Five military cuts that would fix sequestration


By tovarichpeter   Follow   Mon, 4 Mar 2013, 5:29pm   456 views   15 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-25/five-military-cuts-that-would-fix-sequestration#r=read

The Navy has delayed the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, leaving just one of the gigantic vessels in that volatile region, even as tensions continue simmering with Iran. The Air Force is talking about slashing flying hours, leaving two-thirds of its pilots below an acceptable level of readiness. And so on. Flapdoodle. The military is manufacturing a crisis to protect its wasteful, bloated, poorly designed budget.Sequestration, which mandates no-thought, across-the-board spending cuts, is a dumb way to force fiscal discipline. But theres an alternative, at least at the Pentagon. Panetta and the generals could say to...

Viewing Comments 1-15 of 15     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,075 threads
    13,852 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    1   8:49pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    This whole sequestration thing demonstrates beyond a doubt that we cannot continue wasting the majority of our public funds on the war industry. It produces near nothing, destroys vast wealth and economic infrastructure, causes hatred of America, and drains our treasury.

    Any rational human being would look at these graphs and shake his head. We should reduce war spending form $700 billion / yr to $70 billion / yr. That would put us in line with the rest of the 17 next biggest spenders, 14 of which are allies, and 1 of which has most-favored-nation trade status.

    Doing that one thing would cut the deficit by 70%. Granted, there's still more we need to do after that, but clearly it's critical to turn off the government tit to the war industry. Damn welfare queens.

    Remember, the Soviet Union fell solely because they spent too much on the military. We're following them a mere 14 years later.

  2. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,280 comments

    2   10:21pm Mon 4 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Most of this "defense" spending was actually quite offensive.

  3. elliemae


    Follow
    Befriend (24)
    473 threads
    7,892 comments
    Saint George, UT
    elliemae's website
    Premium

    3   7:09am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    4,244 staff members for the joint chiefs of staff? Holy shit, batman!

  4. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    873 threads
    7,422 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    4   7:16am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Or we could slightly reduce welfare spending.

  5. Robert Sproul


    Follow
    Befriend
    89 threads
    927 comments

    5   7:30am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I wonder if it would help to change back to the name that the government arm of the military/industrial complex was known as from 1789 to 1947.

    The War Department.

    Blunt and descriptive.

  6. Robert Sproul


    Follow
    Befriend
    89 threads
    927 comments

    6   7:33am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    zzyzzx says

    Or we could slightly reduce welfare spending.

    Corporate Welfare, right?

  7. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    873 threads
    7,422 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    7   7:39am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Robert Sproul says

    Corporate Welfare, right?

    That AND food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, foreign aid, Obamaphones, Section8 housing, student loans, etc.

  8. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,075 threads
    13,852 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    8   8:36am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    zzyzzx says

    Robert Sproul says

    Corporate Welfare, right?

    That AND food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, foreign aid, Obamaphones, Section8 housing, student loans, etc.

    Federal Spending in Billions
    Food Stamps 78
    Extended Unemployment Benefits 30
    Foreign Aid 56
    Obamaphones 2
    Section 8 Housing 16
    Student Loans 9.6
    Warfare 770

  9. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,075 threads
    13,852 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    9   8:36am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Continuing due to 10 URL post limit...

    http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/unemployment-insurance-extended_n_2389634.html
    http://ivn.us/2012/08/05/united-states-foreign-aid-and-budget/
    Note: $5 billion goes to Afghanastan to rebuild the shit we blew up.
    http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578296001368122888.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection&mg=reno64-wsj
    http://archives.hud.gov/budget/fy10/fy10budget.pdf Page 10
    http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-education-subsidies

    Yeah, it's Obamaphones and Food Stamps that are forcing America into bankruptcy.

    Hell, I'm against federal subsidies of student loans (they increase the cost of college and hurt students) and Obamaphones, but they are a drop of piss in the ocean compared to Warfare spending. The "conservative" view of the budget is so ridiculously out-of-touch with the reality of the budget, it's mind boggling.

    When balancing a budget, you first cut the unnecessary, big ticket items.

  10. zzyzzx


    Follow
    Befriend (10)
    873 threads
    7,422 comments
    Baltimore, MD

    10   8:58am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    You forgot a bunch of welfare programs, and other obvious stuff in your pie chart:

    Where is Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and interest in the previous pie chart? I guess to a liberal, welfare spending doesn't exist???

  11. Robert Sproul


    Follow
    Befriend
    89 threads
    927 comments

    11   10:02am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Medicare and Social Security are welfare in your book, huh?

  12. Philistine


    Follow
    Befriend
    697 comments
    Los Angeles, CA

    12   10:11am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Dan8267 says

    reduce war spending form $700 billion / yr to $70 billion / yr

    But then what sort of jobs will there be for all the mediocrity that is leeching off the defense budget?
    zzyzzx says

    You forgot a bunch of welfare programs, and other obvious stuff in your pie chart

    [. . .]

    Where is Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and interest in the previous pie chart?

    And where is military spending in the welfare pie chart?

  13. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,075 threads
    13,852 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    13   11:43am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    zzyzzx says

    That AND food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, foreign aid, Obamaphones, Section8 housing, student loans, etc.

    zzyzzx says

    Where is Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and interest in the previous pie chart? I guess to a liberal, welfare spending doesn't exist???

    Please take note that you didn't bitch about Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare in your last post. I responded to what you said, not what you now think you should have said.

    However, let's go over those issues.

    [Breaking due to 10 link limit. Seriously, get rid of this.]

  14. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,075 threads
    13,852 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    14   11:44am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    First, your pie chart is wrong. "Defense Department" spending, or more accurate, Warfare spending, is discretionary spending. In fact Warfare spending is 58% of discretionary spending. More if you count veteran's benefits, something that we wouldn't need if we didn't maim so many people in war.

    Second, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are not funded by the federal income tax and do not contribute one little bit to the deficit or the national debt because they are funded by their own, specific taxes, namely FICA

    Notice that SS and Medicare are shown as separate taxes on the following sample paystub.

    Now, I would eliminate SS for Baby Boomers and beyond, letting people use Roth IRAs with $100k/yr contribution limits instead. And I'd also eliminate 90% of the costs of Medicaid, Medicare, and health insurance by utterly destroying the health insurance industry, instituting a single-payer system, and streamlining medical administration. Short of doing those things, there isn't jack shit you can do to lower health care costs except killing people.

    However, we were talking about the budget crisis and sequestration. So we have to look at the federal spending that isn't self-paid by SS taxes and FICA taxes. After all, those programs have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit or the national debt as I have just explained.

    So, what should your pie graph look like? Let's just normalize yourgraph after eliminating the things that have nothing to do with the deficit and debt.

    Net Interest 197
    "Defense" Warfare 689
    All other 416

    Now, since Net Interest isn't something you can cut since it's a function of the debt. Here's the pie chart showing the funding we can cut.

    62% of it is warfare spending, and that's using the disingenuously deflated figures that you gave. If we did proper accounting, direct warfare spending would be about 70%. And if we include the indirect costs of war such as having to rebuild Afghanistan after we destroyed it ($5 billion alone), warfare would be about 80% of the cuttable spending.

    And we haven't even included things like oil tax subsidies as expenses.

    No matter how you cut it, warfare spending is what needs to be cut first and most. That's where most of the money is going.

    Yes, I am a liberal, but that's not why I disagree with you. I disagree with you because I know how to do math and how to get accurate information. Liberalism is a social philosophy that states that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others such as by hurting others. Quite frankly, if you're not a liberal, you're a scumbag. Liberalism isn't an economic philosophy.

    My economic philosophy in a nutshell is this… Economics should be an engineering discipline based on verifiable facts, not religious dogma. Math and empirical evidence are the important factors in considering policy. Long-term prosperity trumps short-term prosperity. Cost shifting, including pollution, is a form of theft. Accounting must be honest and transparent. Inflation, as implemented by the Federal Reserve, is also a form of theft. Private and public debts are both bad. Aggregated demand is not a magic bullet. Per capital productivity is the best metric and means for economic prosperity. Those that produce the wealth, not those that control capital or distribution channels, should retain at least 80% of the wealth they produce with the remaining going to government (10%), normal profit (5%), economic profit (5%).

    By the way, I have eliminated the deficit and produced a surplus in every budget simulation I've ever encountered. Not too shabby for a liberal.

  15. Dan8267


    Follow
    Befriend (17)
    1,075 threads
    13,852 comments
    Boca Raton, FL

    15   11:52am Tue 5 Mar 2013   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Philistine says

    Dan8267 says

    reduce war spending form $700 billion / yr to $70 billion / yr

    But then what sort of jobs will there be for all the mediocrity that is leeching off the defense budget?

    Legalize prostitution and let them give blow jobs to those of us who actually work for a living.

tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 185 milliseconds to create.