Mancrush on David Koch

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Defence only comes up because that is the only thing most Democrats are willing to cutit will cost either party fewer votes.
its less partisan than you might expect

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Never gonna work in reality.  Make the cuts first.  That is the hard part.  If you Try to do both, the cuts will get cut.

How many Presidents have made deals only to see the spending cuts never happen?  Isn't that more or less what happened to Bush I? 

i think you are right but who was it that undercut him?  wasn't some of it self inflicted?

[MillCreek]

Defence only comes up because that is the only thing most Democrats are willing to cutit will cost either party fewer votes.
its less partisan than you might expect

I agree completely, and I think that Defense should not be the untouched sacred cow.  And what really irks me are the legislators that are all in favor of budget cuts until the Pentagon talks about closing the base in their district or no longer procuring the ships/vehicles/airplanes/armaments that are manufactured in their district.  Then, it is all about saving jobs and our industrial base.  

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Budget_Spending.htm  and according to this, 2/3 of the national budget goes to mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare and military retirements, and of the remaining 1/3 of the national budget, 2/3rds of that goes to military spending.  So again, I argue for cuts in Defense, Social Security and Medicare, and perhaps we should look at retirement benefits, too.  If the states feel they can no longer afford public employee pensions, maybe we need to share the pain by cutting Federal/military retirement plans as well. 

[ArfinGreebly]

Defense is, what, 15% of the budget?  Maybe 17% tops?  It's less than 5% of GDP.

Why is that always the first thing to get raised in the "cut everything" discussion?

Tell you what, let's start with a 10% cut everywhere else -- especially all those areas that aren't expressly a Federal responsibility -- like, say, education for instance, or medicine.  Hell, let's get rid of the subsidies for the "arts" and "public" broadcasting.  The Feds don't belong in any of those areas.

Oh, when I say "cut" I don't mean "a reduction in the [baseline] increase."  I mean "reduction in spending."

And can we return to the Constitutional taxation structure?  Repeal that 16th amendment thing and ditch the IRS.  If you need an income tax, go to a 10% or 8% flat tax, no exceptions, no loopholes.  Or replace it with a sales tax.

And this:

Many reputable economists, although probably not of the political stripe favored by many of the participants of this forum, favor a combination of government cost reduction and revenue increases to solve our economic issues.  The More You Know.

. . . is misleading.

When taxes are lowered, government revenue does, in fact, increase.

This "revenue increase" thing is a red herring, liberally interpreted to mean "tax increase" by government economists.

Revenue increase is good.  Tax increase is bad.  Those are not conflicting statements.

[MillCreek]

Arfin, why should Defense be the untouchable sacred cow?

[ArfinGreebly]

Not say sacred cow.

Say "not sacrifice first."

Education = not in the COTUS.
Retirement = not in the COTUS.
Medicine = not in the COTUS.

Defense = baked into the COTUS.

Why we always sharpen the Defense knife first?

[Boomhauer]

Cut the welfare and social services bullshit. Very little of that money is going to people who actually need it.

Dont cut defense spending but refocus it. For the amount of money we spend on defense we could have a hell of a force with completely modern equipment...

[TommyGunn]

you fight the chinese you can leave the sidearms at home.  the stakes have changed   and they do have what it takes to buy the hand/pot  our biggest asset in that fight is that they haven't figured out how to swim that ocean

You do realize I was being sarcastic ~~ right?   I mean, I don't think if we're gonna fight the Chinese we should arm our guys with Roman Gladius either.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

You do realize I was being sarcastic ~~ right?   I mean, I don't think if we're gonna fight the Chinese we should arm our guys with Roman Gladius either.

sorry  i was completely clueless about the sarcasm .fighting the chinese triggers some real fear in me.  might be that i'm 1/2 japanese but i think its because i believe thats a fight we will lose.

[TommyGunn]

sorry  i was completely clueless about the sarcasm .fighting the chinese triggers some real fear in me.  might be that i'm 1/2 japanese but i think its because i believe thats a fight we will lose.

Depends.  Right now we'd woop 'em.  However, cut our navy, cut our forces, in another generation and assuming the Chinese keep increasing their abilities and in a few decades then you will be right.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i don't think you can kill enough chinese to whoop em. they have 50 and hundred year plans. barring some rapid noisy splitting of atoms i think they will eventually prevail by weight of numbers.

[TommyGunn]

We don't necessarily have to invade China to fight them.  
They don't have the force projection ability to come over here.  The most likely scenario is a western Pacific conflagration, over Taiwan.  The Chinese are developing some nasty missiles that eventually could really compromise our carrier groups, plus they already have a "stealth fighter" being built.  Also, they're developing a submarine force.  At this moment they are in no position to do much to us except embarrass us by having one of their subs pop up in the midst of one of our aircraft carrier groups undetected, but this will take a turn for the worse in coming decades, assuming we do nothing about it.
Of course we could nuke them back into the Pleistocene.... but that assumes we'd have a prez with the cojones to do it.

[MillCreek]

I actually wonder more about some sort of cyberwar with the Chinese.

[TommyGunn]

I actually wonder more about some sort of cyberwar with the Chinese.

Yeah .... that could happen.  They are already trying to use computers to hack into our computers and steal things and see what they can get away with.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

We don't necessarily have to invade China to fight them.  
They don't have the force projection ability to come over here.  The most likely scenario is a western Pacific conflagration, over Taiwan.  The Chinese are developing some nasty missiles that eventually could really compromise our carrier groups, plus they already have a "stealth fighter" being built.  Also, they're developing a submarine force.  At this moment they are in no position to do much to us except embarrass us by having one of their subs pop up in the midst of one of our aircraft carrier groups undetected, but this will take a turn for the worse in coming decades, assuming we do nothing about it.
Of course we could nuke them back into the Pleistocene.... but that assumes we'd have a prez with the cojones to do it.

big mistake westerners make is thinking the chinese will react the way we would over a nuke attack and that therefore  it has deterrent value comparable to our feelings.  they will deliver the death of a thousand cuts  leverage us outa resources etc.  not in my time or my kids. but barring a greater calamity its inevitable

[birdman]

It's not inevitable, especially in the long run.  Any case of china being uppity will occur in the near term, for simple demographic reasons--due to one-child policy (which has severely biased their population not just in age, but in gender), if you look at detailed demographics AND economic growth rates, the reason china is pushing so hard now is without an economic growth rate of 10+% or better per year, they will get old before they get rich.  In terms of military capability, the same is true, demographically, their ability to wage war will begin to be substantially impacted within 10-15 years, and continue until 25-50 years after the bias is removed.  Given their need for growth NOW (you think we have a baby boomer issue in terms of age bias, theirs is far worse) to support the future, and the severe impact in appropriately aged folks in 10-20years from now, AND their excess of military aged males NOW, any imperialistic actions will literally hve to occur in the next 10-15 years because after that, they will have economic and population issues that will limit their military abilities, both demographically and economically due to domestic requirements.

[MechAg94]

i don't think you can kill enough chinese to whoop em. they have 50 and hundred year plans. barring some rapid noisy splitting of atoms i think they will eventually prevail by weight of numbers.

We don't have to kill "enough" of them.  All there population and such are pretty concentrated.  They also have some big infrastructure targets. 

If you think some communist govt can successfully plan 50 or 100 years ahead, I think you are worried about nothing.  People said that about the Japanese right before their economy dropped out in the 90's. 

[TommyGunn]

big mistake westerners make is thinking the chinese will react the way we would over a nuke attack and that therefore  it has deterrent value comparable to our feelings.  they will deliver the death of a thousand cuts  leverage us outa resources etc.  not in my time or my kids. but barring a greater calamity its inevitable

It may not have a deterent effect but being turned into free ions and spread over the stratosphere will inhibit their ability to conduct a war........ ....as I said....if the then current leader has the cojones.....

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

that plan seems to assume that no one else has nukes or if they do they won't use em.  thats a flaw
and it ignores our recent history in conflicts

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

We don't have to kill "enough" of them.  All there population and such are pretty concentrated.  They also have some big infrastructure targets. 

If you think some communist govt can successfully plan 50 or 100 years ahead, I think you are worried about nothing.  People said that about the Japanese right before their economy dropped out in the 90's. 

heres that drop as a visual

http://postgrowth.org/japan-the-worlds-first-post-growth-economy/

[MechAg94]

Defence only comes up because that is the only thing most Democrats are willing to cutit will cost either party fewer votes.
its less partisan than you might expect

CSD, I realize Republicans come in all shapes and sizes.  It is why I get frustrated with that party and refuse to call myself one.  However, the Democrats have almost unanimously opposed any cuts in any non-defense programs just about as long as I have been alive.  I am sure there have been a few that were responsible, but I can't name them.  That is why I tend to focus on Democrats.  Republicans have certainly played their part in spending increases, but they also seem to be the only party that seriously talks about cutting govt.  Getting enough Congressmen on board to make cuts will be a major challenge for anyone. 

[Jamisjockey]

Many reputable economists, although probably not of the political stripe favored by many of the participants of this forum, favor a combination of government cost reduction and revenue increases to solve our economic issues.  The More You Know.

And if the retards in DC could manage a dollar, we might consider that a viable plan. 
Those "reputable economists" obviously don't take into account the insatiable appetite of those who wish to retain power.  Give them another dollar, they'll still spend a bunch thirty.
They will always loophole the spending cuts away.

[lee n. field]

voted for him once for vp

Ran with an L. behind his name a couple times, back in the early days of that party.  That's my recollection.

[roo_ster]

Birdman has china's number.

Chinese gdp growth is dipping to 8pct or so and they are sweating that small drop.

Also, they have a real estate bubble that makes our 2008 bubble look picayune.

I buy chinese elctronics weekly and have noticed a drop in prices, despite usdollar inflation.  Something not happy is getting ready to surface in their economy, I would bet.

Econ colapse plus demo bulge of unmarriable males equals exciting times.

[makattak]

Econ colapse plus demo bulge of unmarriable males equals exciting times.

Makes me glad there's a massive ocean and a massive navy between us. I weep for the rest of Asia, though.