We Are So Screwed

Scataphagos · Mar 7, 2010

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

"... None of this will happen, absent some sort of crisis too dire to imagine, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

Nothing of substance WILL be done, as the pain it would cause would get blamed on politicos.. for what they did or didn't do... and they can never see beyond the upcoming election.

Few people seem to recognize that the pain from taking action would be much less severe and short lived than if we continue on this same spendthrift path. The pain that will be FORCED UPON US when we suffer a national "credit exhaustion" will be catastrophic.

jem · Mar 7, 2010

The founders were clearly very very smart. Genius really. Now we are happy when leader can deliver a speech using a teleprompter.

Maybe its not the leaders who seek but the electorate.

Hello · Mar 7, 2010

It is a shame that more conservatives dont agree with me and you, on scrapping all of the money we waste on playing world police. If we could just convince the majority of conservatives to go along with all the cuts on defense spending we might stand a chance at getting the country back to neutral budget, but i doubt it will ever happen.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

On the expense side, we have to forget any more spending programs. Nada. No matter how popular. We can quickly save a ton of money by getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not the world's policeman any more. We can't afford it. Since we will be energy independent of the middle east, we don't care what happens there anyway. Can anyone explain to me why, over 60 years after WW II ended, we have bases all over europe, japan, korea and pacific islands? Not only do we spend a fortune on these bases, they create bad relations with the host countries. Let them defend themselves.

TGregg · Mar 7, 2010

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Can anyone explain to me why, over 60 years after WW II ended, we have bases all over europe, japan, korea and pacific islands? Not only do we spend a fortune on these bases, they create bad relations with the host countries. Let them defend themselves.

I can. I don't know if I agree with it, but I understand the premise and I'm kinda surprised that you do not. You refer to a concept called Isolationism. We tell the world "go @*^% yourself" and stop being a major player in world affairs. It certainly would be cheaper, at least in the near term.

We tried that once. It ended up being very expensive in both blood and gold. There is a school of thought that it is inevitable that we will eventually be drawn into any major crisis, so therefore it is better to manage the crisis in the early stages instead of waiting `til the fleet is wiped out in Hawaii or something. If you wait for the enemy to attack you, you are at your weakest, and he at his strongest. Of course, I do not refer solely to war.

OTOH maybe the world is different now. Wars are generally waged via economics rather than armies today, at least for modern countries. Do we still need to follow the non-Isolationist approach? I dunno. I'd sure like to save some dough.

OTOOH

the moose limbs aren't about to stand down in their war on civilization. I'm sure some losers will be along to claim that if only the USA did x,y and z, there'd be peace. But AAA you and I both know that's a line of bovine processed hay. Maybe we need some of the stuff for that. Don't know. I agree with the rest of your points. You asked if anyone could explain this, so I did.

CaptainObvious · Mar 7, 2010

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

We need to rethink free trade to stop the off-shoring of good middle class jobs. Labor has to accept that unskilled factory workers will not make $75k a year for work that asians will do better for $5 a day.

I agree with the majority of your post, but the above simply isn't true. There are no unskilled labors making 75K annually, anywhere. In order to stop the off-shoring of good middle class jobs we need the guys in the corner office to understand the difference between profit and financial rape.

JWS11 · Mar 7, 2010

Quote from TGregg:

I can. I don't know if I agree with it, but I understand the premise and I'm kinda surprised that you do not. You refer to a concept called Isolationism. We tell the world "go @*^% yourself" and stop being a major player in world affairs. It certainly would be cheaper, at least in the near term...

That's the extreme case. Instead of unilateral action that would be seen as isolationist, we could negotiate, especially with the richest of those countries like Japan and Germany. Imo, they could, and should, bear more of the global security bill.

AAAintheBeltway · Mar 7, 2010

Quote from TGregg:

I can. I don't know if I agree with it, but I understand the premise and I'm kinda surprised that you do not. You refer to a concept called Isolationism. We tell the world "go @*^% yourself" and stop being a major player in world affairs. It certainly would be cheaper, at least in the near term.

We tried that once. It ended up being very expensive in both blood and gold. There is a school of though that it is inevitable that we will eventually be drawn into any major crisis, so therefore it is better to manage the crisis in the early stages instead of waiting `til the fleet is wiped out in Hawaii or something. If you wait for the enemy to attack you, you are at your weakest, and he at his strongest. Of course, I do not refer solely to war.

OTOH maybe the world is different now. Wars are generally waged via economics rather than armies today, at least for modern countries. Do we still need to follow the non-Isolationist approach? I dunno. I'd sure like to save some dough.

OTOOH the moose limbs aren't about to stand down in their war on civilization. I'm sure some losers will be along to claim that if only the USA did x,y and z, there'd be peace. But AAA you and I both know that's a line of bovine processed hay. Maybe we need some of the stuff for that. Don't know. I agree with the rest of your points. You asked if anyone could explain this, so I did.

I'm not advocating we do away with the military or become pacifist. Far from it. But are we really ok as a country with going to war with North Korea if they invaded the South? Because that is why those 50,000 US troops are there, as a tripwire. If the South Koreans took responsibility for their own defense, which they are perfectly capable of doing, there would be no need for US troops. I am ok with giving them a nuke guarantee, if the North used nukes on them, we would respond on their behalf in kind.

Are we really going to go to war with China if they invaded Taiwan? Are we going to war with North Korea if they attacked Japan? Are we prepared to go nuclear, because we can't match the Chinese in their own backyard.

What about the eastern european countries that we hastily invited into NATO? Would we go to war with Russia over one of them? That's what we have obligated ourselves to do.

A related problem is that we are spending a lot of money on last century weapons systems. Generals are notorious for being prepared to fight the last war. Is there some reason we need strategic bombers? What about the F-35 attack plane, which is so expensive losing one would be a catastrophe. Call me crazy but I would favor using drones. The Chinese would probably wipe out most of our pacifc naval forces in the first 48 hours of a war. Carriers and other big surface assets are sitting ducks. The military will never go along with cutting these forces and using modern alternatives because their careers and prestige are tied up in the big toys. How many generals do you need anyway to run a fleet of unmanned drones?

Ivanovich · Mar 7, 2010

Quote from Gabfly1:

Where were all these "fiscal conservatives" during W's 8-year reign? No doubt, taking the Hypocritical Oath.

Screaming bloody murder, we were. Which is why many of us voted for Obama. He told us he'd bring change. He told us he'd bring back the line item veto. End pork. Bring bi-partisanship. Take out big business and stop giving it to the rest of us.

We were fooled again.

hermit · Mar 8, 2010

Quote from Ivanovich:

Screaming bloody murder, we were. Which is why many of us voted for Obama. He told us he'd bring change. He told us he'd bring back the line item veto. End pork. Bring bi-partisanship. Take out big business and stop giving it to the rest of us.

We were fooled again.

Nobody was fooled and you are not fooling anyone by pretending how the 'many of us' voted for him. You make up your own reality based on your prejudices because the whining keeps you comfortable

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/politifacts-top-promises/

hermit · Mar 8, 2010

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Times are different today, and women are clearly part of the economy. I do believe that voting should be limited to those who have a stake in the system, either as property owners or taxpayers. I 'd make an exception for SS recipients because they paid taxes at some point.

Would it make sense to run a business by letting the employees, managers and owners vote on salaries, with each vote counted equally? Should lifetime welfare recipients get a vote? People who are too uneducated to pass a simple written test? Ex-cons?

You are looking to go back to the feudal times, those born in privilege and power rule over the beastly masses. Democracy is not your thing but the irony is, what you describe actually does happen if you analyse how the country really works.

Just one question though. Where is your humanity man?