Republican agenda for the House in 2011

[mhaze]

No. I think European countries don't need to spend as much on defence because, in general, they have made more a rational assessment of what the threat of invasion of a European country is (with or without US army bases being present) than the US has.

But even that was the case, why are you happy for US citizens to pay for the defence of Europe from boogeymen?

Twisted and warped thinking there, ignores historical context. US bases were put in place for good reasons at the time, and thus are still there.

I'm certain that European countries thought they had a "rational assessment" of invasions before WW1 and WW2 also. But rational assessments don't work in games played by intelligent adversaries.

Having said that, today we all know that to some degree all those overseas US bases can be shrunk or in many cases, eliminated.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. I think European countries don't need to spend as much on defence because, in general, they have made more a rational assessment of what the threat of invasion of a European country is (with or without US army bases being present) than the US has.

You seem to be under the impression that invasion is the only security threat that nations need consider. It isn't. Furthermore, you also seem rather ignorant of the current problems that low European defense funding is causing, along with the pledges (mostly unmet) by other NATO members to spend enough money to actually be able to cooperate meaningfully in the alliance.

And lastly, of course, you seem to be under the quite mistaken impression that cuts in US defense spending can close the spending gap, or make up for the looming explosion in entitlement spending. It cannot.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You seem to be under the impression that invasion is the only security threat that nations need consider. It isn't. Furthermore, you also seem rather ignorant of the current problems that low European defense funding is causing, along with the pledges (mostly unmet) by other NATO members to spend enough money to actually be able to cooperate meaningfully in the alliance.

All the more reason for the US to stop bailing Europe out then, especially when you've got such pressing economic problems at home.

And lastly, of course, you seem to be under the quite mistaken impression that cuts in US defense spending can close the spending gap, or make up for the looming explosion in entitlement spending. It cannot.

Really?

Looks to me like there's a lot of money that could be made available if the beast that is the DoD was starved.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?

Really. What was the 2009 fiscal year federal budget deficit, Ivor? $1.4 trillion. Zeroing out defense spending completely (a monumentally stupid idea) still wouldn't have closed that gap. Your own numbers back me up.

 

[bookitty]

It isn't an investment. It's an insurance program.

Wall street is a crap shoot. We are betting that some dirt bag will not sell the farm out from under us and buy into a Ponzi scheme like the derivatives market.

The alternative to SS is for everyone to be paid a far higher minimum wage by law.

Exactly. Remember a few weeks back, the French riots? They were marching, attacking cops and burning cars because the government was proposing to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.

Here in the US that might not even make the front page. The French expect a certain standard of living. Yes, they pay the taxes to obtain it. But those taxes are used to insure that French citizens can reap all the benefits of living in a first world country - health care, higher education, retirement benefits, employment security, etc.

In the US, we don't pay a decent wage to a large percent of our population but we do enforce a retirement plan, social security. This makes sense, it is easier to take out a small percentage and use the interest gained than to expect that everyone will save up for retirement. The GOP has been eyeballing SS ever since the Regan administration discovered a short-term excess created by the working years of the baby boomers.

And then they developed bootstrap economics which pretends that everyone has a chance if they just work hard enough and then goes out of its way to make that work too hard for any but a small percentage. The percentage that can't find a way to earn a decent wage after cuts in education, jobs sent overseas, unemployment, medical bills, and a host of other obstacles are blamed for their own predicament and hung out to dry.

The US is a first world county. We should take pride in our ability to help our weaker citizens, to succor the ill, to care for our elderly and to invest in the education of our children. How have we gotten to the point where these things are considered disposable?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Really. What was the 2009 fiscal year federal budget deficit, Ivor? $1.4 trillion. Zeroing out defense spending completely (a monumentally stupid idea) still wouldn't have closed that gap. Your own numbers back me up.

Okay. But presumably the Republicans will want to scale back spending on defence as one of the major expenditures of government? They wouldn't want to increase spending on defence with such dire economic problems, would they?

Oh, they would. What a surprise. Republicans would rather spend the tax of hard working Americans on missle defence systems and wars than, say, providing affordable access to healthcare for all US citizens.

Republicans really are the nasty party, and only mean, miserable and/or stupid or ignorant people would vote for them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You can't shrink the DoD budget! How are Cheney's friends to profit off the war machine then?

 

[phillyboy]

Exactly. Remember a few weeks back, the French riots? They were marching, attacking cops and burning cars because the government was proposing to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62.

Here in the US that might not even make the front page. The French expect a certain standard of living. Yes, they pay the taxes to obtain it. But those taxes are used to insure that French citizens can reap all the benefits of living in a first world country - health care, higher education, retirement benefits, employment security, etc.

In the US, we don't pay a decent wage to a large percent of our population but we do enforce a retirement plan, social security. This makes sense, it is easier to take out a small percentage and use the interest gained than to expect that everyone will save up for retirement. The GOP has been eyeballing SS ever since the Regan administration discovered a short-term excess created by the working years of the baby boomers.

And then they developed bootstrap economics which pretends that everyone has a chance if they just work hard enough and then goes out of its way to make that work too hard for any but a small percentage. The percentage that can't find a way to earn a decent wage after cuts in education, jobs sent overseas, unemployment, medical bills, and a host of other obstacles are blamed for their own predicament and hung out to dry.

The US is a first world county. We should take pride in our ability to help our weaker citizens, to succor the ill, to care for our elderly and to invest in the education of our children. How have we gotten to the point where these things are considered disposable?

Excellent post. Just excellent.

 

[Ziggurat]

What a surprise. Republicans would rather spend the tax of hard working Americans on missle defence systems and wars than, say, providing affordable access to healthcare for all US citizens.

Health care expenditures make up something like 15% of the US GDP. Sorry, you can't make up THAT gap with military spending cuts either.

Republicans really are the nasty party, and only mean, miserable and/or stupid or ignorant people would vote for them.

And they eat babies!

 

[tyr_13]

Really. What was the 2009 fiscal year federal budget deficit, Ivor? $1.4 trillion. Zeroing out defense spending completely (a monumentally stupid idea) still wouldn't have closed that gap. Your own numbers back me up.

The Perfect Solution fallacy. Pretty much a perfect example of it actually.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Perfect Solution fallacy. Pretty much a perfect example of it actually.

No, tyr. It's a statement of fact. You seem to believe that my stating a fact must invariably lead to some particular (yet unstated) argument, but of course it doesn't.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...the obscene spending orgy that Obama and his cohorts have been on for the last couple of years...

Snort.

 

[tyr_13]

No, tyr. It's a statement of fact. You seem to believe that my stating a fact must invariably lead to some particular (yet unstated) argument, but of course it doesn't.

They why are you arguing against defense spending cuts by saying it won't close the gap?

Looking back I see in that specific post you were addressing the claim that it would, but the claim that 'x cut won't solve the problem, therefore we really need to cut unnamed social programs' gets bandied about so much it's difficult to remember which conservative used it when. So if it isn't the fallacy you're using, happily redirect it at the people who are.

 

[Ziggurat]

They why are you arguing against defense spending cuts by saying it won't close the gap?

I'm not arguing against defense cuts, at least not in principle. But Ivor's views about what they could accomplish were clearly wrong, and I pointed that out.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm not arguing against defense cuts, at least not in principle. But Ivor's views about what they could accomplish were clearly wrong, and I pointed that out.

My view is that if you spend less on X, you can either spend more on Y and Z or give the money back to the people who gave it to you.

At no point did I claim cutting the defence budget would cancel out the US's budget deficit. But hey, you vote Republican so I'm not surprised you tell flat out lies to try to score a point.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Health care expenditures make up something like 15% of the US GDP. Sorry, you can't make up THAT gap with military spending cuts either.

<snip>

Yet many developed countries do provide universal access to high quality healthcare for less than 15% of GDP. Just think what the US could achieve if it spent less on white elephant defence projects and instead directed the money towards healthcare.

 

[phillyboy]

Republicans want to reduce Government, but that will put more people out of work. Since unemployment was the big reason the Democrats lost so many House seats, won't this game plan on the part of the GOP backfire on them in 2 years?

Obama & the Dems, in 2010, created more private sector jobs than Bush Jr. did in 8 years.

What a crazy world we live in!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Republicans want to reduce Government, but that will put more people out of work. Since unemployment was the big reason the Democrats lost so many House seats, won't this game plan on the part of the GOP backfire on them in 2 years?

Nope, they have the Fox News and Right-wing media empire to help them blame the Liberals for it.

 

[Baylor]

Oh, they would. What a surprise. Republicans would rather spend the tax of hard working Americans on missle defence systems and wars than, say, providing affordable access to healthcare for all US citizens.

Then explain why Republicans passed the MA health care reform law.

Republicans really are the nasty party, and only mean, miserable and/or stupid or ignorant people would vote for them.

No, most foreigners know nothing about American politics and they believe whatever Goebbels-type propaganda they hear.

 

[phillyboy]

Nope, they have the Fox News and Right-wing media empire to help them blame the Liberals for it.

Oops, I forgot about that. Never mind.