Quote from an article about Social Security

[makattak]

No, this isn't about Social Security, but from the comments section of this article:

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/03/26/a-wall-street-conspiracy-to-kill-social-security-we-can-hope/

The opponents of social insurance NEVER address the elephant in the room — the costs of maintaining an empire. If the US would reduce the fully-allocated “defense” spending to the OECD average (x-US), the concern of social insurance would not be an issue.

Statements like that are related to the problem documented here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1

Basically, Obamacare is going to cause companies to drop prescription drug benefits for retirees because the government dropped a subsidy for those benefits. Now, those retirees will have to get their drug benefits from the government. This will, of course cost the government more money than the subsidy, but Congress counted it as "savings" because the cut the subsidy (and "assumed" that the companies would continue providing the benfit.)

Now, I know they could have simply been using it as an accounting gimmick, but I've come to believe these people are incapable of understanding second-order effects. You cut a subsidy. The subsidy now costs less. (First order effect.) The company getting the subsidy stops providing that service. It costs the government more to ensure those dropped by that service (Second order effect.)

Now to tie it into my first statement.

Liberals HATE the US Military. Not the soldiers (necessarily) but the fact that "we spend so much money on defense!!1111!!1"

They look and see Europe spending far less and see that nothing bad happens to Europe. Therefore (they think) we can spend as much as Europe and we'll be just the same!

It's as though they have no conception of this Pax Americana in which we live. The world is not in a state of outright war because one country has decided it will not allow that and has the overwhelming might to make good on that determination.

If we become a European country, it is unlikely the US will be attacked. We do still have two massive oceans protecting us. The rest of the world will not be so lucky. We would quickly revert to a pre-WWII situation where any country can decide it wants to rule their neighbors. Wars would happen everywhere.

Sadly, I think we are not far from that situation. Once the US collapses under the weight of these entitlements, we will be unable to sustain that massive force. We may not currently have the will to use it, but so long as it exists, other countries know we can acquire the will to use it.

Acquiring will is far easier than acquiring might. I'm fearful as to what will happen when the peace created by US might finally shatters.

Imagine WWI with nukes...

[HankB]

Basically, Obamacare is going to cause companies to drop prescription drug benefits for retirees because the government dropped a subsidy for those benefits. Now, those retirees will have to get their drug benefits from the government.

Found out minutes ago that my employer is going to take an immediate one-time non-cash charge to earnings of around $90,000,000 even though the tax doesn't take effect until 2013, because the law requires the impact to be accounted for in the period where the law is signed.

My mother has pretty good drug benefits as part of my late father's pension package (different company than the one I work for) . . . wonder how this will affect her?

So far, BHO has done nothing - NOTHING - but harm. 

[MicroBalrog]

If America stops defending Europe, Europe will have to arm itself, and cut its own welfare state accordingly, or be destroyed economically as it tries to do both.

That's potentially a good thing.

[makattak]

If America stops defending Europe, Europe will have to arm itself, and cut its own welfare state accordingly, or be destroyed economically as it tries to do both.

That's potentially a good thing.

True. However, as I feel the US is at least partly responsible for allowing the Soviet Union to absorb most of eastern Europe, I'd rather not see those people suffer AGAIN because of the United States.

[taurusowner]

So what are they gonna say when no US medical ships show up to the next tsunami, or soldiers to escort the next food shipment through some warlord's shithole country, or military engineers during the next earthquake?  Whenever anyone in the world has a problem, we show up first and never ask anything in return.  Hell, even when a hurricane hit the US itself, at the corrupt broken (D) government of New Orleans dropped the ball, who came in and stabilized the situation?  The Army.  And they hate us for it.

[French G.]

The people against "America, World Police" seem to be oblivious to the fact that nature abhors a vacumn. A replacement will wield power. They ae not likely to be such sucky imperialists as we are. Then of course they'll beg for us to come save them. Defense spending is dwarfed by entitlement spending, be that gov't pension or SS/medicare.

[Regolith]

The people against "America, World Police" seem to be oblivious to the fact that nature abhors a vacumn. A replacement will wield power. They ae not likely to be such sucky imperialists as we are. Then of course they'll beg for us to come save them. Defense spending is dwarfed by entitlement spending, be that gov't pension or SS/medicare.

Not to mention that defense spending is clearly constitutional.  Entitlement spending?  Not so much...

[MicroBalrog]

True. However, as I feel the US is at least partly responsible for allowing the Soviet Union to absorb most of eastern Europe, I'd rather not see those people suffer AGAIN because of the United States.

What's the purpose? It's clear that Europe will not be anywhere as free as America in the near future. In fact, the European Union is swiftly heading down an amazing drain. Why subsidize their behavior?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What's the purpose? It's clear that Europe will not be anywhere as free as America in the near future. In fact, the European Union is swiftly heading down an amazing drain. Why subsidize their behavior?

I wouldn't consider doing it for their sakes.  I'd do it for ours, though.

A peaceful, democratic (not necessarily free), and sorta kinda wealthy Europe is good for us.  If we can do something to further those ends, then we should, for our own benefit.

The twit mak quoted above doesn't seem to understand that we can afford a military, even one powerful enough to enforce the Pax Americana.  We cannot afford the entitlements.

[RevDisk]

Basically, Obamacare is going to cause companies to drop prescription drug benefits for retirees because the government dropped a subsidy for those benefits. Now, those retirees will have to get their drug benefits from the government. This will, of course cost the government more money than the subsidy, but Congress counted it as "savings" because the cut the subsidy (and "assumed" that the companies would continue providing the benfit.)

Now, I know they could have simply been using it as an accounting gimmick, but I've come to believe these people are incapable of understanding second-order effects. You cut a subsidy. The subsidy now costs less. (First order effect.) The company getting the subsidy stops providing that service. It costs the government more to ensure those dropped by that service (Second order effect.)

The part I love the most?  It's not a subsidy.  It was simply not taxed.  It's a hilarious day when any activity that is not directly taxed is considered "a government subsidy".

[lee n. field]

The people against "America, World Police" seem to be oblivious to the fact that nature abhors a vacumn. A replacement will wield power.

The Chinese.  That should be fun.