Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 8:46 AM
65 online now:
JonF, Percy (Admin), sfs, Stile, vimesey (5 members, 60 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,053 Year: 24,894/28,606 Month: 2,195/1,786 Week: 410/647 Day: 15/79 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   American Budget Cuts
RAZD
Member
Posts: 16001
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1 of 350 (605466)
02-20-2011 2:23 AM


no brainer?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

US military budget is the largest in the world, accounting for 34% of the total world budget spent on the ability to wage wars.

The second place is held by China at 18% of the world budget and 51% of the US budget.

Next in line are India, 4%, Russia, 4%, Saudi Arabia, 3%, France, 3%, the UK, 2%, Turkey, 2%, and Germany, 2% before we get to Korea at <2% of the world budget, the first possibly belligerent state in the list.

We can cut our budget by 45% and still be the biggest spender in the world, and we are already ahead of all others, so we can afford to cut some slack in this time of economic trouble, when our social values are at stake.

This should be a no-brainer

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
puts ALL military related spending at 54% of the current budget, or $1,449 billion, including interest on debt from past wars.

45% of that is $652 billion PER YEAR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...itary_budget_of_the_United_States
puts DoD spending at $721.3 billion.

45% of that is $324 billion PER YEAR.

In addition INTEREST on debt incurred in past wars (thanks schrubbia) is $454.2 billion PER YEAR so the military budget MUST be cut to get the interest payments into control if we are going to be fiscally responsible.

If we are serious about getting the budget under control then the UNNECESSARY items need to go first. This includes 45% of the Military budget, as a MINIMUM.

To put this in perspective, if $325 billion were divided evenly between the current US population of 310,852,839 people that would be $1045.51 per person per year.

How would you like that as an annual tax rebait for everyone in your family?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : sub,frmt


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 02-20-2011 7:50 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 4 by Phage0070, posted 02-20-2011 4:10 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 2357
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 2 of 350 (605479)
02-20-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-20-2011 2:23 AM


Re: no brainer?
If we are serious about getting the budget under control then the UNNECESSARY items need to go first. This includes 45% of the Military budget, as a MINIMUM.

Nice sentiment, RAZD, but reality has a way of disrupting such things.

You are a Senator. Doesn't matter what flavor. You would have to agree to cut a good $8 billion from the defense contractors in your state throwing a good 30,000 of your constituents onto the unemployment queue.

Does that look good to you?

But then you could also increase the unemployment and re-training funding along with the additional people needed in the bureaucracy to staff it. A democrat's wet dream.

That $325 billion you want to cut is now buying a lot of food, shoes, education for literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. And this doesn't count the thousands more that make the food, shoes and education that would not be bought and thus lose their jobs as well. Can one really so cavalierly cause so much pain for the sake of some personal political agenda?

Probably not.

If we could instantly move those thousands into similar paying jobs in some other private sector then I could agree with you. That is also not going to happen.

The reality of the level of pain you are proposing is not acceptable.

Edited by AZPaul3, : clearity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 2:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 9:09 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 9:04 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16001
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 3 of 350 (605484)
02-20-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AZPaul3
02-20-2011 7:50 AM


Re: no brainer?
Hi AZPaul3,

Thanks.

You are a Senator. Doesn't matter what flavor. You would have to agree to cut a good $8 billion from the defense contractors in your state throwing a good 30,000 of your constituents onto the unemployment queue.

Nice hypothetical, based on the argument from consequences and made up numbers. Why don't you make it 50,000 jobs?

According to Representative Boehner, if the cuts necessary to balance the budget result in some job losses, then "so be it" --

http://blogs.wsj.com/...-so-be-it-if-us-workers-are-laid-off

quote:
House Speaker John Boehner expressed little sympathy Tuesday for federal workers who lose their jobs as the result of Republican budget cutting.

In the last two years, under President Obama, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs, Mr. Boehner told reporters Tuesday morning during a press conference in the lobby of the Republican National Committee, according to various news outlets. If some of those jobs are lost, so be it. Were broke.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/...11/feb/19/so-be-it-not-so-fast

quote:
Boehner was asked Wednesday about layoffs of federal workers, which would certainly take a bite out of the economy. If some of those jobs are lost, so be it, he said. Were broke.

The Associated Press reported that Republican Rep. Tom Price of Georgia said government workers found their way into public jobs. They can find their way into private jobs.

So be it.


That $325 billion you want to cut is now buying a lot of food, shoes, education for literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. And this doesn't count the thousands more that make the food, shoes and education that would not be bought and thus lose their jobs as well. Can one really so cavalierly cause so much pain for the sake of some personal political agenda?

Apparently that argument does not impress the republicans.

Does that look good to you?

If the question is not IF jobs are lost but WHERE jobs are lost, then yes, it looks better to me to reduce wasteful spending on the military budget.

In addition, money spent on military budget is essentially just make-work welfare rather than jobs that provide a return to the society. Every piece of high end military armament made is a dead-end product designed to kill people, and that cannot be sold for profit that feeds back into the economy -- that money only goes one way, down the drain. That to me is a small loss in this world of overburdened military expenditures.

If we could instantly move those thousands into similar paying jobs in some other private sector then I could agree with you. That is also not going to happen.

The reality of the level of pain you are proposing is not acceptable.

Tell that to the republicans.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 02-20-2011 7:50 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 02-20-2011 11:10 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 02-21-2011 3:14 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 02-23-2011 6:23 PM RAZD has responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 350 (605519)
02-20-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-20-2011 2:23 AM


Re: no brainer?
The USA has two major impacts on world trade; call them "competitive advantages". One is housing in that the USA is a great place to live. The other is investment.

Until recently (it may be starting to shift, but the current turmoil might change that) the US Dollar has been the global "reserve currency". Basically what this means is that significant quantities of the currency are held by foreign governments and financial institutions as part of their foreign exchange reserve.

When someone in one country wants to buy a good or service from a different country they cannot pay in their local currency because the foreigner isn't going to want their paycheck in that currency. So they have to exchange one currency for another, and there is a pool of this currency held by those who import and export to facilitate such exchanges.

Being the issuer of a global reserve currency allows the USA to purchase commodities at a marginally lower rate than other nations (who must exchange their currencies with each purchase and pay a transaction cost). It also allows the US government to borrow at a better rate because there will always be a larger market for the currency than for others. And we all know that the US government *loves* to borrow!

So here we are with mounds of debt to foreign countries and an extremely desirable position with regard to both borrowing and purchasing efficiency. But this could all come tumbling down if a foreign power or powers were able to forcefully coerce the USA's fiscal policy.

We are the wealthy gentleman who owns significant parts of every business in town, and similarly owes significant debts to pretty much everyone. He runs most of the trade in town and owns the bank, but his success depends on being secure. If he can be pushed around or the bank robbed then he is ruined.

So he carries a big fucking gun so nobody ever even dreams of messing with his shit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 2:23 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 7:54 PM Phage0070 has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 5 of 350 (605549)
02-20-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phage0070
02-20-2011 4:10 PM


Re: no brainer?
When someone in one country wants to buy a good or service from a different country they cannot pay in their local currency because the foreigner isn't going to want their paycheck in that currency. So they have to exchange one currency for another, and there is a pool of this currency held by those who import and export to facilitate such exchanges.

When the dollar was dropping like a stone it really screwed the EU economy because of this shit.

The american company that baught EU goods had the bill in dollars. so at day 1 when they get the bill they owe say 1000 $ witch was say 750 euro at day 30 or 60 when they had to pay the bill they still owed 1000 dollars witch was say 500 EUR.

Well on the bright side mobsters are very interested in the EURo cause we have a frigging 500 EUR bill currently worth 684.514 US dollars right now kinda helps with the shipments of cash if you dont have to carry tones 100$ bills when you can only carry 1/6 of the volume.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phage0070, posted 02-20-2011 4:10 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Phage0070, posted 02-20-2011 8:01 PM frako has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 350 (605551)
02-20-2011 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by frako
02-20-2011 7:54 PM


Re: no brainer?
frako writes:

When the dollar was dropping like a stone it really screwed the EU economy because of this shit.

Right, and the Euro is actually why I was saying that this was potentially shifting. But interestingly enough the EU is having their own issues with the depression of the Euro; in specific off the top of my head I believe Germany is rather pissed about bailing out... Hungary?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 7:54 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 8:07 PM Phage0070 has responded

frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 7 of 350 (605553)
02-20-2011 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phage0070
02-20-2011 8:01 PM


Re: no brainer?
Yea we keep bailong out countries slovenia sends money everywhere just to keep the people at home in the shit

Well its not that bad tough, hungary i think is the 5 country in a row that needed help, and our politicians dont have any guts like the slovaks who said NO we cant help right now, have to help our own people first.

Personaly i dont mid that much that the countries who are in deep shit are to be helped hell we might need the cash someday too tough i would really like some more guarantees on the lones that we and all the other EU countries give. And that the lones are not given just like that but some financial reforms are done first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phage0070, posted 02-20-2011 8:01 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Phage0070, posted 02-20-2011 8:22 PM frako has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 350 (605555)
02-20-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by frako
02-20-2011 8:07 PM


Re: no brainer?
frako writes:

i would really like some more guarantees on the lones that we and all the other EU countries give.

And its that urge exactly which is stressing the entire economic alliance. The only sort of guarantee that a country isn't going to be a continual drain needing to be bailed out is to link fiscal regulation. Fix the policies that got them in that situation to start with.

But of course nobody wants to give up that power. They joined in an alliance to try to break the US's strangle hold on the world reserve currency, not to give up their sovereignty. Except they now shackled themselves to a reserve currency that is proving to be more of a drain than anything, and more importantly one which they don't have any ability to either regulate or divest themselves of.

I'm of course not going to make any predictions, but I'm sure the opinion of many about the Euro has soured as of late.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by frako, posted 02-20-2011 8:07 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 8:33 PM Phage0070 has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16001
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 9 of 350 (605558)
02-20-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phage0070
02-20-2011 8:22 PM


Re: no brainer?
SO,

can we get back to the topic?

Thanks.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phage0070, posted 02-20-2011 8:22 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 02-20-2011 8:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 350 (605559)
02-20-2011 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
02-20-2011 8:33 PM


Re: no brainer?
RAZD writes:

can we get back to the topic?

What, you had a topic?

I find that hard to believe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 8:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12880
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 350 (605560)
02-20-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AZPaul3
02-20-2011 7:50 AM


Re: no brainer?
That $325 billion you want to cut is now buying a lot of food, shoes, education for literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. And this doesn't count the thousands more that make the food, shoes and education that would not be bought and thus lose their jobs as well. Can one really so cavalierly cause so much pain for the sake of some personal political agenda?

But this works just as well as an argument for reducing the deficit by any means, not just cutting the military budget. You either have to cut government spending or raise taxes (cutting consumer spending). Either way, there's a certain amount of borrowed money that you're no longer pumping into the economy. It's not as though any of the overspent money is being thrown into a big pit, it all gets spent one way or another.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 02-20-2011 7:50 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 10:40 PM Dr Adequate has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 16001
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 12 of 350 (605564)
02-20-2011 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2011 9:04 PM


Re: no brainer?
Hi Dr. Adequate, thanks.

It's not as though any of the overspent money is being thrown into a big pit, it all gets spent one way or another.

Actually a fair bit of military spending is on things that are not needed and will never be used. How many atomic bombs do we need?

Stockpiles of armament that have to be disposed of because they have expired are indeed a big pit where money has been thrown.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 9:04 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 02-20-2011 11:02 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 11:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2011 12:00 AM RAZD has responded

arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8967
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 350 (605565)
02-20-2011 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
02-20-2011 10:40 PM


Re: no brainer?
RAZD writes:

How many atomic bombs do we need?

something less than 10 would likely be sufficient.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 10:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 350 (605568)
02-20-2011 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
02-20-2011 9:09 AM


Re: no brainer?
If the question is not IF jobs are lost but WHERE jobs are lost, then yes, it looks better to me to reduce wasteful spending on the military budget.

Why does it have to be "where" and not "if"? Why do we suddenly have to balance the budget in the middle of a recession?

Why not balance it in the middle of a roaring economy, one with high growth and low unemployment so that the inevitable job losses as a result of public sector spending can be absorbed by the commensurate increase in private sector spending?

Doesn't that make a lot more sense? I don't understand the argument that a budget deficit we've been running continuously for 20 years is somehow now of such crucial importance that it outweighs the urgency of economic recovery. Can anyone explain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 9:09 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2011 9:58 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12880
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 350 (605569)
02-20-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
02-20-2011 10:40 PM


Re: no brainer?
Actually a fair bit of military spending is on things that are not needed and will never be used. How many atomic bombs do we need?

Stockpiles of armament that have to be disposed of because they have expired are indeed a big pit where money has been thrown.

Yes, but people still get paid for making them, and then spend the money, so it's not completely a pit. It is arguably more pit-like than other forms of spending.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2011 10:40 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 02-20-2011 11:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 02-20-2011 11:38 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

1
23456
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014