NationStates

Shaggai wrote:

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:Hey... Guys, I know this may sound UNTHINKABLE, but why not stop investing so much in the armed forces? You already spend more on yours than the rest of the world put together does...

Now, now, not the entire rest of the world. Only the rest of the top fourteen.

I read it was the rest of the world. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like I'm wrong, but even so it's an immense amount of money. About 39% of the world's military spending is done by the US. You might not be in such a pickle if it wasn't for that.

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:

Shaggai wrote:Now, now, not the entire rest of the world. Only the rest of the top fourteen.

I read it was the rest of the world. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like I'm wrong, but even so it's an immense amount of money. About 39% of the world's military spending is done by the US. You might not be in such a pickle if it wasn't for that.

Okay, well, what should cut? Everything military across the board? Selected items? Any ideas?

Farnhamia wrote:

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:
I read it was the rest of the world. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like I'm wrong, but even so it's an immense amount of money. About 39% of the world's military spending is done by the US. You might not be in such a pickle if it wasn't for that.

Okay, well, what should cut? Everything military across the board? Selected items? Any ideas?

Absolutely everything. The amount of spending is just not neccessary. If America could have at least 2% of it's GDP back (that's if they cut about a third of military spending), it would help them tremendously.

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Okay, well, what should cut? Everything military across the board? Selected items? Any ideas?

Absolutely everything. The amount of spending is just not neccessary. If America could have at least 2% of it's GDP back (that's if they cut about a third of military spending), it would help them tremendously.

I see. How much should cut? 5%? 10% Or did you mean eliminate all defense spending? I just want to be clear what you mean.

Abolish the debt ceiling, an outdated American tool of Americaness.

Wolfmanne wrote:Abolish the debt ceiling, an outdated American tool of Americaness.

It only dates to the 1970s, you know.

Farnhamia wrote:

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:
Absolutely everything. The amount of spending is just not neccessary. If America could have at least 2% of it's GDP back (that's if they cut about a third of military spending), it would help them tremendously.

I see. How much should cut? 5%? 10% Or did you mean eliminate all defense spending? I just want to be clear what you mean.

Eliminating all defence spending would be just as ridiculous as keeping it as high as it is now. I would recommend cutting it by 30-40%. This would mean the USA saves 2% of its GDP, which may not sound that big, but it would help them a great deal in getting out of this mess that the west seems to be in at the moment.

Farnhamia wrote:

Wolfmanne wrote:Abolish the debt ceiling, an outdated American tool of Americaness.

It only dates to the 1970s, you know.

To me it's like they brought a 18th century solution into the 20th century. I don't really understand it's necessity, apart from making some fiscal conservative remotely satisfied that they can hold the government to ransom. As a conservative in the UK who supports austerity, the last thing we need is ransom politics that puts an entire nation at risk. Every single time the US hits the debt limit, traders in London are screwed for a while. It's not just London, but also Paris, Rome, Montreal, Hong Kong and Shanghai, and most of the world for that matter. The whole world is watching on America and we're hoping that a resolution is reached so that they wipe their forehead and thank god that there isn't another financial crisis on the brink. It's not just unfair on the US, but the world, and we shouldn't stand for it.

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:I see. How much should cut? 5%? 10% Or did you mean eliminate all defense spending? I just want to be clear what you mean.

Eliminating all defence spending would be just as ridiculous as keeping it as high as it is now. I would recommend cutting it by 30-40%. This would mean the USA saves 2% of its GDP, which may not sound that big, but it would help them a great deal in getting out of this mess that the west seems to be in at the moment.

How does one achieve that kind of savings? Closing bases overseas will save some, I suppose. Closing bases at home is problematic because it can have a serious impact on the local economy. The DOD is not all soldiers and sailors, it employs a large number of civilians. More to the point, it buys a very large amount of non-weapon articles. Do we fire 30% of the people employed? Cut pay to soldiers? Cut their benefits? See what I mean? It's easy to say "Cut 30 to 40 percent" but hard to decide what cut.

Wolfmanne wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:It only dates to the 1970s, you know.

To me it's like they brought a 18th century solution into the 20th century. I don't really understand it's necessity, apart from making some fiscal conservative remotely satisfied that they can hold the government to ransom. As a conservative in the UK who supports austerity, the last thing we need is ransom politics that puts an entire nation at risk. Every single time the US hits the debt limit, traders in London are screwed for a while. It's not just London, but also Paris, Rome, Montreal, Hong Kong and Shanghai, and most of the world for that matter. The whole world is watching on America and we're hoping that a resolution is reached so that they wipe their forehead and thank god that there isn't another financial crisis on the brink. It's not just unfair on the US, but the world, and we shouldn't stand for it.

I don't disagree, it's just that it's not an 18th century thing. And we never had a problem before 2011, when the GOP-led House decided to hold the economy hostage.

N/A

Farnhamia wrote:

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:
Eliminating all defence spending would be just as ridiculous as keeping it as high as it is now. I would recommend cutting it by 30-40%. This would mean the USA saves 2% of its GDP, which may not sound that big, but it would help them a great deal in getting out of this mess that the west seems to be in at the moment.

How does one achieve that kind of savings? Closing bases overseas will save some, I suppose. Closing bases at home is problematic because it can have a serious impact on the local economy. The DOD is not all soldiers and sailors, it employs a large number of civilians. More to the point, it buys a very large amount of non-weapon articles. Do we fire 30% of the people employed? Cut pay to soldiers? Cut their benefits? See what I mean? It's easy to say "Cut 30 to 40 percent" but hard to decide what cut.

True, true. America spends a lot of money on developing weapons and armour, so cutting that would be a start. I wouldn't recommend cutting 40% of personnel, because that would cause outrage. But cutting development of WMDs would probably result in worldwide commendation. Also, get rid of the military bases in Afghanistan, in Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. These bases are relics of past wars, and not neccessary to upkeep anymore.

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:How does one achieve that kind of savings? Closing bases overseas will save some, I suppose. Closing bases at home is problematic because it can have a serious impact on the local economy. The DOD is not all soldiers and sailors, it employs a large number of civilians. More to the point, it buys a very large amount of non-weapon articles. Do we fire 30% of the people employed? Cut pay to soldiers? Cut their benefits? See what I mean? It's easy to say "Cut 30 to 40 percent" but hard to decide what cut.

True, true. America spends a lot of money on developing weapons and armour, so cutting that would be a start. I wouldn't recommend cutting 40% of personnel, because that would cause outrage. But cutting development of WMDs would probably result in worldwide commendation. Also, get rid of the military bases in Afghanistan, in Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. These bases are relics of past wars, and not neccessary to upkeep anymore.

Those countries can request we close the bases. They may, some of them, want the security an American military presence provides. I think that if you look up some of those countries you'll find our presence is minimal.

As for WMD development, well, I do know that our nuclear weapon arsenal has been growing smaller in recent decades. How many new ones we develop, I can't say. Nor can I say how much money this would save.

Farnhamia wrote:

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:
True, true. America spends a lot of money on developing weapons and armour, so cutting that would be a start. I wouldn't recommend cutting 40% of personnel, because that would cause outrage. But cutting development of WMDs would probably result in worldwide commendation. Also, get rid of the military bases in Afghanistan, in Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. These bases are relics of past wars, and not neccessary to upkeep anymore.

Those countries can request we close the bases. They may, some of them, want the security an American military presence provides. I think that if you look up some of those countries you'll find our presence is minimal.

As for WMD development, well, I do know that our nuclear weapon arsenal has been growing smaller in recent decades. How many new ones we develop, I can't say. Nor can I say how much money this would save.

I doubt Saudi Arabia or Turkey want your bases in their country

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Those countries can request we close the bases. They may, some of them, want the security an American military presence provides. I think that if you look up some of those countries you'll find our presence is minimal.

As for WMD development, well, I do know that our nuclear weapon arsenal has been growing smaller in recent decades. How many new ones we develop, I can't say. Nor can I say how much money this would save.

I doubt Saudi Arabia or Turkey want your bases in their country

Do you think we just sent some guys over there and started building without permission? The Saudis agreed to host US troops when Saddam Hussein grabbed Kuwait. The Turkish bases, which are very small, go back to the Cold War. Again, they can ask us to leave any time they want.

And we may being drifting away from the debt ceiling.

Farnhamia wrote:

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:
I doubt Saudi Arabia or Turkey want your bases in their country

Do you think we just sent some guys over there and started building without permission? The Saudis agreed to host US troops when Saddam Hussein grabbed Kuwait. The Turkish bases, which are very small, go back to the Cold War. Again, they can ask us to leave any time they want.

You did send them in to help them against Iraq, that's true. But that was 20 years ago. Nowadays, the bases are redundant, and the only nation whose money they're draining is the USA. YOU should pull out for your own financial sake.

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Do you think we just sent some guys over there and started building without permission? The Saudis agreed to host US troops when Saddam Hussein grabbed Kuwait. The Turkish bases, which are very small, go back to the Cold War. Again, they can ask us to leave any time they want.

You did send them in to help them against Iraq, that's true. But that was 20 years ago. Nowadays, the bases are redundant, and the only nation whose money they're draining is the USA. YOU should pull out for your own financial sake.

Our finances are not as bad as people think and I doubt that closing overseas bases and slashing the defense budget as radically as you propose will achieve much beyond getting the people responsible voted out of office, after which the spending would be restored. The debt ceiling sets a limit on the amount the Treasury can issue in bonds to pay the nation's bills. Those bills are legal obligations on the part of the US. We owe the money for things we bought. Nor are those bonds the same as loans. They cannot be called in the way a bank might call in a loan someone takes out. You know all this, of course.

Farnhamia wrote:

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:
You did send them in to help them against Iraq, that's true. But that was 20 years ago. Nowadays, the bases are redundant, and the only nation whose money they're draining is the USA. YOU should pull out for your own financial sake.

Our finances are not as bad as people think and I doubt that closing overseas bases and slashing the defense budget as radically as you propose will achieve much beyond getting the people responsible voted out of office, after which the spending would be restored. The debt ceiling sets a limit on the amount the Treasury can issue in bonds to pay the nation's bills. Those bills are legal obligations on the part of the US. We owe the money for things we bought. Nor are those bonds the same as loans. They cannot be called in the way a bank might call in a loan someone takes out. You know all this, of course.

Your economy is still in a bad way. It's not just you of course, my country (Britain) is also in economic poo, as is the rest of the EU. The BRICS countries are taking our business, and our banks are running riot. So all of us really need to make our countries more attractive to investors, and (this creates attractivity to investors) stop the chaos with the banks.

United commonwealth of ayrshire wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Our finances are not as bad as people think and I doubt that closing overseas bases and slashing the defense budget as radically as you propose will achieve much beyond getting the people responsible voted out of office, after which the spending would be restored. The debt ceiling sets a limit on the amount the Treasury can issue in bonds to pay the nation's bills. Those bills are legal obligations on the part of the US. We owe the money for things we bought. Nor are those bonds the same as loans. They cannot be called in the way a bank might call in a loan someone takes out. You know all this, of course.

Your economy is still in a bad way. It's not just you of course, my country (Britain) is also in economic poo, as is the rest of the EU. The BRICS countries are taking our business, and our banks are running riot. So all of us really need to make our countries more attractive to investors, and (this creates attractivity to investors) stop the chaos with the banks.

Our economy has been recovering steadily if not quickly, thanks very much. Unemployment is higher than one might like but is down considerably from the depths of the recession. Even after our credit rating was lowered two years ago people still came flocking to buy our bonds.

The debt ceiling will be raised. Why? Because politics.

They'll raise the ceiling. I'd rather they let shit hit the fan but... *meh*

Divair wrote:The debt ceiling will be raised. Why? Because politics.

That's scary man, I'm watching CGPgrey right now!

Distruzio wrote:They'll raise the ceiling. I'd rather they let shit hit the fan but... *meh*

Why would you want that?

Distruzio wrote:They'll raise the ceiling. I'd rather they let shit hit the fan but... *meh*

Why?

If the debt ceiling isn't raised, all those government employees (And there's quite a few of them) won't get a paycheck, right?

That seems pretty bad for a recovering economy.

In 6 weeks (this is a rough number) from today, the US Government will be down to anything from 0$ to 50 billion (witch would last for less then a single day)

Congress seems to have few options

1. Let the government run out of money.

2. Raise debt ceiling (Nice way to say, we will deal with this later, when the problem is worse.)

3. There is no option 3 really, I suppose if worse came to worse the government could just start selling land,old military hardware,gold (assuming the gold is still there.)




So, what do you guys think the government should do?


Personnally, I think we need to end it and restart it.

The US government isn't a fucking computer you know, you can't turn it off and turn it back on again.