US can 'no longer drive global growth'

ric27 said:

Agreed 1000% There is a lot of waste in defense spending. A lot of companies have taken advantage of the system and stretched out programs and gotten a lot of extra cash out of the government. I'm all for tighter regulations or choke holds on these contracts when companies don't live up to their side of the bargain. Unfortunately, who is going to put a stop to this?

Click to expand...

There are a handful of politicians (McCain, Gramm, Warner, Lieberman, and others) who routinely block the outdated Defense Industry programs while their select General or Admiral lobbies for the next toy. And President Obama obviously has somebody wise in his ear considering the quickness the F/A-22 went to bed. But, I don't see politicians admitting that they were wrong about cutting the military numbers. President Bush was all about killing our numbers. President Clinton was fond of it as well as he rode the backs of the military from one MOOTW to the next while promoting the privatization of the military. The result is President Bush's (Rumsfeld's really) Blackwater and a broken bank.

Until they acknowledge how wrong they have been the problem will persist. Unfortunately, Washington has become a non-military member's club. How can people - who have deemed themselves too good to serve - know anything about what to fix in these regards? All they hear is some civilian in a suit or some General about to retire telling them that "nothing is too good for our troops." This is true of course, but what they give us isn't good enough. They have a history of providing toys for wars they want us to fight rather than the wars we are going to fight. Money gets wasted and China still hasn't attacked. In the mean time, our troops needed body armor and NBC suits in 2003. No money for such things, but here's another 10 F/A-22s that won't be used in either Iraq or Afghanistan (because they are too expensive to risk).

Deuce said:

Meanwhile, North Korea spends pretty much everything it has on its military. Also, we possess enough nuclear weapons to end the world twice. Not really sure why that's helpful!

Click to expand...

Well, there comes a time when enough nuclear weapons is quite enough. One only needs one fork and one plate to eat right? But North Korea is something different. They do nothing for the world, nor do they seek prosperity in the international arena. They are too busy marching their polished unused military around and launching missiles at nothing so that the people keep focusing on the phantom enemy that threatens them. In their case, they will get no return until they emerge from their self induced solitude.

MSgt said:

There are a handful of politicians (McCain, Gramm, Warner, Lieberman, and others) who routinely block the outdated Defense Industry programs while their select General or Admiral lobbies for the next toy. And President Obama obviously has somebody wise in his ear considering the quickness the F/A-22 went to bed. But, I don't see politicians admitting that they were wrong about cutting the military numbers. President Bush was all about killing our numbers. President Clinton was fond of it as well as he rode the backs of the military from one MOOTW to the next while promoting the privatization of the military. The result is President Bush's (Rumsfeld's really) Blackwater and a broken bank.

Until they acknowledge how wrong they have been the problem will persist. Unfortunately, Washington has become a non-military member's club. How can people - who have deemed themselves too good to serve - know anything about what to fix in these regards? All they hear is some civilian in a suit or some General about to retire telling them that "nothing is too good for our troops." This is true of course, but what they give us isn't good enough. They have a history of providing toys for wars they want us to fight rather than the wars we are going to fight. Money gets wasted and China still hasn't attacked. In the mean time, our troops needed body armor and NBC suits in 2003. No money for such things, but here's another 10 F/A-22s that won't be used in either Iraq or Afghanistan (because they are too expensive to risk).

Click to expand...

The F-22 isn't used in Iraq not because it's too expensive, but because the thing is an air superiority fighter. The /A is bull****, the F-22 is barely even capable of ground attack, much less being well suited for it. The damned thing is built for a war that we're never going to fight.

Deuce said:

The F-22 isn't used in Iraq not because it's too expensive, but because the thing is an air superiority fighter. The /A is bull****, the F-22 is barely even capable of ground attack, much less being well suited for it. The damned thing is built for a war that we're never going to fight.

Click to expand...

Exactly. A "war with China" has been the rallying cry of every one of our Defense Companies and Washington has eaten it up. We already far outweigh anybody in the world in technology on every level. It's like you alluded to...."How many nukes do we actually need?" Being prepared is one thing. But at this pace we are preparing for the Empire and their Death Star.
:darthgunny

MSgt said:

Exactly. A "war with China" has been the rallying cry of every one of our Defense Companies and Washington has eaten it up. We already far outweigh anybody in the world in technology on every level. It's like you alluded to...."How many nukes do we actually need?" Being prepared is one thing. But at this pace we are preparing for the Empire and their Death Star.
:darthgunny

Click to expand...

That freaking Obama cut X-wings out of the 2011 budget!

But yeah, the only countries that stand a chance against our OLD planes are either allies or already possess intercontinental nuclear capabilities. Russia can end the planet just like we can. China has some nukes, and we owe them way too much money anyway. Who out there has a halfway decent air force that we've got a remote chance of getting into a fight with?

U.S. manifest destiny along with its style of corporate capitalism have been the entire drive for globalization over the past 50 years. Even the British empire in the post-mercantilist era could never have dreamed to achieve what the U.S. has accomplished today through Cold War politics. U.S. capitalism won and along with it U.S. currency and its style of doing business.

As the U.S. global influence gradually fades over time due to economic reasons, I am really curious to see how business around the world will evolve free from that cultural propagation. The U.S. will always be a regional hegemon but I think its unsustainable economic practices are falling out of disfavor, especially in Europe.

I don't think anyone here will deny that there is a ridiculous amount of wasteful spending in defense.

That said, I also think few (left, center, right) here would be against an honest review that made spending leaner and did away with excesses - it would mean more money for stuff, we actually need.

Of course America can't be the only one dragging other nations along economically. Everything you own, from your car to your I-Pod to your pencils, come from parts, patents, and labor from many other nations. It's been like this for centuries. Maybe America's influence isn't as great as it once was, but that's not a matter of us falling; it's others catching up. There's nothing wrong with that. The more development, the better.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Of course America can't be the only one dragging other nations along economically. Everything you own, from your car to your I-Pod to your pencils, come from parts, patents, and labor from many other nations. It's been like this for centuries. Maybe America's influence isn't as great as it once was, but that's not a matter of us falling; it's others catching up. There's nothing wrong with that. The more development, the better.

Click to expand...

When the U.S. has 25% of the world's population but uses 60% of the world's annual bounty, there is no "catching up", America has to conserve.

The U.S. has set an impractical, unhealthy, and impossible standard for the rest of the world. I would prefer if the world followed the economies of some European nations or the micro-economies of some self-sustaining African societies, than I would for the world to follow the American capitalist blue print. Look at China... they are trying to become the U.S., and their country has become one big smoke stack that is draining the world and polluting the air at the same time.

MSgt said:

There's a difference between the military and the gross Defense Industry.

Billions can be saved by stream lining the Defense Industry. Putting the brakes on the F/A-22 was a start. But the ironic rub towards Washington and the elected "wisemen" who run it to the ground is that their periodic attempts to save tax payer dollars by cutting the number of troops since the end of the Cold War has merely produced scenarios where they are spending more on civilian contractors to do what others in uniform did for less.

Cutting the military equals Blackwater. But maybe the Washington mouth pieces were right in 1989....."Our wars are over."

Click to expand...

It would be preferable if the US wars were over, I am not entirely sure whether we actually gain anything from constantly warring with other nations.
Afghanistan was different is so far as those who attacked the US were being harboured there.
The Iraq war was stupid, we gained nothing.

jujuman13 said:

It would be preferable if the US wars were over, I am not entirely sure whether we actually gain anything from constantly warring with other nations.
Afghanistan was different is so far as those who attacked the US were being harboured there.
The Iraq war was stupid, we gained nothing.

Click to expand...

We have eliminated a potential threat in Iraq.

Hans Blix testimony before the war illustrated what we didn't know; which was a huge amount of the most dangerous toxins in the world were unaccounted for and that they were in the dark about what Saddam had done in the four years the Inspecteurs de la UN were booted out. He would have reconstituted his WMD programs as well.

David Kay in Senate Armed Services testimony stated we were lucky, as the place was in such chaos, he believed the chance for a terrorist hooking up with and acquiring WMD was a real possibility, and if it didn't already happen we were lucky.

The benefit of taking out Saddam and setting up the infancy of democracy in that region is yet fully unknown and won't be known for some time.

If we want to cut spending, there are scores of departments and programs that should be phased out or shut down.

As for what Obama's statement: He is Dr. Demise.

Orion said:

When the U.S. has 25% of the world's population but uses 60% of the world's annual bounty, there is no "catching up", America has to conserve.

The U.S. has set an impractical, unhealthy, and impossible standard for the rest of the world. I would prefer if the world followed the economies of some European nations or the micro-economies of some self-sustaining African societies, than I would for the world to follow the American capitalist blue print. Look at China... they are trying to become the U.S., and their country has become one big smoke stack that is draining the world and polluting the air at the same time.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the sirens song of "White mans Guilt". America is not to blame, this is just utter, complete crap logic. The rest of the world needs to get over their envy of the USA. And if you feel guilty cause we are so successful... go piss off.

MrVicchio said:

Ahh, the sirens song of "White mans Guilt". America is not to blame, this is just utter, complete crap logic. The rest of the world needs to get over their envy of the USA. And if you feel guilty cause we are so successful... go piss off.

Click to expand...

since when is america just white? i'm sure black people contribute too, and the rest of the world blames all americans equally :2razz:

MrVicchio said:

Ahh, the sirens song of "White mans Guilt". America is not to blame, this is just utter, complete crap logic. The rest of the world needs to get over their envy of the USA. And if you feel guilty cause we are so successful... go piss off.

Click to expand...

Glad to see you are employing your classical MrV "logic" as usual. :roll:

MrVicchio said:

And Duece agains adds nothing to a thread.

Why did America Elect such people taht have no faith in the Country? The shame of this Administration will take a generation to expunge.

Click to expand...

Obama adds nothing to the economy. Like father, like son.

Orion said:

When the U.S. has 25% of the world's population but uses 60% of the world's annual bounty, there is no "catching up", America has to conserve.

The U.S. has set an impractical, unhealthy, and impossible standard for the rest of the world. I would prefer if the world followed the economies of some European nations or the micro-economies of some self-sustaining African societies, than I would for the world to follow the American capitalist blue print. Look at China... they are trying to become the U.S., and their country has become one big smoke stack that is draining the world and polluting the air at the same time.

Click to expand...

Economic growth doesn't automatically mean destroying the planet. Energy use is changing, but all economies are having problems with that, including non-capitalists.

zimmer said:

We have eliminated a potential threat in Iraq.

Hans Blix testimony before the war illustrated what we didn't know; which was a huge amount of the most dangerous toxins in the world were unaccounted for and that they were in the dark about what Saddam had done in the four years the Inspecteurs de la UN were booted out. He would have reconstituted his WMD programs as well.

David Kay in Senate Armed Services testimony stated we were lucky, as the place was in such chaos, he believed the chance for a terrorist hooking up with and acquiring WMD was a real possibility, and if it didn't already happen we were lucky.

The benefit of taking out Saddam and setting up the infancy of democracy in that region is yet fully unknown and won't be known for some time.

If we want to cut spending, there are scores of departments and programs that should be phased out or shut down.

As for what Obama's statement: He is Dr. Demise.

Click to expand...

Thats all nice when you have a true leader behind the troops, but with Obama, the limited rules of engagement that are forced on our troops in Astan is sending men to fight without authorizing them the tools to fight with is just losing lives needlessly. In order to win there our government has to want to win no matter what the costs. Thats why, I believe it is best to pull out the ground troops and bomb the holy crap of every position where a Taliban is believed to be embedded. Many civs will die, buts thats war....You kill until the enemy suffers so many losses they just give up and give up without conditions.

Obama won´t do it and probably future Presidents won´t do it....So, what the **** are we doing there?..and whats worse is our military will lose the will of to even fight it.

Its time to get the hell out

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Economic growth doesn't automatically mean destroying the planet.

Click to expand...

Right now it does.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Energy use is changing, but all economies are having problems with that, including non-capitalists.

Click to expand...

Capitalist economies are still the lynch pin.

MrVicchio said:

And Duece agains adds nothing to a thread.

Why did America Elect such people taht have no faith in the Country? The shame of this Administration will take a generation to expunge.

Click to expand...

or we could do it the old fashion way

Lord Tammerlain said:

So how much of the military would you like to see be cut?

Click to expand...

How many unnecessary bases can you count? How many more unwanted C-130 troop transport planes are being ordered to provide jobs in certain senator's districts employed? How about pulling 58,000 troops out of the EU so the US public can have a retirement age prior to 88, as opposed to the euros retiring at 55?

I'm a cons republican, and I would cut the military significantly - but I'd still cut/eliminate tons of other programs as well.

Lord Tammerlain said:

A generalization by me, based on your "very conservative" leaning in your profile

I have not seen many "very conservatives" who support cutting the military budget at all

Click to expand...

Then they are not truly conservative. A true conservative does not want high taxes, which a wasteful, inefficient and bloated military would entail.

MrVicchio said:

And Duece agains adds nothing to a thread.

Why did America Elect such people taht have no faith in the Country? The shame of this Administration will take a generation to expunge.

Click to expand...

Quite an ignorant comment seeing as the Treasury Secretary's statement was referring to converging economies that will require greater domestic economic growth (meaning less reliance on exporting to America) to reach such a status. We have witnessed convergence from Japan and many western European countries since WWII. Therefore, convergence will play a much larger part in world economic growth than say an expanding US consumer base.

jujuman13 said:

It would be preferable if the US wars were over, I am not entirely sure whether we actually gain anything from constantly warring with other nations.
Afghanistan was different is so far as those who attacked the US were being harboured there.
The Iraq war was stupid, we gained nothing.

Click to expand...

Your entire lifestyle is owed to the fact that we have been immersed in war with other nations from time to time. It's a globalizing world that depends on the security of trades and stability. Who has provided that since WWII? Who has prevented a WWIII by not allowing enemies to grow too powerful to deal with? Unlike our allies, we don't have a big brother to take most of the burden for us. Oil was the biggest factor during WWII. 8 billion barrels of oil (7 from the U.S. supply) was used by the allies against Germany. The race to gain favor in the Middle East throughout the Cold War was more about denying the Soviets oil than it was about some greedy demand commonly attributed to the U.S.


And what did we gain in regards to Afghanistan? At least Iraq has oil. On the simplest level, the only difference Afghanistan offerred was a source for our revenge. However, on a more analytical level (where I try to swim) , the entire Middle East is a mess. And the more unhealthy it gets, the more dangerous it is for Americans. Our troops are going to fight in the Middle East as long as religious terror is being bred. This means that the region's dictators, theologies, lack of education, poverty, and tribal friction is our problem. It is a historical fact that America's security has always relied upon the health of regions abroad. The longer we ignore it and pretend that it "isn't our problem" the more blood American military personel will have to be shed to eventually deal with it. We have allies in the region and they deserve our protection as much as a blood soaked European nation does.

We pretended that the health of a Soviet free Afghanistan was not our problem. We pretended that the Tali-Ban would never be our problem. We pretended that chasing Saddam Hussein back to behind his borders was a victory. We pretended that bombing his cities for a decade would be the extent of our burden. And how much do we pretend that Saudi Arabia isn't the demon behind the monsters? Or that Iran is one step away from turning its back on nuclear power and being our friends?

The bumber sticker rally to deny Iraq's importance and our responsiblities in regards to Hussein is a pointless venture and never really had any valid argument. Hate the politicians who couldn't be straight with you. hate the irresponsible manner in which they managed it. Hate the unnecesary exxagerated economical grossness of it. But eventually, Iraq was going to happen because Saddam Hussein was our responsibility and it was one country among many in this region that needed a kick in the ass. Oh, and hate that Iraq is still a whole country. That was a tactical mistake for which many more will die for. Arabs have proven that they cannot build a healthy state where tribes are equally treated.

MrVicchio said:

Another misguided poster that doesn't realize that Social Spending is like 3-1 over Military Spending. But hey, don't let that interfere with your silly "military cost cutting" non-sense.

Click to expand...

The reason military spending is an obvious target as it is the most discretionary large cost we have. The social programs have been woven into the very fabric of our society. You might scale them back for future generations, but there really is very little things you can do with meaningful short-term results. Much like if you lose your job, cutting cable is easy, unloading the house is far more complex.

But let's run with your ideas. Tell me exactly how you would cut social spending and what your remedy for its consequences will be. I am tired of this conservative polyanna view of the world. They have quick, but rarely very well thought out answers. I would much rather be a conservative as things are simple to them.

1) What would you cut? and how much?
2) What are the consequences of those cuts? (ie, if you eliminate social security and/or medicare, what happens to our elder population that has 65% of its retirement funding from social security, and what happens to the baby boomers that have no savings..... or do we just have 60% of the population over 65 homeless)
3) What are the remedies for those consequences (how do you deal with that type of social turmoil)?

It is very, very difficult to balance a budget in a recession, as by definition tax revenues are very low, so you are cutting the government below standard operating levels. That kind of drastic cut during a recession also tends to compound the problem, and is generally thought to be the wrong thing to do in recession. I am all for balancing a budget, but it needs to be balanced consistent with a normal run-rate.

I am tired of conservative criticism without a conservative solutions (real solutions, not high-level fantasy).... get off your high horse and get to work. You can start here:

Budget of the United States Government: Browse

Or, for a simple version:

United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ric27 said:

Obama won´t do it and probably future Presidents won´t do it....So, what the **** are we doing there?..and whats worse is our military will lose the will of to even fight it.

Its time to get the hell out

Click to expand...

We can't get the hell out and future Presidents don't have a choice. Reagan denied our responsibilities and left them for Bush. Bush denied our responsibilities and left them for Clinton. Clinton looked for ways to depose of Hussein and wound up merely bombing him 4 times. And when 9/11 happened, people were actually shocked that our lack of responsibility came back to haunt us. What shall we deny today that will only kill more Americans later? From one president to the next, all they did was cater to the civilian's sense of "peace" by pretending that problems will fix themselves.

The military has never lost the will to fight. It's civilians that have done this and ruined every outcome since WWII. In this war, we weren't satisfied with just chasing the dictator's army back to his borders to contain him. We finished it so that it wouldn't linger into a political mess. But this is where we stopped finishing things. Korea was merely split in half and we deal with a nuclear rogue North Korea today. Vietnam was vacated only to usher in genocide. The Gulf War was half assed and merely put on hold for a later date. We vacated Somalia only to have to deal with Somali piracy in international waters later. Bosnia has been made safe for human trafficers and gun runners and merely awaits to commence round 2.

The greatest problem plaguing the Middle East and African nations is bad borders and corruption. As long as they remain, we will have to be involved. As long as the Kurds are split between 4 nations who encourage rebellion and uprising, we will have to be involved. As long as Saudi stability matters, we will have to be involved. As long as Israel remains, we will have to be involved. As long as Iran seeks nuclear power, we will have to be involved. And best believe that as soon as the tribes of the Middle East begin their nuclear "Cold War," the entire world will want us to be involved.

Everybody thinks in the now as if tomorrow will fix itself. It's like looking at your check engine light for months and waiting until the engine won't start to pull out the check book. In the end, its the military that pays in blood.