3rd debate

[Openmind]

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.

I think you need to have a look at this table. You are once again flapping your jaw with NO back up data!
It would be so nice if once in a while you talked about something you have actually researched and have obtained dependable information about!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

[BigRob]

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.

I have quantified every statement on the matter with "if we continue doing what we are doing, then yes we will be facing a default", but I don't agree at all with the premise that it is inevitable, or is going to happen soon even, unless we force it on ourselves.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't agree at all with the premise that it is inevitable

I see zero evidence that it's avoidable. Right wing interventionists scream bloody murder and claim America will cease to 'dominate' the world if we make any substantial cuts to the military and the Leftists cry "the sky is falling!" over proposed cuts to the growth (cuts to GROWTH not ACTUAL CUTS) to their precious and ever expanding welfare state.

Where is the evidence that it's avoidable?

 

[GenSeneca]

We actually agree on something!

We do, just not for the same reasons.

 

[BigRob]

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

The mission of our military is different than that of other powers -- we need to ensure that we are able to accomplish our national security goals, regardless of what any other nation spends on their own defense.

After the OCO spending winds down -- the US is asking for a FY2013 budget of 3.5% of GDP -- well with reason.

It appears from the FY2013 request, that the Operations and Maintenance budget of all branches of the military amounts to a ballpark of $129 billion. I'll have to go through and cut out operations to see the real cost of maintenance. That does not seem to be breaking the bank so to speak -- especially given that we need to be fully able to keep our forces operational for sure.

 

[BigRob]

I see zero evidence that it's avoidable. Right wing interventionists scream bloody murder and claim America will cease to 'dominate' the world if we make any substantial cuts to the military and the Leftists cry "the sky is falling!" over proposed cuts to the growth (cuts to GROWTH not ACTUAL CUTS) to their precious and ever expanding welfare state.

Where is the evidence that it's avoidable?

We have been cutting the military already -- there are places you can make cuts to the military. Most people are weary when these "across the board cuts" get thrown into the mix. Even the most ardent "big military" guy can readily accept there is a ton of waste we can cut out of the military.

Point is, we are not to the breaking point at this point -- leftists are going to have to accept cuts to social programs, and Republicans are going to have to accept cuts to defense (which we have already multiple times).

We can still easily service our debt -- as long as we can do that -- we are nowhere close to a default.

 

[GenSeneca]

We have been cutting the military already

No, we haven't... reductions in the rate of growth are not CUTS.

We can still easily service our debt -- as long as we can do that -- we are nowhere close to a default.

What happens when QE infinity forces the fed to raise interest rates and our debt service costs grow?

 

[BigRob]

No, we haven't... reductions in the rate of growth are not CUTS.

So again, we have gone over this time frame from a 3.1% of GDP spending to an FY2013 proposal of 3.5% of GDP (excluding the ending OCO costs).

FY 2013's request is 2% (I believe) lower than FY2012's budget -- we cut various programs out of the budget in FY 2010.

Would you view it as a cut if it went from 3.1% in 2001 to 3.0% today -- even though that would be more real dollars?

What happens when QE infinity forces the fed to raise interest rates and our debt service costs grow?

We begin to have an issue -- but we seemingly are pretty far off from that point.

 

[GenSeneca]

So again, we have gone over this time frame from a 3.1% of GDP spending to an FY2013 proposal of 3.5% of GDP (excluding the ending OCO costs).

FY 2013's request is 2% (I believe) lower than FY2012's budget -- we cut various programs out of the budget in FY 2010.

Would you view it as a cut if it went from 3.1% in 2001 to 3.0% today -- even though that would be more real dollars?

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.

We begin to have an issue -- but we seemingly are pretty far off from that point.

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?

 

[Openmind]

The mission of our military is different than that of other powers -- we need to ensure that we are able to accomplish our national security goals, regardless of what any other nation spends on their own defense.

After the OCO spending winds down -- the US is asking for a FY2013 budget of 3.5% of GDP -- well with reason.

It appears from the FY2013 request, that the Operations and Maintenance budget of all branches of the military amounts to a ballpark of $129 billion. I'll have to go through and cut out operations to see the real cost of maintenance. That does not seem to be breaking the bank so to speak -- especially given that we need to be fully able to keep our forces operational for sure.

Can you explain to me why our "national security goals" are SO MUCH MORE COSTLY than any other nations on earth? When we are actually probably the least vulnerable to attacks. . .at least invasions rather than mere terrorism attacks, which obviously are a problem and cost lives, but SO FEWER LIVES than WARS, even wars on foreign territories! And I believe you can't help but agree that, addressing terrorism around the world takes a very different set of "defense tools" than engaging in an invasion of a foreign country!

In fact, I think it is uncanny that, within a few months, we came up with enough heavy equipment to invade Iraq! What would all that stock, all that "sleeping inventory" have served for if we hadn't been attacked on 9/11? Or if Bush had not decided he wanted to play conqueror of the world?

Or. . .was Iraq a TRUE war of convenience. . .convenience for the defense contractors, who needed that build up inventory to be used somehow, so that they could REPLACE IT by more expensive, more sophisticated tools of war?

It had to be a real dilemma for the defense industry when the cold war ended and it was difficult to even imagine a REAL threat to the US! I guess ONE HAD TO BE CREATED. . .and, what a coincidence, Al Quaeda obliged by attacking the twin towers. . .but that wasn't enough to warrant all that heavy equipment that was rusting on the military bases all over the US and abroad. What the defense contractors really needed was a good old fashion war. . .not a "surgical strike" like what President Obama has been engaging in to fight Al Quaeda and to assure "national security."

So. . .here comes Bush, who is more than happy to oblige and to invade Iraq under a FALSE pretext!

And now, 11 years later, the defense industry is back to square one, and needs another war. . .and Romney can give them that. . .Iran would be perfect!

But President Obama wins the elections. . .and he is not too kin on invading ANY country! And President Obama would much prefer to spend a good portion of that money to REBUILT AMERICA, to built new infrastructure, to improve education, to provide a safety net for people who can't just "pull themselves up by their boot straps!" Do you realize that defense spending is equivalent to about 80% of all government pensions, and about 75% of all government health care cost! It is about equivalent to spending on education in the US!

I don't know about you, but any of the other items (pensions, health care and education) are INFINITELY more important to the individual American than the ability to invade a foreign country they can't even place on a map!

What a dilemma!

 

[Openmind]

So again, we have gone over this time frame from a 3.1% of GDP spending to an FY2013 proposal of 3.5% of GDP (excluding the ending OCO costs).

FY 2013's request is 2% (I believe) lower than FY2012's budget -- we cut various programs out of the budget in FY 2010.

Would you view it as a cut if it went from 3.1% in 2001 to 3.0% today -- even though that would be more real dollars?




We begin to have an issue -- but we seemingly are pretty far off from that point.

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?

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!

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!

 

[dogtowner]

So again, we have gone over this time frame from a 3.1% of GDP spending to an FY2013 proposal of 3.5% of GDP (excluding the ending OCO costs).

FY 2013's request is 2% (I believe) lower than FY2012's budget -- we cut various programs out of the budget in FY 2010.

Would you view it as a cut if it went from 3.1% in 2001 to 3.0% today -- even though that would be more real dollars?




We begin to have an issue -- but we seemingly are pretty far off from that point.

Not to worry. Gen will get his cuts Jan 1 2013.

 

[Pandora]

Not to worry. Gen will get his cuts Jan 1 2013.

You mean the sequestration obama lied about?

 

[GenSeneca]

Not to worry. Gen will get his cuts Jan 1 2013.

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).

 

[Openmind]

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).

You are totally wrong on that! Providing a safety net to everyone in our country has NOTHING to do with trying to get votes. . .it is more about assuring that, as a "self designated" leader of the world, the leader of the developed countries, we cannot morally let OUR PEOPLE be treated so much worse than any other developed countries. And right now. . .they are.

But, I agree with you that SOME cuts in welfare are necessary. . the waste AND THE CORPORATE WELFARE. In addition, to balance the budget, we NEED more revenues. ..and since I already stated that additional revenue could not come from an already stressed and poorly treated middle class and the poor, we only have two solution, but only one we can act upon immediately and doesn't depend on the world economic climate:

We can raise revenues by cutting EVERY LOOP HOLES for income above $500,000.
And we can raise revenues (but it is dependent not only on US but on the world economy) by raising our GDP.

I believe that this deficit needs to be addressed with ALL of these:
1. Cut (real cut) in spending for the defense industry
2. Cut in wasteful social welfare AND CORPORATE welfare
3. Increase revenue by raising taxes (through abolishing loop holes at the very least) on the wealthy
4. Increase revenue by increasing our GDP (but it depends also on the world economy. . .where economy is concerned, we are no longer an isolated island!)