(June 21, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: We could cut defense spending in half without impacting our capability for DEFENSE at all. ( OFFENSE? That's a different story. )

So true. The fix is relatively easy, but neither party will go for it since particular jobs in specific districts will be affected. My idea is to set the defense budget at 2000 levels as a percent of GDP. It was the lowest since WWII. The trick is execution.

Congress should just set the budget and let the military leadership figure out how to satisfy defense mission requirements within budget. Not only are they paid to do this, but they routinely ask to cut programs and close bases for monetary and obsolescence reasons. Congress won't do this for the sole reason of keeping military related manufacturing and services jobs in their districts; i.e. vote buying.

There should also be a provision that stipulates no increase in military spending as a percent of GDP will be allowed without a declaration of war from Congress.

---

(June 21, 2014 at 1:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: The problem with cutting defense to the point where we have no offensive capability would likely result in the loss of seignorage we enjoy from being in control of the worlds reserve currency.

Russia and China are already unplugging from the dollar as a reserve currency and the reasons have nothing to do with how large or potent our military is.

We can significantly cut military spending and still be able to bomb the shit out of whoever we want on the face of the Earth within a few hours notice.

(June 21, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Heywood Wrote: ...exemption to themselves when the engage in not-for-profit activities. Like Church's or Planned Parenthood.

Churches are only non-profit in theory. You can make tons of money running a religious racket.



...and unlike Planned Parenthood, your product or service supposedly of value to the community, doesn't exist.

Poor Woodie. He does so want to thump his chest and chant "We're #1."

(June 21, 2014 at 2:29 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 21, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Heywood Wrote: ...exemption to themselves when the engage in not-for-profit activities. Like Church's or Planned Parenthood.

Churches are only non-profit in theory. You can make tons of money running a religious racket.



...and unlike Planned Parenthood, your product or service supposedly of value to the community, doesn't exist.

Some people do start churches for profit, others start them to worship their God. I'm sure there are many atheists douchebags trying to game the system by pretending to believe and worship God. However to claim that all Church's exist for profit is asinine. Further, to claim the services of a Church offer no value to community is equally ridiculous. If a Church had no value, people would not join it.

(June 21, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: If a Church had no value, people would not join it.

How can you so flippantly deny child indoctrination?

(June 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 21, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: We could cut defense spending in half without impacting our capability for DEFENSE at all. ( OFFENSE? That's a different story. )

So true. The fix is relatively easy, but neither party will go for it since particular jobs in specific districts will be affected. My idea is to set the defense budget at 2000 levels as a percent of GDP. It was the lowest since WWII. The trick is execution.

Congress should just set the budget and let the military leadership figure out how to satisfy defense mission requirements within budget. Not only are they paid to do this, but they routinely ask to cut programs and close bases for monetary and obsolescence reasons. Congress won't do this for the sole reason of keeping military related manufacturing and services jobs in their districts; i.e. vote buying.

There should also be a provision that stipulates no increase in military spending as a percent of GDP will be allowed without a declaration of war from Congress.

---

(June 21, 2014 at 1:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: The problem with cutting defense to the point where we have no offensive capability would likely result in the loss of seignorage we enjoy from being in control of the worlds reserve currency.

Russia and China are already unplugging from the dollar as a reserve currency and the reasons have nothing to do with how large or potent our military is.

We can significantly cut military spending and still be able to bomb the shit out of whoever we want on the face of the Earth within a few hours notice.

I'm not opposed to cutting military spending to help balance the budget. Cutting it by half as others have suggested? My gut tells me such a drastic cut is untenable.

I agree there is some movement away from the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. However not having the hands down best military in the world will only hasten that move. The fact is we do benefit greatly from seigniorage largely because of our military. That is certainly something that needs to be considered before making such drastic cuts.

(June 21, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: However to claim that all Church's exist for profit is asinine.

The fact that religion is so lucrative is sufficient to question whether a church should be regarded as a non-profit. In fact, I can only wish my for-profit business were as profitable as a religion.

Quote:Further, to claim the services of a Church offer no value to community is equally ridiculous.

The primary product that churches offer is one you can only enjoy after you die and can't confirm that it really is real.

---

(June 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm not opposed to cutting military spending to help balance the budget. Cutting it by half as others have suggested? My gut tells me such a drastic cut is untenable.

If you're interested in facts, we spend more on defense than the next four nations combined-and-then-doubled. If we cut our defense budget in half, we'd still be spending more than the next four nations combined.

Two of those nations, France and the UK, are our allies. Britain is unlikely to want a repossess us anytime soon. Another of these four is China, our principle trade partner.

Who is the dire enemy we must arm against? Our Cold War budget was to oppose the former Soviet Union. Now we face a bunch of angry mobs who haven't figured out that standing in a crowd of people celebrating by shooting their guns in the air is a bad idea. We used to face an adversary that could wipe us out in 30 minutes or less from bombs delivered by intercontinental ballistic missiles. Now we face an adversary that straps bombs to themselves and sometimes fail for want of a butane lighter.

The Cold War is over. Bush Sr. back in the early 90s promised a Peace Dividend with the cuts that could be made to defense. We're still waiting for those cuts some 20 years later.

Until those cuts materialize...

Not...
one...
dime...

...of cuts to anything else.

(June 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm not opposed to cutting military spending to help balance the budget. Cutting it by half as others have suggested? My gut tells me such a drastic cut is untenable.

So, you support my idea of limiting defense spending to 2000 levels of GDP?

(June 21, 2014 at 6:57 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm not opposed to cutting military spending to help balance the budget. Cutting it by half as others have suggested? My gut tells me such a drastic cut is untenable.

So, you support my idea of limiting defense spending to 2000 levels of GDP?

If we let the military spend the money the way they see fit(instead of the way congress see's fit)....we could probably go even lower.

Would you be okay with rolling Medicare back to 2000 levels of GDP?

(June 21, 2014 at 11:21 am)Crossless1 Wrote: You're absolutely right. This is what rubs my ass raw. There is no necessary connection between food stamps and the farm subsidy bills. We could easily separate the two. The reason food stamps get rolled up into the farm bills is nothing other than to co-opt legislators who might otherwise vote against handouts to the ag sector by forcing them to choose between corporate welfare for big agri-business and cutting off assistance to the poor.

Well, on the practical end - the money and goods on wic or available through foodstamps don't appear out of nowhere - so the connection is that programs or business models that can deliver more mass, more nutrients - just more- receive subsidy (see: corn), precisely so there's a glut, which the gov can then bank against disaster, or sell/give away excess. Essentially siphoning productivity in one sector to pay a bill that's created -by that sectors- end users (the poor), while rigging the price to entice producers to continue or increase their production volume. That's one reason that it's all on the same bill.

In this case the corporate welfare is actually required for our collective quality of life. That's because the welfare (both corporate and public) is inadequate in covering the costs of our current system, costs which are themselves subsidized precisely -so- that we can ignore them. If we had to pay anything's actual price (with regards to food - whether you're rich or poor) we'd realize that our currencies are becoming little more than rationing systems. I don;t know much of anything anywhere near as well as I know this stuff...but it wouldn't surprise me to find that at the heart of alot of corporate welfare complaints.

(All of this trouble, mind you, for a product that actually has an intrinsic value. Imagine the horrors of trying to regulate spending on "services", or any other such intangible.)