Presidential debate # 3

[MillCreek]

Am I the only one here that thinks DoD spending will need to be cut along with SS, MediX, and everything else?

The big 3 are DOD, Medicare/aid, and SS. All 3 need to be cut to balance the budget.

No!  As we all know, the budget can be balanced and the economy recovered solely by cutting taxes, cutting welfare and other entitlements and raising the defense budget!  Haven't you been listening to the electoral campaigns? 

[Fitz]

Everything should be cut some. There's a lot of waste in DoD spending. A LOT.

[zxcvbob]

Everything should be cut some. There's a lot of waste in DoD spending. A LOT.

The waste is seldom what gets cut.  Not just in DoD.  They cut back on the most essential and visible parts, like police patrols in high-crime areas, fire-fighters, the public library, then point the finger and glare at the budget-cutter (or tax cut referendum leaders) when things fall apart.

The upper-middle managers drawing big salaries and doing nothing (how many assistant superintendents does a small school district need?) *never* get touched. (or in this case, at least a third of the Pentagon if you include their support staff)

[Fitz]

Well, I WOULD suggest voting for a candidate who wants to cut the redundancy, the useless lumps, etc...

but then I'd just be accused of casting a vote for obama by supporting who I actually believe in

[HankB]

Everything should be cut some. There's a lot of waste in DoD spending. A LOT.

At <4% of our GDP I don't think defense is excessive, BUT I'm concerned - very concerned - that we're not getting the bang for the the buck that we should be, thanks to mandated spending on asinine stuff like spare parts for vehicles no longer in service, "green" ammunition development, expensive biofuel for ships, the practice of farming out the manufacture of simple M16 magazines to "disadvantaged" businesses . . . the list of similar examples is very, very long.

[MechAg94]

It's pretty simple, a 1917 ship != a 2012 ship. Not only is a ship today different than a ship back then, the nature of warfare has changed a bit and some of the things we needed ships for we can do with missiles, planes, drones, robots, or space lasers. That's not to say we don't need ships, or even that we might not need more ships but simply saying 'we have fewer ships now than before' is an insultingly stupid approach and deserves the stupid zinger that it got in response.

Our deficit/debt is out of control, and at least in my (uneducated) opinion, the Navy will need to work with less just like everyone else. Fewer ships means we police the world a little less and that's fine by me.
Well that strawman had no chance against you and your cavalry!

Wow, I think you missed my point and Romney's point.  The answer has already been stated well by others so no need to repeat again.

[drewtam]

What happened to Israel, Syria, and Iran in the second graph?

First graph is top 19 according to % of gdp.
Second graph is top 10 in absolute dollars, compared in % gdp.

So in the second graph, I believe the economies of Israel, Syria, and Iran are just too small for the absolute dollars to compare with the big nations.

Also, these graphs are coming from different sources, so the calculations, the source numbers might be slightly different. I like using multiple sources (where possible) to help balance any source bias.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

when i think of cutting waste i think we have entirely too many politicians ans their associated infrastructure and riff raff. i would favor a rif chinese style.  have em count off by 3's. have 3's step forward and treat em like mao woulda. tell the rest there will be a performance evaluation in 6 months and poor numbers means another count off.

[longeyes]

The "waste" lies in what we refuse to use.  What good is a trillion-dollar military with two-bit rules of engagement and four-bit strategies?

[Fitz]

The "waste" lies in what we refuse to use.  What good is a trillion-dollar military with two-bit rules of engagement and four-bit strategies?

This. This this this.

[ArfinGreebly]

I seem to recall a recent pie chart that showed how much was spent on what areas of government.

After all the hype I'd heard about how much money we "waste" on the military and NASA, I was kinda shocked to see how small the actual proportions were.

Education and welfare are the elephants in the room, but they're not recognized as such because they're dressed as sacred cows.

What the hell is FedGov doing in education?  There's a whole bureaucratic superstructure that could be eliminated -- BILLIONS of dollars worth -- without doing any damage to education at all.

Welfare?  Can we PLEASE get FedGov the hell out of the welfare business?

Education and welfare are NOT the domain of FedGov.

Military?  Sure, clean it up, tune it up, but . . . when you're done, it should be the scariest damn military on the planet.

NASA?  One of the very few places where FedGov actually does real science, one of the very few places seen to have huge benefits socially and technologically?  I'm okay with some funding for them, along with their sharing that research with private firms who want to get into the space business.

[diversion]
          Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
           if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
           granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?

           If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
           with that.  Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.
[/diversion]


I'm sure there are thousands of FedGov employees worried about what happens to their jobs when their section of the bureaucracy is eliminated.  So retrain them.  If their current skill set is actually useful, help get them placed.

Some of them, clearly, will not wind up in cushy jobs and will be earning well below their accustomed rate of income.  That's completely expected.  There's no guarantee in life that spending four or six or eight years in school equates to actual value.  Those of us who live in the real world tend to get paid according to the value of what we do, not what our "tenure" dictates.

Oh, one more thing, if you work for dot-gov, you don't have a union.  That concept is an abomination.  It's parasitic and actively works against efficiency.


Oh, look, I seem to be ranting.

[AZRedhawk44]

[diversion]
          Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
           if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
           granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?

           If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
           with that.  Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.
[/diversion]

Hells to the yeah.

Or any space-based installation.

I think a space-town complete with hydroponics and machine shop, arranged in a wheel-hub system and spinning to generate artificial gravity, would be awesome.  A few dozen people on it.  Drone-based mining of the asteroid belt.  Zero-gee assembly factory for more permanent space installations.

I think gravity wells are just a trap and an inherent cost liability to all future exploration or growth and I'd prefer just plain old space, but I could get on board with the moon, too.

[zxcvbob]

Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?

If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
with that.  Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.

The moon is a harsh mistress...

[erictank]

I seem to recall a recent pie chart that showed how much was spent on what areas of government.

After all the hype I'd heard about how much money we "waste" on the military and NASA, I was kinda shocked to see how small the actual proportions were.

Education and welfare are the elephants in the room, but they're not recognized as such because they're dressed as sacred cows.

What the hell is FedGov doing in education?  There's a whole bureaucratic superstructure that could be eliminated -- BILLIONS of dollars worth -- without doing any damage to education at all.

Welfare?  Can we PLEASE get FedGov the hell out of the welfare business?

Education and welfare are NOT the domain of FedGov.

Military?  Sure, clean it up, tune it up, but . . . when you're done, it should be the scariest damn military on the planet.

This.  ALL of this, a BILLION TIMES. Doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me, but...

NASA?  One of the very few places where FedGov actually does real science, one of the very few places seen to have huge benefits socially and technologically?  I'm okay with some funding for them, along with their sharing that research with private firms who want to get into the space business.

[diversion]
          Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
           if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
           granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?

           If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
           with that.  Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.
[/diversion]

HELL YES.  I'd do it now, rather than 20 years ago, though I also would be at... high risk of death due to physical incapacity. Can't go back thirty years, 'cause I was 11 thirty years ago.

My wife? Probably not down with that idea.

I'm sure there are thousands of FedGov employees worried about what happens to their jobs when their section of the bureaucracy is eliminated.  So retrain them.  If their current skill set is actually useful, help get them placed.

Some of them, clearly, will not wind up in cushy jobs and will be earning well below their accustomed rate of income.  That's completely expected.  There's no guarantee in life that spending four or six or eight years in school equates to actual value.  Those of us who live in the real world tend to get paid according to the value of what we do, not what our "tenure" dictates.

Oh, one more thing, if you work for dot-gov, you don't have a union.  That concept is an abomination.  It's parasitic and actively works against efficiency.

This as well. Unionized against the people you're allegedly working for, who are paying your checks at gunpoint? Screw that.

[MillCreek]

I would sign up in a second to colonize space. Even a one-way trip.

[Tallpine]

I would just like to send all governments to the moon, or beyond 

But if I could go to some rustic Firefly moon where there are horses to ride ... 

[MechAg94]

when i think of cutting waste i think we have entirely too many politicians ans their associated infrastructure and riff raff. i would favor a rif chinese style.  have em count off by 3's. have 3's step forward and treat em like mao woulda. tell the rest there will be a performance evaluation in 6 months and poor numbers means another count off.

I'm not sure you could get away with doing this to the politicians, but doing it with the staffers and other servants in the Capitol would be a good thing.  If they had fewer staffers to read and draft 3000 page bills, maybe they would start being more concise.

[kgbsquirrel]

Another idea for cutting the budget: Tie congressional salaries to the median average national income, make it taxable, and remove any per diems or special expense funds. For housing when in session build a military-spec BEQ facility within walking distance of the capitol and their offices.


ETA:

The median national income is: $46,326

The non-taxable base salary for a first term congressman is: $174,000
The average Members Representation Allowance -
(the allowance each senator/congressman gets to hire staffers, etc.): $1,446,009

[AZRedhawk44]

Another idea for cutting the budget: Tie congressional salaries to the mean average national income, make it taxable, and remove any per diems or special expense funds. For housing when in session build a military-spec BEQ facility within walking distance of the capitol and their offices.

Pennies, in the grand scheme of things.  And detrimental to foreign relations or Statesmanship.

I don't mind Critters having six figure incomes.

What I mind is the insider trading schemes they manufacture while in office to make millions.  If you want that to continue for sure, then cut their salaried pay.  They'll all look for ways to pad their bottom line a bit more by quietly listening to corporate lobbyists and buy stocks in companies likely to benefit from pending or undrafted legislation.

[Marnoot]

Pennies, in the grand scheme of things.  And detrimental to foreign relations or Statesmanship.

I don't mind Critters having six figure incomes.

What I mind is the insider trading schemes they manufacture while in office to make millions.  If you want that to continue for sure, then cut their salaried pay.  They'll all look for ways to pad their bottom line a bit more by quietly listening to corporate lobbyists and buy stocks in companies likely to benefit from pending or undrafted legislation.

This. Congresscritters' wallets aren't filled by their salaries, they're filled by this stuff. We could get rid of a good chunk of the problems with congress if the insider trading exemption for congressmen didn't exist. Of course, good luck getting congress to pass that particular change... 

[kgbsquirrel]

This. Congresscritters' wallets aren't filled by their salaries, they're filled by this stuff. We could get rid of a good chunk of the problems with congress if the insider trading exemption for congressmen didn't exist. Of course, good luck getting congress to pass that particular change... 

Couldn't you do an end-run around congress through the courts? Equal application of the law and all that jazz. *waits for a resident legal-weasel to elucidate the matter*

[drewtam]

The other part is the revolving door from political appointed and elected positions to corp board of directors.

I like Glenn's idea of 50% marginal tax on gov't to private hires, for political appointees and elected officials...
In other words:
Appointed by cabinet or pres or senator to some gov't or political job... @$85k/yr
Then when voted out or retire, hired as private industry (board member, lobbying, etc) for $200k/yr

That 115k increase should be taxed at 50%, without deduction.

[ArfinGreebly]

Critter pensions.  Eliminate?

[longeyes]

The budget cannot, realistically, be cut without a massive moral re-think of our culture and core precepts.  The odds of that happening within "these United States" are close to zero at this point in our collective history.  Too many have become convinced that the job of government is to take care of the "disadvantaged," a group that grows by the year.  There is no reform possible from that starting point.  Meanwhile, we play games and wait for the implosion.

[birdman]

The other part is the revolving door from political appointed and elected positions to corp board of directors.

I like Glenn's idea of 50% marginal tax on gov't to private hires, for political appointees and elected officials...
In other words:
Appointed by cabinet or pres or senator to some gov't or political job... @$85k/yr
Then when voted out or retire, hired as private industry (board member, lobbying, etc) for $200k/yr

That 115k increase should be taxed at 50%, without deduction.

Agreed, but I would make it 50-75% marginal on the amount above the maximum pay gade for the position (no need to reduce the critters salaries, they arent bad) and set a term, I.e. it only applies during AND for 5-10years following service.  This will encourage both younger and semi-retired critters, discourage people trying to make the bulk of their career in lucrative post-service (ie 40yr olds serving for a few house terms, then making bank for their late 40's/50's, and encourage turnover in the ranks.