Ideal worlds.Jay wrote:
Those who did save shouldn't need SS or Medicare.
Of course it's idealized, the average family has $3800 in the bank. I've said repeatedly that it would require a change in culture.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
More than that. Medical emergency hits your average family, and there go their savings if they have any.
Who said anything about reducing the pay of military members? You can reduce military spending by simply reducing the size of the military. As I stated before, why do we need 8700 abrams tanks? Why do we need 12,000 fighter jets? We don't. Reduce the amount of equipment and reduce the maintenance and operating costs as well as reducing the number of positions needed to service said equipment. The U.S. could lose a quarter of it's strength and still be a first class world military that is second to none.Dilbert_X wrote:
Good luck getting 3 of those past the GOP, and good luck with the riots following the other one.
What do you mean anyway?
Sack 15% of the military? Then you'd have to pay them dole, so really you'd have to sack 25% of them to see a 15% saving. Have fun with that.
Or are you going to tell everyone in the military they're getting a 15% pay cut tomorrow? Since they're presumably paying tax on their top 15% of income you'd have to cut their pay by, I dunno, 20% to see a 15% benefit. How would you react to a 20% pay cut?
Its easy to make glib statements if you're not concerned with the consequences. Its why CEOs and other business people make for bad politicians - they only ever see one side of their actions.
What choices does America really have?
Print (more) money?
Borrow (more) money? From the children of today's 'tax-payers' (net-receivers mostly)? The Chinese?
Raise taxes?
Cut spending?
America is accustomed to living well beyond its means, it should be facing Greek style austerity measures but has raised 'too big to fail' to a nation level.
Cutting social security is going to piss people off but it's only going to piss off a larger quantity of people in the future who won't get any because it's all dried up.
Ending the Bush tax cuts isn't a tax increase, it's simply returning taxes to their pre-existing levels.
I think everyone can agree the wars are pointless by now.
Well, that's not an issue anymore now is it? Everyone has to have medical coverage and there are no capsunnamednewbie13 wrote:
More than that. Medical emergency hits your average family, and there go their savings if they have any.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I think Jay said it very simply: all of this requires a change in culture.
None of these positions/solutions/idealized models amount to anything unless you can make short-term prescriptions to move in that direction.
Americans are way too caught up in trying to solve economic problems with only economic solutions. The best solutions solve the problem by reducing the effect of contributing variables. All of this amounts to re-formatting government services (not pay-cuts/personnel cuts en-mass) to eliminate institutional careerism in many of these other variables. Economics is not devoid of politics. Ever. Education, reorganization, and a move towards better (real) diplomacy is required. By 'real' I mean not acting unilaterally whenever the fuck you see fit, and not using leverage at every possible moment to sweeten the deal as much as possible (opportunism in the present does not always pay off). Use linkage in place.
None of these positions/solutions/idealized models amount to anything unless you can make short-term prescriptions to move in that direction.
Americans are way too caught up in trying to solve economic problems with only economic solutions. The best solutions solve the problem by reducing the effect of contributing variables. All of this amounts to re-formatting government services (not pay-cuts/personnel cuts en-mass) to eliminate institutional careerism in many of these other variables. Economics is not devoid of politics. Ever. Education, reorganization, and a move towards better (real) diplomacy is required. By 'real' I mean not acting unilaterally whenever the fuck you see fit, and not using leverage at every possible moment to sweeten the deal as much as possible (opportunism in the present does not always pay off). Use linkage in place.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Most of those tanks sit in the desert and receive minimal maintenance.Extra Medium wrote:
Who said anything about reducing the pay of military members? You can reduce military spending by simply reducing the size of the military. As I stated before, why do we need 8700 abrams tanks? Why do we need 12,000 fighter jets? We don't. Reduce the amount of equipment and reduce the maintenance and operating costs as well as reducing the number of positions needed to service said equipment. The U.S. could lose a quarter of it's strength and still be a first class world military that is second to none.Dilbert_X wrote:
Good luck getting 3 of those past the GOP, and good luck with the riots following the other one.
What do you mean anyway?
Sack 15% of the military? Then you'd have to pay them dole, so really you'd have to sack 25% of them to see a 15% saving. Have fun with that.
Or are you going to tell everyone in the military they're getting a 15% pay cut tomorrow? Since they're presumably paying tax on their top 15% of income you'd have to cut their pay by, I dunno, 20% to see a 15% benefit. How would you react to a 20% pay cut?
Its easy to make glib statements if you're not concerned with the consequences. Its why CEOs and other business people make for bad politicians - they only ever see one side of their actions.
What choices does America really have?
Print (more) money?
Borrow (more) money? From the children of today's 'tax-payers' (net-receivers mostly)? The Chinese?
Raise taxes?
Cut spending?
America is accustomed to living well beyond its means, it should be facing Greek style austerity measures but has raised 'too big to fail' to a nation level.
Cutting social security is going to piss people off but it's only going to piss off a larger quantity of people in the future who won't get any because it's all dried up.
Ending the Bush tax cuts isn't a tax increase, it's simply returning taxes to their pre-existing levels.
I think everyone can agree the wars are pointless by now.
http://www.businessinsider.com/congress … ks-2012-10There are currently more than 2,000 inactive M-1 Abrams tanks sitting at an Army depot in the California desert.
Including those, there are about 4,000 tanks in service, not 8,700. There have been 8,700 built since 1979.
And no, we don't need them. Republicans want a big military because the defense contractors that build things like tanks are located in their districts. If they cut defense spending then they have to tell their constituents why they lost their job. That puts them in danger of losing re-election. It's an absolute shitty way to run the country, but that's why we are where we are now.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Even if my numbers were flawed, can we not agree that the size and strength of the U.S. military is excessive for it's practical and theoretical use?Jay wrote:
LOTS OF WORDS.
Well, no.Extra Medium wrote:
Even if my numbers were flawed, can we not agree that the size and strength of the U.S. military is excessive for it's practical and theoretical use?Jay wrote:
LOTS OF WORDS.
The practical and theoretical use is to be able to fight two regional wars simultaneously to avoid a third party taking the opportunity to launch an attack once the US is engaged elsewhere. This was practical during the Cold War, but seems less important now. The point being: there's a reason they do it, but you can't use their reasoning and argue that they've overshot it. Instead, the logic itself needs to be reassessed in a new context.
You may have the right idea, but your approach is flawed.
EDIT- and before I join the 'liberal gang of faggots' approach is everything in politics. This is not trivial.
Last edited by Pochsy (2012-11-28 09:23:52)
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Liberal gang of faggots seems to be a pretty happening place to be.Pochsy wrote:
Well, no.Extra Medium wrote:
Even if my numbers were flawed, can we not agree that the size and strength of the U.S. military is excessive for it's practical and theoretical use?Jay wrote:
LOTS OF WORDS.
The practical and theoretical use is to be able to fight two regional wars simultaneously to avoid a third party taking the opportunity to launch an attack once the US is engaged elsewhere. This was practical during the Cold War, but seems less important now. The point being: there's a reason they do it, but you can't use their reasoning and argue that they've overshot it. Instead, the logic itself needs to be reassessed in a new context.
You may have the right idea, but your approach is flawed.
EDIT- and before I join the 'liberal gang of faggots' approach is everything in politics. This is not trivial.
But seriously, with no real superpower threat left in the world and the closest nation to filling that role being China, who we seem to be on reasonably "ok" terms with, I don't think it is necessary. Most of the major militarys left in the world are our allies and strong allies at that.
What pochsy was saying is that we need to rethink our goals first before we make cuts to our military. The mission right now dictates that we have a large enough military to fight two ground wars simultaneously. The discussion needs to be about changing our military's mission first i.e. as an example, deciding that we want a strictly defensive force, and then making cuts to reflect that change in focus. Policy needs to change before you can make cuts. Otherwise you end up with an overstretched military incapable of fulfilling its mission. And yes, our policy needs to change.Extra Medium wrote:
Liberal gang of faggots seems to be a pretty happening place to be.Pochsy wrote:
Well, no.Extra Medium wrote:
Even if my numbers were flawed, can we not agree that the size and strength of the U.S. military is excessive for it's practical and theoretical use?
The practical and theoretical use is to be able to fight two regional wars simultaneously to avoid a third party taking the opportunity to launch an attack once the US is engaged elsewhere. This was practical during the Cold War, but seems less important now. The point being: there's a reason they do it, but you can't use their reasoning and argue that they've overshot it. Instead, the logic itself needs to be reassessed in a new context.
You may have the right idea, but your approach is flawed.
EDIT- and before I join the 'liberal gang of faggots' approach is everything in politics. This is not trivial.
But seriously, with no real superpower threat left in the world and the closest nation to filling that role being China, who we seem to be on reasonably "ok" terms with, I don't think it is necessary. Most of the major militarys left in the world are our allies and strong allies at that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
We need to achieve energy independence before we can leave the middle east. Then it will be China's problem.
I actually believe that the benefits of drilling outweigh the costs when it comes to the energy/global warming debate. We need to GTFO of that region ASAP.
I actually believe that the benefits of drilling outweigh the costs when it comes to the energy/global warming debate. We need to GTFO of that region ASAP.
Last edited by Spearhead (2012-11-28 12:30:34)
Most of the oil USA gets is domestically produced (50%), Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi is the largest contributor from that region with only something like 10%Spearhead wrote:
We need to achieve energy independence before we can leave the middle east. Then it will be China's problem.
I actually believe that the benefits of drilling outweigh the costs when it comes to the energy/global warming debate. We need to GTFO of that region ASAP.
Which interestingly enough, will probably require more government spending.Spearhead wrote:
We need to achieve energy independence before we can leave the middle east. Then it will be China's problem.
I actually believe that the benefits of drilling outweigh the costs when it comes to the energy/global warming debate. We need to GTFO of that region ASAP.
Can't disagree more on the second part though.
Where did you get that number?Extra Medium wrote:
Why do we need 12,000 fighter jets?
I need to go tell all my friends that they should have received the fighter slots they wanted, since we have roughly 5 times as many fighters as we thought!
I can concur with that reasoning.Jay wrote:
What pochsy was saying is that we need to rethink our goals first before we make cuts to our military. The mission right now dictates that we have a large enough military to fight two ground wars simultaneously. The discussion needs to be about changing our military's mission first i.e. as an example, deciding that we want a strictly defensive force, and then making cuts to reflect that change in focus. Policy needs to change before you can make cuts. Otherwise you end up with an overstretched military incapable of fulfilling its mission. And yes, our policy needs to change.Extra Medium wrote:
Liberal gang of faggots seems to be a pretty happening place to be.Pochsy wrote:
Well, no.
The practical and theoretical use is to be able to fight two regional wars simultaneously to avoid a third party taking the opportunity to launch an attack once the US is engaged elsewhere. This was practical during the Cold War, but seems less important now. The point being: there's a reason they do it, but you can't use their reasoning and argue that they've overshot it. Instead, the logic itself needs to be reassessed in a new context.
You may have the right idea, but your approach is flawed.
EDIT- and before I join the 'liberal gang of faggots' approach is everything in politics. This is not trivial.
But seriously, with no real superpower threat left in the world and the closest nation to filling that role being China, who we seem to be on reasonably "ok" terms with, I don't think it is necessary. Most of the major militarys left in the world are our allies and strong allies at that.
It was an exaggeration intended for dramatic affect. Did it work?RAIMIUS wrote:
Where did you get that number?Extra Medium wrote:
Why do we need 12,000 fighter jets?
I need to go tell all my friends that they should have received the fighter slots they wanted, since we have roughly 5 times as many fighters as we thought!
Last edited by Extra Medium (2012-11-28 16:25:44)
Norquist seems like a real asshole.
Raising taxes makes sense (along with cutting spending), holding the GOP to his own crazy belief is bizarre.
Raising taxes makes sense (along with cutting spending), holding the GOP to his own crazy belief is bizarre.
No. It just makes you appear to have no idea what you are talking about.Extra Medium wrote:
I can concur with that reasoning.Jay wrote:
What pochsy was saying is that we need to rethink our goals first before we make cuts to our military. The mission right now dictates that we have a large enough military to fight two ground wars simultaneously. The discussion needs to be about changing our military's mission first i.e. as an example, deciding that we want a strictly defensive force, and then making cuts to reflect that change in focus. Policy needs to change before you can make cuts. Otherwise you end up with an overstretched military incapable of fulfilling its mission. And yes, our policy needs to change.Extra Medium wrote:
Liberal gang of faggots seems to be a pretty happening place to be.
But seriously, with no real superpower threat left in the world and the closest nation to filling that role being China, who we seem to be on reasonably "ok" terms with, I don't think it is necessary. Most of the major militarys left in the world are our allies and strong allies at that.It was an exaggeration intended for dramatic affect. Did it work?RAIMIUS wrote:
Where did you get that number?Extra Medium wrote:
Why do we need 12,000 fighter jets?
I need to go tell all my friends that they should have received the fighter slots they wanted, since we have roughly 5 times as many fighters as we thought!
Well, I'm not a member of the liberal gang of faggots. so as far as you all are concerned I never knew what I was talking about. On anything. Ever.Jaekus wrote:
No. It just makes you appear to have no idea what you are talking about.
I've merely pointed out you are terrible at basic math.Extra Medium wrote:
Well, I'm not a member of the liberal gang of faggots. so as far as you all are concerned I never knew what I was talking about. On anything. Ever.Jaekus wrote:
No. It just makes you appear to have no idea what you are talking about.
you're an expert on american politics and you just now heard of Grover Norquist? Catch up my friend!AussieReaper wrote:
Norquist seems like a real asshole.
Raising taxes makes sense (along with cutting spending), holding the GOP to his own crazy belief is bizarre.
Oh I'm no expert.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
you're an expert on american politics and you just now heard of Grover Norquist? Catch up my friend!AussieReaper wrote:
Norquist seems like a real asshole.
Raising taxes makes sense (along with cutting spending), holding the GOP to his own crazy belief is bizarre.
You're right though, everybody should know this guy is holding the strings.
how is he holding the strings? Because he had some congressmen sign a pledge they aren't going to keep?
Kept it for the past 18 years haven't they?