The deficit is over a trillion dollars a year. (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

So I started two threads today: the deficit is over a trillion dollars a year, and Bernie Sanders proposes a 16 trillion dollar plan to fight climate change.

It occurs to me that these two central issues, the national debt and climate change, are speeding towards each other like two runaway trains on the same track...

Well, if you spend part of the money developing jobs that contribute positively to fighting climate change some of that money comes back

 

[msommer]

Ugh math

So at 37% of 1.6T, your source has the USA spending 592B.
To make that 25% of world expenditure, we're down to 360B spend on a world expenditure of 1.44T

This would be a 39% reduction in military spend. So the USA would still be below India, Russia and SA in terms of % of GDP spent for military and on par with China.

That 232B dollars is almost enough to completely defund the Navy, so for that money we have the ability to put aircraft carriers in multiple regional hot spots, such as Taiwan and the Persian Gulf.

We want the Navy and the ability to project force, so maybe we end all ISIS activities and Overseas fundings and recoup 74 Billion. Only 158 billion more to cut. The total Army budget is 194B, so we could reduce to 1/6 of the size. Probably not the answer we want. Air Force is 134B, we could just rely on Naval planes...

If just want to cut evenly, there are about 1.32M active duty across all 4 branches, so we could kick 330K active duty folks out of service.

I'd rather keep our volunteer army and look for efficiencies in the entitlement programs that are 4X the above spend.

ETA: I actually had world spend rising a bit as well. If it's a pure drop, we're down to a USA spend of 337B on a global spend of 1.345T and we can eliminate the entire nuclear triad as well.

I believe the first link had military spending at 649 bn, but that's probably quibbling.

You can count me in the group that doesn't believe that spending 215-220 bn less doesn't remove the capability to project force abroad entirely. The military spend of 2000-2001 was 420 bn or so...

I would recommend not starting wars requiring the deployment of 50-100,000 troops to make ends meet...

 

[Gawain]

I would recommend not starting wars requiring the deployment of 50-100,000 troops to make ends meet...

I am with you there (#teamtulsi) and I've got no idea what part of broad-based Operations covers foreign activities, but the link I used had Overseas Operations + ISIS specifically as slightly less than 74B. (FY 2013)

The USA isn't achieving a 39% reduction in spend just on the wars. 

In terms of manpower, the USA isn't #1: Active Forces

China is also spending more and more. Your 39% suggestion actually puts the USA behind China in absolute dollars based on this link

 

[msommer]

I am with you there (#teamtulsi) and I've got no idea what part of broad-based Operations covers foreign activities, but the link I used had Overseas Operations + ISIS specifically as slightly less than 74B. (FY 2013)

The USA isn't achieving a 39% reduction in spend just on the wars. 

In terms of manpower, the USA isn't #1: Active Forces

China is also spending more and more. Your 39% suggestion actually puts the USA behind China in absolute dollars based on this link

Not married to any number. Spend the same as number two (who is wasting a lot of money by having lots and lots of troops they don't need on the payroll)

 

[Henry Ford]

Back of envelope math was 2.78T (Mandatory entitlement) + 1.36 T (Discretionary) - .72T (Dept Defense) - .09T (VA) - .05T (Home Sec)

So everything that isn’t DoD, VA, or Homeland Security is an “entitlement”?

 

[Slapdash]

Then a single flat tax rate.   Make it on consumption if you'd prefer and buy into the FairTax reasoning, but it needs to be significantly higher than 23%.  Maybe as high as 60% as the study that Hillary quoted in 2008 stated  (but for different reasons).

Replace all non healthcare, non education welfare spending/tax expenditures both for individuals and corporations including Social Security with a basic, minimum income.   Whether it is poverty level or "living wage" can be debated.   To keep the promise of SS add a "retirement bonus"  which helps us all.

Replace the hodge podge of spending for healthcare with a program where base level premiums come out of taxes.  If you think that private insurers can offer better policies for the same as an enhanced Medicare for All than allow private companies to run qualifying plans like the current Medicare Advantage plans. 

Replace government spending on college education by creating an education account for every child that is funded using the difference between the UBI payment to a single adult and the UBI payment made for a dependent child.  Make this available for college (or trade school or other equivalent)  education anytime.    For those that never or only partially tap into it for education,  set an age where they can start to tap into it for other purposes .   Obviously this will need to be phased in over 18 years or so.

Sure there is still other spending - K-12 education, infrastructure, defense, etc. some of which are federal, some not but I think the four items above would go a long way to leveling the playing field economically,  creates and environment to unleash the creative forces into society, removes the simply lazy from getting in the way of the workforce, and creates a decisive victory for the class war.   

So which side wins the call war here  ?  

They would all win!

Makes too much sense to ever happen. 

 

[The Z Machine]

So everything that isn’t DoD, VA, or Homeland Security is an “entitlement”?

Yeah, duh. All the rest of the departments are based on flim flam portions of the Constitution that don't matter.

 

[msommer]

Hey, don't fret over the deficit, think instead of all the great things you are getting for it, like universal health care, education for all and no one living in poverty!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hey, don't fret over the deficit, think instead of all the great things you are getting for it, like universal health care, education for all and no one living in poverty!

I think this is something that the conservative don't get.  If deficits don't matter when giving tax cuts to the rich and to corporations then sooner or later the small number of democrats that say that deficits also shouldn't matter for taking care of the masses are going to start pushing out the "paygo" democrats.   You already see some of that with the new members of congress and a growing number of inpatient posters.  

 

[FF Ninja]

relevant

 

[Summer Wheat]

"It sucked for me so it should suck for you too" is not a very persuasive argument.

A much better argument, in my opinion, is that forgiving debt isn't a very efficient use of government funds. If you want to help the poor, give them money. But determining who is poor by measuring college loan debt is a very terrible way to do that.

I can only imagine the quagmire of trying to figure out where the funds would be appropriated and potential fraud as well.  I guess I am more of a moderate liberal that I thought.

 

[jonessed]

I would be OK with pulling forces out of Europe and letting them handle military defense on their own.  They have plenty of money.

 

[dickey moe]

Neither side gives a #### about this.

 

[joffer]

Neither side gives a #### about this.

I do

 

[The Z Machine]

I do

Your revolution is over, Mr. @joffer. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get yours while you can. The bums will always lose.

 

[ren hoek]

Military spending needs to be scaled way back. I'm talking 40-50%. The world has been at peace since WWII and we keep spending on military. Last I checked, diplomacy doesn't cost much of anything. I'd bet much of the 40-50% of the cost in military spending is on private contractors. Get rid of them... all of them... money saved.

Progressive dems and libertarian repubs who talk about this in a serious way generally get laughed out of the room, called "unelectable," "conspiracy theorists," etc.  People trashed Trump for talking about dumping NATO militarism, leaving Syria, meeting with KJU.  Blind, unquestioning kneejerk worship of the military is off the charts right now.  Congress votes 800zallion-1 for every military budget.  There's always some excuse to stay in a war forever.  

 

[timschochet]

Progressive dems and libertarian repubs who talk about this in a serious way generally get laughed out of the room, called "unelectable," "conspiracy theorists," etc.  People trashed Trump for talking about dumping NATO militarism, leaving Syria, meeting with KJU.  Blind, unquestioning kneejerk worship of the military is off the charts right now.  Congress votes 800zallion-1 for every military budget.  There's always some excuse to stay in a war forever.  

Such a ridiculous conflation of issues. We can streamline our military spending, make it smarter and cheaper, without sacrificing NATO or other international commitments. Anyone who bags on NATO deserves to be trashed and laughed out of the room. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Such a ridiculous conflation of issues. We can streamline our military spending, make it smarter and cheaper, without sacrificing NATO or other international commitments. Anyone who bags on NATO deserves to be trashed and laughed out of the room. 

In other words dont cut spending for things i like. Well dont cut spending for things other people like either. Oh well, i tried! 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Neither side gives a #### about this.

Best post in this thread.

 

[The Commish]

Progressive dems and libertarian repubs who talk about this in a serious way generally get laughed out of the room, called "unelectable," "conspiracy theorists," etc.  People trashed Trump for talking about dumping NATO militarism, leaving Syria, meeting with KJU.  Blind, unquestioning kneejerk worship of the military is off the charts right now.  Congress votes 800zallion-1 for every military budget.  There's always some excuse to stay in a war forever.  

Typically when there isn't a salient point to be made, word salads and intentional mixing of events that don't belong together like this are the result.  But please tell me why I should be concerned that  would "laugh me out of the room" for this belief.  It would give me serious pause if they didn't.  None of that has anything to do with the absurd positions Trump's taken on NATO and meeting with KJU.  Leaving Syria is yet a different topic from the other two.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Progressive dems and libertarian repubs who talk about this in a serious way generally get laughed out of the room, called "unelectable," "conspiracy theorists," etc.  People trashed Trump for talking about dumping NATO militarism, leaving Syria, meeting with KJU.  Blind, unquestioning kneejerk worship of the military is off the charts right now.  Congress votes 800zallion-1 for every military budget.  There's always some excuse to stay in a war forever.  

and none of it matters, cuz MIC'll start one whenever they have to. i won bets in '91, when the Wall came down and the cursewords "peacetime dividend" were being bandied about, that USA would start a fullscale somewhere - Balkans, whatever - before summer was out. A CIA employee named Hussein or sumn likat invaded Kuwait on Aug 2 and made me some dough and we been up to our ### in sand & Haliburton ever since.

 

[ren hoek]

Such a ridiculous conflation of issues. We can streamline our military spending, make it smarter and cheaper, without sacrificing NATO or other international commitments. Anyone who bags on NATO deserves to be trashed and laughed out of the room. 

Look at what NATO did to Libya.  It's a wasteland with open air slavery now.  You can buy human beings for around $400.  All so they could crush Gaddafi's bid for a gold-backed currency, then jack their gold, silver and oil reserves. 

It's just an arm of imperialism now.  An excuse for the MIC to engage in endless proxy wars and ratchet up nuclear tensions with Russia.  It should have been dismantled a long time ago.  

 

[timschochet]

In other words dont cut spending for things i like. Well dont cut spending for things other people like either. Oh well, i tried! 

My post doesn’t say or come close to implying this. 

 

[timschochet]

Best post in this thread.

Not really. It’s a typical post that is often made by conservatives when they are in the wrong- they blame both sides. It’s true to an extent, but pointing it out serves nothing. 

 

[timschochet]

Look at what NATO did to Libya.  It's a wasteland with open air slavery now.  You can buy human beings for around $400.  All so they could crush Gaddafi's bid for a gold-backed currency, then jack their gold, silver and oil reserves. 

It's just an arm of imperialism now.   An excuse for the MIC to engage in endless proxy wars and ratchet up nuclear tensions with Russia.  It should have been dismantled a long time ago.  

I find your use of the word “now” disingenuous. Your hero Chomsky has been calling it an arm of imperialism for 50 years or so, and other leftists have called it that since it started, and I’m quite sure you agree with them. 

Much more than the United Nations, NATO has secured world stability since the end of World War II. It would be a disaster to abandon it, we would be giving the world over to dictators (which seems to be what you, Putin, and our President want.) 

 

[ren hoek]

I find your use of the word “now” disingenuous. Your hero Chomsky has been calling it an arm of imperialism for 50 years or so, and other leftists have called it that since it started, and I’m quite sure you agree with them. 

Much more than the United Nations, NATO has secured world stability since the end of World War II. It would be a disaster to abandon it, we would be giving the world over to dictators (which seems to be what you, Putin, and our President want.) 

It secured world stability for the empires it represents.  It helped the ruling parties plunder poor countries, and set them back for generations.  They gave the world over to dictators a long time ago- if a leadership was not compliant with imperial interests, we installed one that was.  It's about power Tim- always is, always was.  

I hate to sound like a broken record with this stuff, I really do, but you rewrite history when you pretend the world was peaches and cream whenever NATO got involved.  I can only imagine that's the reason your post didn't address the catastrophe in Libya that NATO created.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Not really. It’s a typical post that is often made by conservatives when they are in the wrong- they blame both sides. It’s true to an extent, but pointing it out serves nothing. 

Its typical because it is absolutely true. Both sides always have an excuse for why it is ok for their side to spend money and neither side actually wants to cut spending even when criticizing the other side. Lip service is always given, but as soon as stories come out about people that get pinched they cave.

 

[timschochet]

It secured world stability for the empires it represents.  It helped the ruling parties plunder poor countries, and set them back for generations.  They gave the world over to dictators a long time ago- if a leadership was not compliant with imperial interests, we installed one that was.  It's about power Tim- always is, always was.  

I hate to sound like a broken record with this stuff, I really do, but you rewrite history when you pretend the world was peaches and cream whenever NATO got involved.  I can only imagine that's the reason your post didn't address the catastrophe in Libya that NATO created.

Libya is a complicated, tragic issue. I didn’t address it because it would take too long to discuss what was done right and wrong there. NATO and the USA made plenty of mistakes, out of stupidity, arrogance and greed. But it’s important to remember that we were dealing with a very bad regime led by an evil murderer. And to claim that what’s happened in Libya is representative of NATO’s history is ridiculous. 

 

[The Commish]

Not really. It’s a typical post that is often made by conservatives when they are in the wrong- they blame both sides. It’s true to an extent, but pointing it out serves nothing. 

Or any of us paying the least bit of ####### attention.  And FWIW, there was no "blaming" going on in that comment.  He was speaking truth to the situation we are in.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't like the free college proposal either.  I would like to see it be more affordable though.  It's a little outrageous now.  I also agree with more trade schools and I think it's already trending more in that direction.  I think a lot of it starts with parents around my age.  We are at the age where we've seen that spending all that money on college wasn't all that beneficial and that there are plenty of high paying jobs that don't require much college or any at all.  I think over the next 10 years we'll see a major swing.

At the very least it should be something you can declare bankruptcy on.  

 

[PhantomJB]

Exactly how many questions on the national debt have been asked so far during the Democratic debates? Just curious.

 

[dickey moe]

Not really. It’s a typical post that is often made by conservatives when they are in the wrong- they blame both sides. It’s true to an extent, but pointing it out serves nothing. 

It serves many things. We are a citizenry that demands expensive services, refuses to pay for them, with a Congress and Presidency more than willing to accomodate them.

 

[SoBeDad]

Exactly how many questions on the national debt have been asked so far during the Democratic debates? Just curious.

Any honest dialogue would require increases taxes or decreasing expenses, which is not a winning formula for election. If raising taxes is proposed , the Republicans will brand it a socialist agenda.

 

[PhantomJB]

Any honest dialogue would require increases taxes or decreasing expenses, which is not a winning formula for election. If raising taxes is proposed , the Republicans will brand it a socialist agenda.

The Democrats are already proposing all kinds of things (GND, free college, Med4All, etc.) on the expense side during the primaries that leave them far more exposed to being branded a socialist agenda.

I wouldn't think raising taxes specifically earmarked to debt/deficit reduction would be a concern to anyone from either party who genuinely wants to avoid a fiscal meltdown.

 

[Juxtatarot]

When was the last time a Democratic president not in a recession didn’t care about the deficit? The main problem with Republicans is they refuse to accept that we remain on the other side of the Laffer Curve.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Exactly how many questions on the national debt have been asked so far during the Democratic debates? Just curious.

didn't watch em, but i been eyeful of the the campaign and havent seen cost addressed on any aspect of govt by anyone. it's distressing and particularly worrisome when those peddling healthcare for all dont have cost (except for removing the middleman billions of the insurance companies) right up front in their plans

 

[wikkidpissah]

speaking of the debt, i'm sure there's a more appropriate place to ask this, but i avoid the troll threads so am just going to ask it here.

a couple of weeks ago i was looking to make a point about the debt because, last i'd checked (Bush years, probably), China was buying all the debt the USA could raise, which i then thought was a geopolitically dangerous thing. turns out, China no longer buys our debt (private America is public America's largest creditor by far) and has actually sold much of it lately (they have about 5% of our paper now). anybody know why that is?

 

[PhantomJB]

speaking of the debt, i'm sure there's a more appropriate place to ask this, but i avoid the troll threads so am just going to ask it here.

a couple of weeks ago i was looking to make a point about the debt because, last i'd checked (Bush years, probably), China was buying all the debt the USA could raise, which i then thought was a geopolitically dangerous thing. turns out, China no longer buys our debt (private America is public America's largest creditor by far) and has actually sold much of it lately (they have about 5% of our paper now). anybody know why that is?

To my knowledge the absolute dollar amount of China's holdings has declined only slightly since around 2013 (roughly $1.3 trillion to $1.1 trillion). However, as the overall U.S. debt has exploded the corresponding percentage held by China has dropped significantly. So really they haven't been selling as much as being diluted.

Not sure about now...but it used to be that the yuan was pegged to the dollar and so in part China used Treasury holdings to manage their currency value.

Some good background here.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-debt-to-china-how-much-does-it-own-3306355

 

[dickey moe]

The Great Deficit Gamble 

 

[lod001]

So what. Who cares. Let me show you something. $500,000,000,000...….$1,100,000,000,000.

Both have a lot of zeros. Who cares how many since every year since forever, excluding the internet bubble years, we borrow more.

US deficit per year.

2003, the 1st year that we busted over 1/2T: $500,000,000,000

Now: $1,100,000,000,000.

Difference of $0.51 T. We run a deficit EVERY year. So who cares how much it is? Can you people even understand that? It's not like we can balance the budget, that's impossible so we will always spend more than we bring in. Why do you even care about another $1/2 T or $1/4 T?

To keep the world engine running more $ must be spent than brought in.

 

[lod001]

Exactly how many questions on the national debt have been asked so far during the Democratic debates? Just curious.

It's a waste of time. I'll give you the canned answer: 'When elected president, I will lay out a plan to balance the budget by the end of my 1st term.'...even though I know that is impossible. Just trying to get some votes.

 

[PhantomJB]

So what. Who cares. Let me show you something. $500,000,000,000...….$1,100,000,000,000.

Both have a lot of zeros. Who cares how many since every year since forever, excluding the internet bubble years, we borrow more.

US deficit per year.

2003, the 1st year that we busted over 1/2T: $500,000,000,000

Now: $1,100,000,000,000.

Difference of $0.51 T. We run a deficit EVERY year. So who cares how much it is? Can you people even understand that? It's not like we can balance the budget, that's impossible so we will always spend more than we bring in. Why do you even care about another $1/2 T or $1/4 T?

To keep the world engine running more $ must be spent than brought in.

The last line of the @dickeymoe linked article seems particularly relevant to your post.

"Instead, we are just raising the risks, seemingly determined to learn how much we can test the bounds of our ignorance."

 

[Juxtatarot]

So what. Who cares. Let me show you something. $500,000,000,000...….$1,100,000,000,000.

Both have a lot of zeros. Who cares how many since every year since forever, excluding the internet bubble years, we borrow more.

US deficit per year.

2003, the 1st year that we busted over 1/2T: $500,000,000,000

Now: $1,100,000,000,000.

Difference of $0.51 T. We run a deficit EVERY year. So who cares how much it is? Can you people even understand that? It's not like we can balance the budget, that's impossible so we will always spend more than we bring in. Why do you even care about another $1/2 T or $1/4 T?

To keep the world engine running more $ must be spent than brought in.

You'd agree that at some point it matters, right?  

 

[E Street Brat]

So what. Who cares. Let me show you something. $500,000,000,000...….$1,100,000,000,000.

Both have a lot of zeros. Who cares how many since every year since forever, excluding the internet bubble years, we borrow more.

US deficit per year.

2003, the 1st year that we busted over 1/2T: $500,000,000,000

Now: $1,100,000,000,000.

Difference of $0.51 T. We run a deficit EVERY year. So who cares how much it is? Can you people even understand that? It's not like we can balance the budget, that's impossible so we will always spend more than we bring in. Why do you even care about another $1/2 T or $1/4 T?

To keep the world engine running more $ must be spent than brought in.

It's not the number, its the percentage of GDP that matters. 

Link

 

[FF Ninja]

https://i.redd.it/1wcwz9ro1ti31.png

 

[FF Ninja]

So what. Who cares. Let me show you something. $500,000,000,000...….$1,100,000,000,000.

Both have a lot of zeros. Who cares how many since every year since forever, excluding the internet bubble years, we borrow more.

US deficit per year.

2003, the 1st year that we busted over 1/2T: $500,000,000,000

Now: $1,100,000,000,000.

Difference of $0.51 T. We run a deficit EVERY year. So who cares how much it is? Can you people even understand that? It's not like we can balance the budget, that's impossible so we will always spend more than we bring in. Why do you even care about another $1/2 T or $1/4 T?

To keep the world engine running more $ must be spent than brought in.

 

[yak651]

So what. Who cares. Let me show you something. $500,000,000,000...….$1,100,000,000,000.

Both have a lot of zeros. Who cares how many since every year since forever, excluding the internet bubble years, we borrow more.

US deficit per year.

2003, the 1st year that we busted over 1/2T: $500,000,000,000

Now: $1,100,000,000,000.

Difference of $0.51 T. We run a deficit EVERY year. So who cares how much it is? Can you people even understand that? It's not like we can balance the budget, that's impossible so we will always spend more than we bring in. Why do you even care about another $1/2 T or $1/4 T?

To keep the world engine running more $ must be spent than brought in.

Well it used to matter to the tea party guys and the fiscal "conservative" GOP members.  Why did that change?

 

[msommer]

Well it used to matter to the tea party guys and the fiscal "conservative" GOP members.  Why did that change?

Lod is one of those "burn it all down" guys, IIRC. It may not have mattered to him then either

 

[E Street Brat]

Well it used to matter to the tea party guys and the fiscal "conservative" GOP members.  Why did that change?

The Tea Party got hosed. They elected people that promised to kill Obamcare and cut spending,  and got nothing. Many become the "Trumpsters" that just wanna feel good and  punch back. [If ya cant beat them, then beat them] 

There are still true fiscal conservative out here. They just don't make a lot noise and draw the headlines. Kind of the same way the "Progressive Wing"  stomps out the "Classic Liberal" voice.   It's just not sexy enough to gain the social media likes. 

 

[lod001]

It's not the number, its the percentage of GDP that matters. 

Link

Apparently not because IIRC, they were blabbering about the end of everything if the debt exceeded 100% GDP, which it has and we are still going strong. Your chart isn't helping your argument.

Nothing to add I see and my points are indisputable as we keep cruising along year after year and the same arguments come up yet the debt continues to rise and we keep on going. The only argument is weak and that is 'they are kicking the can down the road and someday we will pay......22T later. Here we are.

Years from now $50 T same song and dance....

You'd agree that at some point it matters, right?  

Nope. Certainly not in my lifetime or anyone on this board today...or their kids or theirs. Same reasons will be given next time they fret about it. 'kick can down road' 'our kids future'. love that one. Some of you kids are now saying that about your kids.

Some hocus pocus like the 1T coin will make everyone go, 'how about that'. Markets will crater, only to come back after everyone panic sells and they then realize 'hey, I guess it doesn't matter'. If it did matter, our inflation rate would be astronomical.