So, lets say you have been given (for whatever reason you wish) absolute complete power, to one end. Fix the U.S. governments budget, and get the economy on track. What would you do, and what do you THINK your changes would impact in the country (perhaps even the world)
Ensis Ferrae wrote:So, lets say you have been given (for whatever reason you wish) absolute complete power, to one end. Fix the U.S. governments budget, and get the economy on track. What would you do, and what do you THINK your changes would impact in the country (perhaps even the world)
...should get interesting.
Do I dare poke this subject? Aw hell why not?!
First and Foremost, I eliminate the EPA. Their overreaching regulations have hamstrung all further resource exploration and usage. Same goes for the Department of the Interior. Both of their purposes have been contorted to the complete opposite of what they were created for and need to be shut down. In fact i would trim the departments down to the bare essentials.
Secondly, I remove all federal taxes (and the 16th Amendment) on income in every form and replace them with the FairTax. This would encourage all kinds of expansion in the private sector by making their investments tax free. All US monies being held internationally could be Re-Patriated with zero cost it's respective owners, foreign businesses would immediately consider relocating to the United States with our new 0% Corporate Income Tax and the economy would explode at a pace unseen in recorded history. The only form of revenue to the Government at this point would be a 23% National Sales tax on Retail items. Any money used on items considered necessities would be refunded on a monthly basis, this check is called the "Pre-Bate" it helps lower income families the most for if they buy only necessities, they would have zero net taxation. This would also rid the need for lobbyists as their respective corporations wouldn't need to lobby any politician for a special tax break. Any attempt at price hiking could easily be punished by simply not buying from that store, it puts absolute power in the hands of the consumer and citizen as it gives US the complete control over how much the Federal Government receives in revenue. This would not only force the politicians to live within their means, but it would also remove all forms of soft tyranny in this country.
Thirdly, I would arbitrarily overturn Wickard v. Filburn. This case has been the Pandora's box to the loss of liberty over the last 70 years. It allowed the government complete authority over commerce, whether it be lack of commerce or direct.
Fourthly, I would overturn Obamacare and eventually phase out Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs are debt bombs that will explode in the next 10-15 years and it will be the doom of this nation if they are not deal with now. Obamacare gives the Government unprecedented Federal Authority to dictate that a person must buy a good or service. Regardless of their situation. Car Insurance is a bad argument as not everyone owns a car, nor chooses to drive one. This is a dangerous precedent that has terrible ramifications if it goes unchecked.
Fifthly, I would make voting tests a thing of reality. It doesn't matter who you are. If you cannot name your congressman, senators, governor, the Three Branches of Government and 4 supreme Court justices. You aren't involved enough to be voting. Stupid people have elected demagogue after demagogue because of catchy slogans and flowery language promising them the moon and the stars. FDR should be the proof of that.
Stormrider wrote:
The only form of revenue to the Government at this point would be a 23% National Sales tax on Retail items. Any money used on items considered necessities would be refunded on a monthly basis, this check is called the "Pre-Bate" it helps lower income families the most for if they buy only necessities, they would have zero net taxation. This would also rid the need for lobbyists as their respective corporations wouldn't need to lobby any politician for a special tax break.
Not really, no. Lobbyists would simply appeal to politicians for the products of their particular industry to be regarded as necessities.
Stormrider wrote:
Fifthly, I would make voting tests a thing of reality. It doesn't matter who you are. If you cannot name your congressman, senators, governor, the Three Branches of Government and 4 supreme Court justices. You aren't involved enough to be voting. Stupid people have elected demagogue after demagogue because of catchy slogans and flowery language promising them the moon and the stars. FDR should be the proof of that.
So you want to eliminate soft tyranny, by substituting a hard form of tyranny of the majority via the ability to decide what is on this particular test?
As for eliminating catchy slogans, and flowery language: that's all that politics is, it isn't going anywhere, and its always going to be an effective means of winning elections. After all, no one is going to sit through a speech by a politicians which amounts to a dissertation defense, and most people wouldn't be sufficiently knowledgeable to do so; regardless of whether or not they can name some elected and appointed officials.
I'm also wondering why you would call FDR a demagogue, considering he did, by accident and intent, basically everything he was stated to have been attempting to do.
Anyway, fixing the US budget is a relatively simple thing given absolute power. There are plenty of cuts to make, with the only real issue being political reality. Hell, if we're ignoring politics I could advocate the dissolution of Medicare/Medicaid, and the lowering of the retirement age to 50; where "retirement" entails public execution for the sin of growing old. I, of course, being the almighty economic dictator, am incapable of sin, and therefore will not only be allowed to live, but our military budget will be allocated for the sole purpose of ensuring I live forever.
A more interesting question is "How would you convince the opposition to go along with your plan?"
Anyway, fixing the budget: incremental reductions to the military, Medicaid, and discretionary budgets; Medicare as well if necessary. Again, it isn't very hard in terms of what needs to be done, the difficult part is convincing other people to go along with doing it.
First thing first, it's important to realise that a recession doesn't mean everything is broken. The US is still among the richest nations in the world, per capita, and only bested by some smaller nations reliant on particularly profitable resources. When it comes to venture capital and bringing products to market, the US remains second to none.
To solve the long term budgeting issues, healthcare needs to be brought under control. The system you have right now is frankly terrible, costing more than twice as much as anyone else and delivering poorer results. Really, what's needed is a basic level of cover for everyone, there'd be waiting at the doctors and for non-essential healthcare, but it'd be a minimum level of care any private insurer would have to beat in order to attract business. These private insurers would then build their own packages of care, tailored to whatever the market demanded, because instead of going through business, they are selling straight to the private consumer, who in turn has real choice because the public option won't leave him bankrupt and needing treatment. The German model is really the ideal here, the US spends about $4,000 government dollars a year per capita on people's health, Germany spends about $200... and they get better results because their system is well constructed.
From there you could cut defence spending by half, maybe more if you can get commitments from other developed nations to grow their force projection capabilities, and that'd be a nice, healthy saving, about $350 billion a year.
Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.
Once that stuff is in place you could actually set about improving the lives of the average guy. Maybe a minimum wage that people can live on. Maybe more than two weeks holidays a year. All stuff that becomes possible once you get some sanity in your economic structures.
sebster wrote:
Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.
This was one idea, in a way that I also had. When FDR created Social Security, he intended it to support those who lost their private sector jobs, and thereby the real means to save for their own retirement, due to being called in to service for WW2 and then it would phase out as those people "phased out" as it were. What I would personally do, is keep federal, state and military employee "social security" in place, but eliminate it for those who did not serve their country in any way other than paying taxes.
I would also eliminate, and put an amendment into the constitution that would ban the creation of any laws or statutes against tobacco use. On the grand scheme of the federal income, i know that tobacco is not that huge a slice of our trillions of dollars that come in, BUT, due to lobbyists and liberal lawmaking, it is almost impossible to partake in what i consider a 1st amendment right. All the money that the feds put into tobacco research and legislation funding would go to other programs, because frankly people are going to smoke, regardless of what any label on a box, or some law says. Additionally, the laws that have been generated against tobacco, and the tobacco industry have had many detrimental effects on them, from the farmer all the way up to the execs (though, the execs dont feel these things near as much as the farmer or factory worker does).
Though, it should be noted that I would keep the taxes on tobacco products relatively unchanged, as we know that it IS pretty harmful to folks.
I'm also with Stormrider on getting rid of the EPA. I recently read an article on how "green energy" is killing us, and its killing itself. Did you know there are actually two types of nuclear reactors in use in 1st world developed nations? The ones you hear about are only the first type, with all of their nasty, harmful nuclear winter causing waste. The second type actually produces power using the same nuclear principles as the first, but the fuel is the waste rods from the first type... the spent fuel from this second type is actually such a small amount, that apparently the number of drums used to store it in, could be carried in a standard pickup truck per month (this is a rough guess as i forgot the actual number). Also, the wind farms that Americans are so against (looking at you Kennedy!) placing off the coast, they are all over Germany, and really, they are not all that noticeable, they have very little impact on the "beautiful skylines" because they are most often placed in less populated farmlands, where wind is much more predictable and prevalent.
@sebster, I think the problem isn't the system in the US, its more the BS thats involved. gak "diseases" like ADD, which were created to control nonexistent problems drive the profits of both doctors and pharmaceutical companies alike... Not to mention the cultural differences of Europe and the US. By that I mean, at least in Germany, there are markets every saturday, where most people park the car and walk a great deal, while doing their daily shopping. In the US, you have people driving in a Semi truck for half a block to Walmart to get their McDonald's fix. Restaraunts, by and large are not chain owned in Europe (or I haven't seen nearly as many chains of sit-down, family restaraunts here), again, unlike the states where every town has an Olive Garden, TGIFridays, Red Lobster, etc. which all leads to the obesity epidemic that the US is faced with now.
There's more that I would do as well, but only so much time to type at this point.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:So, lets say you have been given (for whatever reason you wish) absolute complete power, to one end. Fix the U.S. governments budget, and get the economy on track. What would you do, and what do you THINK your changes would impact in the country (perhaps even the world)
...should get interesting.
I would be this guy.
Its a simple matter. You don't have to be brilliant, merely rely on people's enlightened self interest. By enlightened self interest I'd put Congress in a big room. In the room is the cast from Ultimate Warrior. Every five minutes they get to see which ultimate warrior is most lethal.
We'd balance the budget in six minutes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:Return us to a natural and traditional pillaging based economy. Every spring we could pile on boats after the planting is done, and go reaving.
Comanche trail is just down the road. Lets do this thing.
LordofHats wrote:Pillaging? I am intrigued. Please. Tell me moar *sits down and smokes pipe*
We cut down all the trees in the immediate vicinity, butcher anything with bones/ivory to put horns in our helmet, mine all the iron from the hills to make weapons and nails to keep the trees together in some sort of boat-like appearance, then throw the boats in the water and wherever we land, butcher the local populace, throw all their (our) stuff on boats, and repeat the process until we decide to settle somewhere else/land back home/sink in the ocean.
Frazzled wrote:Its a simple matter. You don't have to be brilliant, merely rely on people's enlightened self interest. By enlightened self interest I'd put Congress in a big room. In the room is the cast from Ultimate Warrior. Every five minutes they get to see which ultimate warrior is most lethal.
We'd balance the budget in six minutes.
Eleven, at a minimum.
The first one to go would be either an (R) or (D). Half of them wouldn't get upset until the next one was from their own party, then they'd get serious.
My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.
Not only do you get the benefit of actually reducing the cost of government (rather than just the growth), you also reduce the power of the government.
To add to Sebster, I've wondered for some time if "US military-industrial complex" so to speak is in desperate need of reworking. The prices of weapons development and production are absurd in some areas with European countries able to produce weapons of similar or higher sophistication at fractions of our costs. I've done no dedicated research into the subject but I find myself questioning how our next generation SPG can have poorer performance than the most recent German model, and cost 5x as much (the cost ending in the weapons suspension and us continuing to use the M109 Paladin, which is a fine platfrom and still serviceable, but a similar problem exists in our jet fighter and naval development programs).
I've always known we waste massive amounts of money on redundant and pointless projects and programs (either through pork barrel or general fiscal stupidity) but I also wonder how much money can be saved by restructuring production and development.
biccat wrote:My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.
This is logical and how you would actually do a budget. However, its not nearly as entertaining.
Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.
I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.
sebster wrote:Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge
I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.
In the near term it relies on higher risk, higher yield investments, taking advantage of long-term growth. For example, while the DJIA may move quite a bit in the short term (year-to-year), over several decades you can expect a decent growth. Eventually, as you get closer to retirement, investments move to more stable, lower return investments.
You really should have private retirement savings anyway. Don't expect social security to either (a) be available when you retire or (b) cover all of your expenses when you retire.
That certainly mitigates some of the risk (almost all of my retirement accounts are in these type of funds now). But my concern would be that this would simply limit exposure for some but there is still potential to have large chunks of your retirement depleted close enough to retirement to not have time to replenish the savings due to market down turns. Maybe as these types of funds have a little longer history we will see that is an unfounded concern. I just see this as essetianlly making the US retirement system a matter of the public playing the market which one of the first rules in investing is to not play the market or in other words to just ride it out but each generation will have a section of the population not able to 'ride it out' due to retirement.
- get out of costly foreign wars. Invest in smarter defense, and use it as defense, not offense.
- cancel any earmark spending. We don't need random bridges.
- increase top tax rates for people earning over 500,000 (inflation adjusted going forwards)/year, to 1950's levels. With no loopholes for how the money was earned.
- increase inheritance taxes to 50% for anything over 2 million (inflation adjusted going forwards). We don't need a nobility class in this country. Give it to your choice of charity before you die or the government afterwards.
- institute government work programs in exchange for unemployment benefits. We've got a crumbling infrastructure, and if you're collecting a government check, you can spend time filling potholes, painting bridges and the like.
- actually validate the claims of people asking for entitlements. You're collecting public funds and need them, fine. But not if you're driving a caddie and wearing designer threads.
- cut farm subsidies to farms owned by millionaire businessmen living in new york. If you're actually a small private farmer and can prove need, fine. If you're agri-business, you don't need a handout.
Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.
I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.
This is just me personally talking here, but thats what each corporation should be doing... When you are hired by, say.. Ford Motor Company, if you sign a certain line, then a small percentage of your check goes into a fund. This fund does what social security does now, gets you some money in retirement. This is why I had suggested keeping the military retirement plan as is, because most of us who do 20 years have done more than enough to earn some sort of retirement pay. The thing that's killing us, is the people who fail to plan for themselves and do do any retirement planning whatsoever, and depend solely on SS for all of their income.. hoping it'll "be enough"
I would finish off the small arms projects that the DoD are working on, get either the SCAR, or the XM8 (as they are vastly superior to the M-16 family), and save tons of money on repair parts ordered (this means its a high initial cost, but the return more than makes up for the initial loss) As for the defense budget, I would remove ALL contracts, put any and all forms of maintenance back into the hands of the soldiers/airmen/marines/seamen, etc. Contracts and contractors are where a huge percentage of our budget for defense go. While we're on defense, I would get rid of Border Patrol and Dept of Homeland Security. Both of those jobs can and should be done by either the military, or local police as situation dictates (honestly, the local PD should be checking my bags at the airport, not some glorified mall cop)
Since tobacco was already fixed (in my earlier post), I would also remove some of, if not alot of the red tape that surrounds people who have genuinely good ideas for small businesses, or business in general.
Theres also the issue of illegal immigration in this country, which I have another solution for. Welfare reforms, and deportation. If you have no job, and dont get a job on your own, you can work for us for your welfare check. This would include all the produce picking, and other jobs that "real americans dont want" This would fix some of the overcrowding issues of our prisons, which would see some of their own changes to make them cheaper and save money for all governments involved... Just like the Arizona warden who placed his inmates in large, army surplus tents, and made them do manual labor for all their food, etc... Well, get ready everyone else, its comin to you too! (we would also need to do something about those lengthy appeals processes for death row inmates, to free up some space as it were.. if nothing else, we could ship guys in for life who would get the death sentence to Texas, and speed everything up, assuming the crime was committed in a state where there is no death penalty)
We could also eliminate senator/representative pay. Most of the guys in Washington are quite well to do without a senatorial paycheck, so we'll free those funds up there as well.. Or if we have to pay them, we'll pay them E-1 to E-3 military pay, so they arent "working" for nothing.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:We could also eliminate senator/representative pay. Most of the guys in Washington are quite well to do without a senatorial paycheck, so we'll free those funds up there as well.. Or if we have to pay them, we'll pay them E-1 to E-3 military pay, so they arent "working" for nothing.
This will have the effect of discouraging those who can't afford it from serving. Millionaires will be the only ones who can afford to serve in the senate, which only exascerbates the problem of a "ruling class."
We should get rid of campaign funding limitations and include mandatory disclosure for all donors, regardless of amount, source, recipient, or purpose. This would make the political playing field more open to those who don't have a personal fortune to spend on running for office.
All technology is destroyed, back the medieval stage. Each state puts all their money in a big pot, in the form of gold coins called Thrones. The huge pot is put on top of a mountain, guarded by one man from each State. Then, a quarter is set aside, and the rest is evenly distributed between the States. Then, each State evenly distributes their money between the people. The people then spend two years gathering support, and eventually elect a Warlord. The Warlords of each State then lead their barbarian armies against all the other Warlords, eventually one is declared the winner after two years, and is elected the High King, who then uses the quarter set aside to rule the other Warlords. The process is repeated every 30 years, or after the current High King dies.
Altnertively we all get to pick either a purple sash or green sash from a barrel. he who picks purple leader sash is purple leader. He who picks green leader sash is green leader. Two colors fight until one side wins.
biccat wrote:
My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.
That doesn't seem rational. If an agency cannot operate with a 10% budget reduction, then it does not follow that its function is not necessary. And, considering I'm assuming that you would be determining whether or not the agency in question is carrying out its appointed fucntion, it would seem simpler to just do away with the agencies you didn't like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:To add to Sebster, I've wondered for some time if "US military-industrial complex" so to speak is in desperate need of reworking. The prices of weapons development and production are absurd in some areas with European countries able to produce weapons of similar or higher sophistication at fractions of our costs. I've done no dedicated research into the subject but I find myself questioning how our next generation SPG can have poorer performance than the most recent German model, and cost 5x as much (the cost ending in the weapons suspension and us continuing to use the M109 Paladin, which is a fine platfrom and still serviceable, but a similar problem exists in our jet fighter and naval development programs).
I've always known we waste massive amounts of money on redundant and pointless projects and programs (either through pork barrel or general fiscal stupidity) but I also wonder how much money can be saved by restructuring production and development.
From what I've seen, there's 3 fundamental differences between US procurement/R&D and the same process in Europe.
1: The US develops technologies which are intended to exceed present operational needs, and so focuses less on off the shelf systems than on ground-up research. They also develop systems which are designed to function in a uch broader set of operational situations.
2: The US defense industry is rife with former US military personnel, who are essentially paid to negotiate with their former peers on behalf of the contractor in question.
3: Defense spending in the US is both a matter of ideological, and fiscal concerns. Fiscal in the same sense it is in Europe, where state contracts mean money going into region X. Ideological in the sense that there are a lot of people in the US who really like the idea of having a huge military, meaning any cuts, even those in the name of efficiency, are often derided as being soft on defense. Compare this to Europe where overall defense spending is a relatively insignificant political issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'm also with Stormrider on getting rid of the EPA. I recently read an article on how "green energy" is killing us, and its killing itself. Did you know there are actually two types of nuclear reactors in use in 1st world developed nations? The ones you hear about are only the first type, with all of their nasty, harmful nuclear winter causing waste. The second type actually produces power using the same nuclear principles as the first, but the fuel is the waste rods from the first type... the spent fuel from this second type is actually such a small amount, that apparently the number of drums used to store it in, could be carried in a standard pickup truck per month (this is a rough guess as i forgot the actual number). Also, the wind farms that Americans are so against (looking at you Kennedy!) placing off the coast, they are all over Germany, and really, they are not all that noticeable, they have very little impact on the "beautiful skylines" because they are most often placed in less populated farmlands, where wind is much more predictable and prevalent.
The problem with nuclear waste isn't necessarily the amount, though generating a significant percentage of US power from nuclear sources would massively increase the total waste per anum, but where to put it. There were plans to put it in Nevada at Yucca Mountain, but that was killed by the fact that Harry Reid and Obama share a political party. Until the Executive opposes that particular Senate seat, that plan will remain dead. Of course, once it does happen, it will go something like this:
Feds: "We own 80% of your state, and we're going to put whatever we want there."
Of course, now you also have all the political hurdles to nuclear power, thanks primarily to the whole Fukushima event. Hell, Merkel said she was shutting down all the German reactors, though it remains to be seen where she'll find the power to replace them.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster, I think the problem isn't the system in the US, its more the BS thats involved. gak "diseases" like ADD, which were created to control nonexistent problems drive the profits of both doctors and pharmaceutical companies alike.
Its always fun to listen to people who aren't medical professionals discuss the legitimacy of medical conditions.
-Remove 90% of troops from outside of the country, primarily in countries like Libya where its not our business. Now the military costs a lot less!
-Increase taxes for the rich (top 10%) by 1.5%.
-Wait two years. Look, now we suddenly have a ton of money! Use it to pay off debt.
-Wait 3 years. Now look, we paid off our debt and have a ton of spare money! Use it in stimulus stuff, primarily giving the money to small businesses but also give it to some big ones too.
-Remove 90% of troops from outside of the country, primarily in countries like Libya where its not our business. Now the military costs a lot less!
-Increase taxes for the rich (top 10%) by 1.5%.
-Wait two years. Look, now we suddenly have a ton of money! Use it to pay off debt.
-Wait 3 years. Now look, we paid off our debt and have a ton of spare money! Use it in stimulus stuff, primarily giving the money to small businesses but also give it to some big ones too.
Thats not enough to balance the budget. I doubt thats enough to pay for Obamacare, much less the current budget deficit.
EDIT: good start though. Now:
1. Push back and centralize the age of SS and Medicare to 70.
2. Regraduate.
make below $15M: 1% (everyone pays something!)
under $500M Clinton era rates
$500M to $1MM 45%
over $1MM 50%
cap gains at the same rate as personal or LLC. No deductions except charity.
2. Eliminate the departments of Education, cut the Agriculture, State, and Interior Departments by 50%. Eliminate the Department of Education and reduce the EPA by 50%.
3. Eliminate all corporate, and personal loopholes except charity (10%); and double declining depreciation for capex in the US. Raise the capital gains tax rate to the standard business tax rate. Eliminate LLCs. Raise import duties 50% unless they are in a free trade zone on the American continents.
4. Eliminate all subsidies.
5. Make Puerto Rico a state and tax those s.
6. Make drugs legal and tax those :bleeps.
biccat wrote: My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.
That doesn't seem rational. If an agency cannot operate with a 10% budget reduction, then it does not follow that its function is not necessary. And, considering I'm assuming that you would be determining whether or not the agency in question is carrying out its appointed fucntion, it would seem simpler to just do away with the agencies you didn't like.
Very few agencies are "necessary." In fact, apart from defense, IRS, and the three primary branches (president, congress, supreme court), most of those are unnecessary. Even the IRS and defense departments aren't strictly necessary.
However, I wouldn't be the one determining if they can carry out their function, it would be their decision. If you spend too much and run up a debt, your branch gets cut. If you run out of cash halfway through the year and come begging to Congress, you get cut.
Right now, the incentive for every agency is to spend as much of their budget as possible, promise to pay more, and beg from Congress for even more next year. This would change the balance, so the incentive is to save money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Wouldn't it be easier simply to dissolve the US government and default on the national debt?
You can get a balanced budget in 10 minutes.
Easier to devalue the dollar and pay off the debt for a few pennies (today's money).
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I'm also with Stormrider on getting rid of the EPA. I recently read an article on how "green energy" is killing us, and its killing itself. Did you know there are actually two types of nuclear reactors in use in 1st world developed nations? The ones you hear about are only the first type, with all of their nasty, harmful nuclear winter causing waste. The second type actually produces power using the same nuclear principles as the first, but the fuel is the waste rods from the first type... the spent fuel from this second type is actually such a small amount, that apparently the number of drums used to store it in, could be carried in a standard pickup truck per month (this is a rough guess as i forgot the actual number). Also, the wind farms that Americans are so against (looking at you Kennedy!) placing off the coast, they are all over Germany, and really, they are not all that noticeable, they have very little impact on the "beautiful skylines" because they are most often placed in less populated farmlands, where wind is much more predictable and prevalent.
Yeah, I agree that the freakout over radiation and the worry over windfarms being unsightly is just absurd, and needs to go away. But that's not just a product of the EPA, and if you have the political will to remove the EPA than you certainly have the political will to change it's policies over nuclear energy and wind farms. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
To be honest, the idea that people would argue against having a body dedicated to environment protection in this day and age is just staggering.
@sebster, I think the problem isn't the system in the US, its more the BS thats involved. gak "diseases" like ADD, which were created to control nonexistent problems drive the profits of both doctors and pharmaceutical companies alike...
That's the system. Right now the system has massive incentives to over-prescribe medication, and that's a major part of what needs reform.
Not to mention the cultural differences of Europe and the US. By that I mean, at least in Germany, there are markets every saturday, where most people park the car and walk a great deal, while doing their daily shopping. In the US, you have people driving in a Semi truck for half a block to Walmart to get their McDonald's fix. Restaraunts, by and large are not chain owned in Europe (or I haven't seen nearly as many chains of sit-down, family restaraunts here), again, unlike the states where every town has an Olive Garden, TGIFridays, Red Lobster, etc. which all leads to the obesity epidemic that the US is faced with now.
My country, Australia, recently became on average fatter than yours. Yet we also have a healthcare system that delivers better results, and is much cheaper. Because we've got a healthcare system that is working much better than yours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:To add to Sebster, I've wondered for some time if "US military-industrial complex" so to speak is in desperate need of reworking. The prices of weapons development and production are absurd in some areas with European countries able to produce weapons of similar or higher sophistication at fractions of our costs. I've done no dedicated research into the subject but I find myself questioning how our next generation SPG can have poorer performance than the most recent German model, and cost 5x as much (the cost ending in the weapons suspension and us continuing to use the M109 Paladin, which is a fine platfrom and still serviceable, but a similar problem exists in our jet fighter and naval development programs).
I've always known we waste massive amounts of money on redundant and pointless projects and programs (either through pork barrel or general fiscal stupidity) but I also wonder how much money can be saved by restructuring production and development.
I think there's huge savings to be made in . It's a pretty clear drain on the public purse when defence companies can form close relationships with congressmen, and begin forming deals to commit so much money to development projects, the jobs for which get neatly divided among the sponsoring congressmen. Anyone who dares challenge that gets hit with 'think of the troops' or similar nonsense.
At some point it becomes clear that what matters to those folk, profits and jobs in their home states, are not the things that should matter in a good defence budget - cost and effectiveness. So no wonder there's blowouts and tech projects that never produce anything valuable.
It's also an issue of scale. Right now one single US aircraft carrier group is equivalent, more or less, to the naval capacity of any other nation. And you have 11 carrier groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thedude wrote:I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.
Over here, with most retirement funds we get a choice of five options, or thereabouts, ranging from most aggressive (speculative, high beta stocks, thought debt leveraging is explicitly banned) to least aggressive, basically term deposits. People typically invest in higher risk when they're younger, the greater return is worth the risk while you're still young and can potentially recover from a downturn. Later in life they shift towards less risky options - my fiance's parents are on the verge of retirement and they've basically got everything in term deposits.
In terms of how you deal with downturns? Well you deal, plain and simple. You accept that the market might knock 10% off your savings. It isn't great, but the alternative is to have a defined benefit fund, which always runs the risk of having less in assets than it owes in benefits, and running the risk of crashing in the ugliest possible manner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.
Not only do you get the benefit of actually reducing the cost of government (rather than just the growth), you also reduce the power of the government.
Among those of us who budget in the public sector for a living, it's called 'punishing the efficient'. Because not every government agency has waste in equal quantities. Many will actually be right against the wall, and struggling to provide services with what they've got.
The scariest thing about this idea is that every so often politicians come to power who think it actually works. It happened here in WA when our current government came to power, they demanded a 3% across the board cut. Education were able to cut their bureaucracy easily because they were bloated, but Community Services was already dependant on paying a low wage to people who were working vast amounts of unpaid overtime. Meanwhile Housing said the only way they could handle it was to build less housing... housing that was badly needed.
Everyone kind of stood about awkardly, with government unwilling to back down. In the end government just cut the horrendously bloated Department of Premier and Cabinet, made some superficial cuts in Education, then delayed some infrastructure and declared they'd made the 3% savings. They'd announced they'd keep making cuts each year, but funnily enough after the learning experience of the first time they never mentioned it again.
It's also an issue of scale. Right now one single US aircraft carrier group is equivalent, more or less, to the naval capacity of any other nation. And you have 11 carrier groups.
Hmmm. You know. I think we have room for another
In all seriousness though I've never understood the Navy's doctrinal obsession with maintaining a minimum 10 aircraft carriers. Honestly we could get by with 4, maybe five. Two in the pacific, one in the atlantic, and two free to float about as we please. This is especially true in a age where a few thousand dollars of cruise missile has the possibility of sinking billions of dollars of aircraft carrier.
EDIT: I can certainly appreciate the non-military value of the US Carrier's as massive humanitarian aid ships. The ability to rapidly deploy aid from the deck of a carrier certainly has its value. Maybe not billions of dollars, but some kind of value.
I must say I like how many intelligent people are on this forum.
Of course, the representatives and other members of the US government don't actually do their jobs, but still get paid. Otherwise, we would actually be fixing things rather than letting private interests drive the country into the bedrock.
Get a plan that is long termed planned, and will benefit everyone in the long term. Instead of thinking of the we need money now. We need to progressively make money, for instance make china pay for the war repressions that they caused during the korean war, have country's that are not part of the UN pay fines to enter our country, tighten border security, and change new mexico too... .Old Mexico.
Merge parts of agencies, disband parts of the al-queda teams (the ones that aren't exactly needed)
cut spending, stop asking for more money from china,
raise taxes a bit.
purchase less into those stupid government programs that don't help.
Make a more better system of congress, that will not take months to reply. Get rid of the stupid Red fear combatant groups (yeah they still exist).
Sell parts of the navy to the british/australians/new zealanders/ main europe. Get rid of those stupid destroyers, and largerer battleships and replace them with aircraft carriers, sell off parts of the airforce planes to NATO allies. there ya go 1 trillion dollars there.
Stop funding Israel. (not joking)
Of course these aren't realistic hell what do i know i am 17.
Also make a unniversal free health care, fine big business that are running on a monopoly, make the rich pay more again. etc etc. etc.
I think the best option would be to start over. Go back to the way things worked at the signing of the Constitution (with the exception of the social progress we've made since such as suffrage, equal rights, etc. which doesn't have an economic impact anyway), and take it one step at a time until we have something that is fair, makes sense, and works.
Things I would do:
No federal taxes for households below the poverty line, teachers, medical professionals, military personnel, civil servants, police, firefighters, and small/privately-owned farms
'Middle Class' households (above poverty line, below ~250K USD/year) flat taxed at 20%
'Upper Class' households (above ~250k USD/year) progressively taxed so that the top ~5% of household incomes are at a 80-90% income tax rate (there have been periods of time, such as the period between World War 2 and the end of 'Nam when it was even higher than this... coincidentally that period saw some of the greatest economic growth and prosperity in the history of this country).
0% Small business tax rate (annual revenue less than ~$10 million USD)
0% Corporate tax rate, provided all profits are reinvested into the economy (in the form of R&D, corporate expansion, corporate donations, investment in stock exchange, or even end of year bonus to employees),
Otherwise corporations are taxed using household income system laid out above, using profits as basis for household income
End ALL agricultural subsidies.
Tax trust funds and estates.
Implement government regulation of legal compensation(I.E. there is a standardized government system for determining and awarding compensation as a result of a legal suit vs. arbitrary awards by judges. This will hopefully have an effect of reigning in frivolous legal actions, which will result in a drop in insurance costs)
Implement government medical insurance policy option (for healthcare/medical professionals not individual health insurance, this will work hand in hand with the regulated compensation to bring down the costs of healthcare, which is in part inflated by the high cost of insurance coverage for doctors and hospitals, etc. which is in turn aused by the aforementioned frivolous lawsuits, at the very least this will create competition which will help keep costs low).
Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all other social welfare programs.
Implement government health insurance option for retirees and households below poverty line (this policy will cover regular health screenings and emergency care ONLY, participants foreit the right to compensation from NON-CRIMINAL malpractice/negligence)
Implement legislation for privatized retirement plans/social security (legislation in the sense that it is untaxable, etc.)
Raise legal retirement age, to be re-evaluated every census by a board of medical professionals, to be based on life expectancy.
Raise TRICARE fees for the military (it hasn't been adjusted in years, and is really too good to be true in terms of health insurance)
Implement budget surplus refunds (I.E. - if the government runs a surplus, the excess funds are redistributed back to the population of the country at the end of the year in the form of a check, this does not go out to corporations or small businesses)
No more bailouts for big business, they adapt or die (if the economic issue is endemic and widespread such as the recent recession, then a bailout is instead issued to the national population similar in manner to the budget surplus refunds, the funds have to trickle up before they can trickle down)
Eliminate amtrak/other such regulation of the railroad industry, implement legislation which will allow for privatization with government oversight of safety and standardization
Eliminate and disband all political parties, implement legislation that elected and appointed government officials (and immediate families) forfeit all outside sources of income (in other words, they are taken care of by the government and by extension the people that elected them, no more stock market investments, corporate ownership, etc.)
Outlaw lobbyist organizations
Outlaw derivatives, future, and commodity exchanges (in other words, decentralized trading of commodities)
Asherian Command wrote:We need to progressively make money, for instance make china pay for the war repressions that they caused during the korean war
In the scheme of things Korea wasn't that expensive a war, the payments would be made to the UN as it was a UN action, and China had fairly sensible reasons for fearing for it's border. Probably be fairer and more likely to make McCarthur's estate pay for the cost of the war once North Korea was pushed back of the 38th parallel
have country's that are not part of the UN pay fines to enter our country
That'd be Kosovo, who are a new country and still awaiting final recognition, Taiwan, who are playing funny buggers and being sad because no-one pretends they run China anymore, and the Vatican. I'm not sure it'd be a massive money earner, but I do like the idea of hitting the Vatican up for some cash.
Merge parts of agencies, disband parts of the al-queda teams (the ones that aren't exactly needed)
There is plenty of scope for restructure in intelligence and defence.
stop asking for more money from china
You don't actually ask for money from China, you put it out on the open market and whoever wants it buys it. China happens to be a big buyer, but actually the biggest buyer is private US companies (and weirdly enough the biggest domestic buyer of US government debt is... other parts of the US government - y'all have a weird system).
raise taxes a bit.
It would make a huge difference, but for a certain, highly vocal portion of the US, it remains considerably less acceptable than 'organ farm the unemployed'.
Sell parts of the navy to the british/australians/new zealanders/ main europe. Get rid of those stupid destroyers, and largerer battleships and replace them with aircraft carriers, sell off parts of the airforce planes to NATO allies. there ya go 1 trillion dollars there.
Please don't do that. Because we don't need them, but we'll buy them anyway. Then put them next to all those Abrams Mk1s and fighter jets we just bought, and don't know what to do with
Of course these aren't realistic hell what do i know i am 17.
Your answer was a hell of a lot more sensible than most efforts in this thread.
Also make a unniversal free health care, fine big business that are running on a monopoly, make the rich pay more again. etc etc. etc.
biccat wrote:
Very few agencies are "necessary." In fact, apart from defense, IRS, and the three primary branches (president, congress, supreme court), most of those are unnecessary. Even the IRS and defense departments aren't strictly necessary.
Necessity is contingent upon what is desired. Congress and the Supreme Court are necessary because we desire to adhere to Constitution. The Executive is necessary because we desire a government. Defense and the IRS are constitutive parts of the Executive, and really shouldn't be considered separately from it.
But, the point is that the inability of a given agency to reduce its budget does not indicate that its function is not necessary given a particular desire by either the voting public, or the government itself.
biccat wrote:
However, I wouldn't be the one determining if they can carry out their function, it would be their decision. If you spend too much and run up a debt, your branch gets cut. If you run out of cash halfway through the year and come begging to Congress, you get cut.
So if the State Department were to fire everyone but the Secretary of State, who then took the budget allocated to the State Department and proceeded to spend the fiscal year on a "diplomatic mission" in the South of France you would have no role in determining whether or not the function of the State Department was being carried out?
That's hyperbole, of course, but if you're not actually going to make determinations about what it is to carry out the function of a particular agency, then you aren't placing an incentive of efficiency. Rather, the incentive is for each agency to operate at bare minimum of functionality, and so minimize annual operating costs, while using the remainder of their budget for discretionary spending; say, in the form exorbitant pay scales and benefits packages for their skeleton crew of employees.
And if you are going to make determinations about what it is for each agency to carry out its function, then it, again, seems odd that you wouldn't simply start hacking away at agencies you didn't consider necessary in the first place. After all, that's no less politically feasible than simply hacking away at every agency, and probably a good deal more so.
biccat wrote:
Right now, the incentive for every agency is to spend as much of their budget as possible, promise to pay more, and beg from Congress for even more next year. This would change the balance, so the incentive is to save money.
Right, there is an incentive for every agency that is not Constitutionally mandated to justify its existence in order to obtain funding. That doesn't go away simply because your criteria requires a series of 10% cuts (individual agencies can do budgetary math too). Agencies will still spend as closely to their allocated limit as possible, that marginal spending would simply take the form of end loaded discretionary allocations; like infrastructure.
dogma wrote:Necessity is contingent upon what is desired. Congress and the Supreme Court are necessary because we desire to adhere to Constitution. The Executive is necessary because we desire a government. Defense and the IRS are constitutive parts of the Executive, and really shouldn't be considered separately from it.
Ah, no, you're not only wrong here, but since this underlies much of the rest of your post, those points are wrong as well.
Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).
Although, if under your definition breathing isn't necessary unless we desire to keep living, then you might have a point.
dogma wrote:So if the State Department were to fire everyone but the Secretary of State, who then took the budget allocated to the State Department and proceeded to spend the fiscal year on a "diplomatic mission" in the South of France you would have no role in determining whether or not the function of the State Department was being carried out?
Right.
The job wouldn't get done, so I (as the Chief Executive) would remove the Secretary of State and appoint a new SoS. You do understand that there are two parts here, right? One is fiscal responsibility and the other is the inherent authority of the Executive to appoint heads of departments. I had assumed that such was known by basic civics, but I probably should have been more explicity. And you'll note, there's actually no less of an incentive to do this right now.
The rest is, again, based on a flawed assumption.
dogma wrote:Right, there is an incentive for every agency that is not Constitutionally mandated to justify its existence in order to obtain funding.
There is an incentive to justify their existence to a group of political hacks. And their interest isn't in reducing the budget, it's in reelection. Generally achieved through more spending.
sebster wrote:Everyone kind of stood about awkardly, with government unwilling to back down. In the end government just cut the horrendously bloated Department of Premier and Cabinet, made some superficial cuts in Education, then delayed some infrastructure and declared they'd made the 3% savings. They'd announced they'd keep making cuts each year, but funnily enough after the learning experience of the first time they never mentioned it again.
This doesn't refute that the proposal would work, it simply reinforces the idea that people are resistant to change. You were asked to be fiscally responsible, but instead you "stood around awkwardly" not doing anything and eventually the other side backed down.
Under my plan, such an agency would find itself dissolved in fairly short order.
biccat wrote:
Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).
As I said, Defense and Revenue collection are functions of the Executive, they aren't independent entities, not even in the US. Additionally, its certainly possible to run a state, albeit only a small states, without any meaningful form of material defense, and government has certainly existed without any form of compulsory revenue collection.
As for the Legislature and the Judiciary, there are forms of government which require neither; certain types of aristocracy and feudalism are both good examples. In these cases the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive authority breaks down because the whim of decision is essentially left to the Executive alone.
biccat wrote:
Although, if under your definition breathing isn't necessary unless we desire to keep living, then you might have a point.
Correct. Breathing is only necessary if you want to live.
biccat wrote:
Right.
The job wouldn't get done, so I (as the Chief Executive) would remove the Secretary of State and appoint a new SoS. You do understand that there are two parts here, right? One is fiscal responsibility and the other is the inherent authority of the Executive to appoint heads of departments. I had assumed that such was known by basic civics, but I probably should have been more explicity. And you'll note, there's actually no less of an incentive to do this right now.
Second, that's contradictory. The only way you can determine whether or not the requisite job is being done is if you, the chief executive, determine what it means to do the job. You can't claim the job isn't being done, and then say that you have no role in determining whether or not that is the case. Remember, my initial criticism was that the across the board budget cut was a waste of time given that, ultimately, you are going to determine whether or not a given agency is doing its job, and therefore whether or not it is fulfilling its function given the allocated budget.
This isn't a matter of simply replacing the department head, as I said that was a hyperbolic example. Its a matter of whether or not you, as the executive, serve as the ultimate determinant of whether or not agency X is performing its function given the amount of money being allocated. You claimed that you had not role in that process, and now you're claiming otherwise, I'm not sure which you are actually advocating.
biccat wrote:
The rest is, again, based on a flawed assumption.
As I've already stated,, the elements of a functioning government are only necessary if you want a functioning government in the first place. Further, the way in which you want your government to function is going to determine what your government requires in order to function and, as I indicated above, that isn't necessarily the sum of those elements you have listed.
biccat wrote:
There is an incentive to justify their existence to a group of political hacks. And their interest isn't in reducing the budget, it's in reelection. Generally achieved through more spending.
Sure, and your proposal doesn't change
biccat wrote:
This doesn't refute that the proposal would work, it simply reinforces the idea that people are resistant to change. You were asked to be fiscally responsible, but instead you "stood around awkwardly" not doing anything and eventually the other side backed down.
Under my plan, such an agency would find itself dissolved in fairly short order.
No, they were asked to cut their budgets by 3%, which is not the same thing as being fiscally responsible. Fiscal irresponsibility can entail making extraneous budget cuts.
dogma wrote:No, they were asked to cut their budgets by 3%, which is not the same thing as being fiscally responsible. Fiscal irresponsibility can entail making extraneous budget cuts.
I recall an anecdote from a member of the "deficit commission" (paraphrasing):
"Every agency representative came into the room and told us two things. First, that the deficit was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. Second, that we should increase their funding."
Which is exactly the problem sebster related. It is easy for the other guys to cut spending, but it's hard for us. I'm sure that every agency says the same thing.
So either you take a "scalpal" approach and suddenly become overwhelmed in minutia (the "too big/too small" problem), or you take a cleaver approach and cut expenditures across the board. We're currently mired in the scalpal approach, and it's obviously not working.
If it only took an hour of negotiation to trim a billion dollars from a budget, it would take two months, working 24 hours a day, to reduce the budget deficit to zero.
biccat wrote:
Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).
As I said, Defense and Revenue collection are functions of the Executive, they aren't independent entities, not even in the US. Additionally, its certainly possible to run a state, albeit only a small states, without any meaningful form of material defense, and government has certainly existed without any form of compulsory revenue collection.
As for the Legislature and the Judiciary, there are forms of government which require neither; certain types of aristocracy and feudalism are both good examples. In these cases the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive authority breaks down because the whim of decision is essentially left to the Executive alone.
To give an example of what many people could consider redundant organizations would be like.. the NSA and the CIA. By and large they do the same thing, collect and act on intelligence, with the ultimate desire of securing the nation in ways that the uniformed armed services legally or morally cannot.
I think that some people would lump the FBI into the same category, because there are state agencies for policing, etc. however, I think that the FBI does alleviate some of the issues that can occur when a crime is committed by the same person across multiple states (such as the inevitable jurisdiction arguments)
Ensis Ferrae wrote:To give an example of what many people could consider redundant organizations would be like.. the NSA and the CIA. By and large they do the same thing, collect and act on intelligence, with the ultimate desire of securing the nation in ways that the uniformed armed services legally or morally cannot.
Actually they do to separate things. Comparing the CIA to the NSA is akin to comparing the Army to the Navy. Yes. Both want to defend the nation. But the means, tools, techniques, and skill sets they need are different (granted as with many similar organizations there is overlap). The NSA and CIA are really only separate because the modern intelligence system is simply too big to be handled under a single organization. It would be too large to effectively administrate.
I think that some people would lump the FBI into the same category, because there are state agencies for policing, etc. however, I think that the FBI does alleviate some of the issues that can occur when a crime is committed by the same person across multiple states (such as the inevitable jurisdiction arguments)
The FBI and state agencies are different. State agencies only have authority within their states. The FBI has authority in ALL states. The real redundancy is that ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and the FBI are separate organizations. They actually do do a lot of the same things with the same means and skill sets. ATF is a leftover from an era that no longer exists and I'd argue is no longer a relevant organization.
biccat wrote:
Necessity is not contingent on desires. There are certain elements of a government that are required to function. Defense (for obvious reasons), IRS (for acquisition of revenue), Legislature (for budgeting and lawmaking), Executive (carrying out the law and running the government) and Judicial (as neutral arbiters of the law).
As I said, Defense and Revenue collection are functions of the Executive, they aren't independent entities, not even in the US. Additionally, its certainly possible to run a state, albeit only a small states, without any meaningful form of material defense, and government has certainly existed without any form of compulsory revenue collection.
As for the Legislature and the Judiciary, there are forms of government which require neither; certain types of aristocracy and feudalism are both good examples. In these cases the distinction between legislative, judicial, and executive authority breaks down because the whim of decision is essentially left to the Executive alone.
To give an example of what many people could consider redundant organizations would be like.. the NSA and the CIA. By and large they do the same thing, collect and act on intelligence, with the ultimate desire of securing the nation in ways that the uniformed armed services legally or morally cannot.
I think that some people would lump the FBI into the same category, because there are state agencies for policing, etc. however, I think that the FBI does alleviate some of the issues that can occur when a crime is committed by the same person across multiple states (such as the inevitable jurisdiction arguments)
Am I the only person in the world that can make a distinction between the NSA and CIA? Yes, there is an overlap in their functions, IMO reducing or eliminating the overlap would be a good move, but the NSA and CIA fulfill different roles. The NSA is a SIGINT (signal intelligence) based organization, while the CIA is a HUMINT (human intelligence). The training and organization required to fulfill these functions are distinct and different, combining them into a single organization wouldn't necessarily be the best move.
Now, as LordofHats said, ATF and FBI could be rolled into one and it wouldn't really hurt anything, especially when you consider that ATF and FBI often end up butting heads because cases often fall under the jurisdiction of both... okay I dont actually know if thats true, its just how it happens in the movies. Never really been interested in the law enforcement side of things.
Dude, I swear, all you do is post stuff about Bill Maher. Why?
Automatically Appended Next Post: That aside however, here's what I would suggest
- Legalize weed and tax the living hell out of it.
- Eliminate tax loopholes that allow multi-billion dollar corporations such as GE to get away with paying zero taxes.
- Withdraw from all foreign wars.
- Sell half the navy.
- turn the Great Plains region into the world's largest windfarm.
- tax the gak out of oil and gas.
- sell advertising space on the whitehouse and the capital, and on members of congress.
- convert Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico into ginormous solar panels.
- legalize prostitution and tax it 80%.
- tax the hell out of viagra. This works in conjunction with the above point.
- Return to a feudalistic society
- tax fast food. Knowing the dietary habits of the general populace, this has the potential to be the largest source of revenue since income tax.
Kilkrazy wrote:What about the Tennessee River Valley Authority Police?
Them too.
Though, I would support a return of the CCC. Get all these dang kids of the street and get um work'n on beautifying nature for better commercial opportunities And the Highway system could use all the labor to fix it up, especially in my state which seems to not care too much about the roads.
LordofHats, you wouldn't happen to be from Illinois,would you? I swear they have the worst roads in this country.
And whats with everyone wanting to sell off chunks of the Navy? First off, large chunks of it are unsellable due to the hightech crap in them which is protected by congressional mandate. Second, who would buy them? The Chinese are the only ones who would be willing to throw a decent amount of money at them, and I assure you they are the last people on Earth we would want to sell them to. The UK/France/Australia/New Zealand/Germany/NATO couldn't afford them, let alone operating and maintenance costs.
If you want to save money on our defense budget, get rid of the Marines. Only a 29 billion dollar savings, but when you consider that they fulfill largely the same function as the Army these days, they are the most 'redundant' of the branches (although still very useful).
chaos0xomega wrote:LordofHats, you wouldn't happen to be from Illinois,would you? I swear they have the worst roads in this country.
Pennsylvania bud. Even the toll roads are crap in some spots.
And whats with everyone wanting to sell off chunks of the Navy? First off, large chunks of it are unsellable due to the hightech crap in them which is protected by congressional mandate. Second, who would buy them?
You can always strip the super secret bits out and sell hulls. I'd be that an aircraft carrier could be converted to a freighter, tanker, or even as I've pointed out find a use as a humanitarian aid vessel whenever the US Navy is done with it. But yeah, who would buy them is a good question. I don't think there's much of a market for 100,000 tons of super carrier outside of the military.
If you want to save money on our defense budget, get rid of the Marines. Only a 29 billion dollar savings, but when you consider that they fulfill largely the same function as the Army these days, they are the most 'redundant' of the branches (although still very useful).
The Marines fill a very necessary role (close support with the Navy). Were they removed, the Army/Navy would then need funds allocated to it for an entirely new training program and support. We wouldn't save much at all. I would propose that the Marines really don't need their own mini-airforce and mini-fleet though. Honestly, the Marines culture also provides a usefulness. When you need someone to just charge in head on and beat someone senseless with raw power, you send the US Marine Corp (and there are indeed situations where just that is needed). Their doctrine and mentality really lends a lot to the Marines in the area of frontal assault. The Army could do the same job, the ability of the Marines in this field is well recognized in the US military.
biccat wrote:This doesn't refute that the proposal would work, it simply reinforces the idea that people are resistant to change. You were asked to be fiscally responsible, but instead you "stood around awkwardly" not doing anything and eventually the other side backed down.
The standing around awkwardly element didn't happen because 'people are resistant to change'. That's just you throwing in a 2c management term to explain away a very simple thing - certain departments had core operations that were already underfunded and they simply didn't have a magical 3% of waste they could cut without hurting services.
Other departments didn't just have 3%, they had 10 or 20% that could be cut. So we had a mandate from government that would have been terrible to follow, and we just had to wait for government to realise it couldn't cut Community Services or Housing without an immediate impact on services, but it could cut Premier & Cabinet and Education by a whole lot, and along with some delay in infrastructure projects they had their 3%.
The 'standing around awkwardly' phase was waiting for government to quietly manoeuvre itself into a position where it could entirely redesign its program to cut waste where there actually was waste and still claim everything went like they said it would.
Under my plan, such an agency would find itself dissolved in fairly short order.
You would be rewarding the agencies with areas of waste they can easily cut, and punishing agencies that have already worked to cut waste on their own initiative. As I said before, this is called 'punishing the efficient'.
It's even worse in your case because you're threatening to close down agencies that don't have 10% to give up, which means you would be literally 'punishing the efficient'.
And you'd be doing it because you've got some ideological assumption that because it is government, there must be waste. Going wandering into a business with no idea how it really works, but some assumption of how things must be and calling for a sweeping changed on how you think things must work is called terrible management. Government is no different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:"Every agency representative came into the room and told us two things. First, that the deficit was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. Second, that we should increase their funding."
Which is exactly the problem sebster related. It is easy for the other guys to cut spending, but it's hard for us. I'm sure that every agency says the same thing.
No, the problem I related is quite different.
Thing is, everyone is going to believe their budget needs to be expanded. That is just human nature. But that's only a fraction of the story. Reality does enter the picture. We can bring in quantitative measures of efficiency, compare with other countries and across time periods, and with the private sector, and get a very clear idea of who has excessive bureaucracy, and who has poor core processes.
We're currently mired in the scalpal approach, and it's obviously not working.
You're not mired in any approach right now. The idea that there's been any real, substantive effort to control budget expenditure in the US is fantasy.
I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.
And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset. The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again. There is no function provided for by the Marines that isn't already provided for by another segment of the military, with the exception of V/STOL aviation. As for the Marine culture, I know plenty of guys in the Army and plenty of guys in the Marines. The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost), while only the actual trigger pullers are in the Army. You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).
chaos0xomega wrote:LordofHats, you wouldn't happen to be from Illinois,would you? I swear they have the worst roads in this country.
And whats with everyone wanting to sell off chunks of the Navy? First off, large chunks of it are unsellable due to the hightech crap in them which is protected by congressional mandate. Second, who would buy them? The Chinese are the only ones who would be willing to throw a decent amount of money at them, and I assure you they are the last people on Earth we would want to sell them to. The UK/France/Australia/New Zealand/Germany/NATO couldn't afford them, let alone operating and maintenance costs.
It isn't about making money from selling off aircraft carriers. I don't know where you got that from.
It's about reducing operational costs, and you can save a huge amount of money by simply having less carrier fleets. Building less new generation support craft with no real operational role. Having less top of the line fighter aircraft with no-one to fight.
chaos0xomega wrote:I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.
And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset. The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again. There is no function provided for by the Marines that isn't already provided for by another segment of the military, with the exception of V/STOL aviation. As for the Marine culture, I know plenty of guys in the Army and plenty of guys in the Marines. The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost), while only the actual trigger pullers are in the Army. You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).
Just out of curiosity, do you have any time in service, or is your knowledge of the Marines based off second hand hearsay. I ask because of your comment about almost all Marines being borderline psycotic. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
chaos0xomega wrote:I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.
The Navy does not have sufficient amphibious assault troops (The current operational goal of the Marines). These days the military actually gets critics pointing fingers at it for deploying Marines as if they were the Army, a role that doctrinally, they're not suited for. The Army is a sledgehammer combined with a swiss army knife. The Marine corp is more of a butchers knife with some nice accessory attachments.
And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset.
I get why the Marines have it, their essentially their own miniature combined arms force, solely capable of operating on their own outside of the support of the other branches to an extent. I just don't see the point of such a force anymore. Their amphibious ability is valuable, but why they need their own fleet and air force I question, especially since they're attached to the Navy, who provides both.
The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again.
But doctrinally the Army is not an organization specialized in amphibious assault. For a nation with no land boarders with real enemies (frankly a country with only two land boarders in general that is likely to constantly see its forces projected overseas), having a large dedicated force able to assault from the sea is very useful. The Army is not on its own capable of this role (not in its present structure). None of the standing Army divisions are able to operate as a dedicated amphibious forces. They can do it, but it's not a task that they were primarily designed for.
The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost),
I've known marines too. They seemed perfectly sane to me.
You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).
I'd question your friends more carefully. As a group, the Marines have a spirit and a level of morale unique to themselves in the US military. We could always incorporate the Marines into the Army, but I think doing so risks eliminating the esprit de corps that has been built by the Marines for 200 years. The mentality of a marine is very different from that of an Army soldier. Not psychotic, but more aggressive for sure, and dare I say, with that special mix of crazy in just the right amount that gives them the ability to go in and get certain types of jobs done that could render other troops less effective.
EDIT: I use crazy in the above case, in the same sense that it takes a certain kind of 'crazy' to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, although the airborne are an organization that, as much as I love them, the usefulness in modern warfare can easily be called into question.
It isn't about making money from selling off aircraft carriers. I don't know where you got that from.
It's about reducing operational costs, and you can save a huge amount of money by simply having less carrier fleets. Building less new generation support craft with no real operational role. Having less top of the line fighter aircraft with no-one to fight.
I never said anything about aircraft carriers... I said Navy, which features a lot of ships other than carriers, although I agree with you on all points.
Relapse wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:I challenge everything you said regarding the marines. The Marines don't fulfill any function that is still relevant to the Navy. The Navy trains its own personnel to conduct VBSS operations (something that the Marines should be doing), has its own spec ops when things get too hot for them to handle (SEALS), and handles its own shipboard security. The only ole Marines still perform for the Navy is shore protection at port facilities, but even then its only at domestic ports/bases, when a Navy destroyer pulls into port into a Thai port, the Navy handles it themselves.
And of course as you said, the Marines don't need a mini-airforce/navy, but they justify it with their marines take care of their own/expeditionary mindset. The Army has its own expeditionary forces, its own (rotary wing) air support, and it has its own little fleet of landing craft/amphibious vehicles just in case they ever need to land on a contested shoreline again. There is no function provided for by the Marines that isn't already provided for by another segment of the military, with the exception of V/STOL aviation. As for the Marine culture, I know plenty of guys in the Army and plenty of guys in the Marines. The only difference in the Culture is that almost EVERY Marine is borderline psychotic (because every Marine is trained as an infantryman first and foremost), while only the actual trigger pullers are in the Army. You strip away the uniforms and any kit that might identify you by service branch, and there isn't much difference between a Soldier or a Marine (or even an Air Force ROMAD/TACP for that manner).
Just out of curiosity, do you have any time in service, or is your knowledge of the Marines based off second hand hearsay. I ask because of your comment about almost all Marines being borderline psycotic. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes I do have (very limited) time in service. The comments about borderline psychotic wasn't meant to be taken literally, cool your jets.
The Navy does not have sufficient amphibious assault troops (The current operational goal of the Marines). These days the military actually gets critics pointing fingers at it for deploying Marines as if they were the Army, a role that doctrinally, they're not suited for. The Army is a sledgehammer combined with a swiss army knife. The Marine corp is more of a butchers knife with some nice accessory attachments.
The Army can run the full spectrum of operations that the Marines can, and more. The Navy doesn't need amphibious troops, the Army can handle it and we're a joint force anyway, the branches are only responsible for training and equipping forces these days, employment is the responsibility of a combatant commander which is more often than not an Army officer.
I get why the Marines have it, their essentially their own miniature combined arms force, solely capable of operating on their own outside of the support of the other branches to an extent. I just don't see the point of such a force anymore. Their amphibious ability is valuable, but why they need their own fleet and air force I question, especially since they're attached to the Navy, who provides both.
Its a holdover from the Cold War/pre-Goldwater Nichols Act, back in the day each military branch was responsible for planning and executing its own operations independent of the other branches. I.E. -the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines would each plan, execute, and evaluate their own campaigns independently of one another. The Joint Chiefs were there to 'deconflict' these operations, giving operational oversight of some areas to the different branches of service, so that you wouldn't have the Navy attempting strike missions on a target that the Air Force was going to carpet bomb 30 minutes later. That structure required the Marines (because of the necessities of fighting in an expeditionary environment) to be able to completely support themselves with organic support units. The other branches could be expected to deliver support (naval gunfire/air support primarily), but this was on an 'on-call' basis rather than a permanent solution to the problem the Marines would face fighting in a frontier setting away from the 'front-lines'/the rest of the force.
These days they don't need it, but as I understand it, Congress has mandated the Structure of the Marines to include 3 Air Wings (part of a protective measure passed in an attempt to keep the Marines from being disbanded following WW2), so those assets remain where they are, the Marines are glad to have them, and very few are seriously willing to openly question the Marines on the subject, because the Marine Corps propaganda machine (rivaled only by those of authoritarian dictatorships (Harry Truman said it himself)) has convinced America that it is an apple pie institution.
But doctrinally the Army is not an organization specialized in amphibious assault. For a nation with no land boarders with real enemies (frankly a country with only two land boarders in general that is likely to constantly see its forces projected overseas), having a large dedicated force able to assault from the sea is very useful. The Army is not on its own capable of this role (not in its present structure). None of the standing Army divisions are able to operate as a dedicated amphibious forces. They can do it, but it's not a task that they were primarily designed for.
No, its not specialized in amphibious assault, but that didn't stop it from making a mess of the Germans on D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history, which, btw, didn't have a single Marine hitting the beaches. The Army also participated in amphibious operations in the pacific, and even had a few units hit the beaches at Inchon (which was commanded by an Army officer, btw). In fact, the Army has conducted more amphibious landings than the Marine Corps has. The Army divisional structure you speak of is also outdated, they use the BCT structure these days, which are very well suited to conducted amphibious ops (in fact the structure was devised to allow for rapid deployment in an expeditionary setting). Hell, IIRC, the JHSV program (join high speed vessel) which started life as an Army program, was designed for rapid and efficient transport of a BCT from ship to shore in a contested environment.
I've known marines too. They seemed perfectly sane to me.
Figure of speech, same as how you used crazy in your next quote.
I'd question your friends more carefully. As a group, the Marines have a spirit and a level of morale unique to themselves in the US military. We could always incorporate the Marines into the Army, but I think doing so risks eliminating the esprit de corps that has been built by the Marines for 200 years. The mentality of a marine is very different from that of an Army soldier. Not psychotic, but more aggressive for sure, and dare I say, with that special mix of crazy in just the right amount that gives them the ability to go in and get certain types of jobs done that could render other troops less effective.
EDIT: I use crazy in the above case, in the same sense that it takes a certain kind of 'crazy' to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, although the airborne are an organization that, as much as I love them, the usefulness in modern warfare can easily be called into question.
I really don't see any difference between the Marines I know and the Army Infantry, Armor, and Artillery guys I know. They all have a same mentality, espirit de corps, and pride (especially the Army Rangers I know). The difference, again, is that in the Marines this mindset virtually extends to the entire organization, while in the Army it is more occupational and limited to the fighters and not the accountants, maintainers, and desk jockeys.
No, its not specialized in amphibious assault, but that didn't stop it from making a mess of the Germans on D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history, which, btw, didn't have a single Marine hitting the beaches.
Multiple errors on D-Day, and the near failure to take the Omaha beach head actually helped save the Marine Corp by emphasising the need for a dedicated amphibious assault force. The entire corp was busy in WWII in the Pacific, where I'd argue they were needed more than in the ETO given the nature of the Pacific campaign. Really, we probably could have used more Marines in WWII so that we could send some to ETO (of course, at this time the Marines as a dedicated amphibious force wasn't fully realized yet. That happened after the war).
This is compounded by the nature of a modern army. Machinery, techniques, and skill sets have become highly specialized, making cross training more difficult. We can train everyone to assault amphibiously, but if we want a dedicated unit, which would increase the efficiency of a force conducting such an operation, we really need a dedicated unit. In WWII, we could train an Infantry division to assault amphibiously equal to the Marines. But the techniques and equipment of a modern such operation are too complex (not to mentioned Expensive) to allow such a practice to happen again.
Now, we can certainly integrate one into the Army, but it won't save much money. We'd need to raise the new force. I'd also argue this would not help much. An amphibious assault needs to be conducted in VERY close consort with naval forces, which is why the Marines function as part of the Navy past a certain point. Ideally, the Marines would lead such an assault or operate as the lynchpin something they are more suited for than any Army unit.
Also, Inchon may have been commanded by MacArthur, but that doesn't mean much. The primary troops involved were Marines, and MacArthur easily had more experience in the amphibious than anyone else in the US military at the time. He ran the pacific war in WWII, and the Marines don't get to operate at higher command levels in the same way as Army commanders because of their integration with the Navy (it doesn't help that in the Army-Marine tug of war, the Army pulls more weight in higher command levels EDIT: It also has a much larger pool of general officers to choose from for such purposes and operations usually don't consist simply of an amphibious assault). MacArthur also has the benefit of being the commander of the Korean war at the time.
The Army divisional structure you speak of is also outdated, they use the BCT structure these days, which are very well suited to conducted amphibious ops
I'm talking about the BCT. It has no elements integral to the structure of army combat groups to facilitate amphibious assaults (Or high responsiveness for that matter). The capability to assault from sea for the Army comes from outside the combat element, and the concept of an amphibious assault falls outside the realm of half the Army divisions.
Hell, IIRC, the JHSV program (join high speed vessel) which started life as an Army program, was designed for rapid and efficient transport of a BCT from ship to shore in a contested environment.
One can have a combat force dedicated to a task while still having others capable of performing it. And all of the Army's JHSV's are Navy now. This really goes back to the constant back and forth between the Army and the Marines over who should have what capability. The two overlap in the area of amphibious capability, but the Army is not dedicatedly capable of it, and we need such ability to project force. The Marines fill that roll.
I see no real reason to disband them. We'd save no money. New divisions would have to be raised in the Army or Navy to do what the Marines do or reorder existing forces.
Figure of speech, same as how you used crazy in your next quote.
Moving on then
The difference, again, is that in the Marines this mindset virtually extends to the entire organization,
And that has a great deal of usefulness. It hints at a stronger sense of loyalty to the organization than found in the Army, part of why the Marines are so useful as a dedicated assault force.
No, its not specialized in amphibious assault, but that didn't stop it from making a mess of the Germans on D-Day, the largest amphibious assault in history, which, btw, didn't have a single Marine hitting the beaches.
Multiple errors on D-Day, and the near failure to take the Omaha beach head actually helped save the Marine Corp by emphasising the need for a dedicated amphibious assault force. The entire corp was busy in WWII in the Pacific, where I'd argue they were needed more than in the ETO given the nature of the Pacific campaign. Really, we probably could have used more Marines in WWII so that we could send some to ETO (of course, at this time the Marines as a dedicated amphibious force wasn't fully realized yet. That happened after the war).
This is compounded by the nature of a modern army. Machinery, techniques, and skill sets have become highly specialized, making cross training more difficult. We can train everyone to assault amphibiously, but if we want a dedicated unit, which would increase the efficiency of a force conducting such an operation, we really need a dedicated unit. In WWII, we could train an Infantry division to assault amphibiously equal to the Marines. But the techniques and equipment of a modern such operation are too complex (not to mentioned Expensive) to allow such a practice to happen again.
Now, we can certainly integrate one into the Army, but it won't save much money. We'd need to raise the new force. I'd also argue this would not help much. An amphibious assault needs to be conducted in VERY close consort with naval forces, which is why the Marines function as part of the Navy past a certain point. Ideally, the Marines would lead such an assault or operate as the lynchpin something they are more suited for than any Army unit.
Also, Inchon may have been commanded by MacArthur, but that doesn't mean much. The primary troops involved were Marines, and MacArthur easily had more experience in the amphibious than anyone else in the US military at the time. He ran the pacific war in WWII, and the Marines don't get to operate at higher command levels in the same way as Army commanders because of their integration with the Navy (it doesn't help that in the Army-Marine tug of war, the Army pulls more weight in higher command levels EDIT: It also has a much larger pool of general officers to choose from for such purposes and operations usually don't consist simply of an amphibious assault). MacArthur also has the benefit of being the commander of the Korean war at the time.
I'm not sure this is accurate. Everything I know about the Marines tells me that there is no specialized widespread training in amphibious operations. The Expeditionary Warfare School (formerly Amphibious Warfare School) trains only officers in expeditionary warfare techniques, tactics, strategy, logistics, etc. The only real widespread training Marines receive in conducting amphibious ops is when they conduct an amphibious FTX/FEX (field training exercise or field exercise, different names for different branches). In fact, the Marines ran their first brigade level amphibious training exercise in the past ten years at the start of this year, so it really wouldn't be that difficult to qualify the Army to the same standard of the Corps at all (look up 'Bold Alligator' for more info).
As for Inchon, X Corps (the unit which hit the beach there) was made up of the 1st Marine Division and the 7th Army Division. Again, the Army has a long history of conducting amphibious ops. The only real difference was that the Marines were the first wave in, but the beach was still contested when the Army started arriving.
I'm talking about the BCT. It has no elements integral to the structure of army combat groups to facilitate amphibious assaults (Or high responsiveness for that matter). The capability to assault from sea for the Army comes from outside the combat element, and the concept of an amphibious assault falls outside the realm of half the Army divisions.
You standard MEU is the same thing. The amphibious capability (with the exception of a number of Amphibious Assault Vehicles) comes from the Navy and is not organic to the MEU itself . Eliminating the Corps would pretty much be as simple as sticking existing BCT's onto amphibs. You might need to bring in Navy/Air Force pilots to fly some of the fixed wing/tiltrotor aircraft, but most of the rotary wing assets are not beyond the skill and training of army aviation. A slight reorganization of some BCTs might be needed to better optimize them for the mission, but considering that the Army is still reorganizing them anyway, its not like you would be incurring a serious added cost. An infantry BCT should fit with no issues, but is not optimal for the mission because it lacks heavy armor. A Stryker brigade probably wouldn't fit, but I don't have specific numbers. A Heavy Brigade could fit, but it would be a really tight squeeze, but would be the closest thing to optimal in the existing structure. The best option, IMO, would be to make a fourth classification of the Infantry BCT (currently there is air assault, airborne, and light/motorized): Amphibious, and transfer in a few abrams (which the Army would have 600 more of after the dissolution of the Corps.
One can have a combat force dedicated to a task while still having others capable of performing it. And all of the Army's JHSV's are Navy now. This really goes back to the constant back and forth between the Army and the Marines over who should have what capability. The two overlap in the area of amphibious capability, but the Army is not dedicatedly capable of it, and we need such ability to project force. The Marines fill that roll.
I see no real reason to disband them. We'd save no money. New divisions would have to be raised in the Army or Navy to do what the Marines do or reorder existing forces.
The Marines are only 'dedicated' to it because they are the ones that get parked on amphibs. You put (a portion of) the Army in that position and they would be just as dedicated. As stated before, large scale/widespread amphibious training is not something the Marines have conducted very often this past decade. You would in actuality save tons of money by eliminating the Corps. I don't doubt that a additional BCT's would have to be raised, but the equipment would already be there, leftover from the Corps, and you would eliminate the redundancy of having a completely separate parallel command structure and all the senior officers, etc. that comes with it. Likewise you integrate the air component of the Corps into the Navy/Air Force and you would save on the separate command structure, logistics facilities, etc. that come with that.
Besides that, the vast majority of the defense establishment says we'll probably never have to take a contested shoreline again on a large scale, and most expeditionary assaults (including those staged by the Marines to establish a beachhead, helos flew marines in behind the 'front' and then heavier equipment was brought in by boat to link up with them) occur by air anyway, which the Army happens to be particularly good at (and in fact TRAINS the marines in...). Do we need to maintain an entirely separate branch of military in order to preserve a capability that they themselves don't practice and haven't practiced in decades, when we can do almost/just as well by letting the Army handle it? In fact, the EFV (expeditionary fighting vehicle) program was killed. Unless something miraculous happens, the Marines aren't going to have an amphibious assault vehicle at all in the near future... and thats actually entirely fine, since the Navy doesn't want to conduct that kind of amphibious operation any longer. Aside from its ridiculous price tag, the EFV's major failing is that anti-ship missile technology evolved considerably since the programs inception. Originally it was intended to deliver marines to the shore from beyond the range of coastal defenses, some 25 miles or so. Now pretty much every non-failed state has coastal defenses/anti-ship missiles that can deny us access from 50-100 miles away. The Marines themselves have acknowledged that any future amphibious assault will primarily occur from the air, with heavier equipment being brought in later by boat once it was secured, hence the lack of well decks on the America Class amphibs. So I ask again, why continue to preserve something that they themselves are not seriously interested in preserving? The Army are much better versed at air assault ops than the Marines, and are much better equipped/organized to do it.
And that has a great deal of usefulness. It hints at a stronger sense of loyalty to the organization than found in the Army, part of why the Marines are so useful as a dedicated assault force.
I disagree. The marine mindset/ethos is a lot like the Space Wolves in Prospero Burns (yes, I did just make that analogy). The 'ferociousness' for lack of a better term is an act/institution wide psyop thats been going on since their creation. In function, motivation, and morale they really are no different than the Army, all that separates the two is a uniform and tradition. Perhaps once, long ago (well before my time) this was different, but in an all volunteer military a lot of the advantages that would be gained by such a culture are lost.
The only real difference was that the Marines were the first wave in, but the beach was still contested when the Army started arriving.
Ground usually remains contested until the battle is over. The Marines made the initial assault and breakthrough and the Army then arrived to aid in its exploitation.
Do we need to maintain an entirely separate branch of military in order to preserve a capability that they themselves don't practice and haven't practiced in decades, when we can do almost/just as well by letting the Army handle it?
Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.
The reason that we continue to develop new arms and machines to use in battle, IMHO is because we learned from the Germans of WW2. They developed the Me-109, and essentially stopped nearly all aircraft dev. in regards to fighters, and by the end of the war, when they realized that the 109 just couldnt cut it anymore, they didnt have the resources to field any real number of "better" aircraft.
That said, I don't think that the AF especially needs nearly as much money as it gets. Go to any AF installation, and it's insane how much nicer it is compared to basically any army or naval installation (at least the few naval bases ive been to). I would also cut and limit the number of General Officers that each branch has, ESPECIALLY the Air Force, because it just added 43 General Officer slots, and cut 43,000 enlisted slots.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:The reason that we continue to develop new arms and machines to use in battle, IMHO is because we learned from the Germans of WW2. They developed the Me-109, and essentially stopped nearly all aircraft dev. in regards to fighters, and by the end of the war, when they realized that the 109 just couldnt cut it anymore, they didnt have the resources to field any real number of "better" aircraft.
That said, I don't think that the AF especially needs nearly as much money as it gets. Go to any AF installation, and it's insane how much nicer it is compared to basically any army or naval installation (at least the few naval bases ive been to). I would also cut and limit the number of General Officers that each branch has, ESPECIALLY the Air Force, because it just added 43 General Officer slots, and cut 43,000 enlisted slots.
I agree, the AF has one of the worst cases of organizational bloat I have EVER seen. Yes, they do have the nicest bases and best facilities, thats because the AF believes in taking care of its people, and thats good, but I think it goes above and beyond what it needs to, and thats not necessarily a good thing. Believe me, there are a lot of people in the AF that aren't happy with it.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:The reason that we continue to develop new arms and machines to use in battle, IMHO is because we learned from the Germans of WW2. They developed the Me-109, and essentially stopped nearly all aircraft dev. in regards to fighters, and by the end of the war, when they realized that the 109 just couldnt cut it anymore, they didnt have the resources to field any real number of "better" aircraft.
I think our current proactive approach to development has more to do with our foul ups than Germany's. We really neglected weapons development in the interwar years, and 1939-1942 was a mad rush to get serviceable platforms (Namely tanks, aircraft, and other vehicles) into production and available for operations.
I will say thought the BCT concept is oddly similar to the battle groups the Wehrmacht (and very similar conceptually to the mid-war Panzer/Panzergrenadier Divisons) was fielding during the middle years of the war with the USSR. Whether that history figures into the current doctrine's origins I don't know.
What the? Wow did this tread go OT! It's a pretty good analogy though, it its own way. Just like our esteemed politicians, we can't keep our eyes on the prize and get easily sidetracked, by utterly nonsensical arguments. At least here is takes three pages, I don't think congress would have ever focused on it that much.
LordofHats wrote:Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.
I've heard, from an army tanker dude no less, that the marines are still there because they continue to do as much as the army, but with much less. It isn't anything inherent in the marines, it's just that because there's always talk of getting rid of the marines, they keep pretty quiet on requesting new acquisitions. So they kept with unupgraded Abrams for much longer, their helicopter support is much less and much poorer than the army, that kind of thing.
I read that a long time ago and thought maybe the answer isn't to save money by getting rid of the marines, but to have an army that has support requirements much closer to the marines. Nothing I've read since has made me think otherwise.
LordofHats wrote:Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.
I've heard, from an army tanker dude no less, that the marines are still there because they continue to do as much as the army, but with much less. It isn't anything inherent in the marines, it's just that because there's always talk of getting rid of the marines, they keep pretty quiet on requesting new acquisitions. So they kept with unupgraded Abrams for much longer, their helicopter support is much less and much poorer than the army, that kind of thing.
I read that a long time ago and thought maybe the answer isn't to save money by getting rid of the marines, but to have an army that has support requirements much closer to the marines. Nothing I've read since has made me think otherwise.
That would explain why the Marines were using the M16 and M60 weapons for so long, and why they continued to use the Honey Cobra long after the Apache came out.
sebster wrote:
It isn't about making money from selling off aircraft carriers. I don't know where you got that from.
It's about reducing operational costs, and you can save a huge amount of money by simply having less carrier fleets. Building less new generation support craft with no real operational role. Having less top of the line fighter aircraft with no-one to fight.
This may have already been said, but carriers are much cheaper than maintaining a base network, because:
1) Carriers can be mothballed.
2) Carriers can cover more territory than a stationary base.
3) Carriers can be re-tasked in order to conglomerate force in a particular location beyond ordinary operational limits.
The only disadvantage is that they can be sunk, but that's why we have missile defense technologies.
The apache is a hanger queen. It does the jobs better, but only slightly in most cases, but the maintenance requirements are terrible compared to the cobra. Marines tend to find something that works well enough and they are comfortable with, rather than press for new tech all the time.
Andrew1975 wrote:The apache is a hanger queen. It does the jobs better, but only slightly in most cases, but the maintenance requirements are terrible compared to the cobra. Marines tend to find something that works well enough and they are comfortable with, rather than press for new tech all the time.
The Apache, quite frankly, was designed for something different than the Cobra.
The Apache (and the A-10, frankly) was designed with the vision of a full-on Soviet Bloc invasion of Europe with armor pressing into West Germany in unprecedented numbers, drowning NATO forces in a tide of steel and treads.
The Cobra was designed for the conflict in Vietnam, and while it can do the job that the Apaches are doing now(which really is what the Cobra was designed for)--it can't feasibly step into the role the Apache was designed for.
I also wouldn't say that it's necessarily a case of the Marines "not pressing for new tech all the time" in this case, but rather it's showcasing the fact that the USMC and USN work hand in hand--the 'heavy' lifting of the USMC is done by the USN's pilots or the USMC's Harriers.
I didn't read through all of this so forgive me if it was mentioned. As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.
Politicians will not do what is best for the country because they are doing what is best for their partyy and the next election cycle. The best ideas are thrown away as politicians play to the fears/desires of a minority of thought which is concentrated into their gerrymandered districts. If politicians were forced to answer to the will of the people - a cross section of the people and not one specific gerrymandered ideology - we would not have such extreme views who will throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Gerrymandering leads to extremism, long political careers, and a disregard for America as a whole (the politician does what is best for his/her own tiny little world instead of for the people as a whole).
DarthDiggler wrote:I didn't read through all of this so forgive me if it was mentioned. As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.
The problem is that I doubt you can actually "prove" gerrymandering. There are a thousand different ways to disguise it and say you were doing something else, and no real way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. We know they do it. But knowing it and proving it in court are two very different things.
Gerrymandering leads to extremism, long political careers, and a disregard for America as a whole (the politician does what is best for his/her own tiny little world instead of for the people as a whole).
One hardly needs to Gerrymander to maintain a long political career. It certainly is a tool to aid in that goal but it's hardly a sure bet way or something that once done away with would stop it from happening. The only way to stop a politician from being in congress for 50 years (for sure) is term limits, and I'm not sure I agree with the concept, at least not in the House.
But then, I've always been an advocate of taking your time and fixing the problem in one swoop, not rushing to conclusions and pushing out crap legislation that then needs to be fixed itself before it can fix the problem. I say make Senators appointed again but that's just me.
Hat - All districts will be in grid format. Enlarge or shrink each grid every 10 years, with the census, to get the population numbers equal. No need to prove anything in court just fix the rules. This will solve a lot of problems.
DarthDiggler wrote:Hat - All districts will be in grid format. Enlarge or shrink each grid every 10 years, with the census, to get the population numbers equal. No need to prove anything in court just fix the rules. This will solve a lot of problems.
Given populations distributions squares may not be effective, and there will still be the question where to draw the square lines. Move it left or right, up or down, to even of the spread. THe Gerrymandering will just not look so silly anymore when drawn on a map.
DarthDiggler wrote:As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.
Then who determines what Congressional districts are?
DarthDiggler wrote:As to the OP, I feel the only way things can get better in government (both local, state and federal levels) is to make gerrymandering a federal crime.
Then who determines what Congressional districts are?
The same people who would gerr....ah ho ho ho...trying to make a logical pitfall out of that. Nice try, but I don't even know what a logical pitfall would be and therefore would not fall for it.
LordofHats wrote:Honestly, I just don't see any advantage in getting rid of them. They have a capability that is needed, and their disbandment would simply require a new force to be raised and organized to take their place. The USMC makes up such a small percentage of the defense budget anyway compared to the other branches. Having them be semi-separate (Their command structure, logistics, and operational abilities are vested into those of the Navy at levels above the Operational) isn't any more advantageous or disadvantages than integrating them or their capability into the Army.
I've heard, from an army tanker dude no less, that the marines are still there because they continue to do as much as the army, but with much less. It isn't anything inherent in the marines, it's just that because there's always talk of getting rid of the marines, they keep pretty quiet on requesting new acquisitions. So they kept with unupgraded Abrams for much longer, their helicopter support is much less and much poorer than the army, that kind of thing.
I read that a long time ago and thought maybe the answer isn't to save money by getting rid of the marines, but to have an army that has support requirements much closer to the marines. Nothing I've read since has made me think otherwise.
Thats not entirely true anymore. These days the Marines get just as many cool toys to play with as the Army. The 'do more with less' mindset harkens back to way back when (Cold War era) when that was nowhere near the case. Example of recent Marine Corps acquisition programs:
F-35B
AH-1Z Viper
UH-1Z Venom
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (canceled recently)
MV-22 Osprey
Infantry Automatic Rifle
HIMARS
Harvest Hawk KC-135 Upgrade Package
As for politics, I stand by my assertion that we need to abolish political parties.
The irony of the F35 actually illustrates my point about weapons development here. The JSF program was supposed to combat sky rocketing development costs for fighter jets, but the F35 is by and large the most expensive development program thus far
LordofHats wrote:The irony of the F35 actually illustrates my point about weapons development here. The JSF program was supposed to combat sky rocketing development costs for fighter jets, but the F35 is by and large the most expensive development program thus far
Oh and it's crap, by the way. Along with the MV-22 Osprey. Terrible, overcosted crap.
IN fact most of the toys listed here are pretty much completely useless in today or future conflicts. They are all products of the military getting too much money, and not spending it wisely at all.
F-35B
AH-1Z Viper
UH-1Z Venom
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (canceled recently) Oddly enough, this seamed the most useful of the lot
MV-22 Osprey
Infantry Automatic Rifle
HIMARS I actually like this too
Harvest Hawk KC-135 Upgrade Package
Andrew1975 wrote:IN fact most of the toys listed here are pretty much completely useless in today or future conflicts. They are all products of the military getting too much money, and not spending it wisely at all.
Worthless only if you think there will never be another conventional war. Of course, there likely isn't going to be one within the life spans of most of the weapons we are currently developing. The world is pretty chill for the US on the conventional side these days.
Can't see a problem with the Venom and the Viper. Their just updates for the Huey and the Cobra. EDIT: Actually, I'd say the Venom and Viper are a really good idea. It's already a problem that we have so many different vehicles in service from different manufacturers with different parts, especially in the Army. Any program to increase commonality between vehicles gets a plus from me. That's long term savings right there especially since military hardware often can't take advantage of economies of scale.
The Osprey though I think has always been a target as unnecessary. Didn't the Marines not even want it?
The venom and viper are really just upgrade and remanufatureing packages, they are not bad, actually quite good tactically, but the price for those upgrades, for what they were was far too costly. The osprey and f35 are complete garbage though, from concept to production.
Infantry Automatic Rifle, really not necessary. How many different m16 variants do you need. I know many of them have valid roles, but really it's time to develop a new weapon already.
Harvest Hawk KC-135 Upgrade Package. Really, this is the best way to spend money? Hey, now my refueling tanker can launch missiles? Isn't that what the new f-18's, and other aircraft are for. Yes the spectre gunship is cool, but really the same mission can be accomplished safer in other ways.
Oh crap, I didn't even realize this is the budget and economy thread. Totally OT, again perfect example of what our politicians do.
Andrew1975 wrote:The venom and viper are really just upgrade and remanufatureing packages, they are not bad, actually quite good tactically, but the price for those upgrades
The thing is that this saves money, especially since honey cobras and hueys are already horribly obsolete (kudos to the Marines for still using them). By making the vehicles use as many of the same parts as possible, we're saving money in manufacturing and in logistics, something that's a huge problem for the army (the manufacturing that is. It's a problem for any army especially with heavy vehicles that aren't produced in large numbers).
My understanding of F35 isn't that it's a bad concept, but that the concept has not been implemented as well as it could have been and that development problems have caused sky rocketing costs for the project. The real problem is that now we're stuck with it because the F22 was cancelled when it was effectively a finished product that just needed a few last check marks on its report card. Ironically cancelled for the cheaper F35, back when the F35 cost half of what it does now. I think it's still cheaper than the raptor though.
EDIT: I don't have a problem with replacing a non-M16 variant with another M16 variant. It decreases costs and is more efficient logistically.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the F35 a failure though. It's still in development, and numerous other weapons were called failures before proving themselves in combat (the M4 and the M1A1 Abrams both come to mind).
Really the problem with the military today is that we've probably gotten way to good in certain areas of logistics, namely transport and management. We end up ordering way more than is needed, and operate numerous high maintanance vehicles with little commonality between them. We get away with it because we're very logistically capable, but the downside is that we've become logistically excessive.
Really the problem with the military today is that we've probably gotten way to good in certain areas of logistics, namely transport and management. We end up ordering way more than is needed, and operate numerous high maintanance vehicles with little commonality between them. We get away with it because we're very logistically capable, but the downside is that we've become logistically excessive.
The F35 is an attempt to handle this by making one plane for all roles and all branches of the service. It's just not possible or really practical. Too many sacrifices and compromises have to be made in form and function. The payloads, both weapons and fuel on this thing are so small, the operational costs are going to be ridiculous.
Osprey seams cool, but they are just big giant expensive targets, that can't auto rotate down if there is a real problem.
dogma wrote:This may have already been said, but carriers are much cheaper than maintaining a base network, because:
1) Carriers can be mothballed.
2) Carriers can cover more territory than a stationary base.
3) Carriers can be re-tasked in order to conglomerate force in a particular location beyond ordinary operational limits.
The only disadvantage is that they can be sunk, but that's why we have missile defense technologies.
As far as maintaining an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once, aircraft carriers are certainly the best way to do it.
The point is more about considering whether you really need to maintain an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Then who determines what Congressional districts are?
You assign the role to a statutory body, which is then kept independant of government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Thats not entirely true anymore. These days the Marines get just as many cool toys to play with as the Army. The 'do more with less' mindset harkens back to way back when (Cold War era) when that was nowhere near the case.
Ah, I see my information was out of date*. Thanks for the correction.
sebster wrote:
As far as maintaining an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once, aircraft carriers are certainly the best way to do it.
The point is more about considering whether you really need to maintain an overwhelming firepower advantage over the rest of the world in all theatres at once.
Actually, the US retains overwhelming military superiority over all possible opponents using only its land-based resources.
My point was that one of the two can be eliminated without any material reduction in force projection, but that Carrier groups allows for more flexibility; meaning we should keep them given deference to land bases, at least outside issues of political necessity.
sebster wrote:
You assign the role to a statutory body, which is then kept independant of government.
dogma wrote:Actually, the US retains overwhelming military superiority over all possible opponents using only its land-based resources.
My point was that one of the two can be eliminated without any material reduction in force projection, but that Carrier groups allows for more flexibility; meaning we should keep them given deference to land bases, at least outside issues of political necessity.
Purely land based forces severely limit force projection. Aircraft carriers give you total control over the air in a given location of your choosing.
Point is, you could cut the total number of carrier groups maintained and still be capable of dominating any sea zone in the world in response to any conceivable threat (the only place that hypothetically might not be possible in the future is off China, and if so then the US is extremely unlikely to be willing to commit any carriers anyway). What land forces are also cut from there is just more savings.
That's not possible.
It's not only possible, it isn't even hard. We've had it in place for more than a hundred years.
To many good ideas are dismissed as impossible. There are solutions to the economic crisis however they are blocked by amition, greed and party competiveness. Gerrymandering is the root cause that prevents solutions from going forward. That foundation must be removed before any progress can be made.
sebster wrote:
Purely land based forces severely limit force projection. Aircraft carriers give you total control over the air in a given location of your choosing.
Point is, you could cut the total number of carrier groups maintained and still be capable of dominating any sea zone in the world in response to any conceivable threat (the only place that hypothetically might not be possible in the future is off China, and if so then the US is extremely unlikely to be willing to commit any carriers anyway). What land forces are also cut from there is just more savings.
With rotation schedules, that isn't true; especially if carriers are considered as replacements for land-based assets.
sebster wrote:
It's not only possible, it isn't even hard. We've had it in place for more than a hundred years.
The fun is getting better. I love the clash of arms that is two parties fighting it out for a better resolution than the one party PRI state nonsense.
Evil Republicans now going to push a vote in both houses to life the debt ceiling in return for $2.4Bn in equivalent cuts and a balanced budget amendment or we're going to nuke the world Dr. Evil Style. Evil Democrats saying we needs us some taxes NomNomNom.
Frazzled wrote:The fun is getting better. I love the clash of arms that is two parties fighting it out for a better resolution than the one party PRI state nonsense.
Mexico did very well under the PRI until those pesky citizens demanded alternatives.
Someone a while back said it succinctly...the way out is to tax like a Democrat but spend like a Republican. I realize that's horrific and unthinkable in today's age. But IMO it's fairly obvious that in the wake of our economic problems, we have to make some sacrifices, and at the same time revenue has to increase at least until we get more people back working. That's what you'd do if you were running a troubled business, right...make some budget cuts while raising prices where you can? And yet this is something our government can't seem to agree to do.
gorgon wrote:Someone a while back said it succinctly...the way out is to tax like a Democrat but spend like a Republican. I realize that's horrific and unthinkable in today's age. But IMO it's fairly obvious that in the wake of our economic problems, we have to make some sacrifices, and at the same time revenue has to increase at least until we get more people back working. That's what you'd do if you were running a troubled business, right...make some budget cuts while raising prices where you can? And yet this is something our government can't seem to agree to do.
No, if you're running a troubled business you cut your overhead and expenses. I've yet to lived the day where the Federal government cut its expenses. Ever.
Frazzled wrote:
No, if you're running a troubled business you cut your overhead and expenses. I've yet to lived the day where the Federal government cut its expenses. Ever.
Clinton did it, so did Bush 1 and Reagan, and Bush 2 for that matter.
So, either you aren't that old, or you don't know what you're talking about.
It's a bad analogy, I suppose. Cutting a budget has much different implications for a government than a business. I have no problem with cuts. But in this last decade, we've been through two wars and the second worst recession in history, and yet taxes remain as low as they've been in decades. GE paid zero tax the last two years. I guess I'm just forgetting that a tax hike of any kind, anywhere is EVILMURDERBAD.
gorgon wrote:It's a bad analogy, I suppose. Cutting a budget has much different implications for a government than a business. I have no problem with cuts. But in this last decade, we've been through two wars and the second worst recession in history, and yet taxes remain as low as they've been in decades. GE paid zero tax the last two years. I guess I'm just forgetting that a tax hike of any kind, anywhere is EVILMURDERBAD.
No you're just what some would call a moderate, or others might call normal.
Having said that, raising taxes in a downturn is not going to help the downturn. Inversely a lot of the things being bandied about are quite reasonable, but we're not playing with actors dealing in good faith, and very few actually give a about the budget deficit or national debt.
People who do almost instantly come up with workable ideas.
Frazzled wrote: No, if you're running a troubled business you cut your overhead and expenses. I've yet to lived the day where the Federal government cut its expenses. Ever.
Clinton did it, so did Bush 1 and Reagan, and Bush 2 for that matter.
So, either you aren't that old, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Actually, none of them did. Here's the data. Since at least 1968, the total federal outlays have not been reduced year-to-year.
Every time someone in Washington talks about a "budget cut," they don't really mean "cut." They mean "reduction in future growth." That is not a reduction in expenses.
Frazzled wrote:
No, if you're running a troubled business you cut your overhead and expenses. I've yet to lived the day where the Federal government cut its expenses. Ever.
Clinton did it, so did Bush 1 and Reagan, and Bush 2 for that matter.
So, either you aren't that old, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Actually, none of them did. Here's the data. Since at least 1968, the total federal outlays have been reduced year-to-year.
Every time someone in Washington talks about a "budget cut," they don't really mean "cut." They mean "reduction in future growth." That is not a reduction in expenses.
biccat wrote:
Actually, none of them did. Here's the data. Since at least 1968, the total federal outlays have not been reduced year-to-year.
When you normalize expenses, many Presidents have cut them.
biccat wrote:
Every time someone in Washington talks about a "budget cut," they don't really mean "cut." They mean "reduction in future growth." That is not a reduction in expenses.
No, they mean cut, because that's what "cut" means in the context of mandatory expenditures. And yes, that is a reduction in expenses.
biccat wrote:
Actually, none of them did. Here's the data. Since at least 1968, the total federal outlays have not been reduced year-to-year.
When you normalize expenses, many Presidents have cut them.
That doesn't mean that expenses were cut, it simply means that GDP growth outpaced the growth of government. Not only are you using manipulative statistics, the statistics you're using don't prove your point.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Every time someone in Washington talks about a "budget cut," they don't really mean "cut." They mean "reduction in future growth." That is not a reduction in expenses.
No, they mean cut, because that's what "cut" means in the context of mandatory expenditures. And yes, that is a reduction in expenses.
Actually, no, that's not what "cut" means. A "reduction in expenses" would mean a year-to-year reduction in expenses. Expenses have never reduced year-to-year.
dogma wrote:Thank you for illustrating that you do not understand inflation.
Fraz is a banker, right?
I liked the part where the philosophy doctoral student attacks the banker for not understanding finances. That's some funny **** right there.
biccat wrote:
Actually, none of them did. Here's the data. Since at least 1968, the total federal outlays have not been reduced year-to-year.
When you normalize expenses, many Presidents have cut them.
That doesn't mean that expenses were cut, it simply means that GDP growth outpaced the growth of government. Not only are you using manipulative statistics, the statistics you're using don't prove your point.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Every time someone in Washington talks about a "budget cut," they don't really mean "cut." They mean "reduction in future growth." That is not a reduction in expenses.
No, they mean cut, because that's what "cut" means in the context of mandatory expenditures. And yes, that is a reduction in expenses.
Actually, no, that's not what "cut" means. A "reduction in expenses" would mean a year-to-year reduction in expenses. Expenses have never reduced year-to-year.
dogma wrote:Thank you for illustrating that you do not understand inflation.
Fraz is a banker, right?
I liked the part where the philosophy doctoral student attacks the banker for not understanding finances. That's some funny **** right there.
indeed at best we're talking a reduction in the forecast growth of the budget, never a reduction in the actual budget during that period of analysis.
Speaking of banking...$1,000,000,000.00 commitment BAM! I need a cigar and some Benjamins to light it.
biccat wrote:
That doesn't mean that expenses were cut, it simply means that GDP growth outpaced the growth of government. Not only are you using manipulative statistics, the statistics you're using don't prove your point.
No, that's wrong. In any instance in which expenses decrease as a percentage of GDP it might indicate either that expenses were cut or that GDP growth outpace expenditure; without additional information there is no way to distinguish between the two. Thankfully the graph I provided includes such information, notably regarding the fact that a negative relationship between expenses and tax revenue indicates either a positive change in the tax rate, or a negative change in expenses. Seeing as there has been no material change in the tax rate since the Regan administration, and what immaterial change there has been has been negative, my point is prove.
Also, manipulative statistics is not a sensible concept. Statistics indicate what hey indicate, and nothing more or less. The idea of manipulation only enters into the equation at the point of data, or algorithmic normalization (distinct from sample normalization), which itself is only relevant to tests of significance.
biccat wrote:
Actually, no, that's not what "cut" means. A "reduction in expenses" would mean a year-to-year reduction in expenses. Expenses have never reduced year-to-year.
That's false both in terms of gross dollars and adjusted ones.
We don't pass trillion dollar spending bills every year, so that takes care of the gross consideration, and we don;t positively adjust the Federal budget in terms of perfect assessments of inflation, so that takes care of the adjusted one.
biccat wrote:
I liked the part where the philosophy doctoral student attacks the banker for not understanding finances. That's some funny **** right there.
Philosophy? Sir, I'm a political science student. There is a massive difference in terms of the relevance of statistics.
But hey, if I'm left to run with it, why is it that a political science student has to explain inflation to a banker?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
indeed at best we're talking a reduction in the forecast growth of the budget, never a reduction in the actual budget during that period of analysis.
biccat wrote:
That doesn't mean that expenses were cut, it simply means that GDP growth outpaced the growth of government. Not only are you using manipulative statistics, the statistics you're using don't prove your point.
No, that's wrong. In any instance in which expenses decrease as a percentage of GDP it might indicate either that expenses were cut or that GDP growth outpace expenditure
You realize that these two are the same, right? If GDP grows at 0% and government is cut 5%, GDP growth still outpaces government growth.
However, as the information I posted shows, expenses were never cut. That is, the gross year-to-year federal outlays has never been reduced since at least 1968. Although I do believe there was a slight actual dip from 1945-46. No idea what could have caused that, however.
dogma wrote:without additional information there is no way to distinguish between the two.
Yes, which is the problem with the information you provided. It doesn't actually address cuts.
dogma wrote:Thankfully the graph I provided includes such information, notably regarding the fact that a negative relationship between expenses and tax revenue indicates either a positive change in the tax rate, or a negative change in expenses. Seeing as there has been no material change in the tax rate since the Regan administration, and what immaterial change there has been has been negative, my point is prove.
Tax revinue has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made, because tax rate is not a predictor of GDP. If it were, then you would see a constant Tax/GDP ratio, and as you can see, it varies greatly. Further, taxes aren't stable, but vary greatly year-to-year. Therefore, I ignored that part of your chart, because it doesn't tell us anything.
Your chart shows one thing relevant to this conversation, and that only tangentially. It shows the ratio of spending to GDP. It does not address actual changes in spending. The information I provided did address changes in spending.
dogma wrote:Also, manipulative statistics is not a sensible concept. Statistics indicate what hey indicate, and nothing more or less. The idea of manipulation only enters into the equation at the point of data, or algorithmic normalization (distinct from sample normalization), which itself is only relevant to tests of significance.
I am not asserting that the statistics themselves are manipulative, but that they are being used for a manipulative purpose.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
Actually, no, that's not what "cut" means. A "reduction in expenses" would mean a year-to-year reduction in expenses. Expenses have never reduced year-to-year.
That's false both in terms of gross dollars and adjusted ones.
Please let me know in what year gross spending decreased year to year. Please provide information to support your claim. I've provided CBO numbers above.
dogma wrote:We don't pass trillion dollar spending bills every year, so that takes care of the gross consideration, and we don;t positively adjust the Federal budget in terms of perfect assessments of inflation, so that takes care of the adjusted one.
Actually, until recently, we did pass trillion dollar spending bills. They were to be called budgets. We haven't had one since 2009.
dogma wrote:Philosophy? Sir, I'm a political science student. There is a massive difference in terms of the relevance of statistics.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that doesn't depend from a BS is a scientific black hole. Whatever information is dumped in is completely destroyed.
dogma wrote:But hey, if I'm left to run with it, why is it that a political science student has to explain inflation to a banker?
Possibly for the same reason you need a lawyer to explain political science to you.
Frazzled wrote:Having said that, raising taxes in a downturn is not going to help the downturn. Inversely a lot of the things being bandied about are quite reasonable, but we're not playing with actors dealing in good faith, and very few actually give a about the budget deficit or national debt.
Y'know, at various points in my career I considered pursuing a job in DC. Plenty of opportunities there for communications types. But I just couldn't see myself working there or in any political capacity, really. It always felt like a distorted reality in which crises are as much political opportunities to advance agendas and acquire power as they are problems to fix.
Obviously I'm exaggerating and being simplistic. And certainly if you're in advertising of any kind, you're a hired gun and not every project you take on is going to fit your personal views. But I guess ultimately I'm not a political animal. The game isn't over my head, I just have no desire to play.
So let me get this straight. The Democrats argument is we need to raise taxes to match what we are spending (or have promised to spend) and the Republicans argument is we need to reduce spending (or have promised to spend) to match the amount we are collecting in taxes.
biccat wrote:
You realize that these two are the same, right? If GDP grows at 0% and government is cut 5%, GDP growth still outpaces government growth.
I was using your terminology, according to which there is a distinction between the two.
biccat wrote:
However, as the information I posted shows, expenses were never cut. That is, the gross year-to-year federal outlays has never been reduced since at least 1968. Although I do believe there was a slight actual dip from 1945-46. No idea what could have caused that, however.
Which you have nicely illustrate here.
biccat wrote:
Yes, which is the problem with the information you provided. It doesn't actually address cuts.
That's true, it doesn't address the act of slicing pieces of things apart from one another.
However, it does denote variations in government spending which involved real, negative pressure.
biccat wrote:
Tax revinue has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made, because tax rate is not a predictor of GDP. If it were, then you would see a constant Tax/GDP ratio, and as you can see, it varies greatly. Further, taxes aren't stable, but vary greatly year-to-year. Therefore, I ignored that part of your chart, because it doesn't tell us anything.
When revenue and expenses have a negative relationship which favors the growth of revenue relative to expenses the metric of comparison, gross dollars or GDP, indicates that expenses were reduced relative to prior outlays. That's why tax revenue is relevant, you cannot assess expenses reliably otherwise.
biccat wrote:
Your chart shows one thing relevant to this conversation, and that only tangentially. It shows the ratio of spending to GDP. It does not address actual changes in spending. The information I provided did address changes in spending.
Said chart cannot address what you claim it does without addressing changes to spending.
biccat wrote:
I am not asserting that the statistics themselves are manipulative, but that they are being used for a manipulative purpose.
Well duh, so are yours. That's what persuasive argument is.
biccat wrote:
Please let me know in what year gross spending decreased year to year. Please provide information to support your claim. I've provided CBO numbers above.
It turns out you are correct, at no time in the given data period has the state spent less in terms of gross dollars. I assumed that the stimulus bills represented an unusual rate of increase.
Though I must note that spending in terms of adjusted dollars has fluctuated a great deal.
biccat wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, anything that doesn't depend from a BS is a scientific black hole. Whatever information is dumped in is completely destroyed.
Political science, particularly its sub-fields, are often granted as BS degrees.
biccat wrote:
Possibly for the same reason you need a lawyer to explain political science to you.
You are indeed very good at explaining bad political theor and, tangentially, virtue (read:awful) ethics.
None of it does, it's politics. The republicans are too worried about their image to make a compromise on this issue, they would rather lay all the blame on the democrats and get their party elected into office.
It doesn't matter really. The economy issues have been around longer than anyone wants to admit. I would actually be happy if those social security checks don't go out next month, a government that doesn't get anything done due to infighting is defective. I'd rather have a monarchy or even a despot that got gak done at this rate.
No, that's not the debate ATM. Dems are willing to make cuts, and the old guard in the GOP seem to want to get something done. The new guard of the GOP isn't willing to compromise. Still a simplistic representation, but more accurate than your outline.
gorgon wrote:No, that's not the debate ATM. Dems are willing to make cuts, and the old guard in the GOP seem to want to get something done. The new guard of the GOP isn't willing to compromise. Still a simplistic representation, but more accurate than your outline.
Actually its not.
There are a few in both party that want something done. There are many more that want something done, but not at the expense of their party's interests and ideology. There are others who don't care if anything is done, only that their personal interests or those of their respective party are furthered.
On the positive, I've now been informed Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) that the Republicans are not complying because they are racists. Yes! Pass the popcorn.
Frazzled wrote:
There are a few in both party that want something done. There are many more that want something done, but not at the expense of their party's interests and ideology. There are others who don't care if anything is done, only that their personal interests or those of their respective party are furthered.
Frazzled wrote:
There are a few in both party that want something done. There are many more that want something done, but not at the expense of their party's interests and ideology. There are others who don't care if anything is done, only that their personal interests or those of their respective party are furthered.
biccat wrote:
You realize that these two are the same, right? If GDP grows at 0% and government is cut 5%, GDP growth still outpaces government growth.
I was using your terminology, according to which there is a distinction between the two.
Yes, there's a distinction between GDP growth and a reduction in spending. However, I pointed out that your chart shows nothing about the values of either.
A chart that shows the ratio of X to Y doesn't show anything about X or Y unless there's a predictable relationship between the two. There isn't an easily discernable relationship between GDP and spending, and therefore the most you can say about the data you provided is "spending relative to GDP has done X." This is really quite simple mathematics, I'm frankly surprised you're having such a difficult time with it.
dogma wrote:Which you have nicely illustrate here.
Thank you. I'm glad you found it nicely illustrative.
dogma wrote:However, it does denote variations in government spending which involved real, negative pressure.
No, actually it doesn't. All it shows is variation in government spending relative to GDP. Which is irrelevant to the issue of whether government has actually cut spending.
dogma wrote:When revenue and expenses have a negative relationship which favors the growth of revenue relative to expenses the metric of comparison, gross dollars or GDP, indicates that expenses were reduced relative to prior outlays. That's why tax revenue is relevant, you cannot assess expenses reliably otherwise.
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying in that first sentence. Maybe you're missing some punctuation.
But like I said above, in modern America, tax revinue is independent of expenditures, and therefore is irrelevant. However, you might reasonably argue that this is a problem going forward.
dogma wrote:Said chart cannot address what you claim it does without addressing changes to spending.
Not true. If spending were held at a fixed gross dollar amount, it would still vary widely as a percent of GDP. Expenses could have decreased year-to-year and by varying GDP accordingly, you could achieve the same result. Therefore, since we don't know anything about GDP or expenses, the information you provided cannot be used to determine actual changes to expenses.
If a graph shows X/Y, then you cannot use that graph to analyze either X or Y without knowing more about either.
dogma wrote:Well duh, so are yours. That's what persuasive argument is.
It's not persuasive argument, you're arguing the fact that government outlays have never reduced year-to-year. I have proven incontrovertable evidence that this is in fact the case (at least since '68, I acknowledge that they may have reduced earlier). A fact you acknowledge following. At this point, you're simply arguing that the metric used doesn't support my contention. But since I gave the metric as part of my contention, I'm not sure what facts you're basing your argument on.
dogma wrote:It turns out you are correct, at no time in the given data period has the state spent less in terms of gross dollars. I assumed that the stimulus bills represented an unusual rate of increase.
Thanks.
dogma wrote:Though I must note that spending in terms of adjusted dollars has fluctuated a great deal.
Here's the spending in adjusted dollars. Note that this is different than spending as a percent of GDP. GDP is different than inflation because the total wealth of the United States is increasing, not remaining constant.
As you can see from the green line expenses have not "fluctuated wildly," but rather steadily increased.
Interestingly, Nixon appears to have been our most "fiscally responsible" president, under this metric.
Actually, no, that's not what "cut" means. A "reduction in expenses" would mean a year-to-year reduction in expenses. Expenses have never reduced year-to-year.
There is no hard dictionary definition for "spending cut" and the terminology for cutting as a verb or a cut as a noun do not fit the term. The U.S. budget is a relative and normalized object that exists comparatively to GDP. To handle it in real, hard terms is useless as the only metric by which the number can be compared to make sense is revenue and GDP growth. A number of presidents have cut spending as a percentage of GDP, just as a number of presidents have risen it. If no president rose government spending government would collapse in line with inflation.
Ideally every president from the beginning of this nations history should grow the budget inkeeping with inflation, otherwise the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function. This is an unrealistic expectation as wars or social programs can force a raise and higher then average economic growth can induce a relative fall. Writing a number in the sand then cutting it by 10% arbitrarily and calling it a cut "because it's smaller then before" implies a direct lack of understanding of the subject matter.
It's not the kind of thing you should pat yourself on the back for.
My chart is the easiest to understand and illustrates areas of budget reduction or "cutting" as relative to GDP.
ShumaGorath wrote:If no president rose government spending government would collapse in line with inflation.
the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function.
It's almost like you're saying these are bad things.
You should really move to somalia. You would love it there. The government's pretty weak. You'd love Yemen too.
It's been a while since I've heard the Somolia "argument."
Would you care to address the issue of an ever-expanding government? If president X institutes a policy that costs $1 trillion a year, what obligation do future presidents have to maintain and further support that policy, especially if it isn't effective? If they cut that program, should they institute a new $1 trillion/year program to maintain government spending?
It's been a while since I've heard the Somolia "argument."
And it's been like four hours since I heard the "Cut the government to nothing" argument. I wish it could stop.
Would you care to address the issue of an ever-expanding government? If president X institutes a policy that costs $1 trillion a year, what obligation do future presidents have to maintain and further support that policy, especially if it isn't effective? If they cut that program, should they institute a new $1 trillion/year program to maintain government spending?
Ideally every president from the beginning of this nations history should grow the budget inkeeping with inflation, otherwise the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function. This is an unrealistic expectation as wars or social programs can force a raise and higher then average economic growth can induce a relative fall. Writing a number in the sand then cutting it by 10% arbitrarily and calling it a cut "because it's smaller then before" implies a direct lack of understanding of the subject matter.
I would say cut programs that don't work and institue ones that do. Have a targeted % of annual debt that is relative to an acceptable number in terms of comparison to GDP. Maintain it based on current modern events and requirements of the government. There is no issue with the "ever expanding government" so long as it grows in line with the economy that it draws revenue from. Thats what it's supposed to do. A governments expenses should grow every single year as long as its economy isn't in recession. If it doesn't grow then as time goes on it's ability to administer its duties lessens as the money it has loses relative value to the efforts it is trying to make since the government falls under the sway of inflation just as everything else does.
It's been a while since I've heard the Somolia "argument."
And it's been like four hours since I heard the "Cut the government to nothing" argument. I wish it could stop.
I never said cut it to nothing.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Would you care to address the issue of an ever-expanding government? If president X institutes a policy that costs $1 trillion a year, what obligation do future presidents have to maintain and further support that policy, especially if it isn't effective? If they cut that program, should they institute a new $1 trillion/year program to maintain government spending?
Ideally every president from the beginning of this nations history should grow the budget inkeeping with inflation, otherwise the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function. This is an unrealistic expectation as wars or social programs can force a raise and higher then average economic growth can induce a relative fall. Writing a number in the sand then cutting it by 10% arbitrarily and calling it a cut "because it's smaller then before" implies a direct lack of understanding of the subject matter.
You edited your post after I responded to you to add that bit.
Anyway, since I lack understanding of the subject matter, could you explain how our government would lose the ability to function if we reduced spending by 10%? And I'm not talking about specific programs that would have to be cut (obviously if you cut the Ministry of Silly Walks the government would cease to develop and license new and effective Silly Walks), I'm talking total dissolution of the government, dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
biccat wrote:
Yes, there's a distinction between GDP growth and a reduction in spending. However, I pointed out that your chart shows nothing about the values of either.
No, it shows tangential values which play towards the issue. Just like a statement about gross expenditure does.
biccat wrote:
A chart that shows the ratio of X to Y doesn't show anything about X or Y unless there's a predictable relationship between the two.
Wrong. It shows the relationship of X to Y, which is the characteristic relationship between the two; predictable or not.
biccat wrote:
There isn't an easily discernable relationship between GDP and spending, and therefore the most you can say about the data you provided is "spending relative to GDP has done X." This is really quite simple mathematics, I'm frankly surprised you're having such a difficult time with it.
I'm not struggling with anything, you're struggling with the idea that X can be a placeholder for "cut".
biccat wrote:
No, actually it doesn't. All it shows is variation in government spending relative to GDP. Which is irrelevant to the issue of whether government has actually cut spending.
No, it isn't. I would pontificate on why you're wrong, but you are simply incorrect. What you've just said is like saying Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity.
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying in that first sentence. Maybe you're missing some punctuation.
Nope, and I can't make it more clear. Thinking in terms of statistics is the only advice I can offer.
biccat wrote:
But like I said above, in modern America, tax revinue is independent of expenditures, and therefore is irrelevant. However, you might reasonably argue that this is a problem going forward.
Right, because no one in the present Congress has argued that the Bush tax cuts were detrimental to state revenue.
biccat wrote:
Not true. If spending were held at a fixed gross dollar amount, it would still vary widely as a percent of GDP. Expenses could have decreased year-to-year and by varying GDP accordingly, you could achieve the same result. Therefore, since we don't know anything about GDP or expenses, the information you provided cannot be used to determine actual changes to expenses.
That method also invalidates your statistics, which explains, at least in part, this discussion.
biccat wrote:
If a graph shows X/Y, then you cannot use that graph to analyze either X or Y without knowing more about either.
Good job, you just discovered the paradoxes of material implication.
biccat wrote:
It's not persuasive argument, you're arguing the fact that government outlays have never reduced year-to-year. I have proven incontrovertable evidence that this is in fact the case (at least since '68, I acknowledge that they may have reduced earlier). A fact you acknowledge following. At this point, you're simply arguing that the metric used doesn't support my contention. But since I gave the metric as part of my contention, I'm not sure what facts you're basing your argument on.
No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that what you initially said, that no recent President has reduced Federal expenditure, is incorrect. I've demonstrated this by way of providing a metric which illustrates the possibility of that analysis. It doesn't matter if you don't like that metric, all that matters is that it exists.
ShumaGorath wrote:If no president rose government spending government would collapse in line with inflation.
the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function.
It's almost like you're saying these are bad things.
This directly implies that you think the government collapsing and having it's institutions fail is good. If you're not advocating that then you need to sort out what you want to admit to wanting.
ShumaGorath wrote:Would you care to address the issue of an ever-expanding government? If president X institutes a policy that costs $1 trillion a year, what obligation do future presidents have to maintain and further support that policy, especially if it isn't effective? If they cut that program, should they institute a new $1 trillion/year program to maintain government spending?
Ideally every president from the beginning of this nations history should grow the budget inkeeping with inflation, otherwise the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function. This is an unrealistic expectation as wars or social programs can force a raise and higher then average economic growth can induce a relative fall. Writing a number in the sand then cutting it by 10% arbitrarily and calling it a cut "because it's smaller then before" implies a direct lack of understanding of the subject matter.
You edited your post after I responded to you to add that bit.
Yeah, i continuously edit my posts until I think I've got it right. Usually it's best to wait a few minutes until after I first post to make sure it doesn't change on you (i have posts with upwards of six recorded edits at times). I apologize, it makes it hard for other people to carry conversations with me on this board sometimes.
Anyway, since I lack understanding of the subject matter, could you explain how our government would lose the ability to function if we reduced spending by 10%?
Sure. What program are you cutting? Whatever that program is can no longe work either at all or it's previous capacity, thus it is losing it's ability to function to it's previous intended purpose. Given that 10% is a rather significant cut you're looking at thousands of programs or deep cuts to some very, very big ones. Either way the government is losing capacity to administer it's functions as it had them before the cut. Since you aren't making cuts with an intended aim of reducing the budget to a certain determined level of GDP you're basically throwing darts while blind since you don't know if its enough or too much. It's just a number to you.
And I'm not talking about specific programs that would have to be cut (obviously if you cut the Ministry of Silly Walks the government would cease to develop and license new and effective Silly Walks), I'm talking total dissolution of the government, dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Oh, well thats too bad. Looks like you're talking past me then since I was talking about cuts to programs and how that effects the governments ability to function. Logically if we did not increase government spending since 1960 the government would have a very difficult time functioning since its budget would be roughly equal to what the power ball winner pulls down. My argument as I have now stated three times is that governments need to grow in line with their GDP growth and that cuts should be targeted to maintain a relative expense to GDP ratio.
ShumaGorath wrote:If no president rose government spending government would collapse in line with inflation.
the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function.
It's almost like you're saying these are bad things.
This directly implies that you think the government collapsing and having it's institutions fail is good. If you're not advocating that then you need to sort out what you want to admit to wanting.
No, I think that the failure of certain functions the government performs collapsing is a good thing. The Department of Education for example. Or the CPB, and a host of other programs. However, in the interests of fairness, I think we should start with an across-the-board cut (yes, including the DoD) to provide some temporarily relief. Then we can start trimming specific programs.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Anyway, since I lack understanding of the subject matter, could you explain how our government would lose the ability to function if we reduced spending by 10%?
Sure. What program are you cutting? Whatever that program is can no longe work either at all or it's previous capacity, thus it is losing it's ability to function to it's previous intended purpose. Given that 10% is a rather significant cut you're looking at thousands of programs or deep cuts to some very, very big ones. Either way the government is losing capacity to administer it's functions as it had them before the cut. Since you aren't making cuts with an intended aim of reducing the budget to a certain determined level of GDP you're basically throwing darts while blind since you don't know if its enough or too much. It's just a number to you.
You're specifically ignoring my point below, so I'm going to ignore this part. However, the 10% is just a number thrown out there. The scope of the cut should be to reduce spending to approximately the level of either sustainable debt levels (assuming that the GDP and tax base will grow to support new debt) or tax receipts.
ShumaGorath wrote:
And I'm not talking about specific programs that would have to be cut (obviously if you cut the Ministry of Silly Walks the government would cease to develop and license new and effective Silly Walks), I'm talking total dissolution of the government, dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Oh, well thats too bad. Looks like you're talking past me then since I was talking about cuts to programs and how that effects the governments ability to function. Logically if we did not increase government spending since 1960 the government would have a very difficult time functioning since its budget would be roughly equal to what the power ball winner pulls down.
I think that the government could function effectively at this level. In 1800, government spending was approximately 2% of GDP.
ShumaGorath wrote:My argument as I have now stated three times is that governments need to grow in line with their GDP growth and that cuts should be targeted to maintain a relative expense to GDP ratio.
Actually your first argument was that government spending needs to grow in line with inflation, which is very different than GDP growth. There is no reason that government needs to grow with the size of the economy. At best (worst?), there is an upper limit to the services the government supplies, and therefore it should be capped to an inflation-adjusted dollar amount.
No, I think that the failure of certain functions the government performs collapsing is a good thing. The Department of Education for example. Or the CPB, and a host of other programs.
You... Want the dept of education to collapse? So you're a book burner? The hell kind of agenda is that? Anarchist? Are you so in for home schooling that you'd basically burn down this countries science and education foundation for a repeatedly disproven and logically void ideology founded in anti communist rhetoric sixty years ago? You're hardcore.
Also, thats doesn't matter since what you actually said was that you would aprove of the government collapsing, or at the very least you acted surprised that I thought that was a bad idea. If you had more nuanced opinions you should of posted them in a full response instead of trollishly bread crumbing them along so that they can't be refuted all at once.
You're specifically ignoring my point below, so I'm going to ignore this part. However, the 10% is just a number thrown out there. The scope of the cut should be to reduce spending to approximately the level of either sustainable debt levels (assuming that the GDP and tax base will grow to support new debt) or tax receipts.
So i'm ignoring your point by giving you your point over three posts (during which time you argue against it in oblique and difficult to understand ways). It's not YOUR POINT when I'm the one making it and you tell me im ignoring you then change your line to it.
I think that the government could function effectively at this level. In 1800, government spending was approximately 2% of GDP.
In 1812 the white house was burned down by a foreign power and we were having a hard time dealing with dudes with bows and arrows. I think you're pretty wrong.
Actually your first argument was that government spending needs to grow in line with inflation, which is very different than GDP growth.
You're right. My point was pegging it to inflation and then marginally adjusting it to a correct level of GDP as determined by the situation. I mixed words slightly there. If you peg it to inflation only then you run into issues of government influence weakening in comparison to that of private industry. This isn't that bad of a thing in theory but when you don't peg government growth you run into a situation wherein the governments ability to administer to it's economy is over muscled by the big players within that economy. Take a look at the samsung group an the south korean government to know what I'm talking about.
At best (worst?), there is an upper limit to the services the government supplies, and therefore it should be capped to an inflation-adjusted dollar amount.
I think you mean "should supply" and unless you're some sort of magical psychic then thats not something you know. I'm sure you want the ideal government to be invisible and tiny (something like that magic 1800 2%), but historically thats led to either disaster or larger governments. Every strong state with high quality of life relative to the world that has maintained it for any stretch of time has always had a strong centralized government.
No, I think that the failure of certain functions the government performs collapsing is a good thing. The Department of Education for example. Or the CPB, and a host of other programs.
You... Want the dept of education to collapse? So you're a book burner? The hell kind of agenda is that? Anarchist? Are you so in for home schooling that you'd basically burn down this countries science and education foundation for a repeatedly disproven and logically void ideology founded in anti communist rhetoric sixty years ago? You're hardcore.
Yes. No. A rational one. Nope. No. And I disagree.
We didn't have a DoE before 1980, and we don't need one now. Note that I'm talking about the federal agency, not the individual state Boards of Education. There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.
ShumaGorath wrote:
You're specifically ignoring my point below, so I'm going to ignore this part. However, the 10% is just a number thrown out there. The scope of the cut should be to reduce spending to approximately the level of either sustainable debt levels (assuming that the GDP and tax base will grow to support new debt) or tax receipts.
So i'm ignoring your point by giving you your point over three posts (during which time you argue against it in oblique and difficult to understand ways). It's not YOUR POINT when I'm the one making it and you tell me im ignoring you then change your line to it.
No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I think that the government could function effectively at this level. In 1800, government spending was approximately 2% of GDP.
In 1812 the white house was burned down by a foreign power and we were having a hard time dealing with dudes with bows and arrows. I think you're pretty wrong.
Note that the "foreign power" was actually the world's superpower at the time.
ShumaGorath wrote:You're right. My point was pegging it to inflation and then marginally adjusting it to a correct level of GDP as determined by the situation. I mixed words slightly there. If you peg it to inflation only then you run into issues of government influence weakening in comparison to that of private industry. This isn't that bad of a thing in theory but when you don't peg government growth you run into a situation wherein the governments ability to administer to it's economy is over muscled by the big players within that economy. Take a look at the samsung group an the south korean government to know what I'm talking about.
You'll have to be a little more specific about Samsung and South Korea and how this supports your point.
ShumaGorath wrote:
At best (worst?), there is an upper limit to the services the government supplies, and therefore it should be capped to an inflation-adjusted dollar amount.
I think you mean "should supply" and unless you're some sort of magical psychic then thats not something you know.
Yes, you're right, I meant "should supply." And I'm not saying I know it, but rather that it is a realistic cap of services a government can efficiently supply. Past this point, spending is inefficient and you're only spending money for the sake of spending money. If your goal is to provide a public sector as a counterbalance to the private sector this is a good thing. Otherwise, it's not.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm sure you want the ideal government to be invisible and tiny (something like that magic 1800 2%), but historically thats led to either disaster or larger governments. Every strong state with high quality of life relative to the world that has maintained it for any stretch of time has always had a strong centralized government.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "strong state," "high quality of life" and "stretch of time." The Roman Empire operated efficiently without deficit spending and with relatively low tax rates (approx. 5%). I think that under any comparison, they would be a strong state with a relatively high quality of life that existed for a stretch of time.
In contrast, modern large governments with massive welfare spending have only been around for (at best) 100 years.
Yes. No. A rational one. Nope. No. And I disagree.
We didn't have a DoE before 1980, and we don't need one now. Note that I'm talking about the federal agency, not the individual state Boards of Education. There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.
Care to state a reason?
No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.
And I never said that a 10% cut would cause the government to fail. So either I'm ignoring you or you're making a ridiculous strawman. Since I responded to every one of your points I think it's the second thingy.
Note that the "foreign power" was actually the world's superpower at the time.
They also had a strong central government. Noticing a trend?
You'll have to be a little more specific about Samsung and South Korea and how this supports your point.
The samsung group makes up roughly a quarter the south korean economy and has repeatedly ignored government authority because it is effectively to large and important for the government to regulate. On numerous occasions it has been caught evading taxes, discriminating, and violating just about every business law SK has. It's heads have been jailed ineffectually and they are always back on top of the company in their nice big skyscraper homes within a matter of days. The samsung group is a multinational conglomerate that among other things is the worlds largest ship builder and manufacturer of toothpaste (aside from all the tech stuff they do). The south korean government is not powerful enough to regulate its economy, and thus it's laws are ignored by the powerful players. There are many, many small state examples of this, usually involving natural resource based companies, but thats usually in south east asia or africa.
Yes, you're right, I meant "should supply." And I'm not saying I know it, but rather that it is a realistic cap of services a government can efficiently supply.
There is no "It". You never gave a cap, you just stated the vague point that there is an up end to the services a government can/should give. It can't be realistic if you don't have any idea what it is.
Past this point, spending is inefficient and you're only spending money for the sake of spending money. If your goal is to provide a public sector as a counterbalance to the private sector this is a good thing. Otherwise, it's not.
I have not in any of these posts espoused "spending money for the sake of spending money". Another strawman.
You'll have to explain what you mean by "strong state," "high quality of life" and "stretch of time." The Roman Empire operated efficiently without deficit spending and with relatively low tax rates (approx. 5%).
The roman tax was significantly higher then the taxes levied in albion or the gothic territories. Higher then most other states at the time in fact. The greeks kept low tax rates funded by war spoils, as did the mongols. But we're not talking about largely agrarian economies whose taxes largely exist to fund war efforts that fund themselves through plunder, are we? Look at the tax rates of Great Britain, the Chinese, the united states, France, etc. The proven successful world powers who lived in a globally connected economic world with cars and medicine n' stuff.
Theres a weird American obsession with comparing us to Rome. We're better then Rome, we have space ships and we don't use lead bowls to eat out of.
In contrast, modern large governments with massive welfare spending have only been around for (at best) 100 years.
Alongside concepts such as universal education, life expectancies breaching 70, the elimination of hunger (in said states), the upward curve of technological innovation (from the wright brothers to landing on the moon in less then a century), globalization, and the generation of global wealth unlike what was seen in any century before.
It's as if the last century was a hell of a lot better then the ones before it, despite the communist rise and fall and multiple world wars.
There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.
If having an accepted standard is a bad thing. Of course, it's not like the DoE we have can actually achieve that end since it lacks the money to even try and I don't think it even has the power to reach that end other than to give everyone a pointless multiple choice test where you can know barely anything and guess half the answers.
further extension of tax cuts for the upper middle class, reduced defense spending. Seriously reduced dense spending seems to be a good way to get the government back on track, but it takes time large scale troop withdrawal after the surge is a set in the right direction. I don't think anyone can honestly think elimination social programs as a means to assist in finding a solution to the national debt crisis can be taken seriously... again Tax Cuts and reduced Government spending seems to be a logical solution.
biccat wrote:
We didn't have a DoE before 1980, and we don't need one now. Note that I'm talking about the federal agency, not the individual state Boards of Education. There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.
DasFluspferd wrote: further extension of tax cuts for the upper middle class, reduced defense spending. Seriously reduced dense spending seems to be a good way to get the government back on track, but it takes time large scale troop withdrawal after the surge is a set in the right direction. I don't think anyone can honestly think elimination social programs as a means to assist in finding a solution to the national debt crisis can be taken seriously... again Tax Cuts and reduced Government spending seems to be a logical solution.
Funny how our taxes are under what they were for clinton when we were drawing a surplus and had robust growth. Why espouse taxes when they are at their lowest point in 30 years and are a direct and major contributor to our debt? The tax boogeyman?
A reason for us to have a Department of Education? OK, how about "to protect public education employees and provide redundant and unnecessary services."
No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.
And I never said that a 10% cut would cause the government to fail. So either I'm ignoring you or you're making a ridiculous strawman. Since I responded to every one of your points I think it's the second thingy.
Note that the "foreign power" was actually the world's superpower at the time.
They also had a strong central government. Noticing a trend?
In fact, total spending was around 20% of GDP in 1800, 27% by 1812, and dropped off to 19% by 1818. In fact, it wouldn't clear 20% again until 1915. One wonders what could have caused such a boom.
ShumaGorath wrote:The samsung group makes up roughly a quarter the south korean economy and has repeatedly ignored government authority because it is effectively to large and important for the government to regulate. On numerous occasions it has been caught evading taxes, discriminating, and violating just about every business law SK has. It's heads have been jailed ineffectually and they are always back on top of the company in their nice big skyscraper homes within a matter of days.
Are you talking about Lee Kun-hee, who was indicted (not convicted) on tax evasion. He was forced to resign, give up a lot of money, pay back taxes...and yet you identify it as a problem?
ShumaGorath wrote:There is no "It". You never gave a cap, you just stated the vague point that there is an up end to the services a government can/should give. It can't be realistic if you don't have any idea what it is.
BS. I know that there's a leading edge to the expansion of the universe. Simply because I can't articulate it's value doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Government has very little that it does to generate wealth. After that, spending is inefficient and destroys wealth. As government takes on more and more roles, it becomes increasingly less efficient.
ShumaGorath wrote:I have not in any of these posts espoused "spending money for the sake of spending money". Another strawman.
It's not a straw man, and I never said that someone was "spending money to spend money." Yes, there are things past a certain point where the government can expand. But it doesn't make any sense for it to do so, unless (and that's an important part of the argument) the purpose is to spend money for the sake of growing government, not providing more services.
ShumaGorath wrote:The roman tax was significantly higher then the taxes levied in albion or the gothic territories. Higher then most other states at the time in fact. The greeks kept low tax rates funded by war spoils, as did the mongols. But we're not talking about largely agrarian economies whose taxes largely exist to fund war efforts that fund themselves through plunder, are we? Look at the tax rates of Great Britain, the Chinese, the united states, France, etc. The proven successful world powers who lived in a globally connected economic world with cars and medicine n' stuff.
Like post-WWII America, the period showing the the greatest expansion of personal wealth in the history of the world? You're just changing what you mean by "great".
ShumaGorath wrote:Theres a weird American obsession with comparing us to Rome. We're better then Rome, we have space ships and we don't use lead bowls to eat out of.
I don't think there are very many parallels between the US and Rome. I was simply pointing out that Rome had a smallish government, low taxes, and was the greatest empire in the history of mankind. And those living under their control enjoyed a standard of life far superior to that held anywhere else at the time.
ShumaGorath wrote:Alongside concepts such as universal education, life expectancies breaching 70, the elimination of hunger (in said states), the upward curve of technological innovation (from the wright brothers to landing on the moon in less then a century), globalization, and the generation of global wealth unlike what was seen in any century before.
It's as if the last century was a hell of a lot better then the ones before it, despite the communist rise and fall and multiple world wars.
For Europe, the 19th century was a hell of a lot better than the ones before it. Same with the 17th. And 16th. Although you have to move to Muslim nations if you want to go further back.
If our politiions werent such crooks, we wouldnt have this problem. Take Rick Perry for example(yes I do live in texas and would have voted for him if I was old enough) he started his carrier with next to nothing, and is suppolst to make very little income (enough to support him and his fammily but not much more) as a polition, he now has a masion and several million dollars to his name, the math does not add up, wered the money come from? take a guess, its said that the first year any person begins a carrier in politics, they will comit a crime. its not just Rick, the governer of Texas, look a swartisnager, and that other dude who resigned of a scandle resantly whose name I cant remeber.
They're all crooks, and they need to go, fix that and US will have payed off its debt with in a year.
A reason for us to have a Department of Education? OK, how about "to protect public education employees and provide redundant and unnecessary services."
Thats not a reason, thats something pulled from the tag line of a free republic newsletter. It wasn't even capitalized.
No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.
No, you didn't.
Anyway, since I lack understanding of the subject matter, could you explain how our government would lose the ability to function if we reduced spending by 10%?
You strawmanned, now you're back pedaling. That doesn't work when you don't edit your older posts.
In fact, total spending was around 20% of GDP in 1800, 27% by 1812, and dropped off to 19% by 1818. In fact, it wouldn't clear 20% again until 1915. One wonders what could have caused such a boom.
Probably a chart that doesn't include taxation from colonies.
Are you talking about Lee Kun-hee, who was indicted (not convicted) on tax evasion. He was forced to resign, give up a lot of money, pay back taxes...and yet you identify it as a problem?
On July 16, 2008, The New York Times reported that the Seoul Central District Court found him guilty on charges of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Prosecutors requested that Lee be sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $347 million. The court fined him $109 million and sentenced him to 3 years suspended jail time. Lee has not responded to the verdict.
Yeah. Him. Read farther down the page next time to avoid looking like you're just posting the first cached thing in google.
BS. I know that there's a leading edge to the expansion of the universe. Simply because I can't articulate it's value doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
.... So you're comparing your psychic knowledge of the top end of an ill defined political ideological end point to a theoretical and ill defined physical theorem? Thats impressive.
Government has very little that it does to generate wealth. After that, spending is inefficient and destroys wealth. As government takes on more and more roles, it becomes increasingly less efficient.
You're getting a lot of mileage from the newsletter.
It's not a straw man, and I never said that someone was "spending money to spend money." Yes, there are things past a certain point where the government can expand. But it doesn't make any sense for it to do so, unless (and that's an important part of the argument) the purpose is to spend money for the sake of growing government, not providing more services.
Tell that to china or industrial revolution russia. Heavy government intrusion has historically and in many cases greatly accelerated the formation of wealth. The aim of governmental growth is to do whatever the aim is, there is no basic law that says that past a point all you're doing is spending money. Thats purely ideological bunk.
Like post-WWII America, the period showing the the greatest expansion of personal wealth in the history of the world? You're just changing what you mean by "great".
Yes, like that. Great is a relative term. I noted that when I first brought it up.
I don't think there are very many parallels between the US and Rome. I was simply pointing out that Rome had a smallish government, low taxes, and was the greatest empire in the history of mankind.
It wasn't the biggest, longest lived, most technologically advanced or fastest advancing, didn't have the greatest quality of life, etc. See, this is the BS American obsession with rome cropping back up again.
And those living under their control enjoyed a standard of life far superior to that held anywhere else at the time.
Thats plainly wrong.
For Europe, the 19th century was a hell of a lot better than the ones before it. Same with the 17th. And 16th. Although you have to move to Muslim nations if you want to go further back.
The advancement was slow and trends such as longevity or levels of starvation fluctuated on average from century to century. The 19th wasn't bad, but the 20th pushes off a cliff. Globalization, socialism, and technological advancement through the modern scientific method are a really functional combination that ensures stability, wealth, and new economic forms beyond agrarian or industrial.
biccat wrote:
BS. I know that there's a leading edge to the expansion of the universe. Simply because I can't articulate it's value doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Well, no, you don't; because no one knows that. Considering that fact in light of your analogy, well...let's just sya it changes your meaning significantly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
If having an accepted standard is a bad thing. Of course, it's not like the DoE we have can actually achieve that end since it lacks the money to even try and I don't think it even has the power to reach that end other than to give everyone a pointless multiple choice test where you can know barely anything and guess half the answers.
Even if it is a bad thing, there might still be a reason to have a DoE.
Saying that there is no reason for X to exist is a pretty difficult thing to argue, just like any other usage of the concept "no".
There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.
If having an accepted standard is a bad thing. Of course, it's not like the DoE we have can actually achieve that end since it lacks the money to even try and I don't think it even has the power to reach that end other than to give everyone a pointless multiple choice test where you can know barely anything and guess half the answers.
It doesn't provide standards. It just employs bureaucrats who generate paper for no benefit.
s.
