The Glade 4.0

The President's temporary reprieve on the debt ceiling is almost over; and I, for one, am anxiously awaiting the resumption of the Federal finance debate. How many of you think we should raise the debt ceiling again, and why do you support that action? How many of you think Barack Obama hired Petyr Baelish and is on the take?

_________________

I think we should cut 50% of the budget for a start.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So, military spending, right, because that's the only wasted money in Federal government expenditures? Just making sure we cover all the bases before any real debate starts.

_________________

I don't think we should, but I don't know what the realistic alternative is either. Ideally some kind of freeze and across the board cut along the lines of this, though even that would mean raising the ceiling for the present.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

A good bit from there, not all.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I think republicans had their testicles removed following the government shutdown, and as such blew their chance at budget reform. They aren't going to be willing to push hard enough now, and democrats know this.

That said, i'd be willing to extend the debt ceiling if, and only if, deficit spending really was short in duration and necessary to make a smoother transition into the cuts. Akin to paying a financial adviser with a credit card, so you can figure out how to get out of debt. But for real - not lip service.

Don't be silly. There need to be drastic cuts across many departments.

Your sarcasm detector is broken. I'm generally hostile to reductions in military spending at the moment.

_________________

Well, for starters, I disagree with the framing of the question as the President being the one who had a temporary reprieve. Last I checked, Congress voted for all the deficit spending pushing us over the ceiling, the public voted for all those Congress critters, and it's the public, not the President, that will suffer from the loss of government services and the economic fallout if we breach.

Anyway, as to the question itself, I do think we should raise the ceiling at the very least, but my preferred policy outcome is to do away with it entirely. My three main reasons are:

1. The economic consequences of defaulting on our debt obligations would be catastrophic. Even just having the debate about whether or not to raise the ceiling is economically damaging thanks to the uncertainty it engenders. Virtually every interest rate in the world is tied to US treasuries in some way. Trillions of dollars worth of loans and derivatives (interest rate hedges, credit default swaps, etc.) could be impacted by a US default through a chain reaction like we saw during the 2008 financial crisis, but infinitely worse.
   
2. The debt ceiling is destructive to good governance and voter accountability because it enables people (both voters and elected officials) to delude themselves into thinking and acting like they're deficit hawks (by imposing a debt ceiling) when they are in fact the exact opposite (by voting for deficit spending that exceeds the debt ceiling). In addition, there's no legal mechanic in place for rationalizing the incoherent policies, so it creates a legal and constitutional catch-22. The Executive is required to carry out diametrically opposed directives from Congress - spend more money than the government has, but don't incur any more debt.
   
3. If the goal is to control spending, the debt ceiling is just about the worst way to do it. Again, the debt ceiling is not tied to actual spending, so there's no direct control being imposed, and any indirect spending control will either be through an across-the-board reduction instead of prioritizing inefficient and/or outsized programs or through a crisis-mode ad hoc approach that would be inherently prone to inefficiency, corruption and plain-old error. On top of that, the uncertainty and rapidity of the reduction, coupled with the ongoing risk of default would damage the economy, leading to lower revenues, bigger cuts, more risk and higher interest rates, significantly undermining, and possibly wholly overwhelming, the intended savings.

In short, if you want to reduce spending, then reduce spending. Don't order a bunch of **** and then try to skip out on the bill by claiming your self-imposed credit limit isn't high enough to pay.

The political will to reduce spending directly is not there. However once a debt limit is reached spending is forced to halt regardless of special interest protest. It gives the politicians an out so they aren't targetted by the combined powers of interest lobbies and public unions.

Cuts have to be made and cuts are made without any politician being on record as opposing any specific spending.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm not for weakening anything that protects the US, but I'd be good with cutting our fleet of carrier groups in half. Carriers are for projecting power and I'm feeling a bit isolationist at the moment.

And before anyone objects, tell me the nature of the threat, where the threat is coming from, and how many carrier groups we need vs how many there are aligned against us. As far as protecting Europe, I'm for abandoning the savior of the world complex we got going on. If we were flush with cash, possibly, but that's not the case these days.

I'm not for cutting entire department budgets in half willy nilly, but I'm for at least a 50% across the board cut. Manpower is where the costs are, and I'd for sure cut government head count by 50%

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Your mistake is assuming republicans have any interest in budget reform. They only oppose spending when the Democrats do it. As soon as there are republicans holding the purse-strings, they spend away. Sure, they spend on different things, but they still spend. Every single administration increases spending. Every administration. Sure, Obama's outspent anybody else. Before him, Bush had outspent anybody else. Before Bush, Clinton had outspent anybody else. Before him, Bush Sr. Before him, Ronald Reagan. If you replace Obama with a Republican next time, he'll make Obama's spending look downright thrifty.

They're all the same. Until you break down this ridiculous farce of a "Vote for one of two people who will both do the same crap" system, there will never be real budget reform in America.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

RangerDave:

Just to be clear, Barack Obama is the one who framed the debate in terms of himself -- he's been threatening unilateral action on this issue every time it has been broached.

_________________

This should be a poll.

_________________

I am for renegotiating our presence in all foreign countries and dropping our presence in countries openly hostile to us. I am for ending foreign aid to countries where it only serves to prop up a non democratic government neutral or hostile to the United States. I am for withdrawing entirely from Afghanistan. I am for serious audits on the spending of all Departments. I am for serious career ending discipline including prison sentences for any administrators found to be on the take.

I do not think Obama is on the take, or that he could successfully hide it if he was. Michelle, maybe.

I am for removing any and all pension systems for elected officials. It really isn't supposed to be a career, it is supposed to be public service, short term then move on.

Get corporations completely out of politics, keep corporate money in the shareholders pockets, not bribing politicians.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I don't think we should just stop suddenly spending from one day to the next, that's a catastrophe. I'm much more in favor of a German style balanced budget amendment that limits the debt to say 10% of GDP when passed then reduces that number by 1% per year.

But honestly, there's no way to control government spending when it costs the government an average of $1.25 million to provide medical care for someone from age 65 until death. No reasonable reform can cut that number by enough to matter, even if we got the government out and the price was cut in half for the same quality of service, that's still way too much for anyone to afford. Any serious debt reduction strategy is going to have to start by basically declaring you need to be a millionaire to live to 75 and a multimillionaire to live to 85, and we know that can't happen.

You can feel isolationist all you want, but the ability to project power has nothing to do with whether you're isolationist or not; it's about being able to address threats somewhere else as opposed to where we are. As for "aligning them against threats" we don't do that. each carrier doesn't have a specific threat it addresses because they can't all be at sea all at once. Having ONE carrier continuously available for, say North Korea and China contingencies means having a minimum of FOUR - maybe five.

Carrier groups have been cut 50% since the Cold War already. Given maintenance and training cycles, cutting carrier groups in half would mean the abilty to consistently maintain 1 at sea in both the Atlantic and Pacific at any given time would be jeopardized. Furthermore, the ability to build warships at all is already in jeopardy due to endless cuts to the size of the fleet and its effect on the domestic shipbuilding workforce. Cutting carriers by 50% would most likely meant the total inability to build new carriers some time in the next 50 years.

Our military was never outsized given the size (both geographic and population) of our country. We are making major cuts already with the budget situation; the Army for example will actually have 1 Brigade Combat Team fewer than it had prior to 9/11 and the expansion that followed. The Nevy has continuously shrunk since the cold war, and Obama's debate point aside, it still does matter how many ships you have. The Air Force has shrunk similarly.

We have made more than enough cuts to the military. It has become a sop for politicians, the press, and even the average person to simply claim "But it's too big!" and avoid the reality of any other part of the budget. We could eliminate the military entirely, and still be deficit spending. Cuts to the military are utterly counterproductive at this point; they have become cosmetic.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Name the top 10 nations by carrier group with the numbers.

Projecting power takes quite a bit less than what we can bring to the table. It's not our place to take on the bulk of the load protecting the world. It's a mindset held over from colonialism.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

There's a Wikipedia page for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... by_country

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I had a humorous response involving Sun Tzu and the Battleship movie but I'm not sure everyone could get the reference because the movie wasn't that popular...

Let's just say that policing "threats somewhere else" aren't on my top 10 list of things to fund in the present economy. "where we are" is deep in debt. Time to get serious about scaling back.



Yeah, the US has about as many carriers in service as the rest of the world put together. Besides, I'm thinking automated and remote warfare technologies can be better, faster, and cheaper, while still providing equivalent functionality.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Agreed. For the best reason since WWII.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I think there are things that can be cut in the Military. Perhaps its time for someone else to defend Germany and Japan, and then there are golden toilet seats. However it seems the only thing the Pentagon is interesting in cutting is enlisted personnel, contractors, and their benefits. So if we work on an across the board line by line deal of the type I mentioned before, the cuts could come. Also it gives the politicians cover when Mr. Lobbist shows up. "I'm sorry The Foundation for Puppies and Rainbows had to give up %1 of their budget. They are across the board cuts."

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Japan is now one of the few countries in the world with its own aircraft carrier. Their military is ramping up quickly. I do believe the USA can let them look after themselves.

The same with South Korea. They have a powerful enough military to be able to walk over North Korea without breaking stride, and give china a run for their money in the process.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

You see, those statements just go to show that you don't know how to think like a global hegemon. If Japan and South Korea are ramping up their militaries, that means we need to ramp ours up even more to maintain our dominance in the region.

For me, it's not so much about carriers, as maintaining the ability to build carriers. DE alluded to this. There's a minimum level of production necessary to keep the shipyards from rotting.