Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 16:11:22 GMT -5
It should probably be brought to your attention that Clinton was inaugurated in January of 1993. Oops... good point. Still doesn't change much with the numbers though. Clinton didn't cut a whole hell of a lot from the military budget. Keep in mind we were also fighting the first gulf war in 1991, so the 91/92 numbers are a war budget at 320 and 348 billion respectively. Clinton wasn't fighting any wars during his term and still kept the budget between 316 and 344 billion. Where exactly are these drastic cuts that gutted the military? I guess when you don't respond to terrorist attacks on your military and civilians, you can decrease or keep defense spending level. Ok, that explains why we invaded Afghanistan which is going to drive up the military budget. Care to take a crack at why the frak we're wasting blood and treasure in Iraq?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 16:13:52 GMT -5
I'll also say that as a percent of revenues, 1990 defense spending was 17.8% while 1999 spending was 9.9% of revenues. Two things. The first I covered in my previous post, there were no wars going on during the 90's so we didn't need a ton of military spending. The second is that comparing to GDP brings in obvious skewing. Look at the end date you chose to use, 1999, the freaking height of the tech bubble. Of course military spending will shrink as a percentage of GDP, GDP was artificially huge that year. The skewing goes both ways as well, you might remember this little recession we had going on in the early 90's, so GDP wasn't great and all government spending will look like a larger percentage.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 16:20:23 GMT -5
If you really want to look at US defense spending in another way, how's this? * The world's top 5 largest military budgets in 2009. Figures sourced from SIPRI. Are you honestly saying you couldn't find some fat in that budget? Seriously?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:21:19 GMT -5
While popular opinion on Iraq may not be favorable, history will be more kind to the Iraq war. You may not remember, but Clinton once gave a speech on how dangerous Iraq was to the US and the world. It was in December 1998, preceded operation Desert Fox and is available on You Tube. The danger of Iraq used to be a bipartisan agreement before 2004.
On the flip side, and not discounting the value of the lives lost but the cost [true dollars spent] will be more than made up now that the oil will be in pro-US regime hands. Just saying. How good of a relationship do we have with Germany and Japan now?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:24:18 GMT -5
We weren't discussing fat; I just pointed out the error in the way you were looking at the numbers.
China's figures are the reported figures and are questionable whether accurate.
UK, France and a number of other nations can skimp on defense spending when mommy and daddy [the good ole USA] is there to protect them. These countries then pay for social services that they can't afford and deride the US for not following suit.
I would not disagree with a proposal to send various countries a bill for services rendered. If we are really going to be the worlds police men, we should be compensated without having to foot the entire bill.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 16:26:34 GMT -5
You may not remember, but Clinton once gave a speech on how dangerous Iraq was to the US and the world. Plenty of regimes on the planet are dangerous to the US. It doesn't mean we send troops into all of them. On the flip side, and not discounting the value of the lives lost but the cost [true dollars spent] will be more than made up now that the oil will be in pro-US regime hands. I'm sure this had nothing to do with it though. I mean, Bush and Cheney both promised that we weren't going to war for oil. They would never be callous enough to kill off our young men and women so some oil companies can make billions.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 16:32:48 GMT -5
I would not disagree with a proposal to send various countries a bill for services rendered. If we are really going to be the worlds police men, we should be compensated without having to foot the entire bill. I'd rather just stop doing it and spend the money on things that actually benefit us. If we're the worlds police we need to resign anyway as we obviously suck at the job. We can't even stop small groups of pirates in Somalia for crying out loud. If you're going to send the military all over the world you have to stop being a chicken shit about it and let them use force. Yes people will die. There will be some collateral damage. Either deal with it, or keep the troops home. Sending them all over the world but hamstringing them and telling them to play nice doesn't do a damn thing. We won WWII by firebombing cities at night, and now people get pissed when a precision strike kills twenty terrorists and catches one or two civilians (who are probably collaborators anyway since they're at a terrorist training compound) in the blast.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:33:09 GMT -5
It's also kind of inaccurate to look at it solely on a $$ basis. Probably better to look at it on a PPP basis, otherwise you're ignoring the purchasing power of different countries. This method would show China spending about 2/3 that of the US; if you are to believe their figures.
The defense department does not believe this and thinks that total military spending by China is nearly double the reported figures [not saying that's accurate either; perhaps somewhere in between].
This is not an argument to maintain current military spending, although 20% of our defense budget goes towards veterans and foreign aid, but just a different point of view on how to look at the figures.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:34:19 GMT -5
Problem is that we're already spending $1.6 Trillion more than we make AND have over $100 trillion in LT unfunded liabilities. We can't afford to stop spending here and spend there instead. We need to just stop spending, period.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:34:58 GMT -5
Not according to Obama. Hell, he even sends them to ones that aren't dangerous to the US.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 16:36:36 GMT -5
Problem is that we're already spending $1.6 Trillion more than we make AND have over $100 trillion in LT unfunded liabilities. We can't afford to stop spending here and spend there instead. We need to just stop spending, period. That's fine too. Reducing, or at the very least not adding to, the deficit does benefit us.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:43:45 GMT -5
I didn't choose any specific end date, except to compare it to the end date that you posted in your other post, since I used your figures to create my percentages.
Also, not to break your bubble, but revenues increased in 2000 by 9.7% over 1999 and decreased just 3.2% in 2001. They decreased another 7.3% in 2002 due to 9/11 and likely some residual tech bubble deflation before the Bush tax cuts effectively ended the recession quicker than any other prior. 2003 saw revenues increase 4.3% while 2004 saw revenues higher than 2000 [the previous high point].
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:48:53 GMT -5
Keeping the deficit steady does not benefit us at all. You make about $90k, right? You cannot spend as if you make $158k and be okay financially, right?
This is what the government is doing. How quickly do you think you'd have a problem financially? Same for the US government...unless they print money and inject inflation.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:51:23 GMT -5
There is not a single word in this post that I disagree with. We, as a country have become too PC with war. You either do it right or don't do it at all.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 16:53:49 GMT -5
Keeping the deficit steady does not benefit us at all. You make about $90k, right? You cannot spend as if you make $158k and be okay financially, right? Well duh, but keeping the deficit steady as opposed to increasing it is obviously the better choice. Neither are as good as lowering it of course, which is why I said "at the very least not adding to". And I make a little over a $100k, thank you very much!
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 16:59:35 GMT -5
Well then clearly, by government standards, you can afford a $175k lifestyle!!
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Apr 15, 2011 17:02:18 GMT -5
Well we did take on $286,000 of debt last year. Uncle Sam should be taking lessons from me.
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Apr 15, 2011 19:00:34 GMT -5
UK, France and a number of other nations can skimp on defense spending when mommy and daddy [the good ole USA] is there to protect them. These countries then pay for social services that they can't afford and deride the US for not following suit.
I think the US spends roughly half of the entire world's military spending. I doubt you can argue countries like Russia and China are banking of the US to defend them. The UK used to have a doctrine that their navy had to be large enough to fight the next two largest navies at the same time, the US appears to have a similar military spending logic.
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Apr 15, 2011 19:15:58 GMT -5
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Apr 15, 2011 20:03:31 GMT -5
See my post on using PPP as a better metric. I think that's billion - not trillion... We protect about 3/4 of the world, or about 5 billion people. So, that's about $133 per person that we protect. Now, we need to start charging those people that we protect. We also need to charge Canada...they're getting off scott free by living next door to the US.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Apr 15, 2011 20:06:26 GMT -5
US military spending of 688 Trillion. ? Are you sure about this? How about a link.
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Apr 15, 2011 21:50:17 GMT -5
US military spending of 688 Trillion.Me bad We protect about 3/4 of the world, or about 5 billion people.That many people have oil we want?
|
|
azphx1972
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 2, 2011 22:08:36 GMT -5
Posts: 809
|
Post by azphx1972 on Apr 16, 2011 11:55:34 GMT -5
Interesting debate. Have you guys read this article that was posted just a couple of days ago? How to Save a Trillion Dollarswww.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2065108,00.html A friend shared it with me, and I thought I'd share.
|
|
TD2K
Senior Associate
Once you kill a cow, you gotta make a burger
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 1:19:25 GMT -5
Posts: 10,931
|
Post by TD2K on Apr 16, 2011 12:08:44 GMT -5
Aircraft carriers, born in the years before World War II, are increasingly obsolete platforms of war. They feature expensive manned aircraft in an age when budgets are being squeezed and less expensive drones are taking over.
Will aircraft carriers go into history like battleships did? At the start of WWII they were considered "the" ship of the fleet. As current missile technology improves they are sure a big target of opportunity.
|
|
azphx1972
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 2, 2011 22:08:36 GMT -5
Posts: 809
|
Post by azphx1972 on Apr 16, 2011 12:38:13 GMT -5
By the way, a friend of mine suggested it was unfair that the rich pay "only" 15% on their wealth in the form of capital gains tax. I found these videos and they kind of incensed me about how unfair the capital gains tax really is. Thoughts?
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Apr 16, 2011 14:24:06 GMT -5
great videos!
I wish someone would make all our law makers watch them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 9:39:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 15:08:44 GMT -5
How to Save a Trillion Dollars By MARK BITTMAN
In the scheme of things, saving the 38 billion bucks that Congress seems poised to agree upon is not a big deal. A big deal is saving a trillion bucks. And we could do that by preventing disease instead of treating it.
For the first time in history, lifestyle diseases like diabetes, heart disease, some cancers and others kill more people than communicable ones.Treating these diseases — and futile attempts to “cure” them — costs a fortune, more than one-seventh of our GDP.
But they’re preventable, and you prevent them the same way you cause them: lifestyle. A sane diet, along with exercise, meditation and intangibles like love prevent and even reverse disease. A sane diet alone would save us hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe more.
This isn’t just me talking. In a recent issue of the magazine Circulation, the American Heart Association editorial board stated flatly that costs in the U.S. from cardiovascular disease — the leading cause of death here and in much of the rest of the world — will triple by 2030, to more than $800 billion annually. Throw in about $276 billion of what they call “real indirect costs,” like productivity, and you have over a trillion. Enough over, in fact, to make $38 billion in budget cuts seem like a rounding error.
Similarly, Type 2 diabetes is projected to cost us $500 billion a year come 2020, when half of all Americans will have diabetes or pre-diabetes. Need I remind you that Type 2 diabetes is virtually entirely preventable? Ten billion dollars invested now might save a couple of hundred billion annually 10 years from now. And: hypertension, many cancers, diverticulitis and more are treated by a health care (better termed “disease care”) system that costs us about $2.3 trillion annually now — before costs double and triple.
It’s worth noting that the Federal budget will absorb its usual 60 percent of that cost. We can save some of that money, though, if an alliance of insurers, government, individuals — maybe even Big Food, if it’s pushed hard enough — moves us towards better eating.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 9:39:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 15:16:01 GMT -5
IBD Editorials
Caterpillar's Alarm Bell For Illinois
Commerce: Caterpillar's CEO warned Illinois last week that the state's anti-business climate is forcing the company to consider leaving. The Illinois governor's response? No way. What planet does he live on?
The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., reported last week that Caterpillar Chief Executive Doug Oberhelman had starkly warned in a letter to Gov. Pat Quinn that he'd been "cornered in meetings" and "wined and dined" to relocate his company to Wisconsin, Texas, South Dakota, Nebraska and other states lining up in the wake of Illinois' massive tax hike this year on business.
"I want to stay here," the CEO wrote. "But as the leader of this business, I have to do what's right for Caterpillar when making decisions about where to invest. The direction that this state is headed in is not favorable to business, and I'd like to work with you to change that."
Amazingly, Quinn responded that it was impossible that one of Illinois' largest employers and taxpayers would move out of state, then changed the subject. It was pure Louis XVI:
"Caterpillar is not leaving Illinois. They have well-skilled workers who know how to get the job done. They just signed an agreement with the United Auto Workers, I think for six years. I don't think we should get in a panic at all."
But even the local UAW boss was appalled at Quinn's nonchalance and told an NBC affiliate in East Peoria that Caterpillar does not bluff. "When they are talking to you, you better listen. Because if you don't listen, bad things can happen," said Local 974 President Dave Chapman, in authentic union vernacular.
The cold hard fact about Illinois is that Quinn's tax hike makes Illinois not only a high-tax state, but an absolute tax-eater.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation: "The corporate income tax will rise from 7.3% to 10.9%, a 49% increase and (making Illinois') the highest state corporate income tax in the United States and the highest combined national-local corporate income tax in the industrialized world."
In other words, anyplace Caterpillar moves — and that means anywhere — the tax situation will be an improvement on what it faces in Illinois.
Before he pooh-poohs the possibility of losing Caterpillar, Gov. Quinn might review the company's history. Cat got its start not in Illinois, but in California in 1883 as the Stockton Wheel Co. After various incarnations and acquisitions through much of the 20th century, it became Caterpillar.
In 1967, the company moved its headquarters from Stockton to Peoria, where it now employs 23,000 of the 100,000 workers who make those gigantic yellow construction and mining machines that are among the best in the world, if not the best.
As Cato Institute economist Dan Griswold told IBD, Caterpillar is the "quintessential American company." That is to say, it's ultra-competitive, internationally oriented and answerable to shareholders with profits.
Such a company will always have tempting offers from other states and countries, even in the best of times. Tax breaks, free land, political benefits — it's the way the real world works.
Cat is already responding. Last August, it announced that it would build a $120 million excavator plant in Victoria, Texas. It also announced a Winston-Salem, N.C., facility to produce axles. And it's acquiring South Milwaukee-based Bucyrus International.
More investment in Illinois isn't on the radar.
None of this, however, is getting through to Quinn. Like so many politicians these days, he's sitting there like a cow on the tracks, oblivious of the train barreling toward him.
Until the governor recognizes that businesses operate on real-world accounting, not the government's big-tax approach to business, he's looking at the migration of not only Caterpillar, but other big home-based enterprises — State Farm maybe, or McDonald's — to states where entrepreneurs and world-class companies are treated as precious resources, not strip-mined for taxes to pay for unsustainable and inefficient government.
Caterpillar, of course, is lucky. It can move. Unfortunately, small towns that rely on business with Caterpillar workers will go under. So will many small businesses that aren't able to move after such tax hikes.
If Quinn doesn't think Caterpillar has given him reason to panic, he'd better think again. By his indifference, he'll learn the bitter lesson of how fast a state can become just like Detroit.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 9:39:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 15:18:18 GMT -5
Sorry for the long posts. I think that taxes on the rich can be raised some without a lot of harm as long as the rich/business class feel that the tax raises are going to something that will support future economic growth in the U.S. They just don't want to be taxed and receive crap in return.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Apr 16, 2011 15:37:42 GMT -5
Ten billion dollars invested now might save a couple of hundred billion annually 10 years from now. I agree in theory - but how do you reduce it to practice? Ie, how would we spend the $10B in a way that would make a difference? We now use TV, newspapers, magazines, and the public K-12 lunch system, on an almost daily basis to highlite the US obesity problem. And we have done this for several years. Next time you are in the Mall or at a Movie, observe how it's working, LOL.
|
|