Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Nov 8, 2012.
What is your point, then? Clearly, the Socratic method isn't working out too great.
Sorry, I thought it would be evident with some judicious applications of logic and aloe vera.
The military is able to cut net out a large chunk of the budget that's spent on it by the benefits it has to the economy - in terms of the money the military spends engaging services from the private sector; in terms of the goods the private sector supplies the military, and finally in less quantitative ways such as the trade and other economic benefits that flow from US military training to like-minded or developing states.
So, cutting that budget down would have a series of flow on effects that would, in turn, harm the economy more than it would help it by saving $Xbn in cuts.
That's not to say the military would not benefit from massive increases to efficiency across the board - it would. And those efficiencies would, in theory, reduce expenditure. But going all ******-strong with a machete and doing wildy eyed cuts, as KW proposes, is not a solution.
Given KW's other posts in political threads, I'm fairly certain he wasn't trying to discuss draconian cuts the defense budget as a way to dramatically reduce federal spending. Instead, he's arguing for a shift away from defense spending and towards other things that he values, and has in the past explicitly argued for. That more or less informed my last response.
I Just never got why the USA as a sociaty loves spending so much money on stuff that only exsits to blow other stuff up?
US defense spening was anemic prior to the Second World War, I think it was behind Portugal.
Not to say it didn't bully latin american countries, and beat Spain proper rather viciously, but between its civil war and the 2nd world war the USA was not AOK with war on general principle.
Yeah WW2 the USA debut as a world power, but generaly it was a disaster for most parties, wrecking economies and trashing nations. Then the cold war happend and the US got its fear on because of a mostly icy ported or land locked USSR that clearly could not compeat economicly. Yes it gave the US the occassional black eye but Its not France vs Britian here, or Ethiopia vs Somalia. where beefs are measured in the span of millenia and one has continuiosly invaded the other.
I get history between 1945 to 1989 created the US culture of "Industrial Military Complex" I just don't logicly see how!
the Revolution, war of 1812, Mexican american war, and Spanish american war the USA was the agressor party (feelings of justification asside)
Only the Civil War where other Americans struck first when it was not the agressor. Only in the war of 1812 has it been physicly invaded by foreign powers. I have a hard time figuring out why a country with so little hostility directed at it can be so much more militant than countries that have been repeatedly occupied and invaded
The US needed the military to assist in maintaining hegemony after WWII. I thought that was generally known?
ahem! its called the "War of Northern Aggression" for a reason. just ask kimball
The Brits used a combination of shrewed deals and military, and they made their hegemony from scratch. Its disconcerting that the US has less subtlty than the British. Straight to the military cudgle!? even when there is no Soviet Union it still seems to be the perferd go to tactic on the hill.
Cause no one likes to be on the losing side of the war, especially the moral wrong side.
Ender, with respect, I think your concerns about the trade-off between the change in defense spending and the change in GDP are unfounded. The NBER shows that the GDP multipliers for defense spending are only about 0.8 for permanent defense spending, and lower than that for temporary spending. Based on the widely cited estimates of Mark Zandi (page 9), there are several forms of government spending, tax cuts, or tax credits that would provide a much larger boost GDP than defense spending, and likely to social well-being as well, such as infrastructure spending, aid to the poor, or across the board tax cuts.
The trillion dollar coin
You might as well change the title of this thread to Debt Ceiling Countdown, as that's what phase we're into now.
It's already looking interesting. The GOP is even more far-right than they were in the 112th and I don't think most of them understand economics enough to know what will happen if they force us to default. And Obama has repeatedly said he refuses to negotiate over it, which he should have done last time, so we'll see if they're brave enough to ruin the world economy to get what they want...after they got humiliated in an election.
I was just about to suggest changing this to the debt ceiling countdown before I saw the last post.
Some great comments here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/04/the-debt-ceiling-s-impact-on-the-gop.html#comments
It's going to be a major battle to get the debt ceiling raised.
And what is stupid is that it will be raised no matter what, but we will have to go through this exercise for the ego appeasement of the worst COngress in modern(all?) history. And they gave themselves a raise.
The Treasury says there will be no Trillion dollar platinum coin
"There was also the simple fact that it would, indeed, represent an admission that the government’s executive and legislative branches could no longer be trusted to come together and effectively manage the country’s finances."
It's the GOP refusing to cooperate and putting everyone through this mess.
The Simpsons did it first anyway.
I recommend investing in atlatl technology at this point, as we'll be both broke and unable to shoot wild game in a few months. /s
Drat there goes my what-if scenario of using a trillion dollar coin at a vending machine.
it was a stupid idea. the fact that krugmans endorsed it is telling.
What does it being stupid have to do with anything? It's a fundamentally stupid idea to make it legal for Congress to incur debt but not simultaneously legalize the borrowing necessary to pay for said debt, but we have that too. It's sort of the cause of this whole thing in the first place.
What if we pass a law saying that Congress's pay comes out of the surplus and can't be given so long as we are in debt? I'm pretty sure we'd be out of debt within a year then.
That would just make corruption soar beyond anything Americans thought possible for our country.
The annual deficit has already shrunk by some $200 billion since Obama took office, and it will shrink even more once more jobs are created. Job creation leads to deficit reduction, not the other way around. High unemployment is one of the largest reasons for our current deficit problem.
Do you really think most of these people go into Congress for the paycheck? Really? The rank and file salary for the house is $174,000/yr. He made $16.2 million in two years working as a banker. If you still believe this theory, either he's being stupid or you are.
exactly sd - we need ROBUST GROWTH. unfortunately, our current administration doesn't seem to be interested in fostering ROBUST GROWTH, only meager **** growth.
Good point, AAAAH. If he was serious about encouraging growth he could probably make, like, an American Jobs Bill and then spend a year trying to get Congressional Republicans to pass it and. . .
i personally would like to see a "getting the heck out of the way of the private sector" bill from the administration. is there any way we could convince him to do that? hypnosis, perhaps?