The Glade 4.0

I'd imagine they could freeze and trim their budget by 6% in six years and not rot if they absolutely had to.

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

There's a lot of tech changing things these days, the most fascinating to me being the ability to do automated take offs and landings from carriers. That level of tech opens a lot of doors to things that were only fiction just a short while ago.

The inability to build big hulking steel islands doesn't worry me.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Our ability to project power is commeasurate with our size, population, and economic position. The next nations in line are either A) significantly smaller (Britain and France) B) Have realized that sea power projection is less important to them than land/air (Russia) due to geography, or C) are catching up economically and are expanding their power projection over the next 25 years because they are just now becoming viable in that regard (China and India). Carriers take years to build and have lifespans measured in many decades. Trashing half of them because "power projection is bad, mmmkay?" Is stupid.

If you really want to have a more "isolationist" stance, more naval and air power and a smaller Army i whats called for. Isolationism requires the ability to enforce that stance. Japan tried isolationism with primitive technology, it didn't work out too well. Even when we wanted to stay out of WWI we started building a fleet of battleships. Power projection does not somehow make us the worlds policeman.

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

There's a lot of tech changing things these days, the most fascinating to me being the ability to do automated take offs and landings from carriers. That level of tech opens a lot of doors to things that were only fiction just a short while ago.

The inability to build big hulking steel islands doesn't worry me.[/quote]
Unfortunately for you, simply denigrating carriers as hulking steel islands reveals that you have no substantive argument. The SIZE of carriers could be reduced somewhat, but the number cant be, and given lead times for design and construction that wont happen for at least 10-15 years.

As for cutting by 6% and not rotting, our shipbuilding ability is ALREADY rotting, no matter what anyone imagines they can take. Work and income for both corporation and worker are inconsistent at best. Skilled workers do not remain in the industry because work is inconsistent. The workforce is aging

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

Oh, and as for the golden toilet seats, that was a thing 30 years ago. Scandals from the 1980s are not reason to cut now.

What its time to get serious about in terms of cuts is to cut all the other sacred cows. Pretty much no one deserves to save one dime of tax money from the military right now- the voters, of all stripes, most especially.

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

My approach wasnt to cut only defense but -everthing- your sacred cows my sacred cows everyone's cows

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

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

What's the construction time on a carrier, and how long will the current ones last if we focus on keeping them going rather than building new ones? I'm just wondering whether, with drone tech developing so rapidly, building new carrier groups today might be a waste of resources. (Honest question, asked without agenda.)

Indeed. I want to double the size of the Navy and cut the Army by half.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The talk of military cuts here is a red herring, anyway.

Medicare and Medicaid were almost a quarter (23%) of the US Federal Spending in 2012, while providing next to nothing in return. Social Security was almost as much (22%), providing a similar lack of benefits. Defense spending is a distant third (19%), while "Discretionary Funding" came fourth, eating up 17% of your budget without even letting you know what it was for. You could balance your budget by completely axing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, and cutting a percentage point off discretionary spending, without even touching the military. Any military cuts you do make at that point become a bonus that you can use to pay down the debt.

_________________
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
█ ♣ █

Taly:

All those social programs are absolutely necessary to the social fabric of the United States.

_________________

Social Security is not really relevant to the debt ceiling debate, as it has never borrowed money, and under current law, never will borrow money.

Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for basically all of the debt.

It is relevant, as it's a ponzi scheme and an unfunded liability that requires us to divert useful revenues into paying for something that would otherwise be criminal.

_________________

Except for the fact that these "revenues" all come from the payroll tax specifically earmarked for Social Security. Abolishing Social Security would also abolish that tax, which means no additional revenue comes in.

Also, it's not a liability. The government is under no legal obligation to send out SS checks, it's an entitlement program just like any other welfare program. Under current law, when the trust fund runs dry, they will just send out less money. The SSA has been warning about this for years, it's right up on their website. The fact that it's unsustainable is a problem, but it will never generate public debt unless current law is changed.

Xequecal:

Until such a time as it repeals Social Security, it is under an obligation to make those payments. And there is no trust fund; there's never been one. Payments started the year the bill was passed. And it generates public debt all the time; we borrow money to pay the interest on loans we don't need because we're paying social security. It's an unfunded liability.

_________________

So when the Social Security Administration says on their website that payments will be reduced when the trust fund is exhausted, they're just flat out lying? Several Trustees Reports and an open letter to Congress all claim that this will occur.

Social Security does not generate public debt. The government borrowing money from Social Security to pay for other spending does not constitute SS generating debt. The government could have borrowed that money from somewhere else if SS hadn't existed. Also, just because the trust fund consists of Treasury bonds does not mean it doesn't exist. Those bonds have value, despite what conservatives love to claim. People still want to buy US government debt, and thus the bonds are still valuable. "We borrow money to pay the interest on loans we don't need because we're paying social security." is a complete bullshit statement, the only way this is true is if the payroll tax somehow continues to exist while Social Security doesn't. In the past, the income from the payroll tax exceeded outgoing payments, so the trust fund built up. Today, the income is less than outgoing payments, so the trust fund is being depleted. At no point did the government ever have to borrow any money to make SS payments. Other than changes to the economy caused by less taxes on those working and by retired persons not receiving the income, if SS was abolished tomorrow, (the program AND the payroll tax) the government would be borrowing exactly the same amount of money to pay its bills that it does now.

Well, I don't know. Cut what we can, obviously, and I'm all for reduced capacity. But, I do want to maintain all current capabilities, just at a reduced rate.

Yes, they're lying, Xequecal. You trust government reports? That's a mistake in its own right. Social Security payments began weeks after the initial bill was passed. The last President to post a confirmed surplus in Social Security revenues was Dwight Eisenhower. Social Security revenues have been insufficient for in year payments since the Clinton Administration.
The government would be borrowing less money to pay its bills, as Social Security payments exceed the revenues generated by its payroll tax and have for decades. It's not a bullshit statement, incidentally, since Clinton side a bill putting Social Security taxes in the general fund, by the way.

_________________

On the contrary, Medicare and Social Security have virtually eliminated severe poverty among the elderly and are major factors in the increase of life expectancy. The success of other anti-poverty programs is debatable, but for seniors, SS and Medicare are unmitigated triumphs.

Yes, I'm aware that Social Security is running a shortfall. The fact that the shortfall is being paid out of the trust fund does not mean SS is generating debt. Neither does the fact that it's currently technically operating as a Ponzi scheme. By your logic, Madoff's Ponzi scheme created debt for the people who "invested" in his business.

Just because the government borrows money from Social Security does not mean Social Security causes public debt. As I said before, the government could have borrowed that money from somewhere else. The government borrows money from SS to pay for other stuff, it does not borrow money to pay for SS. This distinction is important.

Xequecal:

There isn't a Social Security trust fund; that's an outright government lie. The trust fund doesn't exist and those taxes now go directly into the general fund. They aren't borrowing from Social Security, it is simply a case of double taxation. Social Security Insurance, Social Security Disability Insurance, and actual Social Security Checks are paid from the total tax base. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, and if it did not exist, we would actually be able to make in-roads against our debt.

_________________

I don't get how you can claim there is no trust fund. Do those $2 trillion in Treasury bonds not exist?

Those $2 trillion in treasury bonds are a lie, Xequecal.

_________________

How are they a lie any more than any of the other Treasury bonds currently in existence that the government seems to have no trouble selling? Are you claiming the bonds don't exist, or just that they're going to lose all their value when the government defaults?

They don't exist.

_________________

This conversation reminds me of my favorite glade posting of all time, courtesy of Stathol. I feel it's appropriate here:

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20