Over 17 trillion - maybe we should have left the lid on the can

[knapplc]

We may be spending less than Korean War and Cold War levels, but we still spend WAY too much on our military:

 

[sd'sker]

In general I'd like to see the government spend less on the military, less on foreign aid, and more on domestic needs like infrastructure, education and healthcare.

[BigRedBuster]

I would LOVE to spend less on military.

 

Interestingly.....from this link from another thread:

 

LINK

 

It appears that the number of military personnel has remained fairly steady since being reduced in the mid 1990s. But, military spending has gone way up.

 

 

Do you know if your graph includes the spending in aid we give other nations?

 

I remember reading somewhere that we have over 700 military installations outside our borders. That seems absolutely insane to me with today's technology.

[JJ Husker]

I find it ironic that the democrats preferred method of tax and spend or borrow and spend contributes greatly to the detested concentration of wealth in fewer, richer hands.

According to the Krugman article-

 

"Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion."

 

And his summary-

"So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap."

 

A few things I wonder about-

1- He states that debt isn't bad because the majority of that money is owed to ourselves. So, which Americans loan their money to our government? Hint- it's not the poor people. That's right, the richest of our rich are the ones we have to pay interest on that debt to. So, we take money out of circulation (collect taxes), remit it to the government, and they make interest payments to rich people and other countries.

 

2- The government doesn't create anything. They can generate income 3 ways. A- Taxing US taxpayers (taking money out of the economy), B- Borrowing funds & C-Printing money. Both B&C cannot really be considered generating income but those are the choices for funding government spending. Now that we know how government gets it's money, let's consider how they spend it (stimulate the economy). Well, they really can't stimulate squat. We've already identified that they have to take that money out of the economy before they can put it back into the economy. And considering that every dollar they collect comes back to us in some reduced form due to inefficiency, they take out more than they put back in. I suppose that "inefficiency" could be considered federal jobs and therefore it counts as coming back into the economy but, I really have to question the sustainability of stimulating the economy by increasing the government payroll. Best case scenario they can redistribute that money from one location to another. They play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Most of us can live with a bit of that but, when they have to borrow (increase debt) to accomplish it, I think we've seen who the beneficiary's are of servicing that debt- that's right, the rich people who it was taken from to begin with.

 

3- I guess we can increase our standard of living relative to the rest of the world if we manage the debt properly, making sure we're collecting more in interest income than we are paying to other countries. But if anyone thinks this is really benefitting anyone other than the people rich enough to be buying bonds or in effect loaning money to the government, well, they've got your level of understanding right where they want it. And by "they" I mean the ultra wealthy or in other words, our elected officials.

 

I've been told I don't understand the economy, debt, deficit spending, etc. I think the problem is that I understand it all too well. The whole system is nothing but a house of cards. Sure, a reasonable amount of debt isn't going to kill us. If it is grown at a responsible rate it can be sustainable. It is not like a family that owes their mortgage to payment to somebody else because much of it we pay back to ourselves. I've also been told that "redistribution of wealth" is just a political talking point. If you really look at how our government works (collects and spends money), their only activity is redistribution of wealth. That's not just a talking point, it is a fact and it is all they are capable of. Sure, they may spend billions on that new road or bridge and thereby generate jobs in specific industries but, that money came from somewhere else in the economy. I believe we need some of that just to keep things on an even keel and prevent all out anarchy but, we also have to be realistic about what it really is. It is all smoke and mirrors and nothing more than taking from Peter to pay Paul.

[carlfense]

So are you saying that the deficit wasn't a problem in the 80s and isn't a problem now?

You really are looking for an argument instead of a discussion aren't you? You were the one that said "you asked Knapp". If you haven't noticed, he and I are in a nice conversation about the subject.

. . .

So are you saying that the deficit wasn't a problem in the 80s and isn't a problem now?

[ZRod]

We may be spending less than Korean War and Cold War levels, but we still spend WAY too much on our military:

 

I agree with you. When you have thousands of tanks sitting in the California desert, and brand new cargo planes being sent from the production line to the bone yard in Arizona something needs to change. But how would you offset the supposed job losses and hit to the economy that comes up as a counter point every time someone talks about halting tank production, or reducing our submarine arsenal, etc?

http://www.military....o-boneyard.html

[carlfense]

But how would you offset the supposed job losses and hit to the economy that comes up as a counter point every time someone talks about halting tank production, or reducing our submarine arsenal, etc?

Probably spend it on infrastructure, education, and health care.

[Foppa]

I would say, generally speaking, that the lower your debt is as a percentage of GDP is a good thing. But I bow to those with greater fiscal knowledge to correct that.

 

In general I'd like to see the government spend less on the military, less on foreign aid, and more on domestic needs like infrastructure, education and healthcare.

 

When you think about it...spending on military and foreign aid tend to go hand-in-hand. Our military often dictates how much foreign aid is needed throughout the world.

[ZRod]

But how would you offset the supposed job losses and hit to the economy that comes up as a counter point every time someone talks about halting tank production, or reducing our submarine arsenal, etc?

Probably spend it on infrastructure, education, and health care.

But then they would come back with "that's not replacing the lost jobs" and maybe they aren't even in the same state, so now you've killed Ohio's economy. I was just curious if there was a good solution anyone had thought of, because as far as I can see if you want to make anything "right" in this country someone is going to get hurt.

[Army_Allen]

Have you guys seen the cuts the military has been doing? 500 billion is being cut on top of another 500 billion from 2011 that is still taking out. and with the cuts, prior service members aren't being allowed back in unless they change MOS to Spec Forces and not many qualify for it. The army is halting tank divisions all together and the furlough this summer still hasn't stopped affecting civilians that work on the bases. Training is less rounds used, and less time with the soldiers. Say the economy needs to fix stuff is perfectly reasonable, but I don't know where from the military you're going to take it that isn't going to negatively affect the lives or training of the people who put their lives at risk to protect you.

 

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/22/army-general-sees-no-end-in-sight-to-cuts/?comp=1199444873923&rank=5

[carlfense]

Have you guys seen the cuts the military has been doing? 500 billion is being cut on top of another 500 billion from 2011 that is still taking out. and with the cuts, prior service members aren't being allowed back in unless they change MOS to Spec Forces and not many qualify for it. The army is halting tank divisions all together and the furlough this summer still hasn't stopped affecting civilians that work on the bases. Training is less rounds used, and less time with the soldiers. Say the economy needs to fix stuff is perfectly reasonable, but I don't know where from the military you're going to take it that isn't going to negatively affect the lives or training of the people who put their lives at risk to protect you.

 

http://www.dodbuzz.c...44873923&rank=5

Further fallout from the sequester.

[TGHusker]

I find it ironic that the democrats preferred method of tax and spend or borrow and spend contributes greatly to the detested concentration of wealth in fewer, richer hands.

According to the Krugman article-

 

"Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion."

 

And his summary-

"So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap."

 

A few things I wonder about-

1- He states that debt isn't bad because the majority of that money is owed to ourselves. So, which Americans loan their money to our government? Hint- it's not the poor people. That's right, the richest of our rich are the ones we have to pay interest on that debt to. So, we take money out of circulation (collect taxes), remit it to the government, and they make interest payments to rich people and other countries.

 

2- The government doesn't create anything. They can generate income 3 ways. A- Taxing US taxpayers (taking money out of the economy), B- Borrowing funds & C-Printing money. Both B&C cannot really be considered generating income but those are the choices for funding government spending. Now that we know how government gets it's money, let's consider how they spend it (stimulate the economy). Well, they really can't stimulate squat. We've already identified that they have to take that money out of the economy before they can put it back into the economy. And considering that every dollar they collect comes back to us in some reduced form due to inefficiency, they take out more than they put back in. I suppose that "inefficiency" could be considered federal jobs and therefore it counts as coming back into the economy but, I really have to question the sustainability of stimulating the economy by increasing the government payroll. Best case scenario they can redistribute that money from one location to another. They play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Most of us can live with a bit of that but, when they have to borrow (increase debt) to accomplish it, I think we've seen who the beneficiary's are of servicing that debt- that's right, the rich people who it was taken from to begin with.

 

3- I guess we can increase our standard of living relative to the rest of the world if we manage the debt properly, making sure we're collecting more in interest income than we are paying to other countries. But if anyone thinks this is really benefitting anyone other than the people rich enough to be buying bonds or in effect loaning money to the government, well, they've got your level of understanding right where they want it. And by "they" I mean the ultra wealthy or in other words, our elected officials.

 

I've been told I don't understand the economy, debt, deficit spending, etc. I think the problem is that I understand it all too well. The whole system is nothing but a house of cards. Sure, a reasonable amount of debt isn't going to kill us. If it is grown at a responsible rate it can be sustainable. It is not like a family that owes their mortgage to payment to somebody else because much of it we pay back to ourselves. I've also been told that "redistribution of wealth" is just a political talking point. If you really look at how our government works (collects and spends money), their only activity is redistribution of wealth. That's not just a talking point, it is a fact and it is all they are capable of. Sure, they may spend billions on that new road or bridge and thereby generate jobs in specific industries but, that money came from somewhere else in the economy. I believe we need some of that just to keep things on an even keel and prevent all out anarchy but, we also have to be realistic about what it really is. It is all smoke and mirrors and nothing more than taking from Peter to pay Paul.

You are right on the house of cards. How long is this sustainable: Congressmen promise pet project in state (think Mitch McConnel and his Kentucky dam, or the Neb kickback, etc), to make this promise happens, he needs more money. Congress looks to the treasure to fund it. The treasury takes an IOU to the Fed Reserve and say I will promise payment on Tuesday for a hamburger today, The Fed gives the treasury a check, drawn on an account that is just #s - not real money, the treasury then pays for the project. Most of the money floating in the economy are just computer #s. The banks then loan computer money to all of us for houses, cars etc - creating an even bigger house of cards. Not sure how long we can sustain this scam.

[deedsker]

I find it ironic that the democrats preferred method of tax and spend or borrow and spend contributes greatly to the detested concentration of wealth in fewer, richer hands.

According to the Krugman article-

 

"Now, the fact that federal debt isn’t at all like a mortgage on America’s future doesn’t mean that the debt is harmless. Taxes must be levied to pay the interest, and you don’t have to be a right-wing ideologue to concede that taxes impose some cost on the economy, if nothing else by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion."

 

And his summary-

"So yes, debt matters. But right now, other things matter more. We need more, not less, government spending to get us out of our unemployment trap."

 

A few things I wonder about-

1- He states that debt isn't bad because the majority of that money is owed to ourselves. So, which Americans loan their money to our government? Hint- it's not the poor people. That's right, the richest of our rich are the ones we have to pay interest on that debt to. So, we take money out of circulation (collect taxes), remit it to the government, and they make interest payments to rich people and other countries.

 

2- The government doesn't create anything. They can generate income 3 ways. A- Taxing US taxpayers (taking money out of the economy), B- Borrowing funds & C-Printing money. Both B&C cannot really be considered generating income but those are the choices for funding government spending. Now that we know how government gets it's money, let's consider how they spend it (stimulate the economy). Well, they really can't stimulate squat. We've already identified that they have to take that money out of the economy before they can put it back into the economy. And considering that every dollar they collect comes back to us in some reduced form due to inefficiency, they take out more than they put back in. I suppose that "inefficiency" could be considered federal jobs and therefore it counts as coming back into the economy but, I really have to question the sustainability of stimulating the economy by increasing the government payroll. Best case scenario they can redistribute that money from one location to another. They play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Most of us can live with a bit of that but, when they have to borrow (increase debt) to accomplish it, I think we've seen who the beneficiary's are of servicing that debt- that's right, the rich people who it was taken from to begin with.

 

3- I guess we can increase our standard of living relative to the rest of the world if we manage the debt properly, making sure we're collecting more in interest income than we are paying to other countries. But if anyone thinks this is really benefitting anyone other than the people rich enough to be buying bonds or in effect loaning money to the government, well, they've got your level of understanding right where they want it. And by "they" I mean the ultra wealthy or in other words, our elected officials.

 

I've been told I don't understand the economy, debt, deficit spending, etc. I think the problem is that I understand it all too well. The whole system is nothing but a house of cards. Sure, a reasonable amount of debt isn't going to kill us. If it is grown at a responsible rate it can be sustainable. It is not like a family that owes their mortgage to payment to somebody else because much of it we pay back to ourselves. I've also been told that "redistribution of wealth" is just a political talking point. If you really look at how our government works (collects and spends money), their only activity is redistribution of wealth. That's not just a talking point, it is a fact and it is all they are capable of. Sure, they may spend billions on that new road or bridge and thereby generate jobs in specific industries but, that money came from somewhere else in the economy. I believe we need some of that just to keep things on an even keel and prevent all out anarchy but, we also have to be realistic about what it really is. It is all smoke and mirrors and nothing more than taking from Peter to pay Paul.

You are right on the house of cards. How long is this sustainable: Congressmen promise pet project in state (think Mitch McConnel and his Kentucky dam, or the Neb kickback, etc), to make this promise happens, he needs more money. Congress looks to the treasure to fund it. The treasury takes an IOU to the Fed Reserve and say I will promise payment on Tuesday for a hamburger today, The Fed gives the treasury a check, drawn on an account that is just #s - not real money, the treasury then pays for the project. Most of the money floating in the economy are just computer #s. The banks then loan computer money to all of us for houses, cars etc - creating an even bigger house of cards. Not sure how long we can sustain this scam.

You are actually getting to the basic principles taught in economics. It's all just belief in a system where a dollar is a dollar and has an agreed value.

 

You stop believing the cards will fall.