GOP Senators filibuster the Buffett Rule

[fskimospy]

Yeah this years budget for defense label is around 690b, so I just used that ballpark

Just remember that there is tons of defense related spending that isn't part of the DoD budget. Homeland Security, nuclear weapons spending by the DoE, veterans affairs, etc, etc.

 

[lotus503]

Just remember that there is tons of defense related spending that isn't part of the DoD budget. Homeland Security, nuclear weapons spending by the DoE, veterans affairs, etc, etc.

very true, but I am not for say cutting veterans affairs.
Its bad enough we send them off to fight for stupid shit.

 

[cybrsage]

Once Obama ends his wars, we can talk about cutting the military. It is bad form (and political suicide) to cut the military budget while men are out there fighting and dying.

 

[lotus503]

Once Obama ends his wars, we can talk about cutting the military. It is bad form (and political suicide) to cut the military budget while men are out there fighting and dying.

I dont really care about the politics of it all.

In fact there are much bigger issues with cutting defense than perception.

Fact remains its a huge source of budget bloat.

 

[ElFenix]

Once Obama ends his wars, we can talk about cutting the military. It is bad form (and political suicide) to cut the military budget while men are out there fighting and dying.

yes because cutting the F35 and the LCSes affects people on the ground in afghanistan right now.

 

[Craig234]

yes because cutting the F35 and the LCSes affects people on the ground in afghanistan right now.

Funny thing is, his team the Republicans have had no problem opposing spending for troop salaries, better care, etc. But the big corrupt contractors, gotta spend with them.

 

[Lithium381]

how much of the defense budget do you want to cut? 25%? 50%? what about all the troops overseas? what jobs are they going to come home to?

 

[lotus503]

how much of the defense budget do you want to cut? 25%? 50%? what about all the troops overseas? what jobs are they going to come home to?

See that's what I was referring to when I said there are problems with cutting defense. JOBS.

Say you cut %50. 1st 4 years you could provide say veterans insurance which would include. Full ride to state school. With UI type payments.

Maybe they already have degrees in chosen field or don't want to go to school. Then you pay them cash equivalent.

You would still have money left over.

Not saying those are solutions just pointing out there are creative ways to address the problem.

But you could probably save a huge amount of money simply using military instead of private contractors.

And if your using contractors because you don't have the military personnel.

Then you should cut anyway.

 

[woodie1]

All this talk about the budget reminded me of this: the Democratic-controlled Senate has not passed a budget resolution for three years. What are we paying them for if they cannot do their job. Time to vote the bunch out and get someone who can do the job. What say all you wise members of AnandTech?

 

[a777pilot]

I'm not surprised since they filibuster everything but it really shows you where they stand.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/16/11229733-senate-rejects-buffett-rule?lite

Good for them.

Gridlock is our friend. Unfortunately there is no gridlock.

 

[fskimospy]

how much of the defense budget do you want to cut? 25%? 50%? what about all the troops overseas? what jobs are they going to come home to?

Are you now in favor of government spending for job creation?

 

[Ausm]

Good for them.

Gridlock is our friend. Unfortunately there is no gridlock.

Care to illustrate your profound premise?

 

[PokerGuy]

Are you now in favor of government spending for job creation?

You're right. The government should not resist cutting defense spending because of impact to the job market. Defense spending should be based on our needs for defending our national security interests. I personally favor cutting the defense spending as part of the plan to bring our spending under control.

How's that search for a year when our government spending was actually reduced coming?

 

[fskimospy]

You're right. The government should not resist cutting defense spending because of impact to the job market. Defense spending should be based on our needs for defending our national security interests. I personally favor cutting the defense spending as part of the plan to bring our spending under control.

How's that search for a year when our government spending was actually reduced coming?

I'm not searching for that. The US population grows every year as does GDP and inflation. I hope US govt spending has never decreased for those reasons alone.

 

[FerrelGeek]

You'll still have large deficits. What are you going to cut next?

And btw, cutting defense that much would mean that you will be cutting programs for defense contractors. This will mean layoffs in the defense industry, both in engineering and manufacturing. You will lose the tax revenue from the employees and their employers. The loss of jobs will affect local communities.

if you cut defense %50 you would gain about 340b a year or 3.5t over 10 years. endign the Bush tax cuts would increase revenue by at least another 100b a year.

thats 440b per year, then tax capital gains at income rates vs %15

there is even more.

shit just cutting defense decreases spending by over %15

 

[hal2kilo]

Are you now in favor of government spending for job creation?

Exactly. We can't seem to spend any money to fix our crumbling infratructure, but oh my god, if we cut defense spending, think of the jobs lost.

Congnitive dissonance much?

Oh, by the way, I work for a defense contractor. I don't talk my politics much though. Ted Nugent would probably want to kill me.

 

[cybrsage]

I dont really care about the politics of it all.

In fact there are much bigger issues with cutting defense than perception.

Fact remains its a huge source of budget bloat.

True, but perception is how people vote.

yes because cutting the F35 and the LCSes affects people on the ground in afghanistan right now.

I naturally assumed by cutting, he meant an amount significant enough to make a difference at all...not the very minor amounts you just mentioned. Major and minor are relative to the discussion. When talking about $700 billion, even $1 billion is a small amount.

When Obama's wars end, we can significantly cut the military budget - in a smart way of course. Until then, it is political suicide and will not happen.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You'll still have large deficits. What are you going to cut next?

And btw, cutting defense that much would mean that you will be cutting programs for defense contractors. This will mean layoffs in the defense industry, both in engineering and manufacturing. You will lose the tax revenue from the employees and their employers. The loss of jobs will affect local communities.

So you are saying it is the responsibility of the government to provide jobs?

*cough*socialism*cough*

 

[fskimospy]

All this talk about the budget reminded me of this: the Democratic-controlled Senate has not passed a budget resolution for three years. What are we paying them for if they cannot do their job. Time to vote the bunch out and get someone who can do the job. What say all you wise members of AnandTech?

This has been discussed in previous threads, but why does it matter if the senate passes a particular non binding resolution? Why is that their job?

 

[fskimospy]

So you are saying it is the responsibility of the government to provide jobs?

*cough*socialism*cough*

Government spending on job creation is only good if it involves things that blow up buildings instead of things that create them.

 

[FerrelGeek]

So you are saying it is the responsibility of the government to provide jobs?

*cough*socialism*cough*

In certain aspects the .gov will just provide jobs, just by it's nature. Anyone that denies that is an idiot. The .gov is supposed to provide defense; granted, there's a lot of debate as to what that means. But to maintain even a fairly lean defense structure will require that the .gov spends money to outfit that defense structure. That means that it will have to pay companies to make things for said defense structure. Again, what those companies 'make' is up for debate but there will still be a minimum set of things that need to be made.

I have no problem with the .gov funding infrastructure projects and I don't consider that 'socialism' either.

My biggest gripe is how the .gov applies its spending. There is plenty of room to streamline defense spending and retarget that spending to better reflect the current state of the world. The porculous bill was a prime example of a huge clusterflop on how to NOT spend money on 'infrastructure'. That's been discussed to death.

So the .gov, just by its functioning and doing what it is constitutionally mandated to do, will create jobs. But I don't think that that should be its reason for being. All the more when it means the obscene deficit spending that we have now.

 

[Ninjahedge]

I would rather spend $1M on peoples jobs than on parts for an Abrams Tank.

"Defense spending", when it is brought up now, means what it IS now, not what it could become. What it is now is fat-cat contracts, overpriced mercenaries, and an overtaxed "professional" military that is made up of less than 1% of our population on a VOLUNTARY basis.

It is too disconnected and too inefficient an animal to handle our current problems. I was hoping this would subside after the Russian Menace was dispelled, but government agencies just found someone else to fear and dumped money on it.

 

[ElFenix]

I naturally assumed by cutting, he meant an amount significant enough to make a difference at all...not the very minor amounts you just mentioned. Major and minor are relative to the discussion. When talking about $700 billion, even $1 billion is a small amount.

and yet you've probably been bitching about a convention.

Government spending on job creation is only good if it involves things that blow up buildings instead of things that create them.

worked in ww2

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm not searching for that. The US population grows every year as does GDP and inflation. I hope US govt spending has never decreased for those reasons alone.

Ok, so population growth is about 1% per year, and the US GDP historically grows by about 2.5% per year. US inflation (based on the CPI) historically is about 3% per year.

Even if you assume that government spending has to grow at the same linear rate as the population (which is dubious) and has to increase to keep up with inflation, that would mean at most you should see spending increase by about 4% per year. Instead, government spending increases by an average of 7.5% every year. So for 50+ years, we have population growth and inflation at 4% per year, but government spending growing at 7.5%. How can any rational person think that is sustainable?

Until there's actual reduction in spending, talking about raising taxes is a fool's errand and all legislation to that effect should be nixed. Good job by the GOP making sure this got torpedoed.

 

[Ninjahedge]

worked in ww2

Different Time.
Different Situation.