This. Who's more important, people halfway around the world or people right here at home?
World keeps loaning us money at nearly no interest so that we'll have a vested interest in the rest of the world.
Are you saying that our creditors, such as China, are giving us loans so that we can police the world? If that is the case, and if those creditors are so flush with cash, why don't they do the policing? Or at the very least, why don't they more robustly fund the UN?
The U.S. is hardly in a unique position when it comes to public debt. It's quite simply naive to think that it is. See this list.
Public debt is not the same as national deficit.
My household has about $100,000 in debt in the form of mortgage, college loans, and car financing. However, my annual budget runs at a surplus, not at a deficit.
The U.S. is hardly in a unique position when it comes to public debt. It's quite simply naive to think that it is. See this list.
This. We not as bad off as we think we are. Remember all this deficit talk started because republicans started caring about the deficit once they lost power. A few changes to Social Security and getting rid of some of the tax cuts would get us into a pretty good spot.
On the plus side, perhaps the United States is too big to fail. If we default on our debt, China's economy essentially tanks due to their holding of a large portion of U.S. treasury bonds. China has a vested interest in making sure we don't collapse ~_^
A few changes to Social Security and getting rid of some of the tax cuts would get us into a pretty good spot.
Raising the retirement age for today's 50-year olds to 68 " would reduce the program's 75-year funding gap by 29%, according to estimates from Social Security's actuaries."
The U.S. is hardly in a unique position when it comes to public debt. It's quite simply naive to think that it is. See this list.
Public debt is not the same as national deficit.
My household has about $100,000 in debt in the form of mortgage, college loans, and car financing. However, my annual budget runs at a surplus, not at a deficit.
Sure, deficit is not the same as debt. I never said it was. However, deficit is the rate of change of debt, and the only problem with deficit is that it increases debt.
Doesn't this just prove that money is a legal fiction and we do whatever the fuck we want?
Yes?
Not quite. The Republicans are exaggerating how much of an issue national debt is, but it isn't irrelevant. If, as a country, you completely ignore national debt then shit will go down. Scary shit. For a start, everyone would stop lending you money.
And in any event, intervening in Libya could help us in the long run anyhow. Investing in foreign affairs can pay off, and it's really stupid to think otherwise.
If it's so clear to you, and I'm so stupid because I can't see how U.S. involvement will help us in the long run, please enlighten me. Enumerate all the ways in which U.S. involvement will help us in the long run. Remember that Libya is kind of a breeding ground for terrorists, so there might be some Gadhaffi people with long memories who might want to take their frustrations out against us in the course of the following years. Is that one of the pay offs you were talking about?
Meanwhile, people in the U.S. are losing their jobs, infrastructure is falling apart, important government programs are being cut, and kids are getting crappy educations. What does that do for us in the long run?
The U.S. is hardly in a unique position when it comes to public debt. It's quite simply naive to think that it is. See this list.
As I said before, I don't care about those other countries. The only country I pay taxes in and in which I hold a voting stake is the U.S. If Latveria wants to go after Libya even though they have no money, let them. My main concern is that the U.S. has no money.
The U.S. is hardly in a unique position when it comes to public debt. It's quite simply naive to think that it is. See this list.
This. We not as bad off as we think we are. Remember all this deficit talk started because republicans started caring about the deficit once they lost power.
Do you think we're not in bad economic shape? Do you think all this is a ruse put on by the republicans? All this deficit talk didn't start with republicans losing power. It's been going on for years, and it's been greatly exacerbated by the loads and loads of money we spent in Iraq while simultaneously enacting the biggest tax cut in history. Then there was the little bank meltdown. Remember that? States have been in the habit of furloughing and laying off workers now for a number of years. It's not just talk. We're not in good shape.
A few changes to Social Security and getting rid of some of the tax cuts would get us into a pretty good spot.
Yes, that would put us in a good spot. It would also put us in a good spot if I could shit tiffany cufflinks. The two events have about an equal likelihood of ever happening.
Seriously, getting rid of tax cuts? We couldn't even do that when democrats held both houses. It'll never happen.
However, we used things that we already had in order to do this. We have the planes, the missiles, and the soldiers. We've already spent the money. So why not use those resources that we already have in order to do something good?
This is not how finance works.
Material assets, when lost, are financial debits. There are costs for using missiles. There are costs for replacing missiles. Moreover, the cost of waging war, whatever the size of the conflict, is greater than the simple maintenance cost of a standing army.
Also, actively stepping up aggressions provides an increase in benchmark military spending costs in the next Congressional budget.
Yes. Let's please stop thinking this doesn't cost because we already have shit. Shit will be replaced. Shit costs to be replaced. Furthermore, shit was probably bought on loan from China, which means we're still paying for it, or do we all believe that the U.S. buys military equipment in cash?
If it's so clear to you, and I'm so stupid because I can't see how U.S. involvement will help us in the long run, please enlighten me.
Sure. The deposing of Ghadaffi continues the wave of revolution. Other Middle Eastern countries depose their dictators. This shifts the countries on a track away from the sort of despotism and crushing oppression that breeds terrorism in the first place. This creates an environment that marginalizes the terrorist elements more than they already are. Also, this allows the country to decide its on fate and become a larger player in the global economy. Now they can give and get loans readily, and improve the standard of life for all of their citizens. This further reduces the environment that breeds extremism.
Yeah, it's a pretty long view, but there it is. Supporting democratic movements in the Middle East will directly contribute to the development of a society that no longer requires terrorists.
You'll still get terrorism, but you'll have taken care of the largest portions of the breeding grounds.
I like to get to the source of a problem. Continuing to fight individual terrorist cells will never stop the problem, but improving the lives of people who are desperate enough to blow themselves up just might take away their desperation.
If it's so clear to you, and I'm so stupid because I can't see how U.S. involvement will help us in the long run, please enlighten me.
Sure. The deposing of Ghadaffi continues the wave of revolution. Other Middle Eastern countries depose their dictators. This shifts the countries on a track away from the sort of despotism and crushing oppression that breeds terrorism in the first place. This creates an environment that marginalizes the terrorist elements more than they already are. Also, this allows the country to decide its on fate and become a larger player in the global economy. Now they can give and get loans readily, and improve the standard of life for all of their citizens. This further reduces the environment that breeds extremism.
Yeah, it's a pretty long view, but there it is.
It's a very long view. Do you have any evidence to support your idea of a domino-like wave of democracy other than just a hunch? We've seen how fast democracy has caught on in Iraq. We were told that the democratization of Iraq would trigger a wave of democratic regime change. What was that other place where democracy was supposed to be taking hold? Oh, yeah - Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been a jewel of democracy for years now, hasn't it? Meanwhile, people in the U.S. are still having severe money problems, losing their houses, and losing their jobs while congress makes the Bush tax cuts permanent.
I'll give you another long view. The rebels depose Gadahffi, but their enthusiasm for democracy quickly wanes when they realize they're in power. After a long and bloody period of chaos, one of the rebels emerges as a strongman and then you have Gadhaffi II. Another long view: the rebels realize once they are in power that they want to install a more theocratic state since, they reason, Gadahffi was corrupt because he was too secular. Now we have another hard-line islamist regime in the region.
See, I remember the Iran revolution. Many in the west thought that the Shah was corrupt. They were right. They thought the people would be better off wothout him. They were right. They further thought the Iranian rebels would enact democratic reform. They were dead wrong.
Once again, is this feeling of yours that things will work out all roses if we just blow up some shit now worth it?
Once again, is this gamble that things will work out all roses worth it?
I don't know. That's why they call it a gamble. But let me put it this way: we can invest in change, or we can invest in the status quo. The status quo has led us to this point. I'm all about change and trying new things.
The monetary issues in this country are certainly concerning, but does that mean we need to halt all overseas operations? I doubt it. Can we scale back? Sure, and we should. If it looks like Libya will be a quagmire, we bail. If this no-fly zone changes the game, then we won't be invested for that long, and we can get back to scaling things back.
We need to curtail spending, but maybe, just maybe, we need to pay more taxes too. Or tax the rich a bit more. The most fundamental problem in this country is that everyone wants a bunch of big government services, but nobody wants to pay for them. When you can fix that problem, you'll fix this country's economy.
Do you have any evidence to support your idea of a domino-like wave of democracy other than just a hunch?
No, he doesn't. Pete likes to pretend he is an expert on things about which he knows a marginal amount of information. The things he cited are not all resolved in such a way as to demonstrate the thesis.
This proves a domino-wave of unrest and protest, but not democratization. There has been no institutional, concrete change in the governments of those countries... at least not yet. It's moving in the right direction, but until the new regimes are there and vested, there's no way to tell how democratic they will ultimately be.
Yes. It's much too early to say that all of those places are nice, stable democracies, isn't it? Can we at least wait to see whether or not they make it through their first elections without disintegrating into civil wars esulting in islamist theocracies?
Yes. It's much too early to say all of those places are nice, stable democracies, isn't it?
What happens if we don't get involved. A massacre in Libya? Do you think Gaddafi is just going to let the rebels give up? Gaddafi caused this issue when he turned peaceful protests into a rebellion by firing on them. In Egypt they never got to that point. That's why we didn't step in. The army stayed out of it.
It comes down to this for me?
Did the Security Council approve the measure or were we attacked?
Are the people of the country being killed by their government after peaceful protest in a large degree?
This proves a domino-wave of unrest and protest, but not democratization. There has been no institutional, concrete change in the governments of those countries... at least not yet. It's moving in the right direction, but until the new regimes are there and vested, there's no way to tell how democratic they will ultimately be.
You're absolutely correct. However, these revolutions are completely unprecedented, and come at a very different time in the world than, say, 25 or 30 years ago.
So yeah, it's a long view and a gamble. What of it? Everything in foreign relations is a long view and a gamble. The Obama administration has economic plans out to 2025. You don't run a country of this size - fuck, you don't manage international relations - by looking at 4 year blocks of time.
There's no reason that we can't invest in a long view overseas while focusing on short-term problems here. You're talking about this Libya situation like we're going to be there for years. It's been 4 days.
I'll agree that getting stuck in a war in Libya is not a good idea. Fine. But I'm also saying that this no-fly zone is highly unlikely to turn into that.
What happens if we don't get involved. A massacre in Libya?
What happens if we do get involved? A massacre in Libya still. That's a zero-sum argument. Gaddafi is crazy. He's never going to give up control willingly; if we help the rebels, he's going to at least try for mutual assured destruction against them.
So yeah, it's a long view and a gamble. What of it? Everything in foreign relations is a long view and a gamble. The Obama administration has economic plans out to 2025. You don't run a country of this size - fuck, you don't manage international relations - by looking at 4 year blocks of time.
You're right. We usually look at two-year blocks at a time, and hope and pray to get to mid-term elections unscathed. Obama, as much as I like him, can say he has an economic plan until 2025, but the reality is that his plan is only good for the length of time that he can impose it. With a Republican opposition Congress, that is... 0 years.
There's no reason that we can't invest in a long view overseas while focusing on short-term problems here. You're talking about this Libya situation like we're going to be there for years. It's been 4 days.
Excellent. Let the dual investment begin! Wait... what? Republicans are sacrificing social and education spending on the altar of military and security increases? Reality check, Pete.
I'll agree that getting stuck in a war in Libya is not a good idea. Fine. But I'm also saying that this no-fly zone is highly unlikely to turn into that.
I think you're right. A no-fly zone has plenty of merit. The problem is that the no-fly zone precedent is rapidly sliding into talks of full-scale intervention. If Obama wants to do so (without becoming mired in a land war and subsequent occupation), then fine -- as long as it's done with proportional funding from a much broader coalition than we had going into Iraq. Also, if this is to be a UN or NATO military action, those allies need to be in it for the duration this time.
What happens if we do get involved? A massacre in Libya still. That's a zero-sum argument. Gaddafi is crazy. He's never going to give up control willingly; if we help the rebels, he's going to at least try for mutual assured destruction against them.
I'm not sure knowing Gaddafi he's probably already looking for a way out and exile to some tropical island. The guy is crazy but he also wants to live...
Also, if this is to be a UN or NATO military action, those allies need to be in it for the duration this time.
So far, they are. We'll see how it goes.
Republicans are sacrificing social and education spending on the altar of military and security increases? Reality check, Pete.
Reality check? How about Republicans were sacrificing social and educational spending before any of this? They don't need the military excuse to push their agenda of "cut everything;" in fact, they're already criticizing this military action. They've been cutting social programs forever. So instead of fighting a useless losing battle in the legislature, how about we try something that might actually change things somewhere?
I'm thoroughly aware of how uncertain all of this is. There's no need for a reality check there. And I know it's very unlikely that any regime change will actually bring peace to the Middle East. I'm not stupid. However, I also know that it won't ever happen if we don't actually try. And I do know that pushing for the kind of fiscal responsibility we want in our government won't work either.
I mean, the House just pushed a measure to spend $100 million to put "In God We Trust" signs on federal buildings. Do you seriously think anyone in charge of the government gives a rat's ass about fiscal responsibility?
I'm not about to condemn this endeavor just because it costs money. And that article ScoJo linked to is more hysterical pandering; the other forces in the coalition have contributed a lot so far. Yeah, we fired 110 missles, but the remaining countries are contributing ground forces, air forces, and naval forces. We're really not in this one alone.
However, I also know that it won't ever happen if we don't actually try.
Why do we believe that we are the key ingredient to peace in the Middle East? How arrogant! If long-term peace is to be achieved, shouldn't it be through self-determinism? Freedom is usually held most dear when it's earned, not when it's given.
As for the reality check thing: Yeah, I was being snarky. Sorry.
@George: How are Tunisia and Egypt 100 percent done? Ben Ali is gone, but Tunisia is now in the middle of a power grab, with the president pro-tem seizing the reigns without an election. Popular elections are promised within six months, but they haven't actually happened. As for Egypt, Mubarak is gone, but it's now a military state. Let's agree that the bars should read somewhere in the vicinity of 90 percent... LOADING... LOADING... LOADING... ESTIMATED TIME TO COMPLETION: YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.
You're talking about this Libya situation like we're going to be there for years. It's been 4 days.
I'll agree that getting stuck in a war in Libya is not a good idea. Fine. But I'm also saying that this no-fly zone is highly unlikely to turn into that.
No snark and no offense meant, but statements like this put me in the mind of how we were told that Iraq could be "easily" won, would be over quickly, would be 100% successful, and would cost nothing. Now that we're committed, it's going to be pretty hard to turn away when the rebels start asking for ground troops. All your arguments up to now can be easily tailored to support ground involvement.
When do we know it's time to quit? What are our victory conditions?
No snark and no offense meant, but statements like this put me in the mind of how we were told that Iraq could be "easily" won, would be over quickly, would be 100% successful, and would cost nothing. Now that we're committed, it's going to be pretty hard to turn away when the rebels start asking for ground troops. All your arguments up to now can be easily tailored to support ground involvement.
I haven't heard anything about it costing nothing, I've heard people caution that we may need to have a military presence for a while. Also that the no-fly zone would be easy to abstain but that the rebels victory would be much harder.
Comments
My household has about $100,000 in debt in the form of mortgage, college loans, and car financing. However, my annual budget runs at a surplus, not at a deficit.
Meanwhile, people in the U.S. are losing their jobs, infrastructure is falling apart, important government programs are being cut, and kids are getting crappy educations. What does that do for us in the long run? As I said before, I don't care about those other countries. The only country I pay taxes in and in which I hold a voting stake is the U.S. If Latveria wants to go after Libya even though they have no money, let them. My main concern is that the U.S. has no money. Do you think we're not in bad economic shape? Do you think all this is a ruse put on by the republicans? All this deficit talk didn't start with republicans losing power. It's been going on for years, and it's been greatly exacerbated by the loads and loads of money we spent in Iraq while simultaneously enacting the biggest tax cut in history. Then there was the little bank meltdown. Remember that? States have been in the habit of furloughing and laying off workers now for a number of years. It's not just talk. We're not in good shape. Yes, that would put us in a good spot. It would also put us in a good spot if I could shit tiffany cufflinks. The two events have about an equal likelihood of ever happening.
Seriously, getting rid of tax cuts? We couldn't even do that when democrats held both houses. It'll never happen. Yes. Let's please stop thinking this doesn't cost because we already have shit. Shit will be replaced. Shit costs to be replaced. Furthermore, shit was probably bought on loan from China, which means we're still paying for it, or do we all believe that the U.S. buys military equipment in cash?
Yeah, it's a pretty long view, but there it is. Supporting democratic movements in the Middle East will directly contribute to the development of a society that no longer requires terrorists.
You'll still get terrorism, but you'll have taken care of the largest portions of the breeding grounds.
I like to get to the source of a problem. Continuing to fight individual terrorist cells will never stop the problem, but improving the lives of people who are desperate enough to blow themselves up just might take away their desperation.
I'll give you another long view. The rebels depose Gadahffi, but their enthusiasm for democracy quickly wanes when they realize they're in power. After a long and bloody period of chaos, one of the rebels emerges as a strongman and then you have Gadhaffi II. Another long view: the rebels realize once they are in power that they want to install a more theocratic state since, they reason, Gadahffi was corrupt because he was too secular. Now we have another hard-line islamist regime in the region.
See, I remember the Iran revolution. Many in the west thought that the Shah was corrupt. They were right. They thought the people would be better off wothout him. They were right. They further thought the Iranian rebels would enact democratic reform. They were dead wrong.
Once again, is this feeling of yours that things will work out all roses if we just blow up some shit now worth it?
The monetary issues in this country are certainly concerning, but does that mean we need to halt all overseas operations? I doubt it. Can we scale back? Sure, and we should. If it looks like Libya will be a quagmire, we bail. If this no-fly zone changes the game, then we won't be invested for that long, and we can get back to scaling things back.
We need to curtail spending, but maybe, just maybe, we need to pay more taxes too. Or tax the rich a bit more. The most fundamental problem in this country is that everyone wants a bunch of big government services, but nobody wants to pay for them. When you can fix that problem, you'll fix this country's economy.
You forgot about Tunisia...
It comes down to this for me?
Did the Security Council approve the measure or were we attacked?
Are the people of the country being killed by their government after peaceful protest in a large degree?
Are they asking for assistance from outside?
So yeah, it's a long view and a gamble. What of it? Everything in foreign relations is a long view and a gamble. The Obama administration has economic plans out to 2025. You don't run a country of this size - fuck, you don't manage international relations - by looking at 4 year blocks of time.
There's no reason that we can't invest in a long view overseas while focusing on short-term problems here. You're talking about this Libya situation like we're going to be there for years. It's been 4 days.
I'll agree that getting stuck in a war in Libya is not a good idea. Fine. But I'm also saying that this no-fly zone is highly unlikely to turn into that.
I'm thoroughly aware of how uncertain all of this is. There's no need for a reality check there. And I know it's very unlikely that any regime change will actually bring peace to the Middle East. I'm not stupid. However, I also know that it won't ever happen if we don't actually try. And I do know that pushing for the kind of fiscal responsibility we want in our government won't work either.
I mean, the House just pushed a measure to spend $100 million to put "In God We Trust" signs on federal buildings. Do you seriously think anyone in charge of the government gives a rat's ass about fiscal responsibility?
I'm not about to condemn this endeavor just because it costs money. And that article ScoJo linked to is more hysterical pandering; the other forces in the coalition have contributed a lot so far. Yeah, we fired 110 missles, but the remaining countries are contributing ground forces, air forces, and naval forces. We're really not in this one alone.
As for the reality check thing: Yeah, I was being snarky. Sorry.
@George: How are Tunisia and Egypt 100 percent done? Ben Ali is gone, but Tunisia is now in the middle of a power grab, with the president pro-tem seizing the reigns without an election. Popular elections are promised within six months, but they haven't actually happened. As for Egypt, Mubarak is gone, but it's now a military state. Let's agree that the bars should read somewhere in the vicinity of 90 percent... LOADING... LOADING... LOADING... ESTIMATED TIME TO COMPLETION: YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.
But the key to peace in the Middle East is ensuring that crazy dictators don't crush poorly armed civilians using tanks.
When do we know it's time to quit? What are our victory conditions?