No Deficit Reform = We Are Toast

[shazzan]

I don't know about number 4. I simply don't think your average American has the ability to judge if spending is necessary or not. You would just have a bunch of folks never approving anything, and an even larger group rubber stamping everything because they don't even read what the spending is for. No. 1, 2, and 3 are right on, but don't forget that we need to significantly reduce our military spending; I'm talking 15% at least. This is the one time I pretty much totally agree with TAE. Despite the market, in the long run we're screwed. Our politicians pretty much know it but they are so concerned about reelection that they will never do anything about it till the house of cards collapses. At that point they will all be voted out anyway. Old people will vote against anybody trying to reform Medicare, so don't hold your breath on that one.

The Dems won't cut discretionary spending in anyway, but symbolically. Hell even if they raise taxes they'll likely spend it all on everything but paying down the debt. The Republicans will cut more if they can, but do everything they can to reduce taxes on their wealthiest constituents, even though it's against the interests of the nation and 90% of the population. Since most politicians get very wealthy in office, or were wealthy to begin with, I'm sure there is no conflict of interest there. In the end it will be a wash between spending cuts and reduced revenue. FOX news will continue spewing utter partisan bullshit to the vast majority of Republicans who aren't in the top 10% about how great tax cuts for CEOs are for them. I'm sure they'll dress it up as a fight for freedom against the communists or something. You know who else wanted to tax the rich...Stalin! The mouth breathers will nod in agreement because they love Jesus and Obama is a secret Muslim.

For purposes of full disclosure, I was a Republican my entire life until 2004, when the incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration made me take a good hard look at why I was supporting the GOP. Since there is no credible non-whackjob third part in the US, and our choice is between voting Giant Douche or Shit Sandwich, I think we're fucked. Even if by some miracle the economy rockets up we stop deficit spending for a period, it will be a replay of the 90's. Neither party will actually put excess revenue towards reducing the national debt, and we'll just put off paying the piper for a few years. When that time comes, the very rich may have to reduce their caviar and Swiss ski trip budget, but the rest of us are taking it up the ass sans lube.

[theaustinescorts]

There are several groups, such as the Concord Coalition, devoted to deficit reduction. However there are no such groups for reversing free-trade agreements.

People need to organize and point out that we have been misled about the promised results of these agreements. Decade after decade of trade imbalances with no end in sight and the NET loss of over 40,000 factories are compelling reasons to reverse trade policies if they were ever pointed out.

Massive borrowing and increased demand from immigration have masked the losses from this loss of production until now.

Only by regaining our lost sources of wealth creation can we grow our way out of this mess. But that's not gonna happen.

[DRorchia]

Hence, until these issues are addressed, I will continue to encourage my Senators and Congressman to vote against any tax increases.

[theaustinescorts]

My point is that we can't grow our way out of this, and therefore to avoid a neverending depression we must cut spending and increase taxes at least to the levels we had before.

The first place to cut spending is the Defense and Homeland Security budgets because we've not gained any security by what they do. Military pensions should not kick in until 30 years of service like any other job.

Then all entitlements must be trimmed just a little...huge savings there.

The Federal government should stop paying the state's bills for roads, police, and education. The states should have to pay their own way, and if their services are left wanting then so be it.

We should have the levels of spending and taxation that we had under one of our best Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower.

Under Eisenhower Federal spending was a fraction of what it is today, and the marginal top tax rate for income was over 90 %. No one really paid that much, but the marginal rate was that high...

btw does anyone know how many aircraft carriers we still have, or what their possible missions might be LOL?

[gnadfly]

Many like to point to the 'surplus' that happened during Bill Clinton's administration as a reason for increasing taxes and implementing Dem policies. What they fail to realize or acknowledge is that the 90's brought some incredible technological advancements in computers, telcom and the internet and those advancements were put in many Americans hands and exploited. There basically wasn't a Dem/Clinton or Republican policy that made it happen, it was just happy coincidence/timing for Bill.

Although there's an increase in broadband and smartphone technology in the last 10 years, we are not likely see the breakthrus to market like we saw in the prior decade. A Kindle may save some trees, it isn't a productivity device. The breakthrus are actually in nonAmericans hands now and we are losing our competitive advantage.

So, I agree with you TAE, we are unlikely to grow our way out of it.

However, if you look at our debt, we are unlikely to CUT our way out of it either. If we walk away from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow we aren't going to fix it. Most of it goes to Social Security and Medicare like expenditures. Did you hear from BHO about how all the fraud that was in that system that his signature piece of legislation was going to fix? Where is that windfall? Many doctors and surgeons make over $250K. There is a shortage of them. How is giving them a disincentive to work going to cover the shortage? When interest rates finally go up, it'll be all over.

Its going to take years to fix this mess, like it took years (and 9/11) to create it. The first step is for the govt to freeze its budget. It will never happen with so many people feeding from the public trough.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...bycategory.png

[DRorchia]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Many like to point to the 'surplus' that happened during Bill Clinton's administration as a reason for increasing taxes and implementing Dem policies. What they fail to realize or acknowledge is that the 90's brought some incredible technological advancements in computers, telcom and the internet and those advancements were put in many Americans hands and exploited. There basically wasn't a Dem/Clinton or Republican policy that made it happen, it was just happy coincidence/timing for Bill.

Although there's an increase in broadband and smartphone technology in the last 10 years, we are not likely see the breakthrus to market like we saw in the prior decade. A Kindle may save some trees, it isn't a productivity device. The breakthrus are actually in nonAmericans hands now and we are losing our competitive advantage.

So, I agree with you TAE, we are unlikely to grow our way out of it.

However, if you look at our debt, we are unlikely to CUT our way out of it either. If we walk away from Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow we aren't going to fix it. Most of it goes to Social Security and Medicare like expenditures. Did you hear from BHO about how all the fraud that was in that system that his signature piece of legislation was going to fix? Where is that windfall? Many doctors and surgeons make over $250K. There is a shortage of them. How is giving them a disincentive to work going to cover the shortage? When interest rates finally go up, it'll be all over.

Its going to take years to fix this mess, like it took years (and 9/11) to create it. The first step is for the govt to freeze its budget. It will never happen with so many people feeding from the public trough.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...bycategory.png

+1

Ps: Getting rid of our Aircraft Carriers surely isn't going to save our economy. At last count we had 11 Carriers in service.

[theaustinescorts]

We can save huge amounts by trimming all entitlements just a little.

And for God's sake let's get rid of some of these aircraft carriers. They should have been gotten rid off decades ago after we learned that the Soviets were tracking every one of them with satellites, and their navy dedicated a whole force of ICBMs [was it the SS-11's?] to destroy them. If only for the sakes of their vulnerable crews if not to save the money put these relics away. If we need bombers somewhere that's what refuelers are for.

[DRorchia]

Hmmm, let's see, as recently as the catastrophe in Haiti, the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vincent, arrived on Jan. 15 with 19 helicopters on board. It has three operating rooms, several dozen hospital beds and can produce about 35,000 gallons of drinking water a day. She is flying airlift missions and delivering more than 30 pallets of relief supplies.

Of course who cares if the people in Haiti died from lack of medical care, drinking water, food supplies etc etc. Let's just scrap all our carriers because the Russians can target them with missiles. Oh wait! What's that you say? We're not at war with Russia anymore? Hmm, maybe we can still use those antiquated carriers for something after all....like saving thousands of lives?!

[rCoder]

Hell, those are just side benefits to being able to threaten, intimidate, or just plain kill anyone who disagrees with our politicians. I'd bet a dedicated hospital ship cost a whole lot less to build and operate than a carrier.

Also remember that a carrier never goes anywhere alone. It's always a task force. So for a relief mission, we could load up container ships, freighters, and tankers to form an equivalent sized task force and still save a bundle.

[DRorchia]

rCoder,
You're absolutely right. It's the carrot and the stick approach. This country has always been the greatest friend to many other countries and people in need while maintaining the capability to wage war if necessary. Personally, I like it that way.
Isolationism has never worked. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending there aren't bad leaders and nations out there wanting to do us harm is not going to make us or the world a safer place. We will pay for a capable military one way or the other. We can pay for our military and be ready to go or we can allow our military to deteriorate and we'll have to pay 10X as much to build it up again after we've suffered attacks and setbacks. Although I risk getting a long "preaching to" from TAE about the following statement and how I'm wrong, I'm going to say it anyway. After every single major conflict this country has had, we've allowed our military to wither. Think WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and even after the first Gulf War. It's always come back to bite us in the behind when the next conflict or war starts. Many Americans were screaming after the Iraq invasion...."how can you send our soldiers to fight in unarmored Hummvees and Trucks"? ?Why didn't our soldiers have better PPE (personal protective equipment such as body armor ect) before you sent them to war?" How many times did I hear this and read about it in the news? Yet there's many now saying we need to cut military spending, get rid of our aircraft carriers etc etc. You can't have it both ways. You can't cut and cut the military's budget then complain when a war starts and your soldiers don't have the proper vehicles, ships, equipment etc.
I'm not saying you were advocating this rCoder, I'm speaking of people in general who favor drastic military cuts.

[rCoder]

Sorry, sending the carrier on a relief mission was mostly an expensive PR stunt. The same money could have done so much more...

True, isolationism has not historically worked, but neither has the carrot and the stick. What has worked is when both sides embrace free trade which mingles economies and cultures. The problem with that solution is that it doesn't allow politicians to "lead" (read that as control, extort, steal, and rape). So we are stuck with the carrot and the stick which is a "good" solution as long as you are the one welding it.

[DRorchia]

rCoder,

First off, I appreciate the intelligent and civil exchange of opinion. Wish there was more of that going on.
I agree with you that free trade goes a long way toward a better global economy, better relations between countries etc. The problem is, just as in so many other areas, some countries don't want to play "fair" when it comes to trade. China comes to mind along with numerous others. So what are we to do? The same goes for military intentions and ambitions. I would be the first to support cuts in military spending if certain countries would curtail their ambitions. Iran, China, even Russia (albeit to a lesser extent). So for now, I support cuts where we won't sacrifice our readiness. There's plenty of pork to attack and trim in our budget before going after defense spending. Will the time come where we won't have a choice but to make serious defense cuts? Yeah, I have no doubt but right now we need to find a way to wrap up these two wars without leaving things for the worse.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

We can save huge amounts by trimming all entitlements just a little.

And for God's sake let's get rid of some of these aircraft carriers. They should have been gotten rid off decades ago after we learned that the Soviets were tracking every one of them with satellites, and their navy dedicated a whole force of ICBMs [was it the SS-11's?] to destroy them. If only for the sakes of their vulnerable crews if not to save the money put these relics away. If we need bombers somewhere that's what refuelers are for.

The carriers were never meant to threaten the Soviets directly. It was the Trident subs and their nukes.

[theaustinescorts]

The carriers are relics just as the battleships they replaced were. They're expensive and cannot survive. In the 1970's the Soviets augmented their surveillance of them with radar imaging satellites and tracked them continuously. And this was in addition to the fact that the Soviets were in possession of all U.S. Navy coded communications traffic.

The Soviet Navy maintained their own fleet of ICBMs to strike the carriers at the onset of any war.

There is little chance of war with the Russians today. However, the carriers have no justification for their continued expensive existence. It's not just the carrier and it's planes that are costly. It's the whole fleet of additional ships that must accompany the carrier which adds to the cost.


btw the passage of the tax cuts yesterday means that we will now be borrowing an additional 900 billion to cover our spending. Hoorah for Obama! That's change we can believe in.

[rCoder]

There is one and only one rational reason for having a government. That is to collectively protect each individual's rights. That is all government should do. Period.

To provide for a common defense falls within that mission. Projecting force does not. Projecting force is the primary mission of carriers.

We ought to be building free trade alliances with countries that want true free trade (not the propaganda our politicians call free trade). Those that don't want to play fair we should isolate. Within a generation or three the odds are they would change their minds. If not, no skin off our backs as we would be prospering.