Here's a nice piece by Veronique de Rugy pointing out that, yes, spending on "defense" counts as spending too, a fact which seems to have gone missing from our political discourse. It's a lot of spending!
« Coronation Interrupted | Main | Multimedia Me »
Defense Spending is Spending Too
09 Feb 2008 05:02 pm
Comments (67)
Solid, Duncan.
It is disappointing that neither of the Dem top 2 terrific candidates has taken any kind of harder line on defense spending (I think Edwards promised an across the board 15% cut).
Compared to almost any type of infrastructure spending, it's just terribly economically wasteful.
Matt,
I think you should demand answers to your post about 'important things we haven't answered yet'.
As a blogger, this is your job. I don't see any rightwing blogger offering their opinions without understanding where the candidates stood on issues. you may disagree with them, but malkin, hewitt, powerline, even imao.us, all knew where the candidates stood.
If you don't know where hillary or obama stand, I don't know how you, or anyone, can make a proper vote in this election. it is absolutely amazing.
However, it also should be obvious that these massive expenditures are possible only because foreign governments subsidize America's deficits. It is seems increasingly likely that they can and will curb these subsidies.
It does? Why does it "seem" that way to you? The budget deficit is declining and is below the long-term average, and the U.S. public debt as a share of GDP is close to the historic average of the last 40 years.
What threatens this for the future is not military spending, but the huge projected growth in entitlement spending, and more specifically, Medicare spending.
Mixner writes: "What threatens this for the future is not military spending, but the huge projected growth in entitlement spending, and more specifically, Medicare spending."
Yee-hah! Let the old folks die and buy more bombs! Two trillion and counting as the end cost for the Iraq War (which cons want to continue for decades, while expanding it to include Iraq) but it's those frigging geezers who will doom us!
Cons - banging the same dumbass drum for 50 years and more!
Re Mixner's comment "What threatens this for the future is not military spending, but the huge projected growth in entitlement spending, and more specifically, Medicare spending. "
------------
Of course, what Mixner doesn't mention is that $3 Trillion has been stolen out of Medicare's Trust Fund in the past few years IN ORDER TO PAY FOR DEFENSE SPENDING.
But Mixner likes to leave those little unstated points as an exercise for the reader.
Part of the problem also is that $3 TRILLION today becomes much, much larger as a FUTURE value because of compounded interest.
Yee-hah! Let the old folks die and buy more bombs!
Just how much more do you expect future generations to pay so that 80-year-old grandad can get that $200,000 heart bypass operation to extend his life by a few months?
Two trillion and counting as the end cost for the Iraq War
If you're counting backwards, yes.
Re Mixner's comment "U.S. public debt as a share of GDP is close to the historic average of the last 40 years."
-------------
Actually, federal debt as percent of GDP was around 36-37 percent in Carter's Administration and has since DOUBLED to almost 70 percent.
The increases have all occurred in the administrations of Republican "fiscal conservatives" Ronald Reagan, George H Bush and George W Bush. See http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/debt_gdp.png
(click on lower right to enlarge.)
If the economy goes into a recession, the debt as percent of GDP value will zoom upward even higher.
Plus comparison of the US today to the US in the 1950s is misleading. Because WWII destroyed much of the rest of the world, We dominated the world in the 1950s --militarily, economically, and commercially. Today --not so much. Once you discount for inflation and population growth (immigration) , our real GDP growth per capita is very anemic. Much much lower than China's -- which is why our billionaires are dumping US workers on the street in order to move capital to China.
Plus the median age of our population is rising as the baby boomer cohort ages . A young couple in their 20s can buy a house with 20 percent down and the rest financed with a 30 year mortgage. But a couple in their 60s?
Mixner quotes and replies: "Two trillion and counting as the end cost for the Iraq War
If you're counting backwards, yes."
At least I'm counting, chuckles. You and all of your Bush-slurping pals gave his war a blank check and contionue to do so. BTW, how can I count backwards when you morons have declared an endless war?
As for your bullshit example of the 80 year old "grandad," you cons don't even want to cover KIDS, so quit it with the bullshit. Tell me some more about how much your shitheaded leaders were willing to pay to keep Terri Schiavo's husk breathing and then go away.
Yeah, it is kinda funny when righties come up with a discrete statistic to say that something they want is ok. One classic is citing 'average' rather than 'median' wages (bill gates walks into a bar...), and gdp growth (which can also be dramatically skewed to a few winners).
This time it's % of gdp of military spending. In real terms we've grown tremendously over the decades, spending the 'same' real dollars means a massively larger complex, this in the face of very dubious claims that we face anything like the threats and dangers we faced in the 50s and 60s.
Why spend so much money on something so unproductive?
Back then it was probably the imperialism, stupid (although at least Soviet Russia was the real deal), today it's OBVIOUSLY the imperialism, stupid.
Such massive defense spending is both a wealth transfer and a support system for a particular class to defend their interests, end of story.
At least I'm counting, chuckles.
You're counting made-up numbers, shorty.
You and all of your Bush-slurping pals gave his war a blank check and contionue to do so.
Yes, my pals Hillary and Barack were busy slurping Bush when they voted, repeatedly, for additional war funding. So who's your candidate now? Maybe you're hoping, say, Noam Chomsky will dive in at the last minute? Is the American Communist Party running anyone?
As for your bullshit example of the 80 year old "grandad," you cons don't even want to cover KIDS, so quit it with the bullshit.
Unless we drastically restrain the growth in Medicare spending, the kids are the ones who are going to suffer, when they grow up and have to pay for the profligate spending you're defending. Medicare spending is by far the biggest threat to the long-term fiscal sustainability of the government.
i'm w/ young jimmy madison. much more comfortable w/ an exec less likely to do lots of warring.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=927&Itemid=275
Actually, federal debt as percent of GDP was around 36-37 percent in Carter's Administration and has since DOUBLED to almost 70 percent.
Federal debt held the public (meaning what the government owes to its domestic and foreign creditors) as a share of GDP is about 40%, slightly higher than the long-term average. It's projected to decline until some time around 2025, when it will start zooming upwards due to the dramatic growth in Medicare spending.
Shorter Mixner:
If we rob the Social Security Trust Fund things aren't so bad!
Mixner quotes and replies: "At least I'm counting, chuckles.
You're counting made-up numbers, shorty."
It's not "made-up," it's a projection, nitwit, just like your Medicare one. And the "two trillion" figure is from last year - every day we spend in Iraq it goes up. And since your leaders want to stay there permanently and invade Iraq as well, add a zero!
"You and all of your Bush-slurping pals gave his war a blank check and contionue to do so.
Yes, my pals Hillary and Barack were busy slurping Bush when they voted, repeatedly, for additional war funding. So who's your candidate now?"
Obama, since I don't think he would have voted for the war in the first place, and I think he's the one who will get us out the quickest. He's also the one who offers the sharpest rebuke to the Repiglican Era you love so much.
Who's your candidate? Dick Cheney?
"Unless we drastically restrain the growth in Medicare spending, the kids are the ones who are going to suffer, when they grow up and have to pay for the profligate spending you're defending. Medicare spending is by far the biggest threat to the long-term fiscal sustainability of the government."
There goes that con drum again. You use 2008 dollars and the 2008 economy and pretend they'll have the same value 40 years from now. The government went broke 40 years ago, according to cons. But we still have trillions to throw away every time you and yours feel the urge to slaughter some swarthy folks.
Kep on lying, Mixner, keep on lying. It's not just what you cons do best, it's just about all that you do.
Re Mixner's comment "Unless we drastically restrain the growth in Medicare spending, the kids are the ones who are going to suffer, when they grow up and have to pay for the profligate spending you're defending. "
-----------
Translation: The Democratic Elites are scared shitless that the Republicans are going to prosper in the coming decade by casting Democrats as people who steal from those under 45 in order to transfer money to lazy, greedy baby boomers who should have saved for retirement but were too irresponsible to do so.
Normally, sucking up to AARP is politically savvy but some Democrats already see the strategic dead end: If it's Republican-young vs Democrat-old, then the Republicans win big. Because their supporter cohorts are constantly maturing and gaining in income and influence while the Democratic supporters are ..er..dying.
So its coming time for Democratic politicians to close down the Social Security/Medicare con they've been feasting on for 60 some years and give the old fuckers who believed them the heave-hold.
After all, the main ones who will object are largely poor -- and what can they do? They're too poor to give campaign donations and too sickly to pick up AK-47s.
Read'em and weep , Rubes. Welcome to the Great Society.
PS Mixner's giving you pearls here. His disillusioned mien makes me suspect that he already knows what it's like to be sodomized by the Clintons.
"So its coming time for Democratic politicians to close down the Social Security/Medicare con they've been feasting on for 60 some years and give the old fuckers who believed them the heave-hold."
Neither party will sign off on that, since geezers vote way out of proportion to their numbers, and the boomers are just now entering geezerhood.
The move for the Dems is to get universal health care done and cut the Repiglicans off at the knees.
It's not "made-up," it's a projection, nitwit, just like your Medicare one.
It's a meaningless "projection," moron. No one has any idea what our involvement in Iraq will be 2 or 5 or 10 years from now. It's all a guess.
Obama, since I don't think he would have voted for the war in the first place,
What, that Bush-slurper who keeps voting to spend more and more money on Iraq? I thought you hated that.
There goes that con drum again. You use 2008 dollars and the 2008 economy and pretend they'll have the same value 40 years from now.
No I don't. The projection comes from the non-partisan Medicare Trustees and is based on conservative projections of future spending and population levels based on historical trends. Unless we drastically slow the fiscal train-wreck-in-progress that is Medicare spending, we will be saddling future generations with huge and unsustainable debts. Your response to this is to bury your head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem.
mixner is right about one thing (although his Obama characterizations are deeply disingenuous), Medicare is a problem.
Medicare's a problem, S.S. isn't.
So, why is it a good idea to continue (and perhaps even increase?) these current absurd levels of military spending?
A far more efficient healthcare system (as demonstrated by many other nations) combined with improved fiscal responsibility will help shore up the healthcare financing issues, but it isn't a small task.
"It's all a guess."
Yes. Indeed. Except there happens to be a candidate running who has pledged to stay in Iraq for 100 years if neccessary.
I'm guessing that the next 2-5 years will cost a lot of money under That Guy.
Re Mixner's comment "Federal debt held the public (meaning what the government owes to its domestic and foreign creditors) as a share of GDP is about 40%, "
1) Current GDP: $14 Trillion
Ref: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
2) Current public debt: $9.2 Trillion
Ref: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
3) Federal Debt as percent of GDP: 66 percent
4) Current debt limit: $9.8 Trillion
Debt Limit as percent of GDP: 70 percent
5) If you look at the treasurydirect.gov link, you'll see the card that Mixner's palming: He's not counting the $4 Trillion that's been
taken out of the Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Debt) as part of the debt.
Normally, one has to negotiate with a used car saleman to see accounting of that quality. I wonder if Mixner's ever worked in DC or on Wall Street?
Mixner quotes and replies: "It's not "made-up," it's a projection, nitwit, just like your Medicare one.
It's a meaningless "projection," moron. No one has any idea what our involvement in Iraq will be 2 or 5 or 10 years from now. It's all a guess."
Can't any of you Cheney-taint lickers read? It's a projection of costs based on our involvement in the war UP UNTIL THE POINT LAST YEAR WHEN THE PROJECTION WAS MADE. As I said for your learning-impaired ass, every day after that ADDED to the projection. Or did you think all these injured soldiers are going to provide their own rehab/long-term care? I know you'd prefer that even more of them kill themselves so you cheapskates wouldn't have to pay.
"The projection comes from the non-partisan Medicare Trustees and is based on conservative projections of future spending and population levels based on historical trends. Unless we drastically slow the fiscal train-wreck-in-progress that is Medicare spending, we will be saddling future generations with huge and unsustainable debts. Your response to this is to bury your head in the sand and pretend there isn't a problem."
My response is universal health care, which is the only way to have any chance of holding down costs, and then to find ways to deal with the "problem," which is an aging population that isn't going to go away unless you cons decide they're jihadists and start killing them.
What's the con solution? Nothing, and they did NOTHING during the recent 6 year period when they had total control of government, except add on the prescription drug program for seniors. So here's a big FUCK YOU to all cons who still think there's even a scintilla of a reason to think they have any solutions. You don't, you never did, and you never will.
Don Williams asks: "Normally, one has to negotiate with a used car saleman to see accounting of that quality. I wonder if Mixner's ever worked in DC or on Wall Street?"
Sure - they have mailrooms in those places where he can listen to Rush & the gang all day.
So, why is it a good idea to continue (and perhaps even increase?) these current absurd levels of military spending?
They're not remotely "absurd" levels of spending. The share of GDP we spend on the military is close to the historical lows since WWII, and far lower than the spending levels in the 50s and 60s. Even the $2 trillion "projection" for the costs of the Iraq War is less than 1% of GDP over the same period.
There's a strong case that we should be spending far more on the military, especially on servicemember wages.
Actually the solution to health care is exactly the same as the solution to the energy problem and global warming (which is an energy problem): nanotech.
Spend the trillion dollars the Iraq war costs on a nanotech "Manhattan Project", and see major problems that are unsolvable now disappear in twenty years.
It's that simple.
Nanotech can cure cancer and heart disease in twenty years. Nanotech can produce solar power at 1/100th the present cost in twenty years. Nanotech can sequester the carbon from coal within twenty years. Nanotech - and Aubrey de Grey's program - can extend human healthy life span to well over one hundred in twenty or twenty five years.
All this with a five cent tax on gasoline for five or ten years and then a ten cent tax for the following ten years. And preferably a defense spending cut of, say, 15%.
Do you want technological solutions or just to argue about unworkable political solutions?
Don Williams,
You don't understand the meaning of the federal debt. The amount of debt the government owes to its foreign and domestic creditors--the holders of U.S. treasury bills--is debt held by the public, not gross debt. As I said, the debt held by the public as a share of GDP is about 40%, not 70%, as you can see in Table 7.1 of this document.
My response is universal health care, which is the only way to have any chance of holding down costs
Oh yes, that's plausible. Let's see: You're going to provide high-quality health care to the 45 million Americans who are currently uninsured, without lowering the standard of care, or raising the costs, for the 250 million who have insurance, AND you're going to drastically reduce the growth of federal health care spending at the same time.
What are you smoking? Even Hillary and Obama optimistically estimate that their "universal health care" plans are going to cost tens of billions of dollars a year in additional federal spending just in the first year or two, and we can safely multiply those "estimates" by a factor of 2 or 3 to get a more realistic number.
Learn to read mixner, I debunked you idiotic 'share of gdp' B.S. above, scroll up and read it if you like.
Re Mixner's comment "There's a strong case that we should be spending far more on the military, especially on servicemember wages."
----------
Ah, yes. So said the Roman patricians when Julius Caesar's veterans crossed the Rubicon -- said veterans having become tired of having their poor relatives buttfucked by the rich elites and of having their lives risked to seize and hold foreign treasure for the elites.
Ultimately, the Legions ended up having a public auction to SELL the office of Emperor. Which I concede looks delightfully efficient and clean compared to our present circus. Why doesn't the Pentagon simply auction the Presidency on Ebay and split the proceeds with the ranks?
The other policy -- enlisting a lot of foreigners into our Army with the promise of US citizenship -- was also used by the Romans. Unfortunately, the German "barbarians" took over the officer corps and decided to open the border so that their foreign relatives could colonize Italy. That Wall we're building on the Mexican border looks awfully similar to the Limes.
Mixner: "There's a strong case that we should be spending far more on the military, especially on servicemember wages."
Far more. Not somewhat, or significantly. Far more.
Agree with that last part though. Why? Of course I was called to action by Premier Bush in support of increased wages/benefits for soldiers, right? He has been a champion of these measures? Remember the prime time speech?
Honestly, when you're talking to someone this phony, Borat is the only recourse.
Learn to read mixner, I debunked you idiotic 'share of gdp' B.S. above, scroll up and read it if you like.
Learn to think, mike. You didn't "debunk" anything. You just idiotically asserted that spending as a share of GDP is not a relevant measure. You didn't provide any kind of serious argument in support of this assertion. You just asserted that it is "dubious" that the level of threat justifies the current expense, again without any supporting argument, either to justify that specific claim, or to support your tacit assumption that "level of threat" is the only significant factor in determining the appropriate amount of money to spend on the military.
Mixner replies: "There's a strong case that we should be spending far more on the military, especially on servicemember wages."
Why? Spending more than the rest of the world combined isn't enough for you murderous freaks?
Why?
Because we don't pay them enough. Some military families even qualify for food stamps because their wages are so low.
Spending more than the rest of the world combined isn't enough for you murderous freaks?
No, it's not, you genocidal fool.
"My response is universal health care, which is the only way to have any chance of holding down costs
Oh yes, that's plausible. Let's see: You're going to provide high-quality health care to the 45 million Americans who are currently uninsured, without lowering the standard of care, or raising the costs, for the 250 million who have insurance, AND you're going to drastically reduce the growth of federal health care spending at the same time.
What are you smoking? Even Hillary and Obama optimistically estimate that their "universal health care" plans are going to cost tens of billions of dollars a year in additional federal spending just in the first year or two, and we can safely multiply those "estimates" by a factor of 2 or 3 to get a more realistic number."
Of course it would lead to more federal spending. The question is whether it would cost the overall economy less, and whether it would help control costs.
Can it be done without making health care worse? How much worse can it get? 50 million uninsured isn't much of an endorsement, and the US does poorly in overall health - 37th, according to the World Health Organization.
But then you want the poor and the uninsured to gleefully die on schedule, don't you?
You cons are right and every other advanced society on the planet is wrong. You sick, sad, murderous, dinosaur freaks.
Of course it would lead to more federal spending. The question is whether it would cost the overall economy less, and whether it would help control costs.
Huh? So you're going to "control costs" by "more federal spending?" Exactly how is spending more supposed to "control costs?"
Can it be done without making health care worse? How much worse can it get?
Much, much worse. Check out the lousy health care Brits get under their National Health Service for an idea of how much worse it could get. Or the long waits Canadians face for tests and surgeries.
50 million uninsured isn't much of an endorsement, and the US does poorly in overall health - 37th, according to the World Health Organization.
The "overall health" of a nation's population is the outcome of a vast array of social, economic and environmental variables, from dietary and exercise patterns to rates of smoking and crime, and tells you absolutely nothing about the performance of the nation's health care system.
You sick, sad, murderous, dinosaur freaks.
You insane, pathetic, genocidal maniac.
Mixner replies: "Of course it would lead to more federal spending. The question is whether it would cost the overall economy less, and whether it would help control costs.
Huh? So you're going to "control costs" by "more federal spending?" Exactly how is spending more supposed to "control costs?""
I said "help control costs," you moron. Right now insurance companies deny coverage right and left but do little to control routine costs. They also take their BIG chunk of profit out of the pie. Remove that chunk and give the uninsured access to PREVENTATIVE CARE that they lack now and you might reduce emergency care costs, which are way out of control now.
Then there's your plan, which is DO NOTHING.
"Can it be done without making health care worse? How much worse can it get?
Much, much worse. Check out the lousy health care Brits get under their National Health Service for an idea of how much worse it could get. Or the long waits Canadians face for tests and surgeries."
How about the undeniable fact that both countries have much healthier populations than we do, and that health care is a lower percentage of GNP in both countries? You won't even consider these things.
It will be a pleasure to shove universal coverage down your throat. It's coming, chuckles. You may be the last person to acknowledge it, but it is coming.
"You sick, sad, murderous, dinosaur freaks.
You insane, pathetic, genocidal maniac."
Genocide is a con thing. Just like torture, which is your favorite indoor sport.
See you in November.
With discourse like this, maybe it is a good thing this issue is missing from prime time. In evaluating defense spending, the question should be is it an effective and efficient expenditure. Gross amounts or comparisons to historical percentages of GDP really are not that significant. Whatever threat you think the U.S. faces today, it would be very hard to justify the expenditures on the kinds of weapon systems, and the expense of the Iraq war as achieving the goals very effectively or efficiently. Even if you believe the U.S. faces a unique threat to its existence, through some kind of jihad invasion or detonation of multiple nuclear bombs, the way we are spending money is not very well tailored to meeting those threats. A vast amount of pork and patronage gets hidden from public scrutiny in the defense budget for the very reason that people are ready to defend, with high emotion, just the idea of defense and the honor of service men. Defense spending just does not get the scrutiny it merits as the largest part by far of discretionary federal spending. It is a shame.
As far as the amount of public debt, ignoring the future liability of social security does not make it go away. The government could always default on that liability, which may be preferable to defaulting on the public debt, but it would still be a default and a pretty plain acknowledgment of fiscal recklessness.
You gotta love the way Mixner simply accuses everyone else of "making assertions" when everything he says is merely an assertion as well.
He's never provided word one of evidence for any of his assertions.
When he's crushed under the weight of evidence provided by other posters, he reverts to ambiguity of terminology, or wanders off into the "morally equivalent" argument.
"You just asserted that it is "dubious" that the level of threat justifies the current expense, again without any supporting argument, either to justify that specific claim, or to support your tacit assumption that "level of threat" is the only significant factor in determining the appropriate amount of money to spend on the military."
Because, moron, anybody with a brain knows that the only meaningful POINT of a "defense department" happens to be the level of THREAT facing the US. No "supporting argument" is necessary.
It's called "by definition", you idiot.
If you can't comprehend that, you're obviously in a state of highly advanced senility - like McCain.
Man Mixner you must be desperate for attention.
I didn't 'merely assert' that % of gdp is a lousy measure, I outlined why it's a lousy measure. Here, I'll paste it again, I'll even put the salient parts in all caps for you:
"This time it's % of gdp of military spending. In REAL TERMS WE'VE GROWN TREMENDOUSLY OVER THE DECADES, spending the 'same' real dollars means a massively larger complex, this in the face of very dubious claims that we face anything like the threats and dangers we faced in the 50s and 60s."
Maybe you don't comprehend what 'economic growth' means.
Spending the same % of gdp as we did decades ago (to deal with the massive Soviet Union) means we're spending far far more in real terms.
If you think the Al Queda threat deserves FAR MORE military resources than the Soviet threat, come out and say so.
I bet you can't though, because that would just sound nuts.
As for as soldier salaries, you can cut a whole lot of irrelevant and wasteful shit and give soldiers a nice bump in salaries and health coverage and still come out a hundred billion/year ahead.
Doug writes: "With discourse like this, maybe it is a good thing this issue is missing from prime time. In evaluating defense spending, the question should be is it an effective and efficient expenditure. Gross amounts or comparisons to historical percentages of GDP really are not that significant. Whatever threat you think the U.S. faces today, it would be very hard to justify the expenditures on the kinds of weapon systems, and the expense of the Iraq war as achieving the goals very effectively or efficiently. Even if you believe the U.S. faces a unique threat to its existence, through some kind of jihad invasion or detonation of multiple nuclear bombs, the way we are spending money is not very well tailored to meeting those threats. A vast amount of pork and patronage gets hidden from public scrutiny in the defense budget for the very reason that people are ready to defend, with high emotion, just the idea of defense and the honor of service men."
A lot of defense spending is simply due to imperial ego. Why do we still have large presences in Japan and Germany? These are wealthy countries and very reliable allies in a number of ways now. What, we're spending all this money in anticipation of WW6?
The fact is that the defense budget isn't subjected to rational scrutiny, it's a yahoo testosterone idiot creature boosted by lobbyist influence. When creatures like Mixner refer to spending being "low" by "post WW2" standards they're lying by omission - since that period of history is an anomaly driven by (in turns) necessity, paranoia, greed, and stupidity. Right now it's mainly paranoia, greed, and stupidity.
Spending the same % of gdp as we did decades ago (to deal with the massive Soviet Union) means we're spending far far more in real terms.
So what? How does that imply that we're spending more than we should? We have far more citizens and far greater wealth to defend, as do our allies, and our enemies and potential enemies have more people and greater resources at their disposal. The mere fact that we're spending more in real terms than we used to tells you precisely nothing about whether we're spending "too much."
But more importantly than that, the fact that you think the only relevant question is "How big is the threat?" demonstrates that your whole conception of the issue of military spending is just fundamentally superficial and naive. An equally important question is "How much protection do we want?" or "How much protection can we afford?" We are a much richer nation than we were in the past and we can therefore afford to buy a much higher level of protection against threats to our interests than we could in the past. If someone threatens me with a knife, and I can afford to buy a gun for protection rather than just another knife, I'll buy the gun. If someone threatens to burglarize my home, and I can afford to buy an electronic security system to protect it rather than just bolts on my doors, I'll buy the security system. One of the primary reasons for spending more on the military is to buy more security, independently of any changes in the size of the threat. Has this really never occurred to you?
As for as soldier salaries, you can cut a whole lot of irrelevant and wasteful shit and give soldiers a nice bump in salaries and health coverage and still come out a hundred billion/year ahead.
Yet another assertion entirely unsupported by evidence or argument.
Whatever threat you think the U.S. faces today, it would be very hard to justify the expenditures on the kinds of weapon systems, and the expense of the Iraq war as achieving the goals very effectively or efficiently.
Really? And you know this, how? Do please describe the kinds of weapons systems you think we should be spending our money on instead of the ones we actually are spending it on, and explain how you have determined that your proposed alternative would be a better use of our money. I'm looking for a rational argument, supported by facts and evidence, not just more because-I-say-so bullshit assertions.
Mixner writes: "We are a much richer nation than we were in the past and we can therefore afford to buy a much higher level of protection against threats to our interests than we could in the past. If someone threatens me with a knife, and I can afford to buy a gun for protection rather than just another knife, I'll buy the gun. If someone threatens to burglarize my home, and I can afford to buy an electronic security system to protect it rather than just bolts on my doors, I'll buy the security system. One of the primary reasons for spending more on the military is to buy more security, independently of any changes in the size of the threat. Has this really never occurred to you?"
But no matter how wealthy we get, we can't afford universal health insurance, beause Mixner wants the poor and elderly to die and he GETS HARD THINKING ABOUT KILLING FOREIGNERS.
If some Third Worlder spouts rhetoric about hating America, Mixner wants billions to be spent JUST IN CASE. If 50 million Americans are uninsured, he doesn't care. Let them die, the sooner the better. This is really what he believes. I'm not exaggerating it in any way - I don't have to.
Of course he'd like it if they'd go die in Iraq or Iran first, so he doesn't have to. Not like he would.
"Do please describe the kinds of weapons systems you think we should be spending our money on instead of the ones we actually are spending it on, and explain how you have determined that your proposed alternative would be a better use of our money."
That's a pretty good idea.
However, since we spend $600 billion/year on defense, more than all other countries in the world COMBINED, I actually think it's incumbent on YOU mixner to justify the spending we do.
Feel free to type a list of each defense item, it's cost, and why that system/weapon, etc. is actually vital to our national security.
Oh, as for 'spend it on something better?' Easy, any spending on national infrastructure (trains, roads, bridges, education, health care) is FAR more economically efficient than jobs produced by unnecessary weapons creation. Perhaps you'll say that's merely an 'unsupported assertion.' It's not, it's an economic fact. Your grasp of economics seems a bit shaky though, so I'd understand if that point was lost on you.
"and our enemies and potential enemies have more people and greater resources at their disposal."
hmmm, sounds like an unsupported assertion to me.
A few facts about health care:
Britain has better health outcomes than the U.S. and spends 40% (less than half, that's right) of what we do.
55 cents of every health care dollar spent goes to administration of your insurer or administration by your provider to deal with your insurer.
A single-payer (that's not 'single provider') system would yield the terrific efficiencies enjoyed by the rest of the industrialized world.
yo mixner, ur awesome.. how do u get these fools to respond to u.. noone responds to my posts.
do any of u fools have a clue what ur voting for? what are hrc/obama's position on important issues?
nothing is more important than universal healthcare.
even tho some people in their early twenties may have no health problems they need healthcare more than anything.
a person struggling must pay for healthcare instead of food. if u don't pay for ur healthcare, ur wages must be garnished.
healthcare is the most important issue in this year's election.
if the economy goes bad and jobs decrease, we must still ensure everyone has healthcare.
canada and europe nations have universal healthcare. we should have the same poor quality of healthcare for everyone.
we should all have the audacity of hope that everyone has healthcare. if asked if we can still push for it even if it hurts drug companies r&d and the number of doctors, we should say, yes we can.
because the source of america's greatness is healthcare. not the strong defense that other countries don't want to mess with or the strong economy that other countries want to trade with, it is our superb desire to have universal healthcare. once america has universal healthcare, no foreign nation will mess with us.
i am so glad to have hillary and obama fight so passionately about universal healthcare. cuz nothing else really matters.
More mixner! Sadly, it seems that his way is the only way to eventually have US imperialism collapse.
I would say your idea that every dollar spent on the war or the defense budget buys the american public an extra dollar of "security" is pretty childlike. The idea that we can "afford" all that spending is actually what is being questioned.
To carry your analogy further, why stop at the security system for your home. You could also hire teams of 24 hour armed guards, booby trap the perimeter, build a wall and fence around around that, have a secret tunnel going in or out. But why would would want to go in or out, more security is more important than anything else. Oh and also, make sure to spend the most money possible on the construction of your fortress and the equipment and the private security firm, since you believe that spending more is the only relevant measure how secure you are.
Other than that I agree with you it is a political choice. Believing that more spending always buys more security or that more security is always more valuable than anything else, does not lead to a very rational choice.
However, since we spend $600 billion/year on defense, more than all other countries in the world COMBINED, I actually think it's incumbent on YOU mixner to justify the spending we do.
No, since you are the one who seeks a substantial reduction in spending, it's incumbent upon you to justify your assertion that we currently spend too much. Simply saying, over and over again, some version of "We spend more than every other country combined!" is not an argument.
Oh, as for 'spend it on something better?' Easy, any spending on national infrastructure (trains, roads, bridges, education, health care) is FAR more economically efficient than jobs produced by unnecessary weapons creation.
Yet more assertion utterly unsupported by evidence or argument. What "unnecessary" weapons creation? How do you know they're "unnecessary?" What are your criteria for a "necessary" weapons system, anyway, and why should we accept those criteria? And how have you determined that spending the money on infrastructure would be more "economically efficient?"
Do you have anything even remotely resembling an actual, you know, ARGUMENT in support of your position, or is it just going to be more this "Because I say so, dammit!" posturing?
I would say your idea that every dollar spent on the war or the defense budget buys the american public an extra dollar of "security" is pretty childlike.
I would say your attributing to me statements I didn't make is pretty inexcusable.
The idea that we can "afford" all that spending is actually what is being questioned.
Well, make up your mind. I thought you were questioning whether we "need" to spend what we do, not whether we can "afford" it. The fact that our military spending as a share of our total wealth is far below the average of the last half century, and that our total wealth is higher than it has ever been, suggests that the claim that we cannot "afford" our current level of spending is utter nonsense.
To carry your analogy further, why stop at the security system for your home. You could also hire teams of 24 hour armed guards, booby trap the perimeter, build a wall and fence around around that, have a secret tunnel going in or out.
If I were wealthier still I might indeed hire armed guards or buy additional security measures. The more money you have, the greater the level of security you can afford to buy. We are a very wealthy nation and can afford to buy a much higher level of security than we could in the past. This is true not just for military spending, but for spending in general on protection against risk.
Britain has better health outcomes than the U.S. and spends 40% (less than half, that's right) of what we do.
Ha ha ha ha! Good one. You mean better health outcomes like
this?
"And how have you determined that spending the money on infrastructure would be more "economically efficient?" "
You might as well ask me how I know if prices for a good falls, how I know more people will want to purchase it. It's an iron economic law. You won't find a single economist who disagrees.
"Simply saying, over and over again, some version of "We spend more than every other country combined!" is not an argument."
It's totally an argument.
It's a stronger argument than your '% of gdp' argument.
You want to continue defense spending at these levels, I think a lot of it is a waste. It's a matter of priorities.
We'll all go vote in November, we'll see whose side wins.
Mike, you're wasting your breath making rational arguments with Mixner.
1) I gave him this link : http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
In which the US TREASURY SAYS that the total public debt is $9.2 TRILLION --
yet Mixner is STILL trying to argue that it's only $5.1 Trillion.
He's in an alternative universe.
mike,
It's totally an argument.
I must have missed the part where it magically became an argument. So what if we spend more on the military than all other countries combined? Exactly how is this fact supposed to support your claim that we're spending "too much?"
We'll all go vote in November, we'll see whose side wins.
Huh? Considering that even Obama and Hillary want to increase military spending, I'm not sure who your "side" is supposed to be. Ron Paul?
So now Mixner's argument is: if you have more money, spend it on security.
I'm actually partial to this argument - on an individual basis.
On a national basis, it's brain dead.
Even on an individual basis, it makes no sense to spend ALL of your excess money on security, which is basically what the US has been doing for over fifty years.
Especially when you're spending it on weapons systems that aren't going to defend you against the threats you're actually facing - and worse, you're engaging in military adventurism that is going to increase those sorts of threats that those weapons systems will not defend you against.
To which, Mixner simply asks questions to which he has no answers either. This is his usual rhetorical tactic - demand that his opponent list everything and make specific decisions, while he sits back and coasts on the notion that "we should trust our President" (as Britney put in "Fahrenheit 9/11).
I've repeatedly said that the US could defend itself against anybody with ten percent of the US military it has now at a cost of ten percent of the budget it has now. It's simply a matter of changing the orientation of the military from fighting a conventional war to fighting an unconventional war - even against conventional war enemies.
There's no defeating unconventional war (except by unconventional war). There's is especially no defeating 4th Gen War by conventional means.
The sole purpose of the US security apparatus should be to defend the continental US and its possessions overseas from conventional and unconventional attack by states and non-state actors. The military is used to deal with states; the intelligence and law enforcement communities to deal with non-state actors (with occasional use of the military as well when appropriate - which is rare.)
A US military trained and equipped to wage unconventional war against a conventional military will win every time. And this will inevitably cost much less than using large scale, expensive weapons systems with long development times and limited and specific tactical scenarios in which they can be used.
This should be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of military history and unconventional war. There is no need to go through a laundry list of weapons systems to demonstrate this (although of course once such a course of action is decided on, a complete review of the US military would be necessary and appropriate program adjustments made.)
Wars are won in two ways - by outspending the opponent (the usual US way) on manpower and weapons, or by intelligent strategy and tactics. The latter is much cheaper, much less expensive in terms of manpower - including casualties - and equipment, and tends to shorten the length of wars.
The US does not need aircraft carriers, a massive sea fleet, long-range bombers carrying ten thousand nuclear weapons, thousands of ICBMs with more nuclear warheads, and a million man military.
The US needs a hundred thousand warriors so over-trained and equipped for unconventional warfare that they can do anything. The equivalent of Navy SEALs but even better trained and better equipped.
As an example, North Korea has 100,000 Special Forces troops. Some years back, one of their subs was grounded on the coast of South Korea. Two of their Special Forces troops escaped the roundup. Those two stayed at large 53 days despite pursuit by South Korean military and police and killed 11 of their pursuers.
You win conflicts most efficiently by taking out your specific enemy. Which means in most cases, their leadership. A US military oriented around that capability would be unbeatable. You don't do that with mass armies beating each other up, or expensive weapons that can only kill large groups of people, whether military or civilian.
Not to mention that it's incorrect to develop weapons of mass murder, which is what most military weapons systems are today.
The reality is that some futurist military strategists are coming around to this concept, because they foresee most conflicts in the future being conflicts in urban areas between states and non-state actors (possibly supported by other states), where large-scale conventional war simply isn't on the cards due to the enormous destruction such wars cause.
Bottom line: The current US military is meant to be PAID FOR, not used - but then it gets used for imperial purposes and generates more hostility against the US, which results in threats against the US that the current US military cannot defend against.
This situation must be reversed.
But of course it won't be due to the prevalence of morons like Mixner in this country.
Don Williams,
In which the US TREASURY SAYS that the total public debt is $9.2 TRILLION --
yet Mixner is STILL trying to argue that it's only $5.1 Trillion.
How many times do we have to go over this? Total debt is irrelevant to the issue, because it includes intragovernmental transfers that do not represent money the government owes to its creditors. They're simply IOUs from one part of the government to another. The only component of the debt that is relevant to the willingness of foreign governments to keep buying treasury bills is debt held by the public, and that is about 40% of GDP, close to the long-term average, not 70%.
Mixner seems to be arguing that If the government steals $4 Trillion from your Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds -- and gives your Trust Fund accounts a group of Treasury Securities in return --i.e, Government Account Series -- then it is not on the hook to pay back the loans accounted for by those securities. I.E, that Those IOUS are merely worthless toilet paper.
Mixner is arguing that Future tax revenue does not have to be diverted to pay off the loans represented by those securities. Not even interest demanded by the securities has to be paid.
Evidently, It's kinda like a credit card which you can charge without limit but which never sends you a bill for payment.
If that is the case, then why does the government even bother with issuing Government Account Series
securities. Why doesn't it simply tell us that
it took $4 Trillion of the payroll taxes people have paid over the past 30 years and pissed the money away? Instead of telling us --in writing -- that our Social Security and Medicare accounts have $4 Trillion in "assets"?
Also, why do Democratic leaders call our Social Security/Medicare accounts a "Trust" Fund? Is that anything like a "Confidence" game?
Evidently, It's kinda like a credit card which you can charge without limit but which never sends you a bill for payment.
No, it's not at all like that. It's like transferring a balance from one of your credit cards to another of your credit cards. It doesn't have anything to do with how much you owe your creditors, it's just a matter of how you organize your debt internally.
The only relevant component of the debt to the willingness of creditors to extend further credit to the U.S. is debt held by the public, and that is 40% of GDP, not 70%. 40% is close the average of the last 40 years.
Mixner
1) Is the government obligated to repay the $4 Trillion it has taken out of Social Security and Medicare -- and for which it has issued securities which it claims are "assets" of those two programs?
Yes or No.
2) If No, then why has the Democratic leadership
joined with George Bush in claiming that our surplus payroll taxes are being "invested" in "government securities"?
2) If Yes, then doesn't the claim on $4 Trillion of future tax revenues represented by those securities that same as the burden represented by $4 Trillion in Treasury bonds issued on the financial markets? Yes or No
3) Don't creditors look at a Debtor's outstanding loans --his existing debt --before issuing him additional credit?
I can't give yes or no answers to questions with meaningless premises.
Whether one part of the government is obligated to transfer money to another part of the government is utterly irrelevant to the amount of money the government owes to its creditors. If I transfer a balance from one of my credit cards to another of my credit cards, I still owe the same amount of money to my creditors whether I believe I am "obligated" to "repay" the transferred balance back to the first credit card or not. The only debt that matters to my ability to secure additional credit is debt owed to creditors, not "debt" that represents only internal transfers of money between my accounts.
In my opinion, you're ducking the question in a dishonest fashion, Mixner.
The contract that the Government has with the voters is that the surplus money from payroll taxes is being saved in Trust Funds for future payouts. Political leaders , including those in the Democratic party , have repeatedly stated this contract.
So the $4 Trillion taken from the Trust Funds --in exchange for government securities --represents debt that the US Government owes to Outside Creditors --i.e, to the workers who have paid payroll taxes.
You can argue that the Trust Fund securities merely represent debt that US citizens owe to themselves --but that is true of the "debt held by the public " as well, except for those Treasuries held by foreign investors.
The Important question is --who owes what to whom. In general, Treasury securities on the market largely represent debt owed by the common citizen to the rich. Since the rich hold most of those securities.
By contrast, the Treasury securities held by the Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds represent, to some extent, debt owed by the rich to the workers. Although the Republicans will probably try ,in the future, to shift the repayment off onto the middle class via high taxes on 401K/IRA withdrawals vice high marginal rates on high incomes.
But there's a big difference between saying its unclear what various income groups will pay on redeeming a government debt --vice saying the government can tear up a debt instrument at will.
Re Mixner's argument that we should piss away enormous sums on military spending, it was a Republican President, strangely enought, who once explained why that is bullshit:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
Dwight Eisenhower 1953 speech
Don Williams,
In my opinion, you're ducking the question in a dishonest fashion, Mixner.
No, I'm addressing the question, which is the assertion made by Duncan Kinder in the very first comment that foreign creditors are likely to stop funding our debt. You, on the other hand, keep trying to change the subject to your (baseless) pet peeve about the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. You're not addressing the disputed claim at all, you're evading it.
Re Mixner's argument that we should piss away enormous sums on military spending, it was a Republican President, strangely enought, who once explained why that is bullshit:
More dishonesty. When Eisenhower made that speech, military spending was almost 15% of GDP and about 70% of the federal budget. Today, military spending is about 4% of GDP and about 20% of the federal budget. I have little doubt that if he were around today Eisenhower would agree with Hillary, Obama and McCain that military spending is now too low and should be increased.
1) I asked Mixner a straight-forward question:
" Is the government obligated to repay the $4 Trillion it has taken out of Social Security and Medicare -- and for which it has issued securities which it claims are "assets" of those two programs?
Yes or No."
2) To which Mixner responds:
" can't give yes or no answers to questions with meaningless premises.
Whether one part of the government is obligated to transfer money to another part of the government is utterly irrelevant to the amount of money the government owes to its creditors. "
3) I then note:
"In my opinion, you're ducking the question in a dishonest fashion, Mixner.
The contract that the Government has with the voters is that the surplus money from payroll taxes is being saved in Trust Funds for future payouts. Political leaders , including those in the Democratic party , have repeatedly stated this contract."
So the $4 Trillion taken from the Trust Funds --in exchange for government securities --represents debt that the US Government owes to Outside Creditors --i.e, to the workers who have paid payroll taxes."
4) Mixner again, in my opinion, ducks the question in a dishonest fashion and says:
"No, I'm addressing the question, which is the assertion made by Duncan Kinder in the very first comment that foreign creditors are likely to stop funding our debt. You, on the other hand, keep trying to change the subject to your (baseless) pet peeve about the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. You're not addressing the disputed claim at all, you're evading it."
5) So I'll try a final time:
Mixner, is the US Government obligated to repay the $4 Trillion it has taken from the Trust Funds set aside for retired workers who have paid into Social Security and Medicare?
How is that $4 Trillion in Government securities held by the Trust Funds any less of a Debt than $4 Trillion held by investors as marketable US Treasury bonds?
Does the US TREASURY not include that $4 Trillion as part of the PUBLIC DEBT on the web page whose link I gave to you?
Re Mixner's comment "More dishonesty. When Eisenhower made that speech, military spending was almost 15% of GDP and about 70% of the federal budget."
-------------
But that is irrelevant to Eisenhower's primary point -- that military spending dumps misery on the poor,especially on poor children -- and is only justified by strong necessity.
What Mixner doesn't note is that Eisenhower was facing Joe Stalin -- a tyrant who had killed millions of his own people-- and an aggressive Soviet Union which had taken over Eastern European countries and was trying to seize the rest of Western Europe. Which, if successful, would have left Stalin in possession of economic resources greater --in time -- than those of the USA.
Oh yes --and lets not forget that the starting gun had just been fired for the nuclear arms race.
So where's Joe Stalin and the USSR today, Mixner?
Where's the threat that justifies dumping miserable poverty and all that it brings -- violent crime, starvation, early death from lack of medical care -- onto our people?
Comments closed February 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It should be obvious that the American political system is incapable or unwilling to curb its absurd defense expenditures.
However, it also should be obvious that these massive expenditures are possible only because foreign governments subsidize America's deficits. It is seems increasingly likely that they can and will curb these subsidies.
QED: Defense spending will probably shrink regardless of how the elections turn out.
Posted by Duncan Kinder | February 9, 2008 5:41 PM