cuts to anything.

 

[Openmind]

Fine, let's go bankrupt before we consider making any F-ing cuts to anything.

We actually agree on something!

It is ridiculous to invest in high technology war machines that will go absolete in the next 5 to 10 years, if we have no intention of attacking other countries. The likelihood of the US being attacked (other, of course than terrorist attacks) in the next 10 to 20 years is non existent. Unless, of course, you believe that "Aliens" from out of space can attack us. . .and in that case, I'm not sure what our earthly defense would do for us! It would be like fighting men from the 21st centuries with weapons of the ice age!

And in the mean time we are paying huge fortune to double and triple cover our spare parts for planes. . .who will become "antiques" within 5 years!

In the other hand. . . investing in high speed rail would be tagged as "crazy" by the proponents of high defense spending. . .and yet, I bet there is more than one thing to learn about being able to construct a railroad that allows passenger trains (or military plains!) to travel at 400 miles per hour. . .AND can be used immediately for public transportation, and thus relieve some of our dependency on foreign oil!

We spend close to FIVE times more than the next big power (China spends 173 billions a year and they are SECOND. We are first with $711 billions! China who is #2 spend 2% of their GDP on military spending. As #1, we spend 4.7 % of our GDP on military spending! And Russia (#3) spends just over $70 billions in military defense!)
What are we trying to prove? that we can destroy the world and all its inhabitants faster than the worst war monger among our enemies?
Couldn't we stay "FIRST in defense" if we spend TWO times more than China? FOUR times more than Russia? And it would represent a saving of $400 BILLIONS A YEAR!

How much "scrap" do we have every year. . (obsolete equipment that was never or rarely used). And, how much danger is all that "scrap" to US? What happens to that equipment once it is no longer "good enough" for us? Yes, it is probably dismantled. . .probably. . .maybe not! And even IF it is dismantled. . .what do we do with the spare parts? Sell it on the black market? To whom? Do we reapatriate all that equipment that we used over sea? ALL of it? Isn't there a way for some enterprising person oversea to make a pretty penny with the 1/20 of the equipment that may be "unaccounted for?" And who gets it?

I don't have answers to all those questions. . .but I think they are valid questions for which we SHOULD have answers.

p.s the data I provided comes from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures