USA: Happy Thanksgiving! Our Budget Deficit Is Shrinking!

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

The question is, What happens when the government runs out of money and are no longer able to provide for the lazy? eek.

What I mean by “lazy” I’m talking about the ones that take advantage of the System in a negative way and make a career off it.

The people who abuse the system is insignificant to faults in the system itself.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by MorphingDragon

The people who abuse the system is insignificant to faults in the system itself.

That's a big 10-4.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

If the government cuts the Defense budget, Aerospace companies cut jobs.

I thought conservatives were against stimulus spending.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I thought conservatives were against stimulus spending.

Not if their interests get stimulated.

[Dmunjal]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

If the government cuts the Defense budget, Aerospace companies cut jobs.

If the government stops Defense production, Aerospace companies stop hiring and also layoff.

If the government cuts planed production, Aerospace companies cut jobs and eventually layoff. Example: 2,000 Fighter Jets planned. 500 Fighter Jets get cut during production due to cost.

Maybe from here on out the pentagon needs to work on better, smarter & cost efficient Military weapons. I will support that. By cutting the F35 production line I will not. Due to massive layoffs it will bring. Aerospace work is good for America’s economy. Not only for civilians but also for our military veterans.

I have been very hard on welfare spending but I also have to be hard on this warfare spending. I'm sure it creates jobs but they are not productive jobs and actually take from the economy instead of adding to it. We need to massively cut both.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by Dmunjal

I have been very hard on welfare spending but I also have to be hard on this warfare spending. I'm sure it creates jobs but they are not productive jobs and actually take from the economy instead of adding to it. We need to massively cut both.

I think you are heavily discounting the amount of technological advances from this funding that have been retrofitted for civilian use.

[splitpea]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I think you are heavily discounting the amount of technological advances from this funding that have been retrofitted for civilian use.

R&D is one thing. Billion-dollar planes that never fly, a huge standing army, and billions per days spent on involvement in unnecessary conflicts are another.

If we're going to pump money into the economy and create jobs, why not do it with programs that improve our crumbling infrastructure instead? More reliable roads and bridges, new rapid transit options, high-speed internet infrastructure -- without them we will very soon become unattractive to businesses, as our residents can't get to their workplaces in a reasonable amount of time or without unreasonable expenditure, and as other countries rapidly outpace us in communications technology (frankly, they already are).

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I think you are heavily discounting the amount of technological advances from this funding that have been retrofitted for civilian use.

At what cost?

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I thought conservatives were against stimulus spending.

Bazinga!

Originally Posted by splitpea

R&D is one thing. Billion-dollar planes that never fly, a huge standing army, and billions per days spent on involvement in unnecessary conflicts are another.

If we're going to pump money into the economy and create jobs, why not do it with programs that improve our crumbling infrastructure instead? More reliable roads and bridges, new rapid transit options, high-speed internet infrastructure -- without them we will very soon become unattractive to businesses, as our residents can't get to their workplaces in a reasonable amount of time or without unreasonable expenditure, and as other countries rapidly outpace us in communications technology (frankly, they already are).

This. What's better for America as a whole? A bunch of fighter planes and tens of thousands of people ready to fight an enemy that may never come, or putting those same tens of thousands of people to work fixing rotting bridges, roads with pot holes, building rail, trails, bike paths, etc?

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

I think you are heavily discounting the amount of technological advances from this funding that have been retrofitted for civilian use.

Only a very small part of military spending goes to R&D through DARPA and official research contracts. Even if you include all the materials advancements that came because of aerospace development and materials science for something like the M-1's Chobham armor, you're still not talking about a particularly good investment. First, many of these materials remain secret for decades, so while the metal-bonding matrix of the Chobham might help change ceramics, no one can run their own experiments.

Every economic study I've seen shows that military spending is a worse deal than infrastructure spending.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

...By cutting the F35 production line I will not. Due to massive layoffs it will bring. Aerospace work is good for America’s economy. Not only for civilians but also for our military veterans.

There are two consequences to this line of thinking. The first, is we're supporting an industry, and specific companies, above the free market and arguably putting jobs in military aerospace where they might otherwise be focused on civilian aircraft or other transportation modes.

Second, this means that not only can government protect jobs, it must be able to create them with spending—if you believe in protecting aerospace jobs, you are a Keynesian.

Originally Posted by samiwas

...What's better for America as a whole? A bunch of fighter planes and tens of thousands of people ready to fight an enemy that may never come, or putting those same tens of thousands of people to work fixing rotting bridges, roads with pot holes, building rail, trails, bike paths, etc?

Economically speaking, we get between $1.35 to $2.1 dollars back for every dollar we spend on infrastructure, conversely we get about $.9 to $1.1 for military spending.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by samiwas

but...but...Bazinga!

Fixed that for you.

[Teh Don Ditty]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Fixed that for you.

permabanned.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by tshrimp

I am being sarcastic as you can probably tell. It gets old hearing every negative being blamed on Bush. And yes many things are, but it the blame game has to stop at some point. Try that in business, and your butt is out the door. I know that 15 year from now we will still be hearing that "it was Bush's fault".

You know what else gets old? Conservatives giving Bush a pass. If Obama had left the economy in that state, people like you would be talking about it for decades. But if a Republican does it, oh no...that's different. Let's sweep it under the rug, send him to the Cayman Islands and forget he was even President! To conservatives, it is like the eight years of Bush didn't even happen.

Originally Posted by NickZac

Many people I know, for whatever reason, consistently blame Bush for things far out of his scope of control which I find to be frustrating.

And likewise, people blame Obama (or any President really) for things outside their control. As if he not only controlled every single thing that goes on within the U.S. boarders, but also the entire planet's economy as well.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by hulugu

This is interesting. Can you give some examples? What's a "business friendly climate" and what kind of regulations do you think are interfering with "day-to-day business" and which do not?

Well, I think it's important to note the Bush administration in context. There are many conservatives who argue as if the world started in 2009 and try to ignore the financial costs of two wars, a huge financial meltdown, a large tax cut and Medicare Part D.

It's important to note that the use of Guantanamo Bay as a holding facility for people arrested abroad, the use of torture to gather information and the use of drones along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region were once Bush-era policies. This doesn't absolve the Obama administration, but it does put this into context.

A business friendly climate is one that promotes companies with incentives who take care of their employees (i.e.: make "self good" run parallel with "common good". Obviously, the reduction in taxes to small business is a huge component. It is important to avoid excessive regulation, which costs time and money. At the same time, that doesn't mean that a blind eye should be turned either...it is a balancing act. Another thing is affordable health care. Many small businesses cannot afford it. Current legislation is going to require businesses to buy it (which may or may not be a good thing), but it doesn't address the cost issue to the point where some small businesses can afford health care. Ultimately, medical care is still very expensive. Another big thing is consumer behavior. If you set up shop in a town where people go out of their way to give business to 'the little man', you may wind up doing better. A lot of research has suggested that it is largely small-medium businesses that drive the US economy. There are numerous other things but I think what needs to happen is more research on how we can promote private sector growth, and then follow through on what the research says completely without partisan politics.

I'm not saying Bush should be immune to criticism by any means. Both Bush and Obama are not outside of the scope of my criticism. But my point is that many people blame Bush when in fact it comes down to their own bad decisions and an unwillingness to accept fault. Someone making 40k a year who bought a $800k and lost it cannot blame Bush (or Obama) for their own mistake. You hear it all too much, whether it is Bush, Obama, or any leader. People find it easier to blame someone else rather than realize their own failure is attributable largely to their reckless behavior. I'm not trying to imply that every event comes down to the individual, but that bad decisions made on an individual level cannot be logically transferred in blame to the societal level.

----------

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

And likewise, people blame Obama (or any President really) for things outside their control. As if he not only controlled every single thing that goes on within the U.S. boarders, but also the entire planet's economy as well.

I agree.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

If the government cuts the Defense budget, Aerospace companies cut jobs.

If the government stops Defense production, Aerospace companies stop hiring and also layoff.

If the government cuts planed production, Aerospace companies cut jobs and eventually layoff. Example: 2,000 Fighter Jets planned. 500 Fighter Jets get cut during production due to cost.

Maybe from here on out the pentagon needs to work on better, smarter & cost efficient Military weapons. I will support that. By cutting the F35 production line I will not. Due to massive layoffs it will bring. Aerospace work is good for America’s economy. Not only for civilians but also for our military veterans.

My issue is not with the production as much as the efficiency of the production (and sometimes the projects we pursue such as going for many new jets but neglecting strategic lift aircraft which is the backbone of the [entire] military)...there will always be a need for aerospace defense as well as 'hot' production lines. My issue is that aerospace companies (and the DOD as a whole) are inefficient. They get our tax dollars and they are not spent optimally in a time when we need to be more frugal than ever. The core budgeting system they use, largely coming from the Kennedy and later the Carter Administration (to show how old it is), is not well suited to the task in today's climate. Other nations are producing fighter jets of similar capability and projected longevity, but at a fraction of the cost and with higher levels of operational readiness. They've also been quicker in getting new planes advanced ground attack capacity...something the F22 is yet to obtain at a time when ground attack far outweighs air superiority. In the past three decades, every bomber and fighter program has run over budget, and the amount it runs over is usually tremendous.

As far as the F35 goes, there are so many issues with it (much like the F22) that its role is still uncertain, and at a time when bombers may have more value than fighters given the rarity of dogfighting and the commonality of strategic ground attacks and tank plinking. The last few armed conflicts have been dominated by the B2's capacity and capability. At the same time, our strategic lift aircraft are old, so there is no reason to lay off jobs, but more so use a new system of budgeting and cost analysis.

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by NickZac

My issue is not with the production as much as the efficiency of the production (and sometimes the projects we pursue such as going for many new jets but neglecting strategic lift aircraft which is the backbone of the [entire] military)...there will always be a need for aerospace defense as well as 'hot' production lines. My issue is that aerospace companies (and the DOD as a whole) are inefficient. They get our tax dollars and they are not spent optimally in a time when we need to be more frugal than ever. The core budgeting system they use, largely coming from the Kennedy and later the Carter Administration (to show how old it is), is not well suited to the task in today's climate. Other nations are producing fighter jets of similar capability and projected longevity, but at a fraction of the cost and with higher levels of operational readiness. They've also been quicker in getting new planes advanced ground attack capacity...something the F22 is yet to obtain at a time when ground attack far outweighs air superiority. In the past three decades, every bomber and fighter program has run over budget, and the amount it runs over is usually tremendous.

As far as the F35 goes, there are so many issues with it (much like the F22) that its role is still uncertain, and at a time when bombers may have more value than fighters given the rarity of dogfighting and the commonality of strategic ground attacks and tank plinking. The last few armed conflicts have been dominated by the B2's capacity and capability. At the same time, our strategic lift aircraft are old, so there is no reason to lay off jobs, but more so use a new system of budgeting and cost analysis.

I understand what you’re saying. To be honest with you, the DoD picking Lockheed Martin to be the F35 main production line makes NO sense to me. It’s as if the Pentagon didn’t learn how slow and more costly Lockheed was with the F22. Northrop had its YF23 Flying Stealth, Dropping bombs and breaking sound barriers way before the Lockheed’s F22. The YF23 fighter would have also been cheaper to build. We have to remember now, Americas Air force is all about being Stealth/Unmanned and it cost a pretty penny. The F22 is to replace the F15 and the F35 is to replace the F16. We need those new fighters. As far as another Bomber, The Pentagon decided to upgrade the B1 & B2 bomber instead of making a new one. So it seems with this crappy economy, DoD is starting to work smarter and save money.

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Bazinga!



This. What's better for America as a whole? A bunch of fighter planes and tens of thousands of people ready to fight an enemy that may never come, or putting those same tens of thousands of people to work fixing rotting bridges, roads with pot holes, building rail, trails, bike paths, etc?

Why not have both? I agree with you about our roads and bridges. Where I live (Los Angeles) we already have Cal Trans fixing our roads and bridges. As far as our military budget goes, our Defense has already taken over $400 billion in cuts. We don't need to cut more. I rather have America’s military over any other country. Were more Advanced, Smart and Battle Ready. It's what makes us a safe nation against our enemies. It all comes at a cost. Things are getting nasty in the world. This may sound ridiculous, everyday were getting closer to a WW3. We must be ready.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Things are getting nasty in the world. This may sound ridiculous, everyday were getting closer to a WW3. We must be ready.

You are aware that 'you' have nuclear subs scattered about the World, armed with nuclear ICBMs. And they all have assigned targets.

Give your head a shake. The only need for the military you champion is aggression of some sort.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

As far as our military budget goes, our Defense has already taken over $400 billion in cuts. We don't need to cut more..

What is your basis of determination? You're merely stating that it sounds like a big number. It's natural to cut back after times of invasion, and you don't get to determine when it's enough just by stating large numbers without any context or details of what was cut or what would be next.

[Dmunjal]

Defense spending has NEVER been cut and is getting ridiculous.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

I understand what you’re saying. To be honest with you, the DoD picking Lockheed Martin to be the F35 main production line makes NO sense to me. It’s as if the Pentagon didn’t learn how slow and more costly Lockheed was with the F22. Northrop had its YF23 Flying Stealth, Dropping bombs and breaking sound barriers way before the Lockheed’s F22. The YF23 fighter would have also been cheaper to build. We have to remember now, Americas Air force is all about being Stealth/Unmanned and it cost a pretty penny. The F22 is to replace the F15 and the F35 is to replace the F16. We need those new fighters. As far as another Bomber, The Pentagon decided to upgrade the B1 & B2 bomber instead of making a new one. So it seems with this crappy economy, DoD is starting to work smarter and save money.

I've often wondered myself why the YF23 wasn't chosen...it was clearly a more feasible project upon the YF22/YF23 comp. I'm hoping a balance can be reached between excessive expenditure and not doing any R&D. Thus far tho, our stealth aircrafts have been so expensive that their worthiness is questionable. As of now, cost containment in regards to defense is lacking (with that said, cost containment is lacking other places as well). There's a point where someone has to say "this is too much money" and pull the funding plug.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Why not have both?

Well, golly gee, Beav!! I sure would love that. But we're talking about a time when our country's spending is too high and we need to make cuts. How could we afford both??

As far as our military budget goes, our Defense has already taken over $400 billion in cuts. We don't need to cut more.

When?

I rather have America’s military over any other country. Were more Advanced, Smart and Battle Ready. It's what makes us a safe nation against our enemies. It all comes at a cost.

We already are. Our military costs as much as the next 14 countries combined (and that's JUST military operations, not veterans, or foreign military aid). Countries that are larger than us and countries that have far more people than us. Does it really need to cost THAT much? Really? Come on, really?

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Well, golly gee, Beav!! I sure would love that. But we're talking about a time when our country's spending is too high and we need to make cuts. How could we afford both??



When?



We already are. Our military costs as much as the next 14 countries combined (and that's JUST military operations, not veterans, or foreign military aid). Countries that are larger than us and countries that have far more people than us. Does it really need to cost THAT much? Really? Come on, really?

Originally Posted by samiwas

Well, golly gee, Beav!! I sure would love that. But we're talking about a time when our country's spending is too high and we need to make cuts. How could we afford both??



When?



We already are. Our military costs as much as the next 14 countries combined (and that's JUST military operations, not veterans, or foreign military aid). Countries that are larger than us and countries that have far more people than us. Does it really need to cost THAT much? Really? Come on, really?

In the world, America is #1 Russia is #2 and China is #3

Source

http://www.globalfirepower.com

We have more money dumped into our Defense to keeps us number 1. It comes at a price like I said before. I don’t set the prices. As other Countries militaries advance, ours does too. Scary to see two communist counties ranked number 2 & 3 in the world.

As far as the $400 billion in defense cuts, here you go.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...defense-cuts/1

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Why not have both? I agree with you about our roads and bridges. Where I live (Los Angeles) we already have Cal Trans fixing our roads and bridges.

Well, because that's really expensive and the Republicans have convinced many in Washington that the dealing with our rising debt in paramount. So, we have to choose with a limited budget.

...As far as our military budget goes, our Defense has already taken over $400 billion in cuts. We don't need to cut more. I rather have America’s military over any other country. We're more Advanced, Smart and Battle Ready. It's what makes us a safe nation against our enemies. It all comes at a cost. Things are getting nasty in the world. This may sound ridiculous, everyday were getting closer to a WW3. We must be ready.

Keep in mind that the $400 billion is over a period that ends in 2023, so no Defense has not "taken over $400 billion in cuts." That's just inaccurate.

Secondly, we maintain the most powerful and dominating military in the world and yet we've been ground to a nub by fighting in the asymmetric wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot maintain such a large military in combat for such an extended period of time.

Thirdly, our presence and our might is just as likely to start WWIII as protect us from it.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

In the world, America is #1 Russia is #2 and China is #3

Source

http://www.globalfirepower.com

Keep in mind that these rankings are essentially meaningless. Go compare the United States against China and you'll see we are significantly more powerful than China. Also, that site breaks out the European states as separate war-fighters, but in any likely conflict, they're likely to be allied and operating together along with the United States, especially against Russia.

A good instance is aircraft: the US has 18,234 aircraft, including trainers and UAVs. China: 5,176 and Russia: 2,749. So, you could fly both the Chinese and Russia air forces and still be outnumbered 2 to 1. You'll see similar numbers with regard to navy ship strength, self-propelled guns, tanks, etc.

If Global Firepower was the SEC, the United States would be Notre Dame and China would be Clemson.

...

Originally Posted by NickZac

I've often wondered myself why the YF23 wasn't chosen...it was clearly a more feasible project upon the YF22/YF23 comp. I'm hoping a balance can be reached between excessive expenditure and not doing any R&D. Thus far tho, our stealth aircrafts have been so expensive that their worthiness is questionable. As of now, cost containment in regards to defense is lacking (with that said, cost containment is lacking other places as well). There's a point where someone has to say "this is too much money" and pull the funding plug.

My understanding is the F22 was more maneuverable than the YF23, but otherwise the YF23 was a better machine. I tend to think that stealth is overrated, depending on the sensors and angles, even very good stealth technology can be defeated. We lost an F-117 to Serbian air defense, so it's clear that it's not a catch-all technology.

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Well, because that's really expensive and the Republicans have convinced many in Washington that the dealing with our rising debt in paramount. So, we have to choose with a limited budget.



Keep in mind that the $400 billion is over a period that ends in 2023, so no Defense has not "taken over $400 billion in cuts." That's just inaccurate.

Secondly, we maintain the most powerful and dominating military in the world and yet we've been ground to a nub by fighting in the asymmetric wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot maintain such a large military in combat for such an extended period of time.

Thirdly, our presence and our might is just as likely to start WWIII as protect us from it.



Keep in mind that these rankings are essentially meaningless. Go compare the United States against China and you'll see we are significantly more powerful than China. Also, that site breaks out the European states as separate war-fighters, but in any likely conflict, they're likely to be allied and operating together along with the United States, especially against Russia.

A good instance is aircraft: the US has 18,234 aircraft, including trainers and UAVs. China: 5,176 and Russia: 2,749. So, you could fly both the Chinese and Russia air forces and still be outnumbered 2 to 1. You'll see similar numbers with regard to navy ship strength, self-propelled guns, tanks, etc.

If Global Firepower was the SEC, the United States would be Notre Dame and China would be Clemson.

...



My understanding is the F22 was more maneuverable than the YF23, but otherwise the YF23 was a better machine. I tend to think that stealth is overrated, depending on the sensors and angles, even very good stealth technology can be defeated. We lost an F-117 to Serbian air defense, so it's clear that it's not a catch-all technology.

First of all. Stealth technology is not overrated. 2nd, Read and learn how the F-117 was shot down and you will find out it wasn't invisible in the sky when detected by enemy radar due to open bomb bay doors. 3rd, America to cause WWIII? Lol