Will our national debt ever be controlled again?

[swansont]

Yeah, Navy to the Top! What else do we need besides aircraft carriers, submarines full of nukes, and tomahawk cruise missiles? Real men fight smart not hard.

 

A Nimitz or Enterprise Class class aircraft carrier will be rolling up in a gulf near you much quicker than the army can deploy if you make us angry.

 

Right, and then, as now it's about keeping the sea lanes open and not having the ability to occupy territory, which is why there was a worry about standing armies that could be employed by someone trying to grab power. Back in the day, of course, the worry was about pirates and harbor blockades.

 

Well the main point was by GDP, the pool of money to draw from, the US spends little compared to others and their GDP. Yes the figures look high but all that is figured into defense since 2001, it's really not that bad. The

 

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that we spend little compared to others. We're #11 on the list as a share of GDP, out of 154. The mean is 2.42%, just a little over half of what we spend.

[jackson33]

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that we spend little compared to others. We're #11 on the list as a share of GDP, out of 154. The mean is 2.42%, just a little over half of what we spend. [/Quote]

 

swansont; Here we go again, a slug of post covering many subjects on one thread and you dissect one sentence. Remembering I've not opposed slashing the defense budget, think mentioning 180B$ or so, on this thread and on other threads even shown where, but what we actually do spend, especially from all that's been added since 2001*, it's simply not out of line, if you prefer, IMO...

 

*In 2001, we spent less on defense (366B$ up from 358B$ in 2000), than SS, about the same on Healthcare and if you include what States spent more on WELFARE. What Bush or his administration did for the Pentagon for cause, in 8 years, what Obama has done for Social Justice, has been accomplished in two years. Of course GDP in 2000 was about 10T$ and in 2008 14.5T$ and will not likely be up at all by 2012 FY end.

 

Going along with another "Athena" thread and this one, do you realize how much is spent on Maintenance and upkeep for the Pentagon Building alone and it's 764,000+ employees (Department of Defense), the Department of Veterans Affairs (309,000+) and the Department of Homeland Security (189,000). All this is included into the Defense Budget and surely labor wise more expensive than the 2 million military people. How it takes 1.4 million people to administer for a 2 million people military and their affairs, is beyond my imagination. Especially when 190,000 folks in the entire SS Department and Treasury can each administer for far more people than the 311M in the US with American's spread out much more around the world, than even the military.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/11/30/the-top-paid-federal-employees

[swansont]

swansont; Here we go again, a slug of post covering many subjects on one thread and you dissect one sentence. Remembering I've not opposed slashing the defense budget, think mentioning 180B$ or so, on this thread and on other threads even shown where, but what we actually do spend, especially from all that's been added since 2001*, it's simply not out of line, if you prefer, IMO...

 

*In 2001, we spent less on defense (366B$ up from 358B$ in 2000), than SS, about the same on Healthcare and if you include what States spent more on WELFARE. What Bush or his administration did for the Pentagon for cause, in 8 years, what Obama has done for Social Justice, has been accomplished in two years. Of course GDP in 2000 was about 10T$ and in 2008 14.5T$ and will not likely be up at all by 2012 FY end.

 

Going along with another "Athena" thread and this one, do you realize how much is spent on Maintenance and upkeep for the Pentagon Building alone and it's 764,000+ employees (Department of Defense), the Department of Veterans Affairs (309,000+) and the Department of Homeland Security (189,000). All this is included into the Defense Budget and surely labor wise more expensive than the 2 million military people. How it takes 1.4 million people to administer for a 2 million people military and their affairs, is beyond my imagination. Especially when 190,000 folks in the entire SS Department and Treasury can each administer for far more people than the 311M in the US with American's spread out much more around the world, than even the military.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/11/30/the-top-paid-federal-employees

 

 

And none of that makes any difference; as I did not address any of those issues. All I did was point out that your claim that "the US spends little compared to others and their GDP" is dubious. If we're going to discuss a topic, it's helpful to base the discussion on facts. That way we can agree or disagree on opinion that's not based on some sort of fabrication or spin.

 

The US spends more than most countries in terms of GDP. We spend almost twice the average. That says nothing about whether it's good or bad, or whether it's out of line. But any argument that's based on the idea that the US doesn't spend more than most countries is flawed.

 

As to why the DoD employs so many people, it's not all administration (and even that involves more than mailing paychecks). The military requires a lot of support (like GPS, and all that involves, to pick a nonrandom example), and there's been a push to move military personnel out of jobs that can be done by civilians.

[lemur]

On the other hand, here is Bush's promise of reducing the deficit. The plan is to increase military spending, while cutting spending on education and the health of our nation, especially the health and security of our elderly and those who hope to live longer to qualify for Social Security. I do not understand the willingness to work for supporting the Military Industrial Complex instead of working to taking care of ourselves when we can no longer compete with the young on the job market, and also the willingness to support questionable military activity instead of education.

I always think of Bush's speech about allowing OBGYNs to "practice their love for women," with regards to the topic of economic empowerment. I think what this speech was getting at was the problem that economics had become an obstacle to people actually practicing their trades. This has to do with everything from government "red tape" to liability concerns, insurance costs, public narrow-mindedness regarding how to undertake economic activities, etc. When I hear the assumption that people can't do things for themselves or that things like health and retirement have to be institutionalized in a way that ensures that class-distinctions will become sedimented into stone, I question what has happened to the idea of a free republic.

 

Whatever, Bush's plan to reduce our deficit didn't work very well, and nothing threatens us more than our national deficit and decreasing the benefits of our hard work.

I disagree. I think during the Bush regime, capitalism was brought to a critical point where government stimulus couldn't be used to centrally propel GDP growth anymore by funding mortgage-lending, etc. The bank bailout was a classic move to seal-in fiscal conservation and saving by putting the deficit in the hands of institutions who are the most concerned with avoiding losing the money through failed investments, banks. Now, the aftermath of that is that we've seen how difficult it is for the global economy to recover after how many years of growing dependency on government financing in one form or another? Obviously, fire, emergency services, police, and military are necessary to respond when people react to economic recession with violence and other destructive activities; but beyond that the question is what it would take to get the free market to the point where everyone could prosper without government intervention? Why is that so difficult to achieve?

 

When Social Security was enacted, few people were expected to live long enough to collect it. Of course if we reduce our life expectancy to what it was then, we would not have a problem funding Social Security. Medicare would also be much more affordable if people dropped dead before retiring. Yeah, the big problem is people live too long.

I don't think the problem is that people live too long. It is that people expect too high a standard of living when they retire. Retirement is viewed by many as a time of ultimate entitlement after spending their lives "working hard to earn the good life." The baby boomers are an enormous cohort. For all of them to live it up for many years without working would require everyone else to drop everything and devote all their energy to serving them and even then it would probably not be sufficient. Do you really want to have an economy where everyone has to serve others all the time? Is it possible that people take care of themselves most of the time and limit their consumption of services and resource-intensive goods and activities to occasional?

 

Actually our standard of living was not that high before WWII, and many people didn't worry about taxes, because they were not taxed, and did not expect to earn enough to be taxed. Perhaps going back to the conditions of the 20th Century would solve our problems? Oh, women would not be working to support the Military Industrial Complex, but would be at home caring for the children and the elderly without pay. They would be full time homemakers and community volunteers and this could mean a huge savings.

I think people underestimate how big an issue this is. It has come to the point where men can no longer refuse to allow women to work and demand levels of pay comparable to theirs, yet they do not want to give up pay and perform unpaid housework with some or all of their time. Then there's the problem that women don't want to date/marry men that don't work full time or more and make high income. So men basically become ineligible for relationships if/when they take on household responsibilities and other unpaid work.

 

And which countries should have bases in the US?

Are you suggesting that it is somehow illegal for non-US military to set up training facilities in US-governed regions? The problem is this mentality that national borders have to be created and policed. The only reason they are necessary is to protect people from exploitation and abuse by others on the basis of ethnic-hostilities, and those even occur among people with the same nationality. If British loyalists had been willing to respect freedom and democracy within the republic, why should they have been treated as enemies? The problems of a republic almost always, imo, come from the will to exploit others in favor of some private regime, whether that is a "foreign sovereign" or a "domestic" one. After all, if someone is acting in a way that detracts from others' freedom, that is a violation of their rights and freedoms, right? And if people are respecting and not detracting from anyone else's freedom and rights, what does it matter what their nationality is?

 

 

[jackson33]

And none of that makes any difference; as I did not address any of those issues. All I did was point out that your claim that "the US spends little compared to others and their GDP" is dubious. If we're going to discuss a topic, it's helpful to base the discussion on facts. That way we can agree or disagree on opinion that's not based on some sort of fabrication or spin.[/Quote]

 

swansont; The thread title and my discussions are based on whether the "debt can be controlled" and briefly, reducing the size of Government would go a long way and personnel is very much part of that strategy.

 

Based on GDP and some understanding the US position or international policy, based on hundreds of agreements, 5% is in order. No other Country takes on obligations, that the US has and no other Country is technology capable, as is the US. Having said that, cost of Administration and/or enforcement (executive duties) of the US Government has surpassed GDP Growth, with insurmountable future obligation, complicated with social issues which IMO are not and have never been the reasonability of a Federal Government. Since I'm aware you would never agree with this, what you perceive as "spin", is my version of the true facts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Outlay_and_GDP_linear_graph.png

 

The US spends more than most countries in terms of GDP. We spend almost twice the average. That says nothing about whether it's good or bad, or whether it's out of line. But any argument that's based on the idea that the US doesn't spend more than most countries is flawed.[/Quote]

 

There are hundreds of reasons, but simply doing business is more expensive in the US. Labor cost, construction and an out of control retirement package program, especially for those in Government as examples. There are additional factors involved, such as National Currency Inflation or priorities that have kept some others from appearing as high, but for all practical purposes, many have just allied with the US, to keep those expenses down, NATO a good example and the US, pay's 25% of any military expenses for them.

 

As to why the DoD employs so many people, it's not all administration (and even that involves more than mailing paychecks). The military requires a lot of support (like GPS, and all that involves, to pick a nonrandom example), and there's been a push to move military personnel out of jobs that can be done by civilians. [/Quote]

 

A great deal of Military support also comes from the "State Department" (embassies) and a great deal of Defense Money goes to NASA or for anything classified R&D. It's convoluted and neither you, I or anybody else could prove the exact figures.

Yes, GPS and other technology is involved and addressed above. Now think, is that 4.7% really out of line? As for "outsourcing" military duties to civilians, that's nothing new, but what's classified a military duty has been changing. I'm not sure a Mercenary Military would be in order and I most certainly don't want the "Joint Chief's" to become appointed civilians.

[swansont]

swansont; The thread title and my discussions are based on whether the "debt can be controlled" and briefly, reducing the size of Government would go a long way and personnel is very much part of that strategy.

 

Based on GDP and some understanding the US position or international policy, based on hundreds of agreements, 5% is in order. No other Country takes on obligations, that the US has and no other Country is technology capable, as is the US. Having said that, cost of Administration and/or enforcement (executive duties) of the US Government has surpassed GDP Growth, with insurmountable future obligation, complicated with social issues which IMO are not and have never been the reasonability of a Federal Government. Since I'm aware you would never agree with this, what you perceive as "spin", is my version of the true facts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Outlay_and_GDP_linear_graph.png

 

 

 

There are hundreds of reasons, but simply doing business is more expensive in the US. Labor cost, construction and an out of control retirement package program, especially for those in Government as examples. There are additional factors involved, such as National Currency Inflation or priorities that have kept some others from appearing as high, but for all practical purposes, many have just allied with the US, to keep those expenses down, NATO a good example and the US, pay's 25% of any military expenses for them.

 

 

 

A great deal of Military support also comes from the "State Department" (embassies) and a great deal of Defense Money goes to NASA or for anything classified R&D. It's convoluted and neither you, I or anybody else could prove the exact figures.

Yes, GPS and other technology is involved and addressed above. Now think, is that 4.7% really out of line? As for "outsourcing" military duties to civilians, that's nothing new, but what's classified a military duty has been changing. I'm not sure a Mercenary Military would be in order and I most certainly don't want the "Joint Chief's" to become appointed civilians.

 

Sigh.

 

 

Once again, I will point out that I am not claiming that the number is out of line. Got it? I'm NOT saying that. All I'm saying is that 4.7 is larger than 2.4. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the US spends little as compared to others. We do, in fact, spend MORE than most countries, in terms of GDP. You can defend spending that amount, but no amount of justification is going to actually make 4.7 be a smaller number than 2.4. Understand? You can't say we don't spend more than most countries, because we do. We do, in fact, spend more than 90% of the countries listed in that link.