Supercommittee Discussion

[Zebo]

You really think military expenditures should be based on our GDP?

Not on rational numbers, like the federal governments income?

With no rival superpowers, why would we need to be in an arms race with no one?

As if GDP even matters these days pumping it with astounding debt growth at all levels. That's like making 40k and charging 40k and saying you make 80k.

What really needs to happen is take this chart http://steadfastfinances.com/blog/2011/08/03/fake-prosperity-u-s-national-debt-growth-vs-gdp-growth/ and one previously presented and merge.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Why do Democrats want Soldiers living on the street?

For the same reason that Republicans want poor Americans living on the street? You eat what you kill?


...


But seriously, no one, I think, wants soldiers (note the proper spelling) living on the street. You are silly, and deserve only a silly response.

 

[cwjerome]

As already mentioned here, a goodly amount of defense spending has gone to pay increases. There is already a planned reduction in force structure and I think another option -however unlikely- is a pay freeze for a couple years. Some savings will come from efficiencies and changes to the system, but most savings will come from modernization and R&D. This is $260 billion in reductions over the next 5 years with at least another $190 billion in the following 5 years.

If the sequestration hits it mandates $1 trillion over 10 years. This is not manageable, which makes it destabilizing and dangerous. The defense budget would be a horror show and it would effect millions of people and our national security. It would be a disaster, and the politicians on both sides are starting to see that and focus on the political advantages of sequestration. Once again it's not about finding good policy and being reasonable, it's about political gaming. Once it becomes clear to the people just how detrimental the royal clusterfuck is, the politicians will do what they do best... blame the other side and say "If you elect me, I can make this go away." Once again playing partisan trumps serious issues, as these days serious issues are mere opportunities for partisans to strategize their next political moves.

Hollowing out the military is not an option. Panetta was dead on when he said, "A hollow military has the organizational structure, but lacks the people, the training and the equipment it needs to actually get the job done," he said. "It's a ship without sailors, it's a brigade without bullets, it's an air wing without enough trained pilots, it's a paper tiger."

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You really think military expenditures should be based on our GDP?

Not on rational numbers, like the federal governments income?

With no rival superpowers, why would we need to be in an arms race with no one?

I think that's a fair point, here's my counterargument. The richer you get the more you are going to spend on security. If you net out our current wars it's only around 3% of GDP. I don't think that's unreasonable given our role as the remaining superpower.

 

[cybrsage]

Cutting the military budget while troops are fighting and dying is stupid. It should not be done. Once the next president ends the wars and the troops are home, we should reconsider our worldwide strategy. For example, do we really need to still be occupying Germany? Can the German's defend themselves against the Russians now?

We do need bases in other nations, that is a given. If we do not influence world events to our favor, others will influence events in their favor, and we might not like their choices.

But we do need to scale back quite a bit. Keep creating new, advanced system, for they are what will allow us to do more with less. The gulf war showed us our tanks could destroy the enemy without the enemy even being able to fire back.

 

[Jhhnn]

As if GDP even matters these days pumping it with astounding debt growth at all levels. That's like making 40k and charging 40k and saying you make 80k.

What really needs to happen is take this chart http://steadfastfinances.com/blog/2011/08/03/fake-prosperity-u-s-national-debt-growth-vs-gdp-growth/ and one previously presented and merge.

That's a function of wealth & income shifting to the top in a "supply-side" flimflam economy. Prior to Reagan, we had a wage driven economy. Other than mortgages, most people didn't use much credit- they paid by cash or cheque. And they even managed to pay off mortgages, achieve 100% equity. As the new regime set in, middle class share of income declined, and the financial elite sought greater returns. Instead of pay raises, consumers got bigger lines of credit, which seemed to work, at first. Instead of more jobs, consumers got cheaper foreign goods. The financial elite got enormous tax cuts, to, uhh, grow the economy, which they did, by extending more credit to consumers and to the govt itself. They also invested more offshore, to provide even cheaper foreign goods. To compensate, the middle class got more food stamps, more moralizing about hard work, and even more credit.

Fast forward to the Bush years & the ownership society, when the economy had become almost entirely credit driven. At the consumer level, cashout refis ruled, and private equity looting ruled in the business world. The financial elite got even more taxcuts, naturally, and had even more money to lend. Except... it all started to fall down when debtors couldn't pay... funny how that works.

But it all works out for the financial elite, anyway, because they bundled middle class debt into securities they sold to pensions, endowments, & mutuals, putting the losses back onto the middle class. They also could move quickly enough to short the piss out of their own financial instrument creations on the way down... while their corporate steeds, the big banks, were important enough that they needed to be bailed out, their "assets" being the same bunk they'd been peddling to everybody else.

Now that middle class people are stuck paying down debt (when employed) and they've discovered saving once again, the notion that real growth will occur in a credit driven economy isn't very smart... Neither is the notion that the financial elite will come across with middle class pay raises & more employment when they can hire overseas labor a lot cheaper.

There are ways to fix it, but they involve much greater redistribution of income via taxation & greater socialism. Fat chance of that with Repubs touting even more tax cuts at the top, to, uhh, create jobs, yeh, that's it... the chumps will fall for that...

They could run a flag up the pole emblazoned with "We Be Fucking You!" and their propagandized base would salute, then cheer...

 

[Balt]

Super Committee failure is probably the only way defense spending will be substantially reduced (instead of being 'reduced' by just lowering the amount it is increased every year).

That fixes one of our discretionary spending problems. Mandatory spending still must controlled, however. If it keeps increasing at the current rate it's going to consume our entire budget. Some Democrats don't seem to grasp this yet, unfortunately.


Regardless, I expect in the end that our politicians aren't going to have the backbone to actually allow the automatic cuts to occur. They'll have all of 2012 to pass something that will reduce or remove the mandatory cuts, which I don't believe take effect until 2013.

 

[Jhhnn]

Super Committee failure is probably the only way defense spending will be substantially reduced (instead of being 'reduced' by just lowering the amount it is increased every year).

That fixes one of our discretionary spending problems. Mandatory spending still must controlled, however. If it keeps increasing at the current rate it's going to consume our entire budget. Some Democrats don't seem to grasp this yet, unfortunately.


Regardless, I expect in the end that our politicians aren't going to have the backbone to actually allow the automatic cuts to occur. They'll have all of 2012 to pass something that will reduce or remove the mandatory cuts, which I don't believe take effect until 2013.

Why is it always about spending, and never about taxing? Repubs' serial taxcuts over the last 30 years have reduced govt revenue to their lowest % of GDP since WW2, and taxes on the wealthy to a fraction of what they were pre-Reagan. Tippy-top earners can easily pay a lot more w/o the slightest effect on their lifestyles, but we've been sold the notion that they use that income to "create jobs" when that's obviously and blatantly not the case at all. What's mostly created is asset inflation bubbles & instability.

It could get interesting, however, given that Dems may well be able to turn the tables on their Repub counterparts, hold the Neocons' sacrosanct big military hostage to increasing federal revenues.

Yeh, I know- we're the sole remaining super power. Fat lot of good that's done us. If military expenditures were intelligently reduced by half, that'd still be true, and the temptation for a bunch of damned fool neocons to use the military for something other than deterrence & defense would be greatly reduced.

 

[Balt]

Why is it always about spending, and never about taxing? Repubs' serial taxcuts over the last 30 years have reduced govt revenue to their lowest % of GDP since WW2, and taxes on the wealthy to a fraction of what they were pre-Reagan. Tippy-top earners can easily pay a lot more w/o the slightest effect on their lifestyles, but we've been sold the notion that they use that income to "create jobs" when that's obviously and blatantly not the case at all. What's mostly created is asset inflation bubbles & instability.

I have no problem at all with increasing tax rates, especially for every dollar earned past $1 million. The accumulation of wealth in this country has reached ridiculous proportions. Tax increases aren't going to be enough to control the rapidly increasing spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security though. And yeah, seniors paid into the system and they want their entitlements, but when they were paying into the system it didn't have all of the perks it has today like the prescription drug plan. It's also important to note that seniors are basically the most powerful voting bloc in this country. If you want to know who to blame for allowing DC to raid the SS trust fund, look at the voters. It's not the kids who are responsible for that, but they'll certainly be picking up the tab.

Yeh, I know- we're the sole remaining super power. Fat lot of good that's done us. If military expenditures were intelligently reduced by half, that'd still be true, and the temptation for a bunch of damned fool neocons to use the military for something other than deterrence & defense would be greatly reduced.

Eh, the idea that we're the sole remaining super power is outdated at this point, imo. In today's world our economy is so intertwined with that of Asia and Europe that there is no hegemon. Clearly we can't afford to be the world's police anymore, and to pretend that we can is to not grasp the reality of our current situation and place in the world. Unfortunately our presidents seem to say we can't afford to be the world's police or engage in nation building, but once they get in office they can't help themselves. GWB was the prime example of this. Arguably he didn't have much of a choice with regards to Afghanistan, but the adventure in Iraq was completely unnecessary.

In short, I'd say we have two major problems. Those on the right who refuse to accept any new taxation or reduction of military/corporate welfare spending, and those on the left who refuse to accept that our mandatory entitlement spending is completely unsustainable.

 

[theeedude]

If defense spending is so important, it's important enough to raise taxes to pay for it. Republicans have indicated its not as important as not letting Bush tax cuts expire, so I am sure there is nothing to worry about.

 

[fskimospy]

Cutting the military budget while troops are fighting and dying is stupid. It should not be done. Once the next president ends the wars and the troops are home, we should reconsider our worldwide strategy. For example, do we really need to still be occupying Germany? Can the German's defend themselves against the Russians now?

We do need bases in other nations, that is a given. If we do not influence world events to our favor, others will influence events in their favor, and we might not like their choices.

But we do need to scale back quite a bit. Keep creating new, advanced system, for they are what will allow us to do more with less. The gulf war showed us our tanks could destroy the enemy without the enemy even being able to fire back.

You think we have troops in Germany in order to defend Germany?

Sigh.

 

[Anarchist420]

Cutting the military budget while troops are fighting and dying is stupid. It should not be done. Once the next president ends the wars and the troops are home, we should reconsider our worldwide strategy. For example, do we really need to still be occupying Germany? Can the German's defend themselves against the Russians now?

We do need bases in other nations, that is a given. If we do not influence world events to our favor, others will influence events in their favor, and we might not like their choices.

No we don't. Interventionism hasn't worked well and it takes liberty from Americans if they're forced to have bases in other countries.

We should inspire other nations if we want acceptance, not threaten them.

 

[cwjerome]

It could get interesting, however, given that Dems may well be able to turn the tables on their Repub counterparts, hold the Neocons' sacrosanct big military hostage to increasing federal revenues.

This turning the tables thing is foolish, why do you think the Reps are willing to go to sequestration? Because they are playing politics as bad as the Dems. The Reps know that the timebomb of sequestration will blow up the DoD and the fall-out will be enormous... then they can blame the Dems, talk about how they're weak on defense and gambling with American power/influence, and run on that (and probably win). The bottom line is both parties are playing political brinksmanship on this issue with very calculated partisan strategy. Meanwhile, the important issue is a pawn in a political chess game where the real winners aren't solid policy or good government, but party power.

Cuts in defense need to be significant and long term, yet also need to be gradual, manageable, and logical. Time to institute new methods of doing business (particularly in the whole acquisition process), time to rationally re-shape the force structure, redefine roles, time to find ways to save on efficiency, studies on future threat environments to re-shape strategy and doctrine, etc etc. Simply chopping too much too fast is calamity and would cause a deplorable shock to the economy and national security.

The politicians need to grow the fuck up and be statesmen first, find trade-offs, compromise, and get some real work done instead of being little partisan bitches. I'm tired of it.

 

[Balt]

The politicians need to grow the fuck up and be statesmen first, find trade-offs, compromise, and get some real work done instead of being little partisan bitches. I'm tired of it.

But that wouldn't make for exciting television...

I'm somewhat convinced at this point that our politicians consider themselves reality TV stars. Hence all the 11th hour deals to 'save' our country so they can pat themselves on the back.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have no problem at all with increasing tax rates, especially for every dollar earned past $1 million. The accumulation of wealth in this country has reached ridiculous proportions. Tax increases aren't going to be enough to control the rapidly increasing spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security though. And yeah, seniors paid into the system and they want their entitlements, but when they were paying into the system it didn't have all of the perks it has today like the prescription drug plan. It's also important to note that seniors are basically the most powerful voting bloc in this country. If you want to know who to blame for allowing DC to raid the SS trust fund, look at the voters. It's not the kids who are responsible for that, but they'll certainly be picking up the tab.



Eh, the idea that we're the sole remaining super power is outdated at this point, imo. In today's world our economy is so intertwined with that of Asia and Europe that there is no hegemon. Clearly we can't afford to be the world's police anymore, and to pretend that we can is to not grasp the reality of our current situation and place in the world. Unfortunately our presidents seem to say we can't afford to be the world's police or engage in nation building, but once they get in office they can't help themselves. GWB was the prime example of this. Arguably he didn't have much of a choice with regards to Afghanistan, but the adventure in Iraq was completely unnecessary.

In short, I'd say we have two major problems. Those on the right who refuse to accept any new taxation or reduction of military/corporate welfare spending, and those on the left who refuse to accept that our mandatory entitlement spending is completely unsustainable.

I'll agree that we have structural problems, no doubt. I must object to the characterization of DC raiding SS, however. When Reagan & Greenspan talked us into raising contributions to grow the trust, creating a giant cashcow for govt, it was understood that govt would borrow that money to spend, pay interest, and then pay back the trusts when the time came. It seemed perfectly reasonable at the time, given that Reagan professed a strong sense of fiscal restraint... except that he lied, and every Repub prez since has also lied, run up the debt like crack whores with stolen credit cards, cutting top tier taxes repeatedly in the process. If the SS trust were the only federal debt, <$3T, there would be no excuse to touch it. If federal tax rates had been maintained all along, the debt would be much, much smaller. To Repubs, deficits don't matter, provided they're created by tax cuts for the wealthy. Hell, they'd forget their whole balanced budget spiel in a heartbeat if Dems would agree to eliminating capital gains & dividend taxes.

There are a variety of honest solutions available, but only the honest ones involve raising taxes at the top. Do that first, see what happens. If that's insufficient, then Americans further down the economic foodchain will be much more amenable to paying higher taxes themselves and receiving lower benefits, too.

Shared sacrifice needs to be shared in a meaningful way, and current tax rates on the highest incomes aren't much of a sacrifice at all, regardless of what share of federal income taxes they pay. Hell, over 40% of federal revenues come from extremely regressive payroll taxes-

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

And virtually all other kinds of taxes are regressive as well. Sales tax. excise tax. cigarette tax. property tax. head tax. all kinds of hidden fees, which are really just tax, like license plates & permits of any sort.

The military, GWB, & the Neocons? They're the kind of fools who think that having a big gun means you need to shoot it, because nobody else has one big enough to shoot back. The answer is to give 'em a smaller gun, one even they would hesitate to pop off except when really necessary.

 

[theeedude]

This turning the tables thing is foolish, why do you think the Reps are willing to go to sequestration? Because they are playing politics as bad as the Dems. The Reps know that the timebomb of sequestration will blow up the DoD and the fall-out will be enormous... then they can blame the Dems, talk about how they're weak on defense and gambling with American power/influence, and run on that (and probably win). The bottom line is both parties are playing political brinksmanship on this issue with very calculated partisan strategy. Meanwhile, the important issue is a pawn in a political chess game where the real winners aren't solid policy or good government, but party power.

Cuts in defense need to be significant and long term, yet also need to be gradual, manageable, and logical. Time to institute new methods of doing business (particularly in the whole acquisition process), time to rationally re-shape the force structure, redefine roles, time to find ways to save on efficiency, studies on future threat environments to re-shape strategy and doctrine, etc etc. Simply chopping too much too fast is calamity and would cause a deplorable shock to the economy and national security.

The politicians need to grow the fuck up and be statesmen first, find trade-offs, compromise, and get some real work done instead of being little partisan bitches. I'm tired of it.

Dems can say, sure restore cuts to DOD, if GOP is willing to raise revenue to do so in a deficit neutral way. Grown ups pay for things they claim are important to spend on.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Dems can say, sure restore cuts to DOD, if GOP is willing to raise revenue to do so in a deficit neutral way. Grown ups pay for things they claim are important to spend on.

Excellent negotiating tactic.

You want us to keep funding our astronomical military budget? Generate the revenue to actually do so. The GOP will be faced with two options; cut the programs that Americans love and create a massive backlash against them, raise taxes on the wealthy.

When you sign your life away to Grover Norquist, it comes with consequences.

 

[conehead433]

This committee will end up doing nothing. The automatic cuts don't kick in until 2013, so we'll see Congress spending as usual. They can just kick the can down the road and before any of the automatic cuts kick in they'll find a way to rescind or abolish the law establishing this trimming the deficit stuff.

 

[theeedude]

Excellent negotiating tactic.

You want us to keep funding our astronomical military budget? Generate the revenue to actually do so. The GOP will be faced with two options; cut the programs that Americans love and create a massive backlash against them, raise taxes on the wealthy.

When you sign your life away to Grover Norquist, it comes with consequences.

It's the military against the top 1%. Wedge in Republican base. Hammer it in 🙂

 

[brencat]

This committee will end up doing nothing. The automatic cuts don't kick in until 2013, so we'll see Congress spending as usual. They can just kick the can down the road and before any of the automatic cuts kick in they'll find a way to rescind or abolish the law establishing this trimming the deficit stuff.

I agree. Neither side has the stomach for the cuts needed to get this country on a sound footing. No one is willing to suck it up and/or risk a Depression to wipe the debt out and move forward (and the owners/lenders will certainly not accept taking the massive losses they deserve to take), so in the end we will end up monetizing, as will Europe and eventually we will all die in a massive hyper-inflationary Zimbabwe style nightmare. But it won't be today or even tomorrow so that is why we will kick the can... again.

 

[Jhhnn]

This turning the tables thing is foolish, why do you think the Reps are willing to go to sequestration? Because they are playing politics as bad as the Dems. The Reps know that the timebomb of sequestration will blow up the DoD and the fall-out will be enormous... then they can blame the Dems, talk about how they're weak on defense and gambling with American power/influence, and run on that (and probably win). The bottom line is both parties are playing political brinksmanship on this issue with very calculated partisan strategy. Meanwhile, the important issue is a pawn in a political chess game where the real winners aren't solid policy or good government, but party power.

Cuts in defense need to be significant and long term, yet also need to be gradual, manageable, and logical. Time to institute new methods of doing business (particularly in the whole acquisition process), time to rationally re-shape the force structure, redefine roles, time to find ways to save on efficiency, studies on future threat environments to re-shape strategy and doctrine, etc etc. Simply chopping too much too fast is calamity and would cause a deplorable shock to the economy and national security.

The politicians need to grow the fuck up and be statesmen first, find trade-offs, compromise, and get some real work done instead of being little partisan bitches. I'm tired of it.

I think you mistake the current Repub leadership for reasonable men of good will, as did Obama. They've demonstrated that they're not, time and time again. Healthcare reform. Taxes. Debt Ceiling. Entitlements. Appointments. Patriot Act. Anything that really matters. They intend to bring govt to its knees.

This isn't your grandfather's Republican party, at all. They respect only power. They serve only the Rich. Learn that, and you'll have a much better understanding.

 

[cwjerome]

Excellent negotiating tactic.

You want us to keep funding our astronomical military budget? Generate the revenue to actually do so. The GOP will be faced with two options; cut the programs that Americans love and create a massive backlash against them, raise taxes on the wealthy.

No, we should be trying to lower the defense budget in a responsible way. And what makes you think that the backlash would be against the Republicans? I see many Dems sneering about how the DoD should just shrivel, you think Americans will unanimously blame Reps? You don't think the Reps will capitalize on the Dem strategy of using defense as a pawn and blowing up the budget? Dems will take the blame and in Carter-esque fashion be labeled as weak and dangerous.

Both sides are gambling, and both sides are playing the game. The Dems hope people will be upset that taxes weren't raised enough on the rich while the Reps are hoping people will be upset at Dems for a DoD meltdown. Perception is reality. Who wins that battle? My attitude is, who cares? It's a dumb battle fought for the wrong reasons.

It's the military against the top 1%. Wedge in Republican base. Hammer it in

No surprise here, from an unrepentant partisan cheerleader. Wedge issues! Git 'em! Right, that'll work. This type of thinking, this constant political back and forth has been going on for decades, each side git'in! the other, oh yes it's worked so well and been so productive... the race to the bottom continues. You will surely win this battle and everything will be hunky dory 😱

Reps need to give in and take some lumps. Dems need to suck it up and deal. Otherwise things will just continue, get worse, be delayed, the partisan BS battle for party votes takes precedence over anything else and each side cuts their nose to spite their face... meanwhile the economic Armageddon comes one way or another.

 

[Balt]

Debt panel poised to admit failure

http://news.yahoo.com/debt-panel-poised-admit-failure-210257032.html


Welp, that pretty much does it for the 'Super' Committee. How long before Congress reverses all of the automatic cuts?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Debt panel poised to admit failure

http://news.yahoo.com/debt-panel-poised-admit-failure-210257032.html


Welp, that pretty much does it for the 'Super' Committee. How long before Congress reverses all of the automatic cuts?

IMHO the Republicans are awaiting the '12 election results to determine their next steps. If they win big, they can no doubt get a much better deal for themselves come 2013. They have no real motivation to work with the Democrats right now, who also don't really have a motivation to get something done now either. The simple act of not doing anything will basically give the Democrats what they want, Bush tax cuts expire and cuts to defense.

 

[Jhhnn]

Debt panel poised to admit failure

http://news.yahoo.com/debt-panel-poised-admit-failure-210257032.html


Welp, that pretty much does it for the 'Super' Committee. How long before Congress reverses all of the automatic cuts?

Dunno... but it'll be interesting to see if my fellow Dems can actually grow a pair, put Repubs feet to the fire, whatever you want to call it.

I thought Dems played it all wrong from the first hostage taking incident, the one where Repubs held extended unemployment benefits hostage to extending top tier tax cuts.

Should have told 'em to stuff it, let 'em explain to their poor-ass red state constituencies how fatcat tax cuts were more important than them feeding their families, how it was really a matter of *principle* that they couldn't come through for their voters... how there wouldn't be any stimulus money, that the best thing the govt could do was sit on its hands...

Yeh, that'll sell...