As long was we're drawing from history - how about the one where the Soviet Union collapsed from bloated military spending?
Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts
- Thread starter Rationalist
- Start date
As long was we're drawing from history - how about the one where the Soviet Union collapsed from bloated military spending?
How could they possibly collapse? They were following Nigel's suggestion and spending into a bad economy! I mean, every bit of spending was government spending, they should have had magically delicious economic fraglisticexpealidocious!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's not why they collapsed. We were spending more than they were on the military, and we didn't collapse... so *poof* there went that theory! The Soviets collapsed because of Socialism, it never has worked in a country larger than Sweden, and it never will. Socialism stifles the individual spirit and causes a lack of productivity among the masses, and without that productivity, there is no economic growth and prosperity.
Actually they were spending well over half their funds on the military trying to keep up with the Joneses... it killed their economy. Although it does prove that Keynesian rubbish false. According to Keynes once their economy started to collapse they should have spent still more.
You keep talking about productivity as if low productivity were a problem right now. It isn't.
LOL
You're such a buffoon. They collapsed because of military spending. Trying to make an apples to apples comparison between the Soviets & America in the '80's is pure desperation.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
For cuts:
1) War on Drugs: over. Legalize and tax the revenue.
2) oil/farm/rail subsidies gone
3) $500 B in waste in Medicare/Medicaid gone
4) Defense: cut by at least 1/3. We have too much waste in admin, too many overseas bases that are no longer needed, weapons programs that are unnecessary etc...
5) Education: yes, there is waste here too. We do not need a superintendents office for every friggin school district... we waste far too much money on admin staffing that could otherwise go to better schools, teachers, meal programs.. all of which benefit the students.
6) Flat tax with a standard deduction. It is fair, it is simple, it is progressive. Unlike our current regressive tax system which is also insanely complex and unfair. For those wanting to know where the efficient frontier is with regards to the tax rates... we will NEVER know under our current system. It is far to complex to ever pinpoint. If we go to a flat tax with standard deduction we will be able to find the threshold.
1) War on Drugs: over. Legalize and tax the revenue.
2) oil/farm/rail subsidies gone
3) $500 B in waste in Medicare/Medicaid gone
4) Defense: cut by at least 1/3. We have too much waste in admin, too many overseas bases that are no longer needed, weapons programs that are unnecessary etc...
5) Education: yes, there is waste here too. We do not need a superintendents office for every friggin school district... we waste far too much money on admin staffing that could otherwise go to better schools, teachers, meal programs.. all of which benefit the students.
6) Flat tax with a standard deduction. It is fair, it is simple, it is progressive. Unlike our current regressive tax system which is also insanely complex and unfair. For those wanting to know where the efficient frontier is with regards to the tax rates... we will NEVER know under our current system. It is far to complex to ever pinpoint. If we go to a flat tax with standard deduction we will be able to find the threshold.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, it's actually what is driving the recession we're in. This administration, and 4 years of Democrat-controlled Congress, has discouraged capitalist expansion and punished increased productivity. The "War on the Rich" has fostered an atmosphere of no economic growth because being more productive means higher taxation and regulation.
Nice going! You finally got it right...
Here is a chart of productivity growth year-to-year over the past decade:
In short, you're full of shit. There is no economic growth because there is low aggregate demand. Look it up.
Athena
Banned
In the US the military complex headed by the DoD is the largest employer. The trickle down economics of our military complex reaches out into vast numbers of private sector jobs. Cutting the military at this juncture would, at least at first, have a negative impact on the economy. To make that impact the least painful those cuts should immediately be used to pay down the deficit.
The question remains "then what"? Another rise in unemployment, both from military personnel and contractors certainly. How about the numerous businesses that depend on a military presence? Does anyone remember what happened to the cities where military bases existed during the last wave of base closures? Can we really afford something like that while suffering already large numbers of unemployment?
There is no doubt that government spending must slow down and get smart. Does anyone else recall then Senator Obama’s promise to use a scalpel as soon as he was to take office and cut unnecessary spending? To end ear marks? That is not what he has done folks. Instead he has increased spending in the most unprecedented way. Forcing mandates onto a people who don’t want them. Refusing to listen to republican leadership ideas to fix health care and instead went down a road of unsustainable debt.
Cutting the military is obviously something that has to be assessed and will hopefully not just be a sound bite for political popularity. So for you Keynesian supporters is this seeming logical fallacy of spending more to buoy the economy stop working when the employer is the military? Think of the billions spent employing our military. Look at the jobs the military creates both internally and externally from itself. If ever there were an experiment for its success or failure isn’t this it? For a decade now you have bemoaned the “military” as a drag on our economy. So which is it?
The question remains "then what"? Another rise in unemployment, both from military personnel and contractors certainly. How about the numerous businesses that depend on a military presence? Does anyone remember what happened to the cities where military bases existed during the last wave of base closures? Can we really afford something like that while suffering already large numbers of unemployment?
There is no doubt that government spending must slow down and get smart. Does anyone else recall then Senator Obama’s promise to use a scalpel as soon as he was to take office and cut unnecessary spending? To end ear marks? That is not what he has done folks. Instead he has increased spending in the most unprecedented way. Forcing mandates onto a people who don’t want them. Refusing to listen to republican leadership ideas to fix health care and instead went down a road of unsustainable debt.
Cutting the military is obviously something that has to be assessed and will hopefully not just be a sound bite for political popularity. So for you Keynesian supporters is this seeming logical fallacy of spending more to buoy the economy stop working when the employer is the military? Think of the billions spent employing our military. Look at the jobs the military creates both internally and externally from itself. If ever there were an experiment for its success or failure isn’t this it? For a decade now you have bemoaned the “military” as a drag on our economy. So which is it?
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wrong.
It collapsed because they tried to keep up with our military spending with an economy that could not support it. Their economy was (and is) based largely on the production of commodities. In addition to our military spending, we kept oil prices artificially low... which further added to their collapse.
To point to ours and say 'since we didn't collapse, that can't be the reason they did' is 100% ignorance. The economies of the two countries are vastly different.
I would ask you the reverse. You seem to be arguing that military spending should essentially be kept in place not for its intrinsic value to the nation's security, but as sort of a permanent stimulus program for job creation & maintenance, even if those jobs are unnecessary.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here is a chart of productivity growth year-to-year over the past decade:
In short, you're full of shit. There is no economic growth because there is low aggregate demand. Look it up.
LOL... We're not talking about individual productivity, stupid! Of course, individual productivity has HAD to increase, due to corporate downsizing! That doesn't relate to overall economic productivity of capitalist enterprise. Two completely different charts there, dude!
http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html
Year GDP - real growth rate Rank Percent Change Date of Information
2003 2.45 % 115 2002 est.
2004 3.10 % 104 26.53 % 2003 est.
2005 4.40 % 100 41.94 % 2004 est.
2006 3.20 % 138 -27.27 % 2005 est.
2007 3.20 % 152 0.00 % 2006 est.
2008 2.00 % 186 -37.50 % 2007 est.
2009 1.10 % 171 -45.00 % 2008 est.
2010 -2.40 % 150 -318.18 % 2009 est.
So when you use the term "productivity" you really mean "change in GDP" even though the two are completely different economic concepts and "productivity" is a discrete and well-defined economic term.
Riiiiiiiiiight.
Athena
Banned
What I am pointing out is that there will be a negative impact with military cuts to our economy and that the best way to mitigate that is to use those cuts to pay down the deficit.
Further I point out that if ever there were an experiment that more government spending stimulates an economy our military would be that experiment. It's obvious it does not work. This is not to say it cannot temporarily sustain an economy, but it does not stimulate one.
Our military serves a different purpose then economic stimulation, but its use as a Keynesian model is still relevant.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well I guess you only want to focus on what I said and not what anyone else said, and that's fine, it's typical of the dishonest fuck you are. The Soviets did not collapse because they had a large military budget, we had an even larger one, and we didn't collapse! Their economy couldn't support their military budget and ours could, that was the difference, and it seems you agree with that point. Their economy was based on SOCIALISM because they were the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic, and we weren't! I don't know how much more obvious that can be, but our system is CAPITALIST, the antithesis of Socialism. Our system is obviously better for funding a large sustainable military budget, which is why they collapsed and we didn't.
So, if you want to call me "ignorant" because I recognize that, it's up to you. The idiotic argument that the Soviets failed because they had a large military budget, is just plain incorrect and stupid. I don't care if you like that or not.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I mean "economic capitalist productivity" and not individual productivity. The word "productivity" has a definition, you are welcome to go look it up, it is not confined to meaning only what an idiotic moron wants it to mean.