On September 28 2012 15:46 Silidons wrote: defense cuts is the #1 thing we need in reality
lol. no.
Yeah, you never know when China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Mexico are going to team up and all declare war on the U.S. at once!
Just you wait, it gets dangerous after they bully you out of Nato.
The U.S. isn't remaining consistent on defense spending to embolden the shield against other Western countries, BRIC countries and particularly China are going to run laps around our head in a few decades in military.
If you think no one can be the bully of the West, think beyond how Africa is crumbling towards China, that is the breeding ground of empires.
.... Wow... yeah your going totaly going to get beaten in the arms race if you dont spend 2000x as much as everyone else
Maybe that alone should tell you something is very very wrong with the way the money is spend. Besides. Your talking of Africa? The land without any army worth noting and comparing it to the western world? Grow up. Your not going to see chinese tanks rolling into any part of the modern western world.
On September 28 2012 15:46 Silidons wrote: defense cuts is the #1 thing we need in reality
lol. no.
Yeah, you never know when China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Mexico are going to team up and all declare war on the U.S. at once!
Just you wait, it gets dangerous after they bully you out of Nato.
The U.S. isn't remaining consistent on defense spending to embolden the shield against other Western countries, BRIC countries and particularly China are going to run laps around our head in a few decades in military.
If you think no one can be the bully of the West, think beyond how Africa is crumbling towards China, that is the breeding ground of empires.
This is about as likely as a Martian invasion, though I suppose if the Martians have superior military technology, even the U.S. military today might be inadequate to defend against them, so perhaps we really should keep up our military spending to counter the Martian threat.
On September 28 2012 15:46 Silidons wrote: defense cuts is the #1 thing we need in reality
lol. no.
Yeah, you never know when China, Russia, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Mexico are going to team up and all declare war on the U.S. at once!
Just you wait, it gets dangerous after they bully you out of Nato.
The U.S. isn't remaining consistent on defense spending to embolden the shield against other Western countries, BRIC countries and particularly China are going to run laps around our head in a few decades in military.
If you think no one can be the bully of the West, think beyond how Africa is crumbling towards China, that is the breeding ground of empires.
The issue isn't how consistent you are, the issue is how efficient you are. Considering that you are outspending the entire world together one must wonder where all that money is going.
To be honest I have an easy time mocking your spending because Austria hasn't had a decent military since WW1 (and I'm quite happy with that), but if you look at the bare numbers something is obviously going wrong in your defense spending. Maybe too much money ends up in overheads of big corporations who knows, but what I do know is that you could achieve similar levels of military readyness with half the ressources.
Basically, no one wants to ever look to cut defense spending because people like BluePanther are against cuts to military spending under any circumstances, regardless of corruption. Any cuts makes you look weak, even if it's making things more efficient. It doesn't help that defense contractors are a big lobby in congress.
That being said, defense spending is a lot more than just the military. There's a lot of really awesome general R&D happening in there.
On September 28 2012 13:22 Signet wrote: Well at this point, the debates can't possibly go worse for Romney than his campaigning. Nowhere to go but up...
Surely you can't be serious. The possibility of an absolute train wreck is imminent in those debates.
On September 28 2012 22:28 DoubleReed wrote: Basically, no one wants to ever look to cut defense spending because people like BluePanther are against cuts to military spending under any circumstances, regardless of corruption. Any cuts makes you look weak, even if it's making things more efficient. It doesn't help that defense contractors are a big lobby in congress.
That being said, defense spending is a lot more than just the military. There's a lot of really awesome general R&D happening in there.
I think he was just saying that defense cuts aren't the #1 thing we need.
In my opinion, insufficient tax revenue and spiraling health care costs are two larger concerns. Social Security can be fixed by upping the eligibility age and/or reducing the monthly payments by a percentage amount. Means-testing would be helpful too. Military spending (in real terms) should, at worst, flatline over the next decade, which will bring its spending as a percent of GDP down. Yes, I think it's still too high (and I do wonder how much of that is needlessly lining the pockets of arms manufacturers... only something like 20% goes towards personnel expenses), but it's been at that level for much of the last 50 years and we've gotten by.
But if health care costs continue to increase at a rate much, much faster than GDP growth, it'll put enormous pressure on any program looking to help even just some people afford the care. It's not like you can pay for half a heart transplant - the costs themselves have to level out for these programs to remain affordable while still being useful.
Likewise, with taxes at the levels they're at right now, we can pay for Defense + Social Sec + Medicare/caid, and that's it. Interest on the debt + everything else the federal government does is all unpaid. We need to make cuts, but I don't see something on the order of a 40% reduction in federal spending as actually happening, especially when the Big 3 are political minefields.
Eventually, getting our federal expenses and revenues (as % of GDP) back to where they were in 2000 seems like the most practical and achievable way to balance the budget, imo.
On September 28 2012 22:28 DoubleReed wrote: Basically, no one wants to ever look to cut defense spending because people like BluePanther are against cuts to military spending under any circumstances, regardless of corruption. Any cuts makes you look weak, even if it's making things more efficient. It doesn't help that defense contractors are a big lobby in congress.
That being said, defense spending is a lot more than just the military. There's a lot of really awesome general R&D happening in there.
I think he was just saying that defense cuts aren't the #1 thing we need.
In my opinion, insufficient tax revenue and spiraling health care costs are two larger concerns. Social Security can be fixed by upping the eligibility age and/or reducing the monthly payments by a percentage amount. Means-testing would be helpful too. Military spending (in real terms) should, at worst, flatline over the next decade, which will bring its spending as a percent of GDP down. Yes, I think it's still too high (and I do wonder how much of that is needlessly lining the pockets of arms manufacturers... only something like 20% goes towards personnel expenses), but it's been at that level for much of the last 50 years and we've gotten by.
But if health care costs continue to increase at a rate much, much faster than GDP growth, it'll put enormous pressure on any program looking to help even just some people afford the care. It's not like you can pay for half a heart transplant - the costs themselves have to level out for these programs to remain affordable while still being useful.
Likewise, with taxes at the levels they're at right now, we can pay for Defense + Social Sec + Medicare/caid, and that's it. Interest on the debt + everything else the federal government does is all unpaid. We need to make cuts, but I don't see something on the order of a 40% reduction in federal spending as actually happening, especially when the Big 3 are political minefields.
Eventually, getting our federal expenses and revenues (as % of GDP) back to where they were in 2000 seems like the most practical and achievable way to balance the budget, imo.
Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't?
On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote: Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending.
Yes this is very amusing
It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well.
On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote: Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending.
Yes this is very amusing
It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well.
As everyone knows, Romney is not a natural conservative. That is what's hold him back more than anything. He is incapable of making the sharp distinction with Obama that he should make.
On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote: Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending.
Yes this is very amusing
It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well.
As everyone knows, Romney is not a natural conservative. That is what's hold him back more than anything. He is incapable of making the sharp distinction with Obama that he should make.
While that's true about Romney, it the conservative think tanks and Super PACs are also claiming that defense cuts will end up costing thousands of jobs.
I don't think that that many people in politics really believe in Austrian or even neoliberal economics. They're just helpful frameworks to use to argue against specific things that people don't like. But I rarely see politicians who look at things from these perspectives consistently.
"They would make devastating cuts to our military. It's a strange proposal in the first place, even stranger that it's being put in place," Romney said. "The impact will be immediate, and significant right here in Virginia: 136,000 jobs will be lost in Virginia as a result of this move."
On September 28 2012 22:28 DoubleReed wrote: Basically, no one wants to ever look to cut defense spending because people like BluePanther are against cuts to military spending under any circumstances, regardless of corruption. Any cuts makes you look weak, even if it's making things more efficient. It doesn't help that defense contractors are a big lobby in congress.
That being said, defense spending is a lot more than just the military. There's a lot of really awesome general R&D happening in there.
I think he was just saying that defense cuts aren't the #1 thing we need.
In my opinion, insufficient tax revenue and spiraling health care costs are two larger concerns. Social Security can be fixed by upping the eligibility age and/or reducing the monthly payments by a percentage amount. Means-testing would be helpful too. Military spending (in real terms) should, at worst, flatline over the next decade, which will bring its spending as a percent of GDP down. Yes, I think it's still too high (and I do wonder how much of that is needlessly lining the pockets of arms manufacturers... only something like 20% goes towards personnel expenses), but it's been at that level for much of the last 50 years and we've gotten by.
But if health care costs continue to increase at a rate much, much faster than GDP growth, it'll put enormous pressure on any program looking to help even just some people afford the care. It's not like you can pay for half a heart transplant - the costs themselves have to level out for these programs to remain affordable while still being useful.
Likewise, with taxes at the levels they're at right now, we can pay for Defense + Social Sec + Medicare/caid, and that's it. Interest on the debt + everything else the federal government does is all unpaid. We need to make cuts, but I don't see something on the order of a 40% reduction in federal spending as actually happening, especially when the Big 3 are political minefields.
Eventually, getting our federal expenses and revenues (as % of GDP) back to where they were in 2000 seems like the most practical and achievable way to balance the budget, imo.
Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't?
He's a Keynesian on defense spending.
Didn't you already make that argument a bunch of pages back with a Krugman article? It was a terrible argument then and its a terrible one now.
On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote: Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending.
Yes this is very amusing
It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well.
As everyone knows, Romney is not a natural conservative. That is what's hold him back more than anything. He is incapable of making the sharp distinction with Obama that he should make.
While that's true about Romney, it the conservative think tanks and Super PACs are also claiming that defense cuts will end up costing thousands of jobs.
I don't think that that many people in politics really believe in Austrian or even neoliberal economics. They're just helpful frameworks to use to argue against specific things that people don't like. But I rarely see politicians who look at things from these perspectives consistently.
I don't think anyone would argue that taking money out of the defense industry will not reduce defense industry employment. The real issue is where should the money go instead to promote employment. Conservatives generally argue that tax money maximizes employment when it is left in the private sector (ie not taxed). Funding the defense industry is justified as the government fulfilling one of its core obligations to the nation and that having a strong national defense is central to American interests. Thus, the "hypocrisy" that liberals are bitching about here is grossly overstated.
EDIT: I shouldn't limit the issue strictly to employment. It's about maximizing the welfare of the private sector.
Looks like Obama's bungling with Libya may finally be catching up with him.
The foreign-policy results of the new Bloomberg National Poll haven't gotten much attention yet, but the survey contains some bad news for the Obama campaign. According to the poll, Mitt Romney has a 48-42 advantage over Barack Obama on the question of which candidate would be tougher on terrorism. Romney, in other words, has encroached on one of Obama's signature strengths.
What makes this result so surprising is that the president has consistently trounced Romney when it comes to counterterrorism. A Fox News poll earlier this month found that 49 percent of respondents trusted Obama to do a better job than Romney in protecting the United States from terrorist attacks, compared with 41 percent who put their faith in the Republican candidate. The president had a 51-40 advantage on handling terrorism in an ABC News/Washington Post poll around the same time, and a 50-35 edge on carrying out the war on terror in an Ipsos/Reuters poll in August. The Democrats' rare national-security muscle was on full display at their convention, where speakers boasted about the administration's successful raid against Osama bin Laden and targeted killings of al Qaeda leaders.
The Bloomberg poll contains other grim findings for Obama -- such as declining approval of the president's diplomacy and a neck-and-neck battle between Obama and Romney on flashpoint campaign issues such as energy independence, Chinese trade practices, relations with Israel, and Iran's nuclear program (61 percent of respondents were skeptical about Obama's pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon). There are also bright spots for the president, like healthy skepticism about Romney's promise to designate China a currency manipulator and Obama's continued advantage over Romney on the question of which candidate would be better suited to handle a Mideast crisis.
Significantly, Bloomberg's survey, which was conducted from Sept. 21-24, is one of the first polls to come out since the wave of anti-American protests in the Middle East. The key question: Is Romney's terrorism advantage an anomaly, or a sign that Obama is more vulnerable on national security after the unrest in the Middle East and the administration's shifting account of the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?
Given that a separate poll this weeks shows Obama besting Romney on national security among likely voters in swing states, it may be too early to answer that question.
On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote: Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending.
Yes this is very amusing
It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well.
As everyone knows, Romney is not a natural conservative. That is what's hold him back more than anything. He is incapable of making the sharp distinction with Obama that he should make.
While that's true about Romney, it the conservative think tanks and Super PACs are also claiming that defense cuts will end up costing thousands of jobs.
I don't think that that many people in politics really believe in Austrian or even neoliberal economics. They're just helpful frameworks to use to argue against specific things that people don't like. But I rarely see politicians who look at things from these perspectives consistently.
I don't think anyone would argue that taking money out of the defense industry will not reduce defense industry employment. The real issue is where should the money go instead to promote employment. Conservatives generally argue that tax money maximizes employment when it is left in the private sector (ie not taxed). Funding the defense industry is justified as the government fulfilling one of its core obligations to the nation and that having a strong national defense is central to American interests. Thus, the "hypocrisy" that liberals are bitching about here is grossly overstated.
Uh, no, you didn't cover that hypocrisy at all. The "strong national defense" argument has nothing to do with it. What IS hypocritical is defending the idea that the private sector is necessarily better at creating jobs than the government (both directly and indirectly), that to create jobs money taken in and spent by the government thus does a worse job than money staying in the private sector, and therefore that the smaller the government is the better, while simultaneously claiming that reducing government size (for defense matters) is bad for the economy because it will result in job losses.
EPT
