Actually, if you look at debt as percentage of GDP, based on 2009 values (as that's what I could Google for quickest), the following countries have higher levels of debt than the USA:
Canada
France
Germany
United Kingdom
Ireland
Italy
Greece
And so on...
Correction, as I found 2011 statistics. The US has gotten a lot higher, with a 100% debt to GDP ratio. Some countries that are higher though include Greece (130%), Italy (130%), and Japan (204%). Some countries that are lower, but still close (as in 90% or higher), are France (99%), Ireland (93%), Portugal (97%), and the UK (94%). Oddly enough, a lot of third-world crapholes have lower debt-to-GDP ratios, but that may be because no one wants to loan them money anyway.
While I can understand a debt limit that curbs budgetary growth once the spending is authorized that amount of spending should be added as a temporary debt limit. When revenue is received and computed the debt limit should drop by an amount equal to revenue.
Example: congress passes a budget authorizing $1T in spending. Debt limit is temporarily raised by $1T. Revenue numbers come in at $900B. Debt limit permanently raised by $100B (after canceling temporary increase) to account for missing revenue. Next budget is written, repeat.
If spending has been authorized by smaller bills why don't the Republicans just stop authorizing the spending?
While I can understand a debt limit that curbs budgetary growth once the spending is authorized that amount of spending should be added as a temporary debt limit. When revenue is received and computed the debt limit should drop by an amount equal to revenue.
Example: congress passes a budget authorizing $1T in spending. Debt limit is temporarily raised by $1T. Revenue numbers come in at $900B. Debt limit permanently raised by $100B (after canceling temporary increase) to account for missing revenue. Next budget is written, repeat.
This would be a reasonable way to do this. However, who ever said Congress was reasonable?
If spending has been authorized by smaller bills why don't the Republicans just stop authorizing the spending?
Because they don't want to be labeled as the folks who denied the troops ammo, denied Grandma and Grandpa their social security checks (remember, every law they proposed to abolish social security had grandfather clauses in it for those over a certain age), and so on because they didn't authorize the necessary spending. In other words, politics.
So the whole debt ceiling fight is actually about a crazy fat person who wants to feed his Twinkie addiction by getting his friend to make a snack run. When his friend comes back he eats the twinkies and then refuses to pay. After refusing to pay he accuses the friend of being not just the source of his addiction but also the reason why he has no money???
So the whole debt ceiling fight is actually about a crazy fat person who wants to feed his Twinkie addiction by getting his friend to make a snack run. When his friend comes back he eats the twinkies and then refuses to pay. After refusing to pay he accuses the friend of being not just the source of his addiction but also the reason why he has no money???
The level of concern over the deficit and the debt is massively disproportionate.
Essentially, so long as the US can still borrow at ridiculously low interest rates (which we can at this moment), there is no reason to panic over the deficit and debt. Granted, we don't want it to balloon indefinitely as there will come a point where the interest rates will eventually be jacked up (though I don't have enough of an economics background to know precisely where that point will be), but in the short term there are more pressing concerns.
Also, there is certainly an air of hypocracy to the deficit and debt issues, given how no one seemed to care when a Republican was jacking up the debt, but the GOP started screaming bloody murder as soon as a Democrat was in office and the debt kept on increasing (in no small part due to a continuation of the policies of previous GOP administrations, but let's forget that convenient fact here...).
Because the Presidency is the only elected office in federal government that changes hands with a reasonable degree of frequency, and so politicians act like everything affects the President?
Because the Presidency is the only elected office in federal government that changes hands with a reasonable degree of frequency, and so politicians act like everything affects the President?
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! You win the jackpot!
Between term limits and Gerrymandering, it's true that the President is the elected official that often gets the most blame for everything as he is the only one that changes on a regular basis. Never mind that the President really can do very little other than offer suggestions to Congress and rally his supporters in Congress to his side. Executive orders can really only affect existing laws due to the whole checks-and-balances system. Meanwhile, you have Congressmen-for-life that are pretty much safe in their seats no matter what just fucking around and not really caring about their constituents, just so long as they say the right things in public, all while collecting a government pay check and government health care up until they point where they can become highly paid lobbyists, and even then they'll probably still get a pension and the health care as a retirement benefit if they've served long enough.
Speaking of lobbyists, Congress is also much more liable to fall under their control as they are, in effect, perpetually running for re-election. A President only has at most two elections to worry about, so the influence of lobbyists on that office is naturally much more limited.
The other day on NPR they were interviewing older kids at the inauguration. One of them indirectly called the President a liar when she remarked on how great it was that he can now say how he really feels about things and where he wants to take the country. While on the one hand it is an accurate statement in that he need not worry about reelection on the other it gives the impression that up until now he has had to lie or mislead people so that he could be reelected.
With all this talk of budgets, cuts and sequestration... What are the pros and cons of ditching active duty military and using a system of national guard and reserve units?
We could save a ton of money if we stopped being the world police (and other countries would have to step up their military spending to compensate for our departure). I'm not talking about isolationism but do we really need a massive military presence spread out all over the world?
With all this talk of budgets, cuts and sequestration... What are the pros and cons of ditching active duty military and using a system of national guard and reserve units?
No rapid reaction force would be available for when it's really necessary. Also, the reserves/national guard aren't always training -- they're only part time soldiers so their actual combat skills, at least when newly activated, won't be as up to snuff as the full timers would be.
We could save a ton of money if we stopped being the world police (and other countries would have to step up their military spending to compensate for our departure). I'm not talking about isolationism but do we really need a massive military presence spread out all over the world?
We do tend to have a stabilizing effect, for good or ill. Nothing says "dude, chill the fuck out" like parking a carrier battle group just outside your 12 mile limit. Of course, it's definitely a valid point of debate to figure out just how many carrier battle groups we need parked outside other countries' 12 mile limits to keep things stable.
Also, the American Navy is pretty much the only thing with the presence and reach to effectively guarantee the safety of shipping lanes. If not for that, large-scale shipping would seem a lot riskier.
Why not charge other countries who benefit from our military?
Have you ever tried to get money from a government? They dont pay for the service now so they sure as hell aren't going to want to pay for it tomorrow. Why pay for the cow if you can get the milk for free?
we get it through low Commodity prices, for example if the Middle east oil stopped flowing due to Iran or something, we wouldn't have a shortage here, but the prices would go up dramatically because of the world market for oil.
We have Army/Navy bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Bulgaria, Australia, Kosovo, Greenland, Afghanistan and a few more Latin American countries I can't remember. Neither geographically nor popularly is that "most of the world." If we were really a world police, there are significantly more crises we would be trying to solve.
We have Army/Navy bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Bulgaria, Australia, Kosovo, Greenland, Afghanistan and a few more Latin American countries I can't remember. Neither geographically nor popularly is that "most of the world." If we were really a world police, there are significantly more crises we would be trying to solve.
Before I have to get out my beating stick on you again, that requires clarification - There's one. And it's not really your base, it's ours - You get what is essentially a single, very small building where secure comms equipment is stored and set up, and shared facilities for staff and troops - which you provide the minority of - so it's "joint" base. Why is it there? Because after the Apollo missions, it became clear that the US needed a comms relay station on the other side of the Globe. So, they asked real nice. We own the land, we provide the majority of the staff, we own all the equipment that isn't the US's extremely classified stuff.
There is also Robertson barracks, which will be the site of a future joint base, but A) it's not a US base yet, and B)Once again, the US is benefiting from it more than we will, considering it's a training and deployment base for US forces that we're aiding them with. Again, the US wanted it, and asked very nicely.
Which really raises the question, considering - Where's our Cheque, then?
If we were to say, leave Japan, they would then have to militarize. They would have no other choice without us there. And if they were to do so, it may destabilize the region. China, North Korea, South Korea, etc, would feel the need to militarize more than they already are. Not a good situation.
And as for charging for military aid to other countries, they would just as soon show us the door. Not to mention their citizens would cry foul. Our reputation is suffering enough as it is.
Comments
- Canada
- France
- Germany
- United Kingdom
- Ireland
- Italy
- Greece
And so on...Correction, as I found 2011 statistics. The US has gotten a lot higher, with a 100% debt to GDP ratio. Some countries that are higher though include Greece (130%), Italy (130%), and Japan (204%). Some countries that are lower, but still close (as in 90% or higher), are France (99%), Ireland (93%), Portugal (97%), and the UK (94%). Oddly enough, a lot of third-world crapholes have lower debt-to-GDP ratios, but that may be because no one wants to loan them money anyway.
Example: congress passes a budget authorizing $1T in spending. Debt limit is temporarily raised by $1T. Revenue numbers come in at $900B. Debt limit permanently raised by $100B (after canceling temporary increase) to account for missing revenue. Next budget is written, repeat.
If spending has been authorized by smaller bills why don't the Republicans just stop authorizing the spending?
That is all I have to say on the topic. Not because it is an unimportant one, but because that video says so much about it.
Also, there is certainly an air of hypocracy to the deficit and debt issues, given how no one seemed to care when a Republican was jacking up the debt, but the GOP started screaming bloody murder as soon as a Democrat was in office and the debt kept on increasing (in no small part due to a continuation of the policies of previous GOP administrations, but let's forget that convenient fact here...).
Between term limits and Gerrymandering, it's true that the President is the elected official that often gets the most blame for everything as he is the only one that changes on a regular basis. Never mind that the President really can do very little other than offer suggestions to Congress and rally his supporters in Congress to his side. Executive orders can really only affect existing laws due to the whole checks-and-balances system. Meanwhile, you have Congressmen-for-life that are pretty much safe in their seats no matter what just fucking around and not really caring about their constituents, just so long as they say the right things in public, all while collecting a government pay check and government health care up until they point where they can become highly paid lobbyists, and even then they'll probably still get a pension and the health care as a retirement benefit if they've served long enough.
Speaking of lobbyists, Congress is also much more liable to fall under their control as they are, in effect, perpetually running for re-election. A President only has at most two elections to worry about, so the influence of lobbyists on that office is naturally much more limited.
I was surprised that they aired the quote.
We could save a ton of money if we stopped being the world police (and other countries would have to step up their military spending to compensate for our departure). I'm not talking about isolationism but do we really need a massive military presence spread out all over the world?
There is also Robertson barracks, which will be the site of a future joint base, but A) it's not a US base yet, and B)Once again, the US is benefiting from it more than we will, considering it's a training and deployment base for US forces that we're aiding them with. Again, the US wanted it, and asked very nicely.
Which really raises the question, considering - Where's our Cheque, then?
And as for charging for military aid to other countries, they would just as soon show us the door. Not to mention their citizens would cry foul. Our reputation is suffering enough as it is.