Republicans abandon interest in defence

[eyeball]

No, but there is funding.

Is it safe to say funding for that is unaffected by sequestration?

[Argus]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578257753243530078.htmAnyone who denies the bolded points is part of the problem and unfortunately most democrats are part of the problem. The republicans should be lauded that they were willing to let one of their sacred cows take part of the pain but the 5% cut really nothing.

Your cite does not work. I will say, however, that it is nonsense that the US can't afford the same sorts of entitlements as every other western industrialized nation. In fact, American 'entitlements' tend to be far weaker, cheaper than those available throughout Europe.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is it safe to say funding for that is unaffected by sequestration?

It is safe to say whatever you want...in the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your cite does not work. I will say, however, that it is nonsense that the US can't afford the same sorts of entitlements as every other western industrialized nation. In fact, American 'entitlements' tend to be far weaker, cheaper than those available throughout Europe.

The U.S. has better entitlement programs and employment opportunities than in many "western industrialized nations", including Canada. That's the main reason why so many people emigrate to the U.S....more than any other country in the world.

[eyeball]

It is safe to say whatever you want...in the United States.

Yes but it's what you Americans allow your government to do abroad that puts you in harm's way.

And now you're tying it's defensive arm behind it's back but not the offensive one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes but it's what you Americans allow your government to do abroad that puts you in harm's way.

And now you're tying it's defensive arm behind it's back but not the offensive one.

The U.S.A.'s defensive or offensive "arms" will be just fine either way. Are "you Canadians" planning to attack ?

[eyeball]

I doubt it, but I suspect we'll be there to help you pick up the pieces, again.

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt it, but I suspect we'll be there to help you pick up the pieces, again.

OK...but next time, don't leave the ancient CF-18's at home.

[Guest American Woman]

The reasoning behind the offending is pretty hateful alright.

So "blowback" only applies to some?

[eyeball]

It applies to democracies - were people are responsible for the actions of their governments.

[TimG]

Your cite does not work. I will say, however, that it is nonsense that the US can't afford the same sorts of entitlements as every other western industrialized nation. In fact, American 'entitlements' tend to be far weaker, cheaper than those available throughout Europe.

All industrialized economies are headed for a big crash because they have made promises that cannot possibly be delivered. Greece is already hitting the wall and it is not pretty. The US will hit the wall too because the numbers simply do not add up - especially if you assume that the economy is only going to grow slowly.

People like democrats who want to believe in leprechauns and fairy dust are the problem. The republicans - despite their heated and sometimes contradictory rhetoric - are the only party in the US who shows any willingness to address this fiscal bomb. Now they have put their money where their the mouths are by allowing cuts to something that they think is important in order to get a equal amount of cuts to entitlement programs. This something to be praised rather than criticized.

Edited March 3, 2013 by TimG

[Argus]

All industrialized economies are headed for a big crash because they have made promises that cannot possibly be delivered. Greece is already hitting the wall and it is not pretty. The US will hit the wall too because the numbers simply do not add up - especially if you assume that the economy is only going to grow slowly.

You can't use the Greeks as an example. Half of them managed to cheat on their taxes, and it was a poor country to begin with trying to act like the rich northern neighbors do. A number of European governments engage or engaged in irresponsible spending on a number of fronts, but their social safety nets aren't what is causing them economic difficulties.

[kimmy]

Those machines defend people.

Sure, but how much defending does America actually need? The United States is an unassailable military superpower, and would continue to be so even if it dramatically reduced its military expenditures.

It appears to me that budgetary issues are a greater threat to America's security than any enemy that can be fought with guns and missiles.

-k

[kimmy]

Lets leave aside the nonsense about them being 'unsustainable' which is nothing more than propaganda. The Democrats have always supported social welfare programs. The Republicans have always supported a strong military. The Democrats continue to support social welfare programs. The Republicans have abandoned their support for a strong military. Why? The Republican base still believes in a strong military. But the Republican leadership doesnt' care about the base. It cares about money from its benefactors. And its benefactors care about nothing BUT money.

As well, the sequester cuts were designed to be so unpopular that neither party would want to see them happen, so that both would be motivated to find a solution. But with the Republican Congress approval rating now flirting with single digits, they've concluded that they really couldn't become any less popular and have nothing to lose anymore.

They have obtained their tax cuts without any tax increases, so I guess they "won".

-k

[Pliny]

It applies to democracies - were people are responsible for the actions of their governments.

The problem is that once the people discover that the government can provide such great benefit to them, such as the DFO, they vote for even more benefit and it simply snowballs from there.

[Pliny]

A number of European governments engage or engaged in irresponsible spending on a number of fronts, but their social safety nets aren't what is causing them economic difficulties.

What were those fronts?

They could have even more benefits and still have no economic difficulties is your position then?

[Argus]

What were those fronts?

They could have even more benefits and still have no economic difficulties is your position then?

France, as an example, has, I believe, one of the best social welfare system in the world. But they also have far too many public employees, have cut both the retirement age and the work week, and spend far too much money subsidizing agriculture and industry. They're over regulated and over-governed (Canada 200 police per 100 pop, US 256, Greece 452, Italy 417, France 356). Cut away much of that and leave the social welfare programs and they'd be fine.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

...It appears to me that budgetary issues are a greater threat to America's security than any enemy that can be fought with guns and missiles.

Maybe, but this has not been the U.S.A's experience over the past 100 years, when guns and butter were very necessary. U.S. defense budgets are actually way down as a historical percentage of GDP.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But with the Republican Congress approval rating now flirting with single digits, they've concluded that they really couldn't become any less popular and have nothing to lose anymore.

The Congress does not enjoy great approval ratings regardless of party.

They have obtained their tax cuts without any tax increases, so I guess they "won".

Not really any cuts, just suspended increases. The U.S. taxpayer "won".

[Moonlight Graham]

Those machines defend people.

Maybe militaries should invent defence weapons that are non-lethal, like bombs or beams that only put people in 15 year comas or something.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest Derek L]

Sure, but how much defending does America actually need? The United States is an unassailable military superpower, and would continue to be so even if it dramatically reduced its military expenditures.

It appears to me that budgetary issues are a greater threat to America's security than any enemy that can be fought with guns and missiles.

-k

That is correct to some degree……….but drastic cuts in the United States defence budget won’t only effect American national security, but a great many allied nations, Canada included, that reap the benefits of security for their own nations garnered by US assets, coupled with US defence research…………A great many nations are able to spend less on their own defence due to American defence spending levels……..

In other words, the Americans can’t afford to subsidize other nations defence any longer.

[Guest Derek L]

Maybe, but this has not been the U.S.A's experience over the past 100 years, when guns and butter were very necessary. U.S. defense budgets are actually way down as a historical percentage of GDP.

I think many posters where either too young or just don't remember the 80s.......

[eyeball]

The problem is that once the people discover that the government can provide such great benefit to them, such as the DFO, they vote for even more benefit and it simply snowballs from there.

That's completely nuts Pliny.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think many posters where either too young or just don't remember the 80s.......

I they insist on ignoring the obvious:

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/009_national_defense_1928.png

Edited March 4, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Sure, but how much defending does America actually need? The United States is an unassailable military superpower, and would continue to be so even if it dramatically reduced its military expenditures.

It appears to me that budgetary issues are a greater threat to America's security than any enemy that can be fought with guns and missiles.

-k

I think most budgetary issues could probably be solved by simply declaring a jubilee/potlatch of some sort - basically zeroing everyone's account and coming up with a more just and ethical system that lends itself to better accounting and transparency. Michael Hardner's digital time and date stamped money comes to mind. Some fundamental shift or global reset seems imminent but probably not until something breaks.

I'm surprised some Republican hasn't suggested the US try handing the world a bill for all the defence it's provided.