The U.S. Debt, further down the spiral

Drithius

Magic & Loss
Joined
November 10, 2008
Messages
5,982
Location
Florida, USA
As the country inches closer to inevitable compromise and the return to business-as-usual, I've been trying to keep current with the latest discussions. Via this article, everything this guy says is spot on and pulls no punches when it comes to republicans vs democrats:

David Stockman, a Republican, served as a U.S. representative from Michigan and as the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985.

The crisis lies in the debt, not the ceiling. Kicking the can with a six-month ceiling increase is the worst possible alternative because it allows the politicians of both parties to continue making the Big Fiscal Lie. The Republican "no tax increase" position is preposterous; we are collecting less than 15% of GDP in taxes, the lowest since 1950, and spending 24% of GDP.

More than half of that is national security and Social Security, and the Republicans don't have a plan to cut a dime from either. Likewise, the Democrats are lying when they say Social Security is not part of the fiscal problem.

Benefits will exceed payroll taxes by $50 billion this year alone, and the red ink only gets deeper with time. Social Security should be subject to a stringent means test on the top 15 million affluent retirees, so that there is something left for the 40 million lower-income elderly who are already on the ragged edge.

Finally, the $800 billion defense and security budget is a relic of the Cold War, which ended 20 years ago, and should be cut by $200 billion. We no longer have any industrial state enemies, and we have been fired as the world policeman, so it is time to mothball some carrier battle groups, ground some air wings, drastically reduce our troop strength, end the futility of Afghanistan and stop buying multibillion-dollar high-tech weapons that we can't afford and don't need.

In the meanwhile, both the Boehner plan and the Reid plan are just big numbers flimflam. Their 10-year discretionary caps can't be enforced, and the debt crisis is right now. In the next two years, where it really counts, each would save only $60 billion, or 1%, of the baseline spending of $7.5 trillion. That's a pathetic joke.

We are borrowing $6 billion per day with no end in sight and rolling the dice in the hope that apparently clueless bond fund managers will continue to buy the debt of a quasi-bankrupt country. One day soon, they won't. But then it will be too late.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,982
Location
Florida, USA
He's not completely spot on. In fact he's dead wrong on several things:

Benefits will exceed payroll taxes by $50 billion this year alone, and the red ink only gets deeper with time. Social Security should be subject to a stringent means test on the top 15 million affluent retirees, so that there is something left for the 40 million lower-income elderly who are already on the ragged edge.

A means test sounds nice, but the problem is that the way social security is set up, it's more like a pension plan than social service. It has a limit on what income is taxed ($106k for 2011 IIRC) not because they want to give tax breaks, but because that is the point you stop accruing benefits.

Fundamentally, they should just do away with social security all together as the problem is the accrual of benefits, not the yearly payout. That's not to say let these people starve, we shouldn't, but they should be falling under welfare programs instead and administered that way.

Finally, the $800 billion defense and security budget is a relic of the Cold War, which ended 20 years ago, and should be cut by $200 billion. We no longer have any industrial state enemies, and we have been fired as the world policeman, so it is time to mothball some carrier battle groups, ground some air wings, drastically reduce our troop strength, end the futility of Afghanistan and stop buying multibillion-dollar high-tech weapons that we can't afford and don't need.

The only part of this that makes sense is to reduce our overall land troop strength. The ability to protect/control sea lanes is probably the most fundamental thing to the world economy. Just look at the effect the relatively small problem of Somali piracy has caused and imagine that significantly larger.

Additionally, air dominance is essential to both national and world security. One superior bomber is worth an entire brigade of ground troops. I do think we need to move more towards UAV's as opposed to F-22 type programs though.

As the saying goes, the biggest waste of money is the world's second best air force. China has made big strides with their air force, including reports that they now have a functional stealth prototype. The last thing we, or anyone outside of China, want is for China to surpass the US in air superiority.

As much money as we do spend on defense, as a percentage of our economy, it is not as out of whack as it may seem.

He's right on the plans both having major issues, and he's right that something needs to be done on social security, but IF we want the pension scheme to continue, the better option is to lift the cap on taxable income (and accrued benefits, because if you look at it anyway, the high income earners already receive a sub-par rate of return) and significantly increase the full benefits age for normal retirement (73-75 most likely).
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
The U.S. imho just should put more money into their "Binnenmarkt" = Inland Market(s) !!!

That's imho the only way to keep the U.S. out of this spiral.

And I also believe that the people just need more money, higher wages and earnings in general, but that won't happen, because this would mean to reduce the winnings of the richer people who are stockholders and owners of the companies, especiall the bigger ones (companies seen as a simple tool to increase the riches of their top positions).

Wages and general earnings should be computed against the winnings of companies - the higher the wins, the higher the wages for the workers (not the top positions, who get their money anyway), and this as a law.

This is imho the only way to support their inland markets : By giving people money they can buy from.

And not let all of the money be accumulated by those who might perhaps only buy a few luxury goods (I call that "dead oney", because it doesn't support the economy), but not enough to support the whole inland markt(s).
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,991
Location
Old Europe
And I also believe that the people just need more money, higher wages and earnings in general, but that won't happen, because this would mean to reduce the winnings of the richer people who are stockholders and owners of the companies, especiall the bigger ones (companies seen as a simple tool to increase the riches of their top positions).

I'd have to disagree here. First, it takes capital to run a corporation, and capital comes from stock holders. The proper allocation of wages and dividends is the one that maximizes both (IE pays enough wages that you retain the best employees, but also pays enough dividends that you attract the necessary capital). Dividends are already insanely low. Now, yes, we do have a significant issue with the growth of earnings of upper management, which is largely a product of having close to 25 years without a real recession.

Second, wages in the US are just fine in general. The problem is that we are an extremely wasteful and materialistic society. Throwing more money at people isn't going to fix that.

Wages and general earnings should be computed against the winnings of companies - the higher the wins, the higher the wages for the workers (not the top positions, who get their money anyway), and this as a law.

So should it also follow that the lower the 'winnings', the lower the wages and general earnings? I doubt too many tellers would have been happy with that during the '08-09 banking crisis. Or too many GM factory employees would have been happy with it as the company entered bankruptcy. And you really think it would be a good idea for upper management to just get big salaries, with no incentive to actually do a good job (outside of keeping their jobs)? Certainly the stock option mess of the past decade illustrated that there is a difficulty in tying income to performance, but there has to be some incentive to perform.

And not let all of the money be accumulated by those who might perhaps only buy a few luxury goods (I call that "dead oney", because it doesn't support the economy), but not enough to support the whole inland markt(s).

Luxury goods are a very big part of the economy. They literally fund hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yes, nobody really needs a person yacht, but I'm sure that the workers that build those yachts are pretty happy that someone is buying them.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
Additionally, air dominance is essential to both national and world security. One superior bomber is worth an entire brigade of ground troops. I do think we need to move more towards UAV's as opposed to F-22 type programs though.

As the saying goes, the biggest waste of money is the world's second best air force. China has made big strides with their air force, including reports that they now have a functional stealth prototype. The last thing we, or anyone outside of China, want is for China to surpass the US in air superiority.

What good is a brilliant air force/navy if you run your economy into the ground like the Soviet Union did? That's why they lost the Cold War, military prowess had nothing to do with it. The US might be heading down a fairly similar path unless the politicians manage to work together for once.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
blatantninja what you say would make more sense if US military spending wasn't about 6 (six) times higher than that of China. You spend more than next 15 highest spending countries (including China) together. In my book it's a sign of paranoia or industrial-military exercising its influence ...
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
blatantninja what you say would make more sense if US military spending wasn't about 6 (six) times higher than that of China. You spend more than next 15 highest spending countries (including China) together. In my book it's a sign of paranoia or industrial-military exercising its influence …
Or perhaps it's a sign of all the money we spend keeping Europe defended since y'all prefer to sponge off us rather than field adequate militaries of your own?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,553
Location
Illinois, USA
Or perhaps it's a sign of all the money we spend keeping Europe defended since y'all prefer to sponge off us rather than field adequate militaries of your own?
Than why don't you stop spending all this money and force Europe to spend more (IF Europe will be so inclined) ? Or are you are doing it from the goodness of your heart?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
What good is a brilliant air force/navy if you run your economy into the ground like the Soviet Union did? That's why they lost the Cold War, military prowess had nothing to do with it. The US might be heading down a fairly similar path unless the politicians manage to work together for once.

I don't disagree. I'm not saying that we should keep the status quo, we shouldn't and we really can't. But what the author in that post suggests is that we should severely impair the two most important parts of our military, rather than focus on the parts that can safely be cut.

blatantninja what you say would make more sense if US military spending wasn't about 6 (six) times higher than that of China. You spend more than next 15 highest spending countries (including China) together. In my book it's a sign of paranoia or industrial-military exercising its influence …

In my book, that's ignorance. Again, its not that we don't have fat to trim, we do, but maintaining global dominance is of paramount importance. Yes, we spend more than the next 15 combined. We should! Otherwise, we will not be dominant. If we are not dominant, then it becomes a lot easier for someone, like China, or even on a regional scale North Korea, to seriously challenge us. I don't trust any other country to keep the (relative) global peace that we have enjoyed for the past 60 years. If we step down, no one in Europe is going to step up to take our place, and no one in their right mind wants China to have the strongest military in the world. Maybe some day the world will be a place where we don't have to worry about that, but it isn't today.

Than why don't you stop spending all this money and force Europe to spend more (IF Europe will be so inclined) ? Or are you are doing it from the goodness of your heart?

The mission has definitely changed. We did spend 50 years protecting/using Europe as a buffer zone against the Eastern Block. Now, those bases more exist to support our actions in theaters in the middle east (and to a lesser extent Africa). Granted, those have benefits to Europe as well, but I think it is much less than it was during the cold war. I have no idea of Europe paid us for that protection though (I'm thinking not).

Our only other option to support the current missions is to engage in massive building of new super carriers (and really that still won't help with the issue of large cargo planes) and I'm betting that would be prohibitively expensive compared to maintaining our current bases. So I'm on the other side of the fence on this one from DTE.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
Oh, we're using that military presence to keep our finger in the pie, so it's certainly not a "goodness of our heart" situation. The motivations, wahtever they might be, don't change the financial impact. Your comment was strictly to the spending, not to the merits of Europe outsourcing its defense.

Personally, I would pull back some, but there are good arguments on both sides of that decision so I wouldn't present my opinion as a definite answer. I just object to numbers being thrown out without understanding (or at the very least, acknowledgment) of what goes into them.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,553
Location
Illinois, USA
In my book, that's ignorance. Again, its not that we don't have fat to trim, we do, but maintaining global dominance is of paramount importance. Yes, we spend more than the next 15 combined. We should! Otherwise, we will not be dominant.
Why so obsessed with global military dominance? You can play power games when times are good but when you are broke?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Why so obsessed with global military dominance? You can play power games when times are good but when you are broke?

Do you not understand the importance of securing shipping lanes? The entire global economy depends on shipping. If they are not secured, then the global economy breaks down. So how do you secure them? You have the biggest, baddest military (primarily navy, but air force as well) around. Or at the very least, you have a block of allied countries that share the same goal (IE western Europe plus the US) to enforce the security of those lanes. The last thing you want for the global economy is an unfriendly nation (NK is famous for this) extending what it decides is its territorial waters and interfering with trade. Piracy is obviously a huge problem, but wars get triggered over trade more than anything else.

Do you really think the US is in Taiwan, SK or Japan because our country has any love for the citizens of those countries? No, we're there because trade with Japan (third largest economy) and to a lesser extent SK and Taiwan is key to our economic health. Having China, or any other totalitarian regime, having dominance over those lanes would be horrible for the rest of the world.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
The military is just a means of enforcing economic dominance in most cases. Sure, you occasionally get a 9-11 that requires a genuine military response and every once in a while somebody has got to do the world's dirty work taking out a despot like Saddam, but overall it's all about the economics.

Being broke should adjust the balance some (do we really need to defend our free trade in every East Slobland, or does it now make sense to turn a hinterland or two over to economic Huns) but ultimately we've got to control the sea lanes (navy) and maintain air superiority (air force) to guarantee safe economic activity.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,553
Location
Illinois, USA
Yeah, tell me about it. Not a fun time to be a risk manager!
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,355
Location
Austin, TX
You know, global trade has not been that great for the average american. The rich and CEOs (EDIT: and wall street traders) have gotten very fat off of it, while joe blow has gotten poorer. I think it would be a good thing for the US to start relying more on manufacturing rather than trade. Let the shipping lanes go to hell. Strip the military down to continental defense only.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
You know, global trade has not been that great for the average american. The rich and CEOs (EDIT: and wall street traders) have gotten very fat off of it, while joe blow has gotten poorer. I think it would be a good thing for the US to start relying more on manufacturing rather than trade. Let the shipping lanes go to hell. Strip the military down to continental defense only.

Terrible idea, and you are off the mark on the impact of trade. Reducing international trade would kill the purchasing power of "the average american".
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
Terrible idea, and you are off the mark on the impact of trade. Reducing international trade would kill the purchasing power of "the average american".

And it would stop sending Amercan purchase dollars overseas. That in itself would be a great thing. We need to invest in infrastructure here, not China.

But, boo hoo. I won't be able to buy my crappy chinese products at Wall Mart anymore. At least cadmium and lead poisoning cases would go down….
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
While I agree with you to an extent, Thrasher, we've got to have somebody to buy our crap. I don't think we can get "there" strictly with the domestic market. Not to mention the problems with raw materials.

The price of carbide powder (metal widely used in manufacturing for tools) went up 45% today. After going up about 30% a month or so ago. We don't have much in the way of accessible domestic mineral reserves and refining the ore is such a nasty process that it can only be done in 3rd world countries with no environmental regulations (China does roughly 75% of global production). Hard to completely divorce the nation from international trade, even if we wanted to.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,553
Location
Illinois, USA
Back
Top Bottom