Slashdot Mirror
US War Machine Downsizing?
mrspoonsi writes "BBC Reports: 'Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled plans to shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest size since before World War Two. Outlining his budget plan, the Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 personnel — from 520,000 currently. The U.S. currently spends more on defense than the combined total of the next 12 countries, as ranked by defense spending.'"
Of Planet Earth is near completion.
The rest can be sub-contracted.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
As Eisenhower warned in his farewell address, I hope this news means we have finally heeded his warning and are moving towards dismantling the military industrial complex. All of that money could be used to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure we have right here at home.
They are saying that they are downsizing but before it takes affect we get involved in a war. No need to downsize. Problem solved.
Or are they just privatizing more military functions?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Wash, Rinse, Repeat
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Spending the money on killing machines doesn't win you anti-bloat points.
Shrink the budget. Shrink the percentage of budget based on adjusted GDP. We're becoming all brawn and no brain.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Finally The Man is acting like a true progressive. Most of his policies have been either centrist or conservative-leaning (despite Fox/Rush characterizations). Even the "commie" ACA (ObamaCare) was borrowed from the Heritage Foundation and a former Republican governor of MA.
Table-ized A.I.
I worked for an airline. 90%-95% of our pilots and air plant mechanics came from the military. The airline was started by a Marine Aviator and leaded his leadership skills in the Marines. Miniaturization of electronics is the results of war and the MIC. The lowly and common microwave oven is a by-product of war and the MIC. Don't sell the MIC short--the Internet with all its tubes is the invention of, not AlGore, but war and the MIC. The Democrats have benefited from the MIC far more than the Republicans.
Social security and Medicaid will eat the federal budget.
Obamacare? That's just rushing one more big ticket item onto the credit card before it all goes bad.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ha! I'm going to beat him to it. I just need to steal some super-rare crystals stored at Los Alamos first, to complete my shrink ray. And a white kitten.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
You joke, but last time this happened the only things that didn't have strong enough advocates in DC to keep the money flowing was trivial stuff like ammo for the troops.
Federal procurement has political issues.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The biggest problem I can see coming from this is the lack of things to fall back on for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen.
Not to say they are lazy (well not all of them... I am pretty lazy.). I am a sailor. I supposedly have equivalents to various IT certs that will not fly in most if not all job positions. My only hope is that I can impress someone enough to get a job outside of the military due to what I can do. Despite the "initiatives" most employers would not want this and I am not sure I blame them. I MIGHT be more than worth it but why take the chance? My best bet is the railroad service (They actually don't seem too bad... plus I like trains.). Most other advertisers for GI Jobs are you guessed it minimum wage.
I think this condition mostly exists because before the "boom" times of war (Yeah I hate myself for saying that.) it was not in the best interest for the military to train you with the option to get out. Sadly things rarely change. It is hard to be able to go to college that is not a paper mill or get a trade that can cross over.
Sorry pity party over. At least I have that MGIB! Also at least I am single.... Alot of the people who will be cut will be those near retirement.... with families....
They might outsource.
rewriting history since 2109
look up facts before spewing, army is biggest part of the defense budget at 32%
The Army, by a wide margin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Sadly, I think the downsizing of troops is a direct result of un-manned weapons like drones.
I'd me more surprised if it were the marines or the navy seals being downsized. The Army is a lot of bulk manpower that just sits around for the most part and maintains control of areas that have already been seized from the enemy via the attacking efforts of the marines. Advancements of technology means drones and stationary automated turrets can do a lot of that defending work I'd imagine. Just gotta have some protected folks around to maintain control and change the batteries every now and then. Probably way more affordable than actual people. The marines and seals on the other hand can't be so easily replaced by a machine.
If these changes go through, it will actually reduce spending. We spent $670B on "defense" in 2013. This change would get us down to around $500B for the 2015 budget.
This was already passed as a part of the sequester -- this story is really just discussing how the Pentagon plans to get under the limit set by the law. The budget that got passed in December rolled back a few of the sequester cuts, and I'm sure Republicans will push to roll back more. However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
It looks like this is actually going to happen, and it's about damn time.
However, the Democrats will want new taxes on the rich to offset any further increases in military spending, and I doubt the Republicans will budge on that front, so any further changes are likely to be minimal.
Likewise the Democrats will almost certainly balk at any reforms to social welfare spending, which is the major portion of Federal spending and which dwarfs the defense budget.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
With the US amounting for 50% of army expenses worldwide, and NATO accounting for 80%, it is not obvious where the enemies are.
The USSR does not exist anymore. A much smaller army would protect US security as well as the current one.
He's saying as soon as you appear weak, you are weak.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
... Federal Spending will still increase.
Ken
that's because the next big war will be between the rich and the poor, and live soldiers are less likely to fire on their family, friends and neighbors.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Well, judging from TFA, they are cutting spending for FY 2015 to 496 bln, then raising it to 535, 545 and $559 bln in following years. That means if you deduct the wartime finding for Iran and Afghanistan, the baseline spending level will be back to pre-sequester levels, and as much as the next seven countries in defense spending rank put together.
Not that spending is at all a measure of how much defense we get. One of the things the budget does is it retires the A10 Warthog attack plane which costs less than $18K/flight hour to operate and replaces it with the F-35, which is currently *promised* to cost $32K/flight hour, if it ever becomes combat ready.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We attacked last week over a EULA violation.
yeah. At least these guys were getting paid for doing SOMETHING.
-----
Seems like the world is getting more dangerous and we are spending money on retirees and freeloaders instead. I'm sure this will end well.
I don't think he was joking. You may think so at your peril.
The last time cuts of this nature were proposed the idea was to entirely stand down the US Marine Corps. (Still beating that drum today).
Because we were never going to have to invade any country again.
Then Saddam over ran Kuwait, and was looking hungrily at Saudi Arabia.
Guess who arrived first ?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It won't reduce spending.
If you believe that you are delusional.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
At the beginning of the 1st Gulf War, the Marines were just getting the M1 Abrahms tanks the Army was swapping out for newer models (before that the Marines were still on old M60 tanks).
In the late 90's (97-98) the Marines were just starting to get the venerable Singars radios. Up till then they were still using post-Vietnam era AN/PRC-77 radios.
Time and time again the Army goes and asks for more men and money, new gear, etc, because they state they cant accomplish the mission with what they have.
And time and time again the Marine Corps happily takes that "old outdated" equipment with fewer men and exceed... There has long been a rivalry between the branches, but maybe its time for the other branches to take a page out of the Corps manual and learn how to do more with less. You could drop military spending by half at least, if not more, by following the Marines lead.
The DOD is asking for an increase in spending from the sequestration level that congress failed to revise in time. They're framing it this way to muddy the water.
No, it really isn't. Maybe you could read this and explain to me how you could hand out free bread and cheese in American cities and achieve the same affect (liberating enslaved Americans)?
Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I don't see how that's relevant. We're talking about negotiations here. Increased military spending and decreased social spending are both things Republicans want.
I was pointing out that the Republicans don't have anything they're willing to trade in order to stem the sequester cuts to military spending. The only way they could stave off the cuts would be by accepting increased taxes, and they're not willing to do that.
I get the feeling you took my comment as a slight against Republicans, and posted some knee-jerk response. I'm only pointing out the reality of the negotiations.
You seem to have missed this nugget: "Source: Office of Management and Budget. "
The bad news doesn't change if you pick another truthful source.
Also, from what I see, the "Koch brothers" are very minor donors to Heritage. Besides that, if you use the "Koch brothers" as your universal explanation for things you are engaged in epic fail.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Here's a better idea: Scale the US Army down to about 100,000, or less. Retain a small full-time force to man the equipment and technology-heavy portions of an army (e.g. armor, artillery and highly-specialized forces), though even most of those can be turned over to national guard forces (especially artillery), and use the rest to form a training and logistics cadre whose job it is to prepare to train and equip an actual army, should we need one.
To make that easier, encourage the unorganized militia to self-train and equip. Expand the Civilian Marksmanship Program, funding more rifle ranges and more competitive shooting events, especially dynamic events like three-gun competitions and others that attempt to simulate the level of fitness and the skills required for combat. Make competitive shooting a widespread high school and college sport.
Of course, a tiny professional army designed to be filled out by quickly recruiting and equipping a large pool of semi-trained civilians is great for defending the nation against invasion, as per the apocryphal quote attributed to Admiral Yamamoto "You cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass", but terrible for projecting force around the world. I happen to think that's a good thing.
This, of course, is a design closer to that which was intended by the authors of the US Constitution.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Is that the sales pitch they use to keep selling Americans more tanks and missiles that they don't need?
"And here we have a gun with a knife taped to it.
We really have all the guns we need...
You don't want to appear weak do you?
I'll take 100,000 units."
I'm in the wrong business.
So... is that intended as praise for the marines or to make rather nasty implications about them? Or possibly even as a threat? Because it could be read either way.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So, they want to retire the A-10, a proven and hardened platform to replace it with what? The bloated and delicate F-35? I'm really afraid how poorly that will go for F-35s tasked with close air support in some future conflict.
The A-10 will be replaced with the military equivalent of Beta. I wish I were joking.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Social security has already saved the federal budget's ass many times over. The only reason it looks like it's in any danger at all is because of all the times congress has made it buy bonds.
I questioned the Hummer when it first came out - was it really better than the seven Korea era jeeps it cost to build?
Actually, yes. If you're riding through unsecured territory, do you want to be in an armored Hummer with a 50 cal mounted on top, or a light open Jeep with your trusty sidearm?
More important than that, when you ride in to town - do you want to present the image of the open Jeep, or the Hummer?
Even if the F-35 is only a little better than the A-10 at getting the job done, and costs considerably more to operate, does it look more badass while doing it? Does it protect the flight crew better than the A-10?
All that money spent is jobs for the people who aren't on the front line... gotta think like the politicians who make this stuff happen to understand why.
Even better, when you spend it on the rich, it trickles down.
When you spend it on the poor, it just goes to cocaine and hookers.
The thing is that the military has been, for a few decades, the primary means of pumping unquestioned deficit dollars into he US economy. If one complained about the debt, one would be branded a traitor. So when the interests rate were 10% in the 80's, the military was boosted to create jobs. Unfortunately these jobs were expenses not just in interest rates, but in benifits and the fact that after 20 years the tax payer is indebted to the military person for life.
Now that interest rates are 3%, the government makes a profit off borrowing money, there should be a rational for boosting speding and propping up the economy through civil jobs. Military jobs and spending should be seen as extremely wasteful. But we are still in the old mold.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
That means if you deduct the wartime finding for Iran and Afghanistan
Um, do you know something we dont?
Monstar L
Read the pie:
http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
If you call "Healthcare" social welfare spending, you probably should also call "Pensions" military spending (who is getting these pensions?)
Dropping the A-10 in favor (I assume) of drones is completely asinine. It's proven technology that has lasted decades. I would take that over any of today's "cutting edge" jets. It's a damn shame.
USA "defense" budget is 90% welfare and employment program. you would be just as safe if it was put into a welfare&jobs program intended for building bridges and roads
In other words, you're claiming that more of the Army budget needs diverted to USACE.
Ha! Good catch.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They want to reduce _personnel_. Personnel have to be trained, and are known to sometimes refuse illegal orders, or worse, to send home pictures of illegal orders.
I questioned the Hummer when it first came out - was it really better than the seven Korea era jeeps it cost to build?
Actually, yes. If you're riding through unsecured territory, do you want to be in an armored Hummer with a 50 cal mounted on top, or a light open Jeep with your trusty sidearm?
Neither. You want to be in an MRAP. (At least for some definitions of unsecured.) MRAPs were going to take years in the regular military procurement cycle and Secretary Gates cut through a lot of red tape and fast-tracked them into pretty much the fastest major U.S. military procurement operation in... decades, maybe?
Some procurements are stupid--mostly because of Congressional pork, somewhat because of problems with Defense bureaucracy that keeps front-line needs from being relayed up the chain of command fast-enough and keeps them from being killed in favor of someone's pet project's budget. But some are really an improvement... it very-much takes a case-by-case analysis, both from the view of the soldier on the ground *and* from a more strategic view, planning for all of the forseeable defense-related tasks: counterinsurgency, antipiracy, invasion of a small nation, all-out-war against a major power, peacekeeping, special ops, etc...
The problem is that the sequester is 50% defense, 50% everything else, but the defense budget is a minority of the Federal budget. That pushes the cuts disproportionately on the defense side.
Totally irrational. The fact that the defense budget is a minority of the overall budget does not mean that it is a minority of the waste. The defense sector is filled with bloat, and is essentially just functioning as a make-work program in the districts of influential representatives. It would be far more efficient to take that same money and spend it on more direct social services.
The Department of Homeland Security has promised to protect us, and they have a quarter million employees. Oh, wait... They only promised to protect us from ourselves.
Look pal, if you just want to launch off into random political screeds, do it in the shower. No one has said we should abolish the military, and you know it.
Logistics command?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Do you recall who wrote this? -- "It would be far more efficient to take that same money and spend it on more direct social services."
If you're going to have a military, which I'm glad to hear we agree on, you're going to need to equip them suitably for the battlefields of the day if you don't want them to be slaughtered. You don't achieve that by substituting social services spending for military spending. I suspect we could probably agree that it would be preferable if Congress steered less of that spending to specific places instead of where it makes sense. On the other hand the involvement of Congress sometimes produces what ends up as an arguably better outcome compared to the sometimes parochial requests that emerge from just the Federal bureaucracy.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Fiscal/Small-gov't conservatives want government to fund its Constitutionally mandated functions, like defense.
You are mistaken. Real advocates of small government do not want even defense to be bloated out the ass, like what we have. Anyone who says current military and defense spending is at all appropriate is not a fiscal/small government conservative.
Thank you Dave Raggett
To paraphrase Albert Einstein, if we have a WWIII all following wars will be fought with sticks and rocks.
The US armed forces have realized for sometime that the strength of armed forces has little to do with numbers of people in uniform.
The same methods that companies like Ford use to produce more cars year after year with fewer people also apply to the military, only more so because Ford factories don't have to be deployable. Speed, technology and mobility >>> raw numbers.
You don't get to blame SS for that though. It had nothing to do with the baby boom or anything else. Through careful planning, SSA had it all covered until Congress busted the piggybank so they could cut taxes for the wealthy and pay for all that bumbling in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given that, it is perfectly reasonable that any military cuts and new (or reinstated really) taxes for the wealthy should go towards putting the money back where it came from.
The responsible people are Congress for ordering SSA to make the loans. If it makes you feel better, I FULLY support your call for the responsible congressmen to spend some time in jail.
but I expect it to be turned into tax cuts for the top 1%... We're not spending on infrastructure now. Getting us to start would take a large scale expansion of the federal gov't, just the sort that's politically unpopular right now. There's not enough profit in it to bring private industry to the table. I think the term is "idle capacity". The US economy is sorta winding down. There's only so much money you can make, and if you're already rich it pays to sit on your wealth and use it to broker power deals :(.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
95% of pensions is Social Security.
Military pensions is a tiny number because they don't really amount to anything until you have 20 years or more service. Few people serve that long.
Sorry, but your history is a bit off.
Only 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade was afloat as part of the deception plan. As to the rest ...
V: "THUNDER AND LIGHTNING"- THE WAR WITH IRAQ
The 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions, each more than 18,000 strong, and the U.S. Army 1st Brigade ("Tiger Brigade"), 2nd Armored Division, plunged into the attack. They were supported by the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing and thousands of combat service support staff from the 1st and 2nd Force Service Support Groups, and by Navy air forces.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
As usual, the Founding Fathers were right. The US shouldn't have a standing army, because having an army creates a need for the army to "do something", and gets you into wars, wasting money and corrupting Democracy. Of course, there should be a structure ready, with equipment, training, etc., so that in an actual time of war we can mobilize the population. But really, when was the last time the US faced a land invasion that required immediate response? :-)
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Paying for private healthcare will eat the federal budget. Social Security and Medicaid are much lesser problems.
The US government, RIGHT NOW pays enough per capita to cover healthcare for every man woman and child in the US if our health care system had the same cost per person as Canada's.
All you would have to do to solve entitlements and the long term US budget problems would be install single payer and take the cap off SS wages.
The Air Force brass *never* wanted the A-10, the A-10 was virtually forced upon them. There has never been a moment in time since the A-10 first flew that they were not trying to be rid of it.
My understanding is that A-10s undergo a lot more mechanical stress during training and combat than B-52s and that the A-10 fleet is seeing a lot of micro-fractures in key structural areas. They have been cannibalizing old planes in storage but that source is just about dried up. They are at the point where they will need to manufacture new components, major components like wings. This is letting the brass finally get their way.
That should save lots of money.
Be sure to wipe the drives, burn the backup tapes, sell the old hardware and fire all former employees (in that order). We wouldn't want the NSA to slip back into the mess it's currently in.
These cut are a step in the right direction, But I would love to see them cut the size in half. I'm an American and do not like what we have been doing in the years since 9/11. That being said there are a lot of countries that rely on the U.S. to be their protectors and I am tired of that also. So many countries can afford to be prosperous because they don't need to spend much on military, let them fund their own military and we can spend our money here, where we need it. All our military is really doing is pissing the rest of the world off anyway.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
How hath thy 6 digit self forgotten thy history? When we rolled into Iraq and Afghanistan the HMMVs had no armor. Soldiers were dying left and right from harassing fire and IEDs. The problem was so bad in the first couple years that the units themselves would take blown up HMMVs and use them to make armor for the HMMVs that didn't get destroyed. We did finally start getting the current armor sets and turrets that your post refers to, but those were afterthoughts and the vehicles chassis and powertrain had a lot of problems dealing with all of that extra weight. Luckily, as Etherwalk below mentions, we now have several MRAP vehicles that exceed HMMVs, jeeps, and the CUCVs of yore because they were designed to carry that armor, have those turrets, and even built with functioning air conditioning! I guess my point was, if choosing between a jeep or a hummer, there really is no difference. Oh and the A10 is the greatest plane EVAR, period, end of story. It's better than the goddamned Space Shuttle. :)
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, AC. Don't have a cow man!
It won't exit the economy. This government money will be moved around to other things that have been low on cash. Maybe a school bus or two built after 1960.
A lot of the items labeled as 'social security' are in fact veterans benefits.
The US Navy and Marine Corp are "merged" in some ways, command, procurement, etc. Together they represent the Naval Services commanded by the Department of the Navy.
For example look at Marine Corp Aviation. Marine pilots are trained at the same schools along side Navy pilots and the Navy and Marines essentially fly the same aircraft. Marine squadrons are often deployed on aircraft carriers. There is one notable difference with respect to Marine pilots. They must first become infantry officers before starting aviation training.
The Coast Guard also falls under the Department of the Navy when directed to do so by the President. This happened during WW1 and WW2. Normally the Coast Guard is performing missions that the military is prohibited from doing, law enforcement for example.
And thats why the rich Canadians come to the states for their health care right?
Let's pretend that the social security act wasn't "to blame". So what, it's still completely screwed.
We know how many 50 year old people we have. Therefore, we know how many 70 year old people we'll have in twenty years, and we know we're screwed.
If you insist on talking about blame, the social security program was based on the premise that you could send trillions of dollars to Washington and they wouldn't spend it. Does that really sound like a good idea? That's like saying I left my new car, with the engine running, on MLK and it's not my fault that it got stolen. I suppose MORALLY I wouldn't be in the wrong, but any idiot knows what happens to a new car left unattended in crackville, and to money that's sent to Washington.
The U.S. currently spends more on defense than the combined total of the next 12 countries, as ranked by defense spending.
But that isn't really a fair comparison. After all, a lot of that spending is really for aggression, not defense.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
This is hardly a new idea. You just have to read about the Persian Empire to see this happening. The Roman Empire did not skirt doing this either. Quite often they simply won a war by bribing someone into killing their main opponent.
There are plenty of other vehicles such as the Bushmaster that have proved themselves to be superior to the Hummer under the same conditions. However one of the companies involved with that one is French (cue Freedom fries bullshit), then there's the "lobby money" which other purely US based options were not putting in the right pocket.
If you want to see corruption and political interference on a massive scale take a look at military procurement. Ask a recent vet about their gear and what they saw allied countries had you'll get some interesting answers. A lot of US military equipment was not chosen for suitability and is inferior to some of the things that relatively impoverished allied forces are using.
And average Americans come to Canada for their health care. Actually all the rich people are going other places for their health care, India, Central America and such. You have to be awfully rich to pay American prices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It's been decades since the USA has bankrolled the war effort of Iran (how many hundred million was that ransom for the Tehran hostages) and Afghanistan (Mujahadeen which let to a variety of hassles including the Taliban).
I get that you don't mean that, and in fact mean Iraq and the most recent part of the conflict there, but I thought I'd push the barrow of unintended consequences when there's too much money to splash around on offshore adventure.
You are getting the poor mixed up with congressmen and wall street bigwigs.
In the last days of the USSR it's what the communists wanted, and did, as well.
They're quite willing to fire on "liberals" "socialists" "rebels" or whatever the bogeyman is today. And of course they'll be sent to a different part of the country then where they're from.
History is full of armies shooting on civilians to the point where it really stands out when they refuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Oh and the A10 is the greatest plane EVAR, period, end of story. It's better than the goddamned Space Shuttle. :)
Don't get me wrong: I love the A-10 and think the F-35 should be cancelled immediately. That said, it isn't strong praise to compare the A-10 to the Space Shuttle. Perhaps comparing it to the Mustang, the Corsair, or "pretty much anything else but that design-by-committee STS debacle"?
Well they could have told the Kuwaitis to stop stealing oil, told Saddam that it is not OK to invade Kuwait and while about it, pushed for human rights in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
America really bends down to the Saudis too much, hate to think about when they get nukes, a couple of American cities nuked, Iran flattened and women still not allowed to drive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The Department of Veterans Affairs is its own separate Department with its own separate budget. It does not fall into Social Security, which too is a separate Agency with a separate budget. Funding for the two do not mix as you're implying.
not only on the republican side but also in brains of a large section of US population.
The thought, just the idea in one's head that something can be sorted out without "power" will be considered a weakness which cannot be tolerated.
That's totally independent from the money made on military and the forces behind.
Just looking at the near east idiocy coming purely out of conditioned structures in people brains.
All pretty desolate I'd say....
As if there would not be enough to do in this country - deteriorating infrastructure, alternative energy use just skimping along and partially failing making some folks feeling good...
yeah they do. shooting the same round at the range you're going to use in the field makes sense. There's also a push to reduce lead in the air at ranges; so, there is probably pressure to move toward jacketed rounds these days. There's no benefit to paying for full metal jacket rounds over jacketed hollow point and having to stock two different ammunitions if there's no significant price difference.
Canadians, rich or otherwise, generally come to the USA for health care for the same reasons somebody might go to another state for care - excessively specialized treatment, or it's just closer/more convenient than the closest Canadian provider. Canada generally pays for the treatment in those cases.
I don't read AC A human right
There is more overlap than you seem to think. Those are just a couple of examples. Just Google.
That first graph isn't without its critics, it looks as though both the scale and the points in time that are labelled have been chosen to smooth over changes in tax revenue over time. Setting the scale at 100% does allow one to fit both a marginal tax rate of 90% and 28% within the same chart, but it does obscure significant-looking swings between 15 and 21% in revenue. Whether these changes in revenue were directly related to the marginal tax rate I don't know, though this author thinks they are:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blo...
Theres a massive difference.....
Id rather a bridge that didnt fall down, rather than another parking lot of tanks that will never see any action slowly rusting away.
If I remember correctly, I think it was called "The Fall of the Roman Empire".
It's a start but we really don't need to be the police of the world. We can cut our military spending by 90% and still have plenty of power to destroy any other country, terrorist group, protect our borders, etc.
Then that $500Billion could be put to long term infrastructure improvement and other productive developments.
Those can be very useful for quick strikes. As long as you're not actually occupying foreign soil, your point is well mad But wars of occupatio0n take manpower, as demonstrated in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the second Iraq war. And don't be mistaken, the USA didn't "win" any of those. In Iraq and Afghanistan now, the US is "declaring victory" and leaving a mess that is, in some ways, worse than when the wars started. Sadam Hussein, as much of a genocidal dictator as he was, didn't allow the Taliban to operate within Iraq. Now they're an integral part of Iraq politics.
Those are problems that air strikes and drone strikes don't solve, they exacerbate.
No, they are genuine cuts in the armed forces. There will be substantial cuts on the civilian side, and overall funding. Sequestration started it.
Future attacks on the US will be handled by diplomatic notes form Secretary of State Kerry expressing strong disapproval.
Uh, when exactly was the last attack on the US? In a conventional military sense, I think that was in WWII. Sure, there have been terrorist incidents since then, and there will be in the future. I don't really see a big military as doing much to deter terrorism. What it mostly seems to be needed for is being the world police, or for being pushy with foreign policy.
At a worst case of about 80,000, the US ARMY is downsizing more people than are employed in the Royal Canadian Army, Navy, and,/i> Air Force put together.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Just like in the 90's the cuts will be in the lower enlisted combat and support ranks instead of the bloated O5's and above. Cut from the top down, that is where the real waste and costs are.
No good deed goes unpunished.
You don't get money if you say you have PTSD.
Sometimes, you get money if you are found to have PTSD.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Walmart and McDonalds pay more in taxes then benefits they receive, even when you include moronic notion that the government is subsidizing them because some of their employees are on welfare.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Paying for private healthcare will eat the federal budget.
You won't find anyone who was more anti-AFCA than I was. Still I don't think paying for health care has to break the budget.
The way we have implemented it sure will though. As a society we really need to answer some very fundamental questions we mostly refuse to talk about. In fact the AFCA actually makes the problems worse by mostly removing the lifetime cap on benefits.
The AOL fiasco of some weeks ago highlights the issue, regardless of if those two babies had anything to do with AOL really needing to cut the bottom line; the question still exists; what amount of shared resources can we really justify to the care of one individual? Under a purely capitalist system the problem solves itself, you have the resources to take care of yourself/family or they die. Simple, and fair or unfair depending on your definition of fairness (we could have a long philosophical debate on the subject).
How do you equate the value of a life against the standard of living for everyone else? Should I pay 30% taxes, 50%, 90%, 99% to keep someone else's premature baby alive? We cannot as a society say we are just going to commit every available resource to the preservation of every life, we probably really do need "death panels" or we go back to you can pay or you can't. Health care is already 1/6th of the economy. When do we decide some of that money should go back to people's individual pursuit of happiness, or infrastructure, or basic research outside of medical?
There is no answer that is going to be universally satisfying or agreeable. Someone suffers. Its a limited world.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
There aren't NEARLY enough wealthy people to tax to get us out of this hole. Not unless you use the worldwide definition of wealthy, in which case practically everyone on Slashdot is the 1%. Wealthy people have millions. We've overspent by TRILLIONS. Notice the six decimal place difference. You'd need a million dollars from 10 million people get out of the hole. We don't HAVE 10 million uberwealthy people to take a million dollars from.
You may recall last year Obama proposed a "tax the rich" plan that would have categorized a public school teacher and a firefighter as "rich". That's why. There are only 50 people on the Forbes 50.
That's not even considering the fact that rich people don't have their money in cash, they own companies. To take their wealth, you need to take their company. Guess what happens to employees when you take the company away? Removing resources from the very people who grow those resources has very real and very damaging effects.
Social Security is a ponzi.
I wonder what the poster/article author's agenda may be? Since this is /. I expect such. What would be amazing is a story titled "US entitlement machine" down-sizing. That would be fucking amazing.
Conservative, mod down for violating
I don't know. I would rate the AC-130 Spectre as the greatest plane ever. A-10 is a runner up though.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
First, I'm going to say I'm all for reductions in military spending. No objections drawing down the military machine and redeploying those funds to more productive uses for the economy.
However, I do want to address what I view as the misinterpretation that the United States is somehow starving infrastructure and education spending. Contrary to popular belief, the US dumps huge amounts of resources into both. The US spends 3.3% of its GDP on infrastructure, on par with nations like Canada and Germany. In education, the US spend $1,000B a year in education spending, ~$200B more a year on education than on all combined defense, veteran and civil defense spending. I don't think the question for the United States is whether or not the government spends sufficient resources, but it's more a question of how those resources are allocated and spent. It's a question of geographic and socioeconomic distribution as well as effectiveness of spending.
Air craft without pilots, ships of war without human crews, soldiers in the field replaced with machines will create a much larger and more potent military with far fewer humans involved. The nature of war has changed quite a bit but our ability to sting an enemy is on the increase.
Like the Healthcare and Finance reforms, this is a step in the right direction, but we should be doing much better (thanks, Republicans) The F-35 is already way over budget and it is predicted to cost 1.5 trillion over the planned lifetime, This is for a tool that barely works. The brilliance of the evil plan was spreading production to almost every state so each one will have a stake in the pork.
http://www.vanityfair.com/poli...
The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to be plausible.
Far more Americans go offshore for health care than come here.
No kidding. We also have more presence helping the rest of the world as well. ( one can debate if we are helping or not, but the point remains we are there.. and that takes resources )
In general i am not for reducing our military as the world is a dangerous place and i dont want to be caught with our pants down, but if it means we can stop mucking about with ungrateful piss-ant counties, then ill get on board.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Actually, if the income limit on FICA were lifted, SS would be uber-solvent. So much, that we could LOWER the retirement age.
Even if the F-35 is only a little better than the A-10 at getting the job done
It pretty much isn't: it has a much smaller payload and a lower loiter time. Also, unless you get the VTOL version with even less payload (and higher fuel consumption), the A10 can take off from much worse strips.
don't forget that Fuel==logistics, so high fuel use is exceptionally bad.
Also the A10 is slow, which means that for ground attack, it doesn't just zip past the target and have to turn around for another pass nearly as much.
does it look more badass while doing it?
Basically no as well. The F35 looks like you're run of the mill fast jet which everyone's seen by now. The A10 looks like has a piece of rotating naval artilllery attached to the front.
Also for stealthyness, the F35 has internal weapons bays. The A10 comes out positively bristling with dangerous looking ordinance.
If you're going for general badassery, then the A10 looks the part.
It looks much more badass in the same way that battleship looks more badass than a missile cruiser.
Does it protect the flight crew better than the A-10?
No. It has stealth which stops people shooting at it when it's a long way off with SAMs in a relatively short band. The thing with close air support is the close part: you have to get in there to make sure you're blasting away at the enemy not the nearby friendly troops (otherwise it's not close and you could happily blast away at them with a high flying B52, long range missiles, drones, artillery or anything else). Close means you can be identified and targetted visually.
And the A10 provides much, much more durability than the F35. It has a substantial amount of armour, a lot of redundancy and can fly missing one engine, half a wing and one of the vertical stabilisers.
Basically, the F35 isn't a close air support aircraft, it's a stealth strike fighter.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Maybe the executive branch should just unilaterally put off getting under the limit. It worked for Obamacare - why not this too?
And the strategy of "taxing the rich" seldom really buys you much.
Note this chart: Top tax rates and total receipts (and do note the source at the bottom: IRS)
Great, now overlay that chart with the gini co-efficient and tell me that top marginal rates have no effect. You're right that they don't increase total receipts, but they have a huge impact on who pays the bills. Obviously there are diminishing returns, at some point tax avoidance becomes more important that investment returns and that's counter-productive but we're no where near that transition at the moment.
Ahhhh yes, those poor rich people. Here they are barely able to keep up the payments on the island nation they bought and I suggest they should pay taxes too.
Those trillions that were overspent? A lot of it went into the pockets of the very people that I suggest we tax.
That sounds like time for a modernization effort ...
And strengthen the landing gear, make the wings fold and add a tail hook so it can be used by the Marines. Their aircraft are required to be carrier capable. Being a land based bird is what prevented them from getting the A-10 in the past.
In defense of Tea Bagger Republican's everywhere, the Tea Party was started in Response to NeoCon Bush 2. Not in support of him.
that's because the next big war will be between the rich and the poor, and live soldiers are less likely to fire on their family, friends and neighbors.
[citation needed]
This should be good...
...when the police have tanks. Our government's next big enemy is domestic.
..we probably really do need "death panels"
There it is.
We already have those. They're called insurance companies. Health care decisions, including the ethically complicated ones, are increasingly removed from the hands of the caregivers and the consumers. As a rule, that's bad medicine, but the bean-counters make the rules now, so fuck medically and ethically sound practices.
Social security is "self funded" by FICA taxes....
Isn't strong praise?! It is the only "plane" that has ever went boldly where no man has gone before!
*ahem*
THIS. IS. SLASHDOT!
Raised by wolves?
The projected problems for Social Security's budget assume full repayment of the US bonds that they *invested* their money in (it was not stolen... it's earning interest).
The SSA did start collecting extra money to pay for the population bulge, but they did not collect enough to fully cover it. The assumption was that taxes would go up again in the future, or benefits would be cut.
We need to go back to more a more traditional lifestyle for old people. In other words... they need to live with their kids, like in most countries. Then they don't need as much Social Security, and the budget is saved.
I think the problem is that the STS boldly went where many other vehicles had gone before, but did it poorly and more expensively. It basically required a major overhaul after each flight and its design was heavily impeded by functionality requirements imposed by the Air Force that were never used in practice.
I suppose I would summarize your praise of the A-10 as tantamount to comparing an amazingly reliable, well-designed, and effective car (the A-10) to a classic Jaguar that's luxurious, expensive, and constantly broken (the Space Shuttle). Yes, the comparison can work, but it sends mixed messages.
YMMV.
The gloom and doom forecasts presume it won't be paid back. They refer to the paybacks as draining the budget.
Have some actual info.
Yes, in 2033 there is a projected shortfall. That gives them only 19 years to come up with an answer.
Congratulations! You've won the "stupidest comment I've seen on slashdot today award!"
This is a disingenuous as "the average person doesn't have their money in cash, they own a house. To take their wealth, you need to take their house".
The wealth of the ultra-rich has increased substantially over the past 50 years, without a corresponding increase in employment. So if increasing the wealth of rich people doesn't have a corresponding increase in employment, why would you believe that decreasing their wealth would have a corresponding decrease? Do you have any evidence for this remark?
No....ponzi is the guy who jumped the shark....
Because that's what America's big problem is right now: "but if we change things, how will the rich get their health care?!?"
Canadians live on average longer than Americans, yet spend substantially less on health care. This is likely indicative of a less-than-optimal health care system in the US.
The politicians will like the savings until they realize that a base will be closed in their state or riding then they will oppose them. No politician is going to volunteer to have a base shut down or reduced in capacity in their area. They are more concerned about getting re-elected.
It's like the tanks that the army doesn't want. The jobs are spread out over such a wide area that there's so many politicians who are fighting to keep the program alive even though it's a waste of money.
It's relevant because the Democrats already got what they wanted, but gave nothing back in "negotiation". Obamacare was a big program they wanted, and it included tax hikes on the rich. They got another tax hike on the rich during the fiscal cliff catastrophe. They also got the sequester. Moreover, when Democrats passed programs they wanted (like the minimum wage hike), it didn't come with corresponding cuts elsewhere. The things Republicans have wanted in response (entitlement reform or Obamacare changes) were completely ignored and/or left off the table. The "reality" of the political situation these past 8 years have been almost entirely one-sided. That's the problem. Dems demand new multi-trillion dollar programs and think throwing a few pennies at the Republicans in the way of pork riders is fair/compromise/negotiation. Seriously, look at how much revenue has increased in the past 8 years (significantly higher). Now look at spending (relatively flat, with projections that spike going forward). You call that give-and-take?
What the hell are you talking about "poor rich people"? Are you illiterate, or just really, really bad at arithmetic?
Let's me try saying it Dr. Seus style for you:
Not enough rich.
We're really in the ditch.
Trillion is more than billion.
Billion is more than million.
There are 20 billionaires in the US. The US is $17 TRILLION in the hole. You could take 100% of everything that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Waltons, and all of the other billionaires own and you'd still not cover 1% of the hole we're in.
To get out of the shithole, we'd need a 100% tax on 17,000 billionaires. We have 20 billionaires, not 17,000. See the problem with your idea now? We'd need a thousand times as many rich people.
I know, I know, how about MILLIONAIRES!? A lot of people want to have about $40,000 / year for 25 years of retirement, so they've saved. Some people who are getting ready to retire have a million or so. Since they've got the million they'll need to last 25 years, they must be greedy rich people too, right? What happens if we take all of their money too? If we go ahead and take all of the retirement funds from all of those rich millionaires (and let granny starve), that would all add up to ....
$12 trillion.
We're STILL $5 trillion short even if we count everybody who saved for retirement as "greedy rich people".
There just isn't $17 trillion to take from anyone. There's not NEARLY enough "rich people" to cover the massive fuck up that washington has created. A hundred times as many rich people still wouldn't have enough money to cover this. We'd need a THOUSAND times as many rich people as we have.
So if defining "rich" as "anyone who saved for retirement" still isn't enough money, how can we define "rich" so as to gather enough money from rich people to fix the problem? Well, to have enough money to cover Washington's stupidity, we end having to define "rich" as $30,000 - $40,000. Unfortunately, there's just one Oprah, one Bill Gates, and neither of them have even one trillion dollars, much less seventeen trillion.
True, if you reduce the limit to $0, nobody gets their money paid back and it doesn't go broke. Of course, you've also just screwed everybody. You took their money from their paycheck, promising to give it back when they are old, them just said "screw you, we're keeping you're money". That would work.
Are you intentionally obtuse? I mean no upper limit. Take FICA on every last dollar. Right now, they only tax the first $112K (approx), so the poor get taxed on all their money, while the rich only get taxed on some of it.
Ah, that DOES make more sense. I'm not sure why I read it the other way. From what I've read, that would really keep, though it wouldn't quite get us there.
Right now, the amount paid out at retirement is partially related to the amount the person paid in. Payments would have to be adjusted so that if someone pays in a LOT, they get back a medium amount - nobody gets back a lot, even if they paid in a LOT. By increasing the tax and reducing the maximum benefit ratio, it could be brought into balance.
Also, the "rough draft" of the math that says it might cover the shortfall misses an important factor. People adapt. I'm going to use some rough numbers that are easy to follow to illustrate one way they do rather than precise numbers. Assume a company budgets $200,000 in payroll expenses for an engineer. They pay 6.5% of the first $100K for FICA ($6,500). That leaves $193,500 as his gross pay. If you take FICA on the entire $200K budgeted, he grosses $187. Either way, he then pays his side of the FICA, but the higher employer FICA means he's now paying tax on a smaller income ($187 versus $193). That makes a small difference.
He then pays his side of the FICA and is left with either $187 or $180. He isn't stupid, so he sees that the new law is going to take $7,000 from him. Knowing that, he talks to his boss about trading that raise he was promised for some more vacation time instead. Maybe instead of that $5,000 bonus ($3,300 after taxes), the company will pay for his family to join him at the conference in Hawaii. There are all sorts of ways people will adapt, but adapt they will. The sum total of all of those people responding to the new taxes, attempting to reduce how much it effects them, will in fact do just that - it will reduce the amount the government takes. Millions of people will be motivated to find ways to reduce the tax burden and many will do so.
Still, it would get pretty close to fixing the problem, assuming it were done IMMEDIATELY, while some baby boomers are still working, and assuming the employment situation improves. With so many people having left the workforce in the last six years, there are relatively fewer people to tax than there were ten years ago.
Like most debts, it'll have to be paid off over time, not by liquidating people. We were doing a decent job of it until Reagan. Clinton had us back in the right direction again but Bush went on a spree and blew it out of the water.
It might also help if we resign as world policeman and hand out our rate card.
You still seem to be having trouble grasping the concept of "trillion", but that's okay - most people have trouble reasoning about such large numbers.
2007 budget deficit: $163 billion
2012 budget deficit: $1.1 trillion
In the last six years, we've overspent more than the combined total of the previous 200 years. I guess you're a fan of Jon Stewart because you talk about "Bush blew it out of the water". EVERY YEAR Obama racks up more debt than Bush did in all eight years combined. Bush sucked, don't misunderstand. When it comes to fiscal irresponsiblity, Obama sucks over eight times as bad.
$17 trillion dollars of debt incurs interest every year. Even if we cut spending in half to get back to actual balanced budgets like we had 50 years ago*, the existing debt would grow by $200 billion in interest every year. We aren't gradually paying it off. We were gradually increasing it until Obama doubled it, and now due to interest it grows itself. There simply aren't anywhere near enough rich people to make a dent in $17 TRILLION.
* In case you fell for Jon Stewart's joke, look at the national debt chart. You'll see it grew during the Clinton years too. Clinton claimed a "balanced budget" when one year the spending was equal to the BORROWING plus the revenue. By that logic, if you earn $50K, spend $50K, and borrow $50K that's a balanced budget.
I mistyped that last sentence. That should of course be earn $50, spend $100, and borrow $50. That's government's version of a "balanced budget", at least under Clinton.
Your entire comment is answerable with one wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Please help metamoderate.
War and occupation are two different things. There is no such thing as a 'war of occupation'.
And yes, the US did win the wars in Korea and Afghanistan.
The problem with Afghanistan is there was never a plan or hope or an idea of what to to do with it after achieving a military victory. These are political problems that have no solution addressable by military force. More soldiers certainly is NOT the answer. The Soviets had a far greater force in Afghanistan than we ever did. What result did they achieve? Bankruptcy and collapse of the USSR would be a good first approximation.
The results in Afghanistan are an illustration of the basic stupidity of going to war with no idea what you are going to do after you win the war.
Actually, the debt was shrinking once inflation was considered. I'm not saying it was sinking like a stone, just that it was in the right direction. I do like Jon Stewart, but only watch occasionally. The phrase was my own when I look at the graph. I would like to see Obama do better, but must admit he inherited an economic disaster that struck shortly before he took office. Chalk at least part (but not all) of that up to bush being asleep at the switch for 8 years while a small minority was screaming OMG, this bubble will kill us if we don't start regulating the market.
Yes, over Clinton's entire time in office the total debt went up. SURPRIZE! it took a while to turn a bad decade long trend around. It is undeniable though that had Bush maintained Clinton's fiscal responsability the debt would have continued downward. In fact, had Bush held the line it would have been the lowest it's been since 1940, BUT he didn't. He gave out crazy tax cuts to the people who needed them least and and out of gratitude they pocketed it rather than boosting the economy. Had he and Obama stuck to the plan it would be paid off by now.
Who knows, if we can restrain ourselves from spending billions fondling children and blowing stuff up, we may yet pay it off.
So some Jew bag moderator has marked this as "troll". It is not troll. It is a valid and relevant comment. The fact is that the US government are traitors to the US people and they are busy arming the Jewish military with US tax dollars. If you can refute the facts then do so, but don't mark as troll just because you hate people who are not Jewish who do not want to pay for the Jewish homeland or its scumbag military.
Partially because a lot of people who are suited to creating them are spending their time training to destroy parts of other countries instead of opening businesses.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
It's been an interesting discussion, thanks.
> I do like Jon Stewart, but only watch occasionally.
Sometimes he's funny. Please keep in mind that he's an entertainer with a political twist who gets ratings by "trolling", exactly like Rush Limbaugh. They both do the same thing, they both do it well, and they both put a low priority on accuracy. Please, listen to him the same way you'd listen to Rush, or any political cartoonist, and don't slip off into believing the silliness. You seem like you're smart enough to recognize that for what it is.
They refer to the paybacks as draining the budget.
They are draining the budget, because the SS Trust Fund is invested in US debt, and we are paying interest to the SS Trust Fund from the general budget.
Yes, in 2033 there is a projected shortfall. That gives them only 19 years to come up with an answer.
No... the shortfall (when they pay out more than they take in) is earlier than that. 2033 is when they exhaust the trust fund and cut benefits. Unless that's what you meant by the shortfall.
19 years is not enough time to come up with an answer if there is no answer. You just have to look at demographics... too many retirees, not enough workers. There's no non-painful way to address that. My generation is screwed, or the older generation is screwed, because SS is built on promises and assumptions that were bullshit.
So the government freely borrowed from SS and that's SS's fault? I think not.
Using money you saved in a planned way is not a shortfall. Running out of that saved fund is a shortfall.
Of course, the GOP has been carrying those the end is near signs for years now. The earliest date that the end was forecast was two years ago.
There is a fix, it just means they might have to tax the rich again, like they used to do when the economy was less screwed and prosperity was growing.
It's always amazed me how little the topic of eliminating the upper limit is discussed when SS comes up. They always talk about reducing benefits, means-testing, and increasing the retirement age, when lifting the cap seems much easier. Although certainly there may be some who adapt as you say, because FICA is taken out of each paycheck, most above the cap just think of it as a raise later in the year that disappears again on the first of the year. I bet most would not change their work time, they would likely just suck it up (I know I would). Of course if you REALLY want to solve problems, treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
> treat ALL income the same for tax purposes - stop giving special treatment to unearned income (stocks, dividends, interest).
That makes a great sound bite. It's also a terrible idea that fails spectacularly when it's tried. Keep in mind stock dividends are what's left after taxes. The company makes money and pays their taxes. Whatever is left after taxes goes to the owners of the business in the form of dividends. Taxing the same income twice, at more than 25% each time, is how you destroy domestic industry and send all the jobs to China. This isn't theory, it's been done and the results are instructive. While it's a great sound bite, but we don't want to be like Greece, so nobody seriously proposes such a thing.
> Same goes for CEOs that take millions and millions in stock bonuses to avoid income taxes.
Those should be taxed as earned income - and they ARE. See section 63 for details.
Plenty of private retirmenet funds hold US debt. Technically, those funds are "draining the budget" as well, but we don't blame them for the budget drain. This seems to be the one case where it's OK to blame creditors for the existence of debt.
We could actually take a big bite out of the problem by adjusting the wage base without adjusting benefits. The demographic problem was well known when the trust fund was put together. One thing that has changed substantially is the percentage of overall income that is earned above the SS taxable wage cap. This isn't an intractable problem by any stretch, especially when we're talking about multi-decade timeframes. The whole point of having the government do this type of thing is that it can smooth out cycles by being big and stable in its ability to make payments and average revenue over time.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I agree with your general point--we can't spend unlimited resources on everybody, but I don't think your example is the best. I have a lot less of an issue spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to save somebody who otherwise has a life expectancy measured in decades than I am about spending the same money to prolong the life of a bedridden 90 year old. A lot of this seems to be cultural. From what I can tell, many other countries have a much healthier notion of what the end of a person's life looks like, and making heroic efforts to buy a few more months of mediocre quality of life is not high on thier priority list.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I don't think many people are proposing the elimination of the military. I do think that noting that we have one that is far and away more powerful than any other military implies that there might be some room to shrink it is not crazy. Having M1 tanks is better than not having them, all else held equal, but what's the opportunity cost of an M1 tank that never sees action?
We need a military, but we also need to bear in mind that the military soaks up an industrial nation's most valuable resources: working-aged able-bodied laboerers, heavy machinery facilities, engineers, petroleum, and raw construction materials. Putting some of those resources to work doing something more productive is a huge potential boost.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Dumb assumptions. SSA paid for bread and circuses or the poor and hookers and blow for congress.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Regarding tax rates and total receipts: Why do you think it works this way in the US and not in any other developed country? People talk as though there's some magic phenomenon keeping total receipts as a percentage of GDP in check, but there isn't. That magic phenomenon is our cultural preference for tax receipts as a percentage of GDP.
As for corporate tax rates, I agree with you. We might as well zero them out for all the good they do us. Tax the money when it comes out to shareholders and tax capital gains. Don't bother trying to tax corporations. They're impossible to nail down, and all we do by cranking up the corporate income tax is cause corporations to do more crazy stuff to avoid taxes.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
But military pensions are defense spending. Moving them out of that category is a nonsensical accounting dodge.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
smaller than those little plastic soldiers in the bag we used to buy? oh boy, those would be hard to defend against. I've seen them in horror movies.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
They could keep all that other stuff and get rid of that one totally batshit expensive system. Well, a carrier or two also.
The funds will be piped elsewhere. Like the NSA, FEMA or other agencies that will be used to monitor and control US citizens.
So the government freely borrowed from SS and that's SS's fault? I think not.
Wrong, they did not freely borrow. They pay interest on that debt.
And no I don't say it's SS's "fault" but I'm pointing out that SS does impact the general budget. The more we save for SS, the more of a drain it is. You know how some people want to have no debt? If we did that, we'd have to raise SS taxes to make up for that interest deficit. So there's no use pretending it isn't real, and isn't a substitute for further taxes. In the meantime it's a drain on the general budget. How else can you look at it?
I would be in favor of SS funds being invested more aggressively, like other countries do. (Google "sovereign wealth fund"). Our SS Trust Fund could own half of China by now and we could cancel FICA and live off the dividends..
But then people would be whining about how risky the investment is and how it should all be kept domestically in US debt. You can't win.
Using money you saved in a planned way is not a shortfall. Running out of that saved fund is a shortfall.
In the common usage a shortfall is to "spend more than you take in" which is what I thought you were talking about. Completely burning through the trust fund and having to immediately cut benefits is more serious than a "shortfall" and I think you know that. I guess you used to the word to downplay the significant of what will happen.
There is a fix, it just means they might have to tax the rich again, like they used to do when the economy was less screwed and prosperity was growing.
Why does it just mean that? That's the only thing you can think of? I like my idea of more aggressively investing the money. I think it's a much better idea than just raising taxes. Barring that, how about we do some cost cutting like I was saying? Cut benefits, and give more incentives to do stuff like live with the kids. Provide access to cheap government housing. There's all kinds of stuff we can do to lower costs and save money.
Well, I guess we could try teaching old people to like dog food, or we could quit blowing up brown people.
Technically, those funds are "draining the budget" as well, but we don't blame them for the budget drain.
We typically blame the borrower (the government) for offering the debt. In the SS Trust Fund case it's the government doing the borrowing and the lending so it's kind of irrelevant...
I wouldn't say that I "blame" the SS Trust Fund for investing in US debt, rather I'm just pointing out that it does in fact invest it, and we pay interest on that. Some people are under the misapprehension that the SS Trust Fund has been raided by politicians, and there's no money left in it. These people typically say "Yeah well of course there's going to be a shortfall, the government stole all the money!!" That's just wrong. Those people don't know what they are talking about.
We could actually take a big bite out of the problem by adjusting the wage base [fas.org] without adjusting benefits.
I was including tax hikes like that in the "painful solutions" box, just like cutting benefits. The numbers are what they are... we either need to pay more or get less. Probably we'll get both.
One of the reasons a tax hike is particularly painful is that it represents the rape of my generation. It's even worse because as you say "The demographic problem was well known when the trust fund was put together." And yet look at historical SS tax rates (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html). I've been paying the full 15.3% (combined rate) for my ENTIRE CAREER. And that rate is probably going to go up even more. The people retiring today are pretty much freeloaders. They'll be drawing FULL benefits for the next 15-20 years, and probably won't feel the effects of any near-future SS tax hikes since their retirement income will be presumably much lower than their career income, and will die just in time to avoid the benefit collapse that my generation will face. Yay! Awesome!
How are you defining things like "collapse" and "hike" here? From the looks of it, these are numbers that are relatively easy to deal with. I'm simply not seeing where we're getting the notion that these alterations represent untold suffering. There are plenty of other changes to our tax and benfit structures that will be at least as large. As I noted in the earlier link (which is 4 years stale, but probably not too far off these days), you can take a big bite out of it by adjusting the wage cap so that it covers the same percentage of overall wages that it did in the 80's. Sure, it would be nice not to have to do that, but it doesn't exactly represent the rape of the American worker.
Yes, the people retiring today are getting a great deal. They've been getting a great deal for most of their adult lives. They've lived off of the infrastructure their parents built while giving themselves tax cuts, and they're going to balance Social Security on the backs of the generation that comes after them. They're a big voting bloc and they've made the most of it. But even so, Social Security is a worthwhile program and a very solvable problem.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Time ands materials, youngster.
And coding war stuff slowly is the closest to pacifism some of us can afford
Now, about my lawn - get off!
--
God made machine language; all the rest is the work of Lucifer.
And, yet, literally every other First World country has solved that problem. Is the US uniquely incompetent?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Cut personnel, which you don't need right now if you don't plan to wage any constant wars for no real reason, other than create work for contractors, like we've been doing for over a decade, and continue to funnel money to contractors for neato projects inside the nation.
Like spying on the citizens and making sure there are enough detention camps and massive surveillance operations and restrictions of movement of the public so that if we try to exerciser any constitutional rights, we'll be constantly monitored by those x-military people that return and join federal and civilian law enforcement.
No, lifehacksaur111, this doesn't mean that the military-industrial complex is being dismantled or that the war machine is being downsized. It just means that the military understands that they aren't going to be able to get enough budget to pay for both the important stuff (pork-barrel military-industrial-complex spending) and having lots of soldiers around needing pay, housing, and medical care, so they're prioritizing how they'll spend the money.
And if later they need more soldiers for cannon-fodder in a large war, they'll see about cranking up a draft or something, but for now they don't want to lose the pork barrel.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Dog food is a huge exaggeration, unless you mean it metaphorically in which case I agree -- people should eat their own dog food in that their benefits should be tied to what they produced themselves. That's kind of how it is already, except that current retirees are taking too much out of the system compared to what they produced, and there's a pretty radical wealth redistribution component where poor people get much more than they put in, and "rich" people (middle class and up) get less.
Given that it has actually happened (Gaines burgers, actually) it isn't even a slight exaggeration. If that makes you feel just a tiny bit sick, GOOD.
But hey, if they're keeping Paris from enjouing that 3rd summer yacht, just send 'em all for a nice shower and call it done eh? If they wanted to actually matter like human beings they should have had the sense to be born rich. (OK, so THAT might have been a bit of an exaggeration).
Perhaps we should look into that stop blowing up brown people again.