Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: GOP preparing for '14 primary fight

  1. -21
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,305
    vCash:
    30706
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Sorry to Statler this up but these debates tend to produce mega posts and this is the best way I know to keep them manageable.

    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Whether they’ve changed or not they’ve still been the primary parties in the United States for the past 200+ years. If you want to say they’ve been more consistent the past century, well, that’s still at least a century’s worth of established momentum.
    Why would you continue to repeat that when I've already told you the Republican party is only 160 years old and was founded as a Northern, big government, anti-slavery party. There's simply no use in making these comparisons when only the name has remained constant. The issues could not have shifted more with the years, and if anything goes to my point, not yours... which is that these shifts being primarily driven by voters and circumstances.

    Corporate interests, lobbyists, the military industrial complex, & foreign investors certainly have their impact & influence; there’s nothing conspiratorial about it, it’s fact. That’s not however what I’m insinuating. You said that just by virtue of being the two major parties, that they inherently reflect the consensus will of the people, when that’s not necesarrily the case. These parties are so well established & are viewed by the overwhelming majority of people to be the only two viable parties. So any issue that both major parties happen to agree on we’re stuck with, no matter how major, because everyone perceives there’s no other realistic, viable option capable of capturing a majority vote.
    That is an interpretation, not an objective reality. You're essentially saying the major parties get together and decide to agree on things they know most people are against because there's nothing anyone can do about it. Sorry, too woo woo for my taste. Democracy is a ruthlessly efficient capitalistic system where even small margins are pursued with great enthusiasm. If there were winning issues out there one party or another would attack them.

    Do we get to vote on war? No (see Vietnam), we don’t, but both parties are in agreement that being in all these wars is the correct course of action. Do we get to vote on indefinite detention of American citizens, or online spying? No, & neither of those things represents the consensus will of the people. These policies are the consensus will of 535 people + the president, not the entire populous.
    It's a republic, not a democracy. What's your point?

    And you once again imply these policies aren't popular, yet a Washington Post poll from early last year showed 70% of Americans approve of keeping Guantanamo Bay open, 83% favoring the use of drones and 65% approve of using drones even when the target is an American citizen.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...EyQ_story.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ll_020412.html

    You need to separate how strongly you feel about these issues from how the average person feels about them. You're making assumptions you just shouldn't be making.

    You’re telling me the corporations donating to the campaigns aren’t expecting returns in the form of favorable policy?
    I'm telling you those favorable policies are generally not unpopular. Where, as I said, is the movement to end farm subsidies, or oil subsidies, or to raise corporate tax rates? Where is it?

    Pentagon budget alone was 717$ billion. +video
    Quite a gumby act there, throwing in embassy guards, the Department of Homeland security (which includes the TSA, for example) the intelligence community, veterans benefits and interest payments on the debt into "war funding." Sorry, no sale.

    He’s speculating 9 years into the future, & that may very well be the case, but as of 2012, 53% of the budget was military related, so even his estimated 33% figure is small in comparison. I’m not saying Health-care costs aren't a problem as well, but to act like everything else is “bull****”, is not really accurate imo.


    He's not using the artificially inflated number you're using. You have to look at it the way he's looking at it to get an idea of the scale of debt health care is adding and going to add.

    Looking ten years into the future is what the CBO does, by the way. That's always the way they make their projections.

    Anyway, everyone knows that defense spending is going to go down. It needs to go down more but it's not a huge future driver of the debt. The budget proposal the video builds on actually proposed a cut in the Petagon budget of $484 billion over 10 years, though of course he forgot to mention that.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 01-09-2013 at 03:20 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -22
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,250
    vCash:
    7051
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Why would you continue to repeat that when I've already told you the Republican party is only 160 years old and was founded as a Northern, big government, anti-slavery party. There's simply no use in making these comparisons when only the name has remained constant. The issues could not have shifted more with the years, and if anything goes to my point, not yours... which is that these shifts being voter and circumstance driver, not special interest driven.
    It’s obviously a combination of both. However, my point was that you acted like that just because the Republicans & Democrats are the current major parties means that they always inherently reflect the will of the people, when we’ve seen throughout history that isn’t always the case. Even if it’s only namesake, these two parties have an undeniable advantage of the momentum of the past 160 or however many years at their back’s that some of these newer parties haven’t yet been afforded.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    That is an interpretation, not an objective reality. You're essentially saying the major parties get together and decide to agree on things they know most people are against because there's nothing anyone can do about it. Sorry, too woo woo for my taste.
    Yea, I’m not saying they get together in their fortress of solitude & scheme with one another as you suggest, but there have been instances in which both the democratic & republican sides of congress agree on matters which don’t always reflect the consensus will of the people. I.e, Vietnam, 1968; February – Gallup poll showed 35% approved of Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapproved; the rest, no opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Democracy is a ruthlessly efficient capitalistic system where even small margins are pursued with great enthusiasm. If there were winning issues out there one party or another would attack them.
    Online privacy isn’t a winning issue? Why aren't the Republicans spearheading that movement & screaming from the rooftops that the secret Kenyan-Muslim-Socialist terrorist is spying on your internet searches? Seems like a logical course of action, & a much more substantiated one than some of their past gems.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    It's a republic, not a democracy. What's your point?
    That sometimes the consensus will of an elected body doesn’t match the will of the populous that voted them there.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    And you once again imply these policies aren't popular, yet a Washington Post poll from early last year showed 70% of Americans approve of keeping Guantanamo Bay open, 83% favoring the use of drones and 65% approve of using drones even when the target is an American citizen.

    You need to separate how strongly you feel about these issues from how the average person feels about them. You're making assumptions you just shouldn't be making.
    Find me a Gallup poll about online spying.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    I'm telling you those favorable policies are generally not unpopular. Where, as I said, is the movement to end farm subsidies, or oil subsidies, or to raise corporate tax rates? Where is it?
    I should look for some polls about CEO bailouts, too tired now though.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Quite a gumby act there, throwing in embassy guards, the Department of Homeland security (which includes the TSA, for example) the intelligence community, veterans benefits and interest payments on the debt into "war funding." Sorry, no sale.
    NSA, DIA, & CIA (who’s running the Middle-Eastern drone program) don’t count? That 158$ billion dollar contingency fund for the wars don’t count? Veterans benefits (caused by war, fyi) don’t count? Interest on past wars (these wars will eventually be past wars, fyi) don’t count? Also, in regards to Dept. of Homeland Security, the TSA has a paultry 8.1 billion dollar budget, so by all means feel free to subtract that from the 1.6 trillion dollar figure.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    He's not using the artificially inflated number you're using. You have to look at it the way he's looking at it to get an idea of the scale of debt health care is adding and going to add.
    Spare me the eye-rolling, I've been respectful in my rebuttals. & See above in regards to the ‘artificially inflated’ number.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Anyway, everyone knows that defense spending is going to go down. It needs to go down more but it's not a huge future driver of the debt.
    Unless we get into another war with Syria or Iran.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The budget proposal the video builds on actually proposed a cut in the Petagon budget of $484 billion over 10 years, though of course he forgot to mention that.
    It’s a good start, I do hope that ‘proposed cut’ turns into a reality, but that’s only 48 billion a year. What’s the debt at, like 16 trillion, & growing by about 3 billion a day? It reminds me a bit of Romney talking about cutting PBS.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -23
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,305
    vCash:
    30706
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Yea, I’m not saying they get together in their fortress of solitude & scheme with one another as you suggest, but there have been instances in which both the democratic & republican sides of congress agree on matters which don’t always reflect the consensus will of the people. I.e, Vietnam, 1968; February – Gallup poll showed 35% approved of Johnson's handling of the war; 50% disapproved; the rest, no opinion.
    The American people were for it originally and then changed their minds. Big shock. And disapproving of "handling" is not the same thing as suggesting an immediate pulling out of all troops. Not sure why you're conflating those two things.

    My argument here is that the relative similarity of Republicans and Democrats reflects the fact that there is a rough Gaussian distribution to political views, with the two parties taking up a kind of 95% confidence interval of how the American people are thinking about an issue.

    This line of yours about "momentum" makes very little sense given the history of how the parties have evolved. Just in the last 80 or so years both of them have made at least one 360 degree turn. If they were organisms we would have had to draw the line and call them different species several times each by now.

    Find me a Gallup poll about online spying.
    No poll has been done about it that I'm aware of. I'm not sure enough people even know about it to do a poll. But would you really be shocked if people were generally nonplussed about it given the fact that 65% of the American people support drone strikes on American citizens?

    Also, in regards to Dept. of Homeland Security, the TSA has a paultry 8.1 billion dollar budget, so by all means feel free to subtract that from the 1.6 trillion dollar figure.

    Spare me the eye-rolling, I've been respectful in my rebuttals. & See above in regards to the ‘artificially inflated’ number.
    It's a misleading argument he's making and you're promoting, and I don't have to have respect for it. Here's a pie chart on the spending by the Department of Homeland Security.



    USCG = the Coast Guard.
    CBP = Customs and Border Protection
    ICE = Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    USSS = Secret Service

    I trust the rest are fairly self explanatory.

    The video you posted says that the Department of Homeland Security is "largely military". I absolutely roll my eyes at that. I'm sure if I investigated his other claims in detail I'd find other stuff to roll my eyes at, but I can't see a reason to bother. I wouldn't have bothered on the DHS if you hadn't pushed. The labeling of discretionary spending as "tax spending" gave the game away early. If you're going to fudge on that you're going to fudge on a lot of things.

    As I've said many times, military spending is too high. But it's a perfectly winnable argument on it's own, without resorting to this kind of crap. Just look at the aircraft carrier program. Federal law mandates that we keep 11 carrier groups in service at all times, despite the fact that no other country has more than one such group. These carriers cost $11 billion a piece to build and the current plan is to replace one every five years (decommissioning one costs another $3 billion).
    Quote Quote  

  4. -24
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,250
    vCash:
    7051
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    My argument here is that the relative similarity of Republicans and Democrats reflects the fact that there is a rough Gaussian distribution to political views, with the two parties taking up a kind of 95% confidence interval of how the American people are thinking about an issue.

    This line of yours about "momentum" makes very little sense given the history of how the parties have evolved. Just in the last 80 or so years both of them have made at least one 360 degree turn. If they were organisms we would have had to draw the line and call them different species several times each by now.
    You can’t act like there’s a level playing field amongst all political parties. The perception is that we live in a two-party system. You either get to choose between the Democrats or the Republicans if you want your vote to ‘count’. Libretarians or the Green party can’t even get in the debates, so they’re clearly not being afforded the same opportunities the other two incumbent parties have gained because of their established momentum as the dominant parties. In other words, they're not even being given a fair chance at representing a large enough portion of the will of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    No poll has been done about it that I'm aware of. I'm not sure enough people even know about it to do a poll. But would you really be shocked if people were generally nonplussed about it given the fact that 65% of the American people support drone strikes on American citizens?
    Either shocked or incredibly disappointed. The NSA program was started by Bush, & continued by Obama. That’s why you don’t hear any Fox News outcry on a far more damning fact than hurling cries of Socialist, or secret Muslim-Kenyan. This is absolutely a winning issue that neither side wants to call the other on because they both want it, & like I said I’d be shocked if a nation of people who were educated about the matter we’re in favor of it; Republican or Democrat.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The video you posted says that the Department of Homeland Security is "largely military". I absolutely roll my eyes at that. I'm sure if I investigated his other claims in detail I'd find other stuff to roll my eyes at, but I can't see a reason to bother. I wouldn't have bothered on the DHS if you hadn't pushed. The labeling of discretionary spending as "tax spending" gave the game away early. If you're going to fudge on that you're going to fudge on a lot of things.

    As I've said many times, military spending is too high. But it's a perfectly winnable argument on it's own, without resorting to this kind of crap. Just look at the aircraft carrier program. Federal law mandates that we keep 11 carrier groups in service at all times, despite the fact that no other country has more than one such group. These carriers cost $11 billion a piece to build and the current plan is to replace one every five years (decommissioning one costs another $3 billion).
    The Dept. of Homeland Security budget was about 57 billion last year, even if you want to subtract that entirely there’s still an enormous amount of money being spent on the military & for wars, past wars (which we’re currently adding to), & medical care to past & future veterans (which we’re currently adding to). To act like we don’t have a war problem, or to insinuate that these wars we’re fighting (or future wars we may fight) aren't a big deal, I disagree with. We’re both in agreement that we don’t really want to see medicare & things like that get cut, & unless you have an end-all solution to fix health-care costs, the next best place to start is military spending. You don’t get to play world-cop if you can’t afford to play world-cop. Minor cuts like 48 billion a year to the pentagon don’t go far enough. 11 billion dollar air-craft carriers only scratch the surface. 16 trillion is an incomprehensibly enormous number (& could possibly rise to 20 trillion by 2016, & 25 trillion by 2020).
    Quote Quote  

  5. -25
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,305
    vCash:
    30706
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    You can’t act like there’s a level playing field amongst all political parties. The perception is that we live in a two-party system. You either get to choose between the Democrats or the Republicans if you want your vote to ‘count’. Libretarians or the Green party can’t even get in the debates, so they’re clearly not being afforded the same opportunities the other two incumbent parties have gained because of their established momentum as the dominant parties. In other words, they're not even being given a fair chance at representing a large enough portion of the will of the people.
    Opportunities, schmoppertunities. Why should someone polling at 5% get equal time in the debate with candidates polling at 45%? Debates aren't T ball, where everyone gets a turn. They're about the people hearing from the candidates they want to hear from.

    Perot got into the debates in 1992 because he was polling well and had momentum behind him... momentum he killed by looking like a lunatic during the debates, though he did end up with 19% of the vote. The Reform Party he founded promptly died on the vine from lack of leadership, and the "independent" vote has been shuttling from one ****ty backwater to another, not really realizing it doesn't stand for anything as a whole except not liking either the Republicans or Democrats.

    And that's really the part no one talks about, the fact that "moderate" can mean just about anything. A moderate can be conservative fiscally and liberal socially and a different moderate be liberal fiscally and conservative socially. No one candidate is going to please both of them, and that's not the candidate's fault.

    Either shocked or incredibly disappointed. The NSA program was started by Bush, & continued by Obama. That’s why you don’t hear any Fox News outcry on a far more damning fact than hurling cries of Socialist, or secret Muslim-Kenyan. This is absolutely a winning issue that neither side wants to call the other on because they both want it, & like I said I’d be shocked if a nation of people who were educated about the matter we’re in favor of it; Republican or Democrat.
    But I'm going to assume the results of the Washington Post poll I posted also shocked you, given you highlighted them earlier as arguments supporting your position.

    Why don't you think it's been a bigger story? Is it because it's too vague and without hard evidence? Is the government threatening someone or other such machinations? Is it too new to have reached full saturation? Or does it really just not have legs with the average person out there?

    The Dept. of Homeland Security budget was about 57 billion last year, even if you want to subtract that entirely there’s still an enormous amount of money being spent on the military & for wars, past wars (which we’re currently adding to), & medical care to past & future veterans (which we’re currently adding to). To act like we don’t have a war problem, or to insinuate that these wars we’re fighting (or future wars we may fight) aren't a big deal, I disagree with. We’re both in agreement that we don’t really want to see medicare & things like that get cut, & unless you have an end-all solution to fix health-care costs, the next best place to start is military spending. You don’t get to play world-cop if you can’t afford to play world-cop. Minor cuts like 48 billion a year to the pentagon don’t go far enough. 11 billion dollar air-craft carriers only scratch the surface. 16 trillion is an incomprehensibly enormous number (& could possibly rise to 20 trillion by 2016, & 25 trillion by 2020).
    We have a war problem, sure. I'm not insinuating it's not a big deal. I am stating it is not the big driver of our debt, because it isn't. The trend lines for defense spending are pointing down, not up.

    The big driver is health care... and the fact that spending on entitlements is fixed while revenue from taxes are tied to the performance of the economy (which is not an arrangement I personally have a problem with, but still). If the economy can rebound and we can institute reforms to bring the cost of health care down, in my view that will take us most of the way there.

    I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton but he did a good job bringing military spending down post Cold War. 9/11 changed that paradigm and we're still living in it.

    The fact though as I see it is that it's going to difficult politically to really cut back on military spending for at least a few more years... at least until the Arab Spring has played itself out a while longer. First it was Libya, then Egypt. The Iran rose up and was beaten back. Then Syria. Next we'll see Iran again, I think. Pakistan is not geographically the Middle East but culturally it has it's roots in the Timurid Dynasty that ruled Persia 500 years ago. And then perhaps there's Saudi Arabia, which would be a particularly messy situation on the world stage. Israel is facing an existential crisis... not so much from Iran, in my view, but from the fact that it is by constitution a Jewish state and also a democracy... yet the Muslims who live there are breeding faster than the Jews. What happens if Israel moves to a South African-style Apartheid situation?
    Quote Quote  

  6. -26
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,250
    vCash:
    7051
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Opportunities, schmoppertunities. Why should someone polling at 5% get equal time in the debate with candidates polling at 45%? Debates aren't T ball, where everyone gets a turn. They're about the people hearing from the candidates they want to hear from.
    If you put Obama, Romney, & Johnson in a vacuum & told everyone they had an equal shot to win, I guarantee Johnson would poll higher than 5%. Third party candidates poll that low because only those 5% who want to use their vote as a protest vote will support them; as the rest of America knows they don’t have an equal shot.

    Yes, an eccentric millionaire might stir the pot every twenty or so years but it’s too far & few between.



    Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson has filed a lawsuit to win a spot in the presidential debates that start in Denver on Oct. 3.

    It's unlikely that he will succeed, but Johnson argues that the private Commission on Presidential Debates, along with the Democratic and the Republican parties, are unfairly blocking him from participating. Only President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney are being allowed to debate.

    "Someone has to stand up and call this what it is—a rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly," says Johnson spokesman Ron Nielson. "That someone will be the Johnson campaign."
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Why don't you think it's been a bigger story? Is it because it's too vague and without hard evidence?
    You know that isn’t the case.

    Last month, a letter to Congress noted that “on at least one occasion” a secretive US court ruled that National Security Agency surveillance carried out under a 2008 act of Congress violated the Fourth Amendment’s restriction against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/court-ruling-that-nsa-spying-violated-4th-amendment-remains-secret/


    This morning, the House Judiciary Committee held an important hearing on the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) and the scope of the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. The FAA, which gutted privacy protections governing the interception international phone calls and e-mail to and from the United States, is set to expire at the end of the year, and Attorney General Eric Holder says it is his “top priority” to see it renewed.

    President Obama had promised during his campaign to demand civil liberties protections and privacy safeguards when the FAA came up for renewal, yet his administration is now demanding Congress to renew it with no changes, despite the fact that the FAA allows for dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international communications.

    A detailed explanation of the law’s constitutional deficits can be read here, but as ACLU’s deputy director Jameel Jaffer explained to the committee, the law is written so broadly that a phone call to someone overseas discussing general foreign affairs could be listened in on. Even putting aside the massive constitutional violations perpetrated by the NSA and its warrantless wiretapping program before the FAA was passed in 2008, the NSA has still unlawfully collected “millions” of Americans’ domestic communications since 2009, according to reporting by the New York Times and documents the ACLU received via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) remarked to Jaffer that no court has ruled the FAA unconstitutional. But he conveniently left out the fact that the Obama Justice Department (DOJ) has resisted every effort to have courts hear any evidence on the matter. DOJ is now arguing before the Supreme Court that the ACLU’s lawsuit over the FAA should be dismissed before trial on “standing” grounds, despite lower courts ruling the case should move forward on the merits. In addition, in EFF’s own case challenging the dragnet portion of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program, the government has invoked the “state secrets” privilege, arguing that even if the allegations of constitutional violations are true, the case should be dismissed because it could hurt “national security.” All this despite the fact that federal courts have ruled the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional in other cases.
    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/0...isa-amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Or does it really just not have legs with the average person out there?
    You tell me. Maybe it’s naďve on my part, but I don’t believe much of the American public to be the frightened pacified lemmings begging to have more & more of their rights eroded & infringed upon for the perceived cause of safety as other’s might. Judging by the reaction in 2003 though, I’d say it has at least a little bit of legs.

    Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    We have a war problem, sure. I'm not insinuating it's not a big deal. I am stating it is not the big driver of our debt, because it isn't. The trend lines for defense spending are pointing down, not up.
    http://costsofwar.org/article/macroe...itary-spending

    What effect has war spending had on the U.S. economy? What would the U.S. economy have looked like without war spending? War spending has probably stimulated the national economy to a degree. But the extra income attributable to war spending has been partially offset by the negative macroeconomic consequences of increased deficits and debt used to finance the wars. The net effect on GDP has probably been positive but is small and declining. An important impact of war spending has been to raise the nation’s indebtedness.

    The increased military spending following 9/11 was financed almost entirely by borrowing. According to standard macroeconomic models and evidence, rising deficits have resulted in higher debt, a higher debt to GDP ratio because debt has risen faster than income, and higher interest rates.

    The ratio of federal debt held by the public to national income (gross domestic product, or GDP), a good indicator of the sustainability of government spending, was 32.5% at the end of fiscal year 2001. It rose to 36.2% after 2007 and to 69.4% at the end of 2011, an increase of almost 37 percentage points since 2001. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that under current law, debt held by the public will rise to more than 75% by 2020, an increase of greater than 40 percentage points since 2001.

    How much of the increase in federal indebtedness is due to war spending? By the end of 2011, deficit spending on OEF/OIF will have raised the ratio of debt to GDP by about 10 percentage points, or between a quarter and a third of the total increase. By 2020, the increase will be 20 percentage points if war spending and the rest of the budget continue as forecast.

    There are many other reasons the debt has grown since 2001, including tax cuts, increases in other government spending, and the effects of the largest postwar recession and the policy response. But military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised annual deficits by about 1 percent of GDP, a trend that the Congressional Budget Office expects to continue through 2020.

    Does the U.S. government have to pay interest on borrowing for the wars? How much? Interest is due because the government chose to finance the wars by borrowing rather than raising taxes or reducing other spending. The U.S. has already paid about $200 billion in interest on war spending over the last decade. If war spending continues as forecast by the CBO, the country can expect to have paid about $1 trillion in interest by 2020. That number grows if the effect of increased debt on interest rates and thus the cost of servicing all other debt are also included.
    -

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The fact though as I see it is that it's going to difficult politically to really cut back on military spending for at least a few more years... at least until the Arab Spring has played itself out a while longer. First it was Libya, then Egypt. The Iran rose up and was beaten back. Then Syria. Next we'll see Iran again, I think. Pakistan is not geographically the Middle East but culturally it has it's roots in the Timurid Dynasty that ruled Persia 500 years ago. And then perhaps there's Saudi Arabia, which would be a particularly messy situation on the world stage. Israel is facing an existential crisis... not so much from Iran, in my view, but from the fact that it is by constitution a Jewish state and also a democracy... yet the Muslims who live there are breeding faster than the Jews. What happens if Israel moves to a South African-style Apartheid situation?
    We’ll obviously have a moral obligation to take military action against the Israeli government in the same way we did against South Africa’s when they were practicing the aparth-- Oh wait…

    I think if you’re waiting for the middle-east to completely fix itself to implement a meaningful cut on military spending you’ll be waiting a long time.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -27
    Dolphins9954's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    10,085
    vCash:
    6917
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Walrus is a pro-water carrier for the status quo. Nothing new here folks. Same **** different day.





    "Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
    Quote Quote  

  8. -28
    MoFinz's Avatar
    Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    3,052
    vCash:
    1016
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I dont see Walrus as a water carrier...i feel as if he really believes in his stance, and he communicates it well. But to analogize him as an NFL GM, he would never have found Cam Wake or Jim Jensen


    Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
    Quote Quote  

  9. -29
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,305
    vCash:
    30706
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    If you put Obama, Romney, & Johnson in a vacuum & told everyone they had an equal shot to win, I guarantee Johnson would poll higher than 5%. Third party candidates poll that low because only those 5% who want to use their vote as a protest vote will support them; as the rest of America knows they don’t have an equal shot.
    Undoubtedly. But I doubt high enough to really challenge the other two, at which point his support would fall off, imo.

    It's just a difference of opinion. You think there's something sinister in this. I think the aggregation of support behind the candidates who have a shot is a natural process.

    You tell me. Maybe it’s naďve on my part, but I don’t believe much of the American public to be the frightened pacified lemmings begging to have more & more of their rights eroded & infringed upon for the perceived cause of safety as other’s might. Judging by the reaction in 2003 though, I’d say it has at least a little bit of legs.
    I think history clearly shows most people are indeed "frightened pacified lemmings" on these kinds of things. Certainly most parents, who don't care what rights have to be thrown away if they think it will make their children safer. I don't agree with it, I don't support it. But it would be idle to look at history and not see that it is replete with examples. I also don't have kids, either.

    I already posted a graph that shows that health care costs are growing 3% faster than per capita GDP every year (and the gulf is widening). But if you want a picture of what the debt/deficit picture would look like without health care spending, consider this:

    As a thought experiment, let’s suppose that medical expenditures had been self-financed since the inception of government health care in the 1960s. What would our debt and deficit look like today? To answer this question, I simply added the medical care expenditure deficit back into the total government deficit. The result is depicted in Figure 3 and is astounding (at least to me). Outside of medical expenditures and revenues, the Federal government sometimes ran a surplus and sometimes ran a deficit from 1966 until 1980. Starting in 1980, and lasting until 1994, the government consistently ran a deficit outside of medical spending, but from 1995 until 2010, it consistently ran a surplus. In 1994, the cumulative excess spending would have reached a bit over $1 trillion. But by 1999, debt due to sources other than medical spending would have been completely eliminated by surpluses! The government wouldn’t have needed to borrow again until 2011.
    http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/why-we-have-debt

    We’ll obviously have a moral obligation to take military action against the Israeli government in the same way we did against South Africa’s when they were practicing the aparth-- Oh wait…

    I think if you’re waiting for the middle-east to completely fix itself to implement a meaningful cut on military spending you’ll be waiting a long time.
    I was just making an analysis, not a statement of preference. I do think it will be difficult politically to cut military spending until things calm down a bit in the Middle East, at least until a deal is cut over the Iran nuclear program situation. But I would make those cuts tomorrow if I could.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -30
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,305
    vCash:
    30706
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MoFinz View Post
    I dont see Walrus as a water carrier...i feel as if he really believes in his stance, and he communicates it well. But to analogize him as an NFL GM, he would never have found Cam Wake or Jim Jensen


    I would have taken Patrick Willis over Ted Ginn, though.

    It's a lot harder to mount a defense of something than to attack. I think we're all aware of that. Generally I don't do as much attacking as I do defending because I consider that the bigger and more interesting rhetorical challenge, and because I think generalized attacks on Republicans and Democrats reaches a level of mindlessness at times that's annoying.

    Hating both sides does not automatically make you wise or interesting, or imply you have a position. But a lot of times that kind of false equivalence is all that I see, and I don't just mean around here.

    Lots of identifying of problems, but not a lot of identifying of solutions.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Is Hamas Preparing for War?
    By FFiB in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-03-2007, 04:09 PM
  2. Preparing for Buffalo.....
    By Phinz420 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-08-2005, 01:09 PM
  3. Preparing for War With Iran?
    By finataxia24 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2005, 09:29 PM
  4. China preparing for war with US?
    By SkapePhin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 06-17-2005, 01:27 AM
  5. Maybe Norv is just preparing for Dec
    By gottahavefootba in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-22-2003, 11:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •