|
The reason we have deficits (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Leave the Israeli/Pal crap out of this thread ... it already has about 4 or 5 threads on the main page :whip: :whip: |
hey I didn't turn this thread into the Israeli/Pal debate... I mean I got it off topic, but it was Euro-bashing, who can be against Euro-bashing? :D
| quote: | | Now back to the topic at hand. |
ya
| quote: |
Hmmm well that's definetely a lot less than I thought it would be which is a good thing. Perhaps at a time like this (when involved in two semi-wars) such a high budget is needed to sustain the occupation while ensuring that modernization efforts are maintained. However, I would pose that in peacetime, such a high budget would be completely unnecessary regardless of its comprable expenditures in gdp to other nations. Keep in mind that I am first in line to advocate a strong military, but I think much of military is still a cold war military. Rumsfeld has accomplished some efforts into making it a more mobile army but a lot more can be done. The new seawolf and virginia class subs are a huge drain on the navy budget while one can question the the number of orders for f-22 and f-35 class fighters. Already the fighters they are designed to replace have nearly unmatched air superiority ... meanwhile, very few other countries are pursuing third generation fighters to the degree we are. Anyway, I think there are a number of programs such as that are not needed to the degree that we have and we can cut costs significantly.
Basically, I think that we can have just as much effectiveness with our fighting forces with defense spending capped at around 2.5% as we do now. |
Although I think subs are still very essential, more than say missle silos, even in our day and age, I do agree that that USA could completely skip over the 3rd gen fighters, and work towards 4th gen with little deprevation in military ability.
I still believe though that there is still need for "Standard" or "classical" military hardware, such as tanks - well I guess you could do away with artillery...
I don't believe however that it is the US military that is a drain on the USA economy... as the graph indicates its always been this high and worse, the drain I believe is do to the US growing socialist attitudes in goverance, and pork barrelling. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
..the drain I believe is due to the US growing socialist attitudes in goverance, and pork barrelling. |
Thank you. :cool: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by borron
If it wasn't for the USA, maybe half of europe was german now, but then again, there would be no Israel. |
Maybe you need to work on clarifying your sentence instead of making insults when others misinterpret what you're saying incorrectly.
The way your sentence reads, grammatically speaking, is that if the USA didn't defend Europe, it would be under the control of Germany today. You go on to also say that if Germany was in control, there would be no Israel. The problem comes from you saying "then again," which denotes you are comparing two similar items, which in this case is Germany and Israel.
If I were to say "If the cat didn't catch the mice, the house would be infested with them, then again, we wouldn't have to listen to him meow at night." What do you think that sentence means?
/Grammar Lesson |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Krugman sets out a rebuttal to those Conservatives who don't admit that taxes play a role in deficits: |
:p |
|
|
| borron |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Maybe you need to work on clarifying your sentence instead of making insults when others misinterpret what you're saying incorrectly.
The way your sentence reads, grammatically speaking, is that if the USA didn't defend Europe, it would be under the control of Germany today. You go on to also say that if Germany was in control, there would be no Israel. The problem comes from you saying "then again," which denotes you are comparing two similar items, which in this case is Germany and Israel.
If I were to say "If the cat didn't catch the mice, the house would be infested with them, then again, we wouldn't have to listen to him meow at night." What do you think that sentence means?
/Grammar Lesson |
Sorry, i just felt insulted. I apologize.
English is not my native language and this sometimes leads to confusion as i think in portuguese, and then have to write in english. Again, i'm sorry. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | | Sorry, i just felt insulted. I apologize. English is not my native language and this sometimes leads to confusion as i think in portuguese, and then have to write in english. Again, i'm sorry. |
No problem, I didn't mean to upset you, or keep you away from the boards. What you said was, to me, a bit alarming and in light of the multitude of Israel/Palestine posts on this board, I felt compelled to reply. I realize what you typed was different from what you meant, and there is no harm in that as long as its rectified. Hope to see you around here. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Sorry to revive this argument again, but Krugman makes another point that I think needs to be addressed in regards to tax cuts and deficits:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/opinion/03KRUG.html
More specifically:
[QUOTE]The prime cause of giant budget deficits is a plunge in the federal government's tax take, which fell from 20.9 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2000 to a projected 15.7 percent this year, the lowest share since 1950. About 45 percent of this plunge can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts. The rest reflects the end of the stock market bubble, the still-depressed economy and — probably — growing tax sheltering and evasion.
It's true that increased spending also contributes to the deficit, and that there has been a substantial increase in discretionary spending — spending that, unlike such items as Social Security payments, isn't automatically determined by formulas. But the bulk of this increase has been related to national security.
Traditional budget measures distinguish between defense and nondefense discretionary spending. Even by these measures, defense accounts for most of the increase in recent years. But a better measure would group homeland security and other costs associated with 9/11 with defense, not domestic programs. The Center for American Progress — confirming related work by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — estimates that from 2000 to 2004 security-related discretionary spending rose to 4.7 percent of G.D.P. from 3.4 percent, while nonsecurity spending rose to only 3.4 percent from 3.1 percent.
In other words, the role of nonsecurity spending in the plunge into deficit is trivial, compared with tax cuts and security spending. (Credit where credit is due: the administration's budget numbers show the same thing.) And even severe austerity on nonsecurity spending won't make a significant dent in the deficit.
So what will it take to get the budget deficit under control? Unless Social Security and Medicare are drastically cut — which is, of course, what the right wants — any solution has to include a major increase in revenue.
[QUOTE]
It seems to make sense to me, and is a good argument against Bush's tax cuts. Since I'm not a huge econ. buff (though it has my interest), would anyone care to rebute? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| Not really a rebut, but I'd just like to say I'm not "right," but I'd also like to see Medicare and Social Security cut. The government has a horrible track record of managing money and investing. Let the people who earn the money decide what to do with it. It does seem like simple economics to me too though. If you're going to have less money coming in, you need to have less money going out. Cut the hell out of social service programs, if you ask me (which I know you're not :tongue2 ). |
|
|
| occrider |
Well, there's not really anything to rebut. If the article is making the case that Bush is cutting taxes without cutting spending and that it's having a negative effect on the economy then it's absolutely right. Furthermore, if the article is establishing that defense spending is outpacing discretionary spending then it is also correct. But if the intent of the article is to prove that the tax cuts we're a bad thing to do as a temporary stimulus then it's not doing a very good job. Additionally, the question of whether the deficit should be tackled by increasing taxes or cutting spending is an issue of debate and the article does not go into it. If option B is chosen, the question of whether the spending cuts should come from discretionary spending or from defense spending is another issue of debate which the article also does not go into.
Sooo yea, like I said I'm not sure what case the article is making and what there is to rebut if anything. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Cut the hell out of social service programs, if you ask me (which I know you're not :tongue2 ). |
Unless they give taxpayer money to the church you belong to right?
;)
I agree the Social Security situation is so ed up, but the stock market is very volatile. The reason FDR had to implement so many such programs during the depression was because the stock market tanked. Do we have a guarantee that won't happen again? I don't know, it doesn't really make any sense to have a small working population supporting a huge retiree population, so personal investment accounts might be the best solution for social security.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well, there's not really anything to rebut. If the article is making the case that Bush is cutting taxes without cutting spending and that it's having a negative effect on the economy then it's absolutely right. |
That was already obvious without reading the articles hehe. :) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
The reason FDR had to implement so many such programs during the depression was because the stock market tanked. |
Well, technically the reason FDR had to implement so many programs during the depression was because the unemployment rate was so high and the economy was in shambles because the banking system had been ruined and the stock market was smacked because of rampant speculation and loose, easy money that arose during the Coolidge administration.
We had a sort of mini-secular parallel with the bursting of the 2000 stock market bubble and subsequent rise in unemployment, while thousands of profitless/unprofitable internet/tech startups closed their doors. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Unless they give taxpayer money to the church you belong to right?
|
Eh, I haven't gone to church regularly for a while now...guess I'll see you all in hell. :whip:
Social Security is screwed...right now I think it's 3:1 of working to retired person, but in the next 10-15 years it'll be 2:1, which is pretty rediculous. I actually don't pay Social Security because I work at a hospital, but I still think it needs desperate reforms. Hell, CD's return better than 2%, if you don't want to go the straight ahead stock market route. Also, there are safe guards against a market crash. Remember about 2 years ago when they shut down the stock market because it was falling so badly? We really don't have to worry about huge sell offs crumbling the stock market anymore. |
|
|
|
|
