What should Congress and the President compromise on?

[candycorn]

The House is willing to discuss increasing revenue, but I have not seen the Senate or the President willing to talk about any real cuts.

What should they discuss?

How about the FACT that We, The Peeps spend 30% more on guns than the next 10 countries combined.

The Military Imbalance: How The U.S. Outspends The World

The only thing dumber is putting it on a credit card.

And how is say Europe doing with all of that money they no longer used for their militaries after gutting their armed forces in the 90's? Even if we gutted it with a 100 Bn cut like the other guy suggested, fine, so, that leaves a yearly deficit of still more than a trillion.....

The military has actually been cut, new carriers cut from 5 to 2, down to 10 carrier groups, the raptor cut at 180, etc.

Europe is still there; the Rooskies didn't invade because they sniffed weakness. No one else invaded either.

So the whole "it will leave us exposed" argument made in opposition to cutting the defense budget is dispelled because we have an example, Europe.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The House is willing to discuss increasing revenue, but I have not seen the Senate or the President willing to talk about any real cuts.

What should they discuss?

How about the FACT that We, The Peeps spend 30% more on guns than the next 10 countries combined.

The Military Imbalance: How The U.S. Outspends The World

The only thing dumber is putting it on a credit card.

And how is say Europe doing with all of that money they no longer used for their militaries after gutting their armed forces in the 90's? Even if we gutted it with a 100 Bn cut like the other guy suggested, fine, so, that leaves a yearly deficit of still more than a trillion.....

The military has actually been cut, new carriers cut from 5 to 2, down to 10 carrier groups, the raptor cut at 180, etc.

Comparing us to Europe? Whatever...

My point is that the military budgets of China, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and India COMBINED is still 30% less than what we put on a credit card, and that is just plain stupid.

What we do with any money not spent on guns going forward is another story.

I also happen to think that paying the medical industry on a per person / per procedure basis is just as stupid.

Can you imagine the education budget if we paid teachers per student / per test? Build a clinic or three and hire a doc or two on SALARY. Healthcare problem $olved.

 

[Trajan]

100 billion a year in dod cuts?Uhm,that's like a 20% cut, thats beyond huge and would literally cripple them.

A 20% cut would return the level of military spending as percentage of GDP to nearer what it was in the Eisenhower Administration. Remember Ike's farewell speech about the military-industrial complex? We currently spend more than the next 10 nations combined. So how much of a defense cut do you think would be acceptable?

I don't see raising the payroll limit for FICA, let them means test those receiving ssi over a high threshold.

We don't have a limit for the Medicare tax, so why not have no limit for OASDI? SSI already is means tested, and quite restictively. As a compromise we could just raise the OASDI limit to, say, $250,000. Would that be better?

Subsidies and tax breaks are not the same thing.

Not exactly, but direct payment subsidy programs and refundable credits are functionally equivalent. You can means test both.

Agri, yup, most especially the ethanol subsidy , because that is a subsidy.

We agree on something! And we are having a civil debate/ discussion/ negotiation without name calling or either of us melting. See, it can be done.

if I remember right the oasdi base was 60 or 65 K (?) in the mid 90's, its now 113k now, you want to double it, in one crack? come on man.



the Eisenhower era, we can look at this way too;

and yes I realize that iraq and afghan are/were off budget but, that is disappearing.

and the Eisenhower era is misleading, because were beginning to build the cold war apparatus, a strategic air force heavy on new technology, missile silos etc. tech costs big bucks and comparably the cost has gone up, note the trend up in the latter half of his decade/presdidency, his prognostication was and is apt, but .it doesn't change reality and he got on board.

the 2002 DOD budget was 329 Bn. Ok, lets get it to 550 in 5 years, I am down with that. I also thnk we need to pull the 26K men from Korea and the 50k from Europe, 10 k for Europe for Air Froce personnel due to strategic sptt. globally.

now the real issue-

I think its obvious. I have thrown 150 bn in 5 years into the pot, your turn.

 

[Trajan]

How about the FACT that We, The Peeps spend 30% more on guns than the next 10 countries combined.

The Military Imbalance: How The U.S. Outspends The World

The only thing dumber is putting it on a credit card.

And how is say Europe doing with all of that money they no longer used for their militaries after gutting their armed forces in the 90's? Even if we gutted it with a 100 Bn cut like the other guy suggested, fine, so, that leaves a yearly deficit of still more than a trillion.....

The military has actually been cut, new carriers cut from 5 to 2, down to 10 carrier groups, the raptor cut at 180, etc.

Europe is still there; the Rooskies didn't invade because they sniffed weakness. No one else invaded either.

So the whole "it will leave us exposed" argument made in opposition to cutting the defense budget is dispelled because we have an example, Europe.

right, thats why just to get rid of Qaddafi duck, who did the heavy lifting, the brits ran out of cruise missiles and the french threw in a whole 40 aircraft....? How about the Balkans?

I am all for limiting the army, as in divisions , infantry and Armour which are labor intensive and eat dollars, bulk up the navy and Air Force at their expanse, infantrymen are also easier/less time consuming to train relatively, if the balloon goes up and are least tech heavy etc.

 

[Trajan]

How about the FACT that We, The Peeps spend 30% more on guns than the next 10 countries combined.

The Military Imbalance: How The U.S. Outspends The World

The only thing dumber is putting it on a credit card.

And how is say Europe doing with all of that money they no longer used for their militaries after gutting their armed forces in the 90's? Even if we gutted it with a 100 Bn cut like the other guy suggested, fine, so, that leaves a yearly deficit of still more than a trillion.....

The military has actually been cut, new carriers cut from 5 to 2, down to 10 carrier groups, the raptor cut at 180, etc.

Comparing us to Europe? Whatever...

the analogy is apt if the subject is $$$$, hello.

what did they do with the money they saved? Germany had 12 Divs, heavy in Tanks and APCS, and a heavy investment especially in Tornado ground sppt. aircraft etc. Now? Thye cut 70% and, they need a maximum effort as they have turned into an interventionist force, putting 8000 men in the field takes a maximum effort, the point? where do you all of that money went since the wall fell? France same, after the wall went down they dropped their strength by % more so than Germany to 126K men, where did all that money go? You know where.

What we do with any money not spent on guns going forward is another story.

exactly the point I made above, so where did all that money go? I know and you know exactly where it would go if we did same, we spent 680Bn last year, ok so take it down to 300, now what? wheres that other 280 bn going to go? It will get swept up into the gaping maw of social prgms and in 5 years boom, we will be right where Europe is, wondering why they don't have a dime, still running deficits, and cannot grow their way out of the mess to boot.

My point is that the military budgets of China, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and India COMBINED is still 30% less than what we put on a credit card, and that is just plain stupid.

is that really your point? Ok well unless you want to break with Truman, Kennedy, and stalwart democrats who knew that like it or not we had to step in and maintain the peace and did by virtue of that ability to PROJECT overwhelming force when and where we pleased, without it there would be no world moving toward freedom, free open trade, or a procedurally based national/international system based on the Treaty of Westphalia model Peace of Westphalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that benefits us all.

and now, a story-
one Saturday in 1947 a British diplomat drove over to Dean Achesons office and told him, we're down and out, we cannot carry the load , Dean went to see Truman, Greece and Turkey were under siege by populist communist forces,the iron curtain and all that Truman went to congress and asked for and received sppt. to do what no one else could and had to be done. Reading that speech certainly explains it better than I can, google it sometime. Fundamentally, little has changed except the world moves a lot more quickly than it did then.



Add to that Chinas military budget is approx. 130 Bn. Now, they are very very heavy into dual use technology and platforming. So their advertised budget is a clever ruse recognized by experts, in real dollars their budget is closer to double that. When we cut and they expand they accrue a doubling effect in relative strength.


Go checkout the Washington naval treaty of 1921, signed by Britain, the United States, Japan, France, and Italy. WW1 was over and we were all going to all live in a armed, but well regulated armed environment where in we had a built in treaty of 5-3 advantage, right? wrong. .....

The cheating started almost immediately, except of course, for us, so when in 1936 when japan took themselves out of it they had already cheated to the point of parity, then advantage anyway and they were on the march.

 

[saveliberty]

Europe is still there; the Rooskies didn't invade because they sniffed weakness. No one else invaded either.

So the whole "it will leave us exposed" argument made in opposition to cutting the defense budget is dispelled because we have an example, Europe.

Europe is still there because we defend them out of our interests. Thanks for an excellent example of why you're wrong.

 

[AVG-JOE]

My point really is that the only thing stupider than spending as much on guns as we do is putting it on our Chinese Visa Card. Really

30% more than the next 10 military budgets COMBINED? Stupid. Really.

 

[AVG-JOE]

100 billion a year in dod cuts?Uhm,that's like a 20% cut, thats beyond huge and would literally cripple them.

A 20% cut would return the level of military spending as percentage of GDP to nearer what it was in the Eisenhower Administration. Remember Ike's farewell speech about the military-industrial complex? We currently spend more than the next 10 nations combined. So how much of a defense cut do you think would be acceptable?


We don't have a limit for the Medicare tax, so why not have no limit for OASDI? SSI already is means tested, and quite restictively. As a compromise we could just raise the OASDI limit to, say, $250,000. Would that be better?


Not exactly, but direct payment subsidy programs and refundable credits are functionally equivalent. You can means test both.

Agri, yup, most especially the ethanol subsidy , because that is a subsidy.

We agree on something! And we are having a civil debate/ discussion/ negotiation without name calling or either of us melting. See, it can be done.

if I remember right the oasdi base was 60 or 65 K (?) in the mid 90's, its now 113k now, you want to double it, in one crack? come on man.



the Eisenhower era, we can look at this way too;

and yes I realize that iraq and afghan are/were off budget but, that is disappearing.

and the Eisenhower era is misleading, because were beginning to build the cold war apparatus, a strategic air force heavy on new technology, missile silos etc. tech costs big bucks and comparably the cost has gone up, note the trend up in the latter half of his decade/presdidency, his prognostication was and is apt, but .it doesn't change reality and he got on board.

the 2002 DOD budget was 329 Bn. Ok, lets get it to 550 in 5 years, I am down with that. I also thnk we need to pull the 26K men from Korea and the 50k from Europe, 10 k for Europe for Air Froce personnel due to strategic sptt. globally.

now the real issue-

I think its obvious. I have thrown 150 bn in 5 years into the pot, your turn.

Interesting stats... very interesting. But I still think that our current Military budget is way out of whack for our circumstances.

 

[Trajan]

My point really is that the only thing stupider than spending as much on guns as we do is putting it on our Chinese Visa Card. Really

30% more than the next 10 military budgets COMBINED? Stupid. Really.

I just took the time and effort to answer that joe. you have posed exactly the same questions/statements.

Would you feel better if we were paying for it? Why use the military as a basis for borrowing? Why not medicare? Food stamps? Green energy projects? Education spending/ subsidies that have little to no return?


$377 billion was the Clinton average, thats 14 years ago, I'd say things are a tad more dangerous now, than they were then, so what, 450, 475? We also have reached the end of life of several big platforms all at once, aircraft , ships etc.

 

[Trajan]

A 20% cut would return the level of military spending as percentage of GDP to nearer what it was in the Eisenhower Administration. Remember Ike's farewell speech about the military-industrial complex? We currently spend more than the next 10 nations combined. So how much of a defense cut do you think would be acceptable?


We don't have a limit for the Medicare tax, so why not have no limit for OASDI? SSI already is means tested, and quite restictively. As a compromise we could just raise the OASDI limit to, say, $250,000. Would that be better?


Not exactly, but direct payment subsidy programs and refundable credits are functionally equivalent. You can means test both.


We agree on something! And we are having a civil debate/ discussion/ negotiation without name calling or either of us melting. See, it can be done.

if I remember right the oasdi base was 60 or 65 K (?) in the mid 90's, its now 113k now, you want to double it, in one crack? come on man.



the Eisenhower era, we can look at this way too;

and yes I realize that iraq and afghan are/were off budget but, that is disappearing.

and the Eisenhower era is misleading, because were beginning to build the cold war apparatus, a strategic air force heavy on new technology, missile silos etc. tech costs big bucks and comparably the cost has gone up, note the trend up in the latter half of his decade/presdidency, his prognostication was and is apt, but .it doesn't change reality and he got on board.

the 2002 DOD budget was 329 Bn. Ok, lets get it to 550 in 5 years, I am down with that. I also thnk we need to pull the 26K men from Korea and the 50k from Europe, 10 k for Europe for Air Froce personnel due to strategic sptt. globally.

now the real issue-

I think its obvious. I have thrown 150 bn in 5 years into the pot, your turn.

Interesting stats... very interesting. But I still think that our current Military budget is way out of whack for our circumstances.

what are our circumstances?

 

[saveliberty]

Wasn't the whole point of the last eleven years to make us more secure? Interesting thing about security. Everything seems that way until it isn't.

 

[Darkwind]

Am I right in assuming the Democrats have no intention on compromising? Reid has publicly said so, numerous liberal posters on this board have said so.

I love the claim that elections have consequences, since the Consequence of this election is that a majority of people chose to leave the House firmly in Republican hands.

First, obviously I speak for myself alone. Whatever the deal is, the deal is. You are conmingling two questions. The first one is what kind of negotiations will occur and what the final deal will be. This is a political question and I have not the foggiest idea how it will play out.

The second question is what kind of deal MIGHT be struck if the nerds on each side crafted a plan. I do have some opinions on that.

First, there is a little wriggle room on the progressive side on tax rates. A top rate of 39.6% starting at about $400,000 (in the last year it was used, 2000, this bracket started at $288,350 for everyone but married separate filers, and is indexed for inflation) is not engraved in stone. It is possible to modify this in two ways: by choosing a slightly lower maximum rate such as 38% (this makes a difference to the uberrich even if it doesn't to the mere half-million dollar a year job creator) and/or the threshold for higher rates could be increased. Suppose the 36% rate was lowered to 35% and started at $250,000 of taxable income and the top rate was 38% on income over $1 million. I could live with that.

Second, there are important expiring measures in the tax law that matter a lot which could be compromised. For example:
1. the "carried interest" rule which allows equity managers to treat earnings as capital gains
2. the treatment of dividends at the rate of capital gains rather than ordinary income
3. the capital gains rate increasing to 20%
4. the estate tax exclusion reverting to a lower amount and higher rate
5. the alternative minimum tax reverting to 2000 level exemptions.

If I were crafting an offer, I would stick to my guns on carried interest, end capital gains rates on dividends but allow a ceiling rate on dividends of 25% or so (along with a reduction in corporate tax rates to the same 25%), offer to decrease the maximum estate tax rate to 45% and have a $20 million exclusion, and abolish the AMT.

I also would want some middle class tax relief in the measure and a few tax reforms, like:
1. Stop taxing Social Security and unemployment benefits.
2. Abolish the separate taxes for funding the unemployment system and make it a part of the Social Security tax rate structure.
3. Convert itemized deductions into a 25% tax credit.

Now the general impact of these kind of changes and a host of others that seem to be a good idea to me would be to raise taxes slightly on the very wealthy and reduce taxes to the middle class. I don't like the Republican proposal to cap itemized deductions as that throws the $400k true job creator under the bus while not making much of a difference to the very affluent.

OK enough. You get my drift. Let's just try to keep the discussion of political positions separate from what we would like to see happen.

This is what I never seem to comprehend. Are you looking for solutions, or are you looking to stick it to someone?

Why, in your entire outline, do you have to include a phrase like, "while not making much of a difference to the very affluent".

Why is it that you think that the middle class should be exempt from harm from the government, but the affluent should not?

Why are you not looking for solutions that are fair to everyone, not just one specific class of people?