MovieChat Forums > I.O.U.S.A. (2008) Discussion > Nothing new- It's just a decline of a s...

Nothing new- It's just a decline of a superpower

posted 15 years ago by motsivad
31 replies | jump to latest

Saw this.

But I was a bit perplexed by it

a) it seemed like the crisis was something new

b) It suggested the timebomb could be averted in straight forward manner. In a situation where the US could still keep its status.

It's just the same story of a superpower declining after it's moment in the sun. This has happened throughout history. Empires, Great Republics, dynasties ALWAYS rise and fall. Every time there are several circumstances involving a decline. But boiling it down it always comes down to.

Overstretch & Overspend

America is in this situation. The timebomb won't result in the death of America, but it will result in the end of the American uni-lateral hyperpower.

The best way to reduce the deficit is to slash the humongous defence budget, and close several of the foreign military bases around the world. The money these things drain is through the roof. But although that will really ease the deficit, it will greatly reduce America's power projection, and therefore hyperpower status.

The same dilemma was faced with the Romans, The British and the Soviet Union.

YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND IT IT TOO. To deal with the deficit drastic cuts are needed.

What annoys me is that Americans are thinking 'what can we do to cut the deficit and retain our status in the world'. They need to wake up to the fact that this is China's century, they will be the worlds no1 soon (as the documentary showed, they practically own America's debt). What they should be doing is thinking 'How can we manage our economy to suit our changing circumstances'. The deficit can be solved, but to believe you can do it whilst still spending $1 billion on stealth bombers is delusional.

Now i'm in UK and so naturally the Anti-American European tags are gonna be flung at me. But many economists, and demographers (several of them American) are saying it.

See
Emmanuel Todd: After The Empire
Flynt Leverett
Fareed Zakaria: Rise of the rest

Leverett has some interesting views on youtube. Here's one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDmBGHht2r8

---
Top movies- please comment!
http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=17574

[–] gnome-5 15 years ago

China is trying to give its people Western-style luxury. They're paving over farmland to build parking lots, they're polluting their water with their industry. They may make it to the top, but they won't stay there long with all the problems they've got.

I agree with you however, on your analysis of American thinking, i.e. "How can we maintain the status quo?" rather than face the music. Particularly in regards to keeping cars on the road in light of erratic oil supplies, the decline of infrastructure, the crowding on our roads. They just can't get their minds around the idea that they might have to change the way they live.

[–] motsivad 15 years ago

Yes you're right, and the problem is that when Americans hear other Americans remind them that things are changing they try to dismiss them as 'anti-American liberals', as that is a cheap term which means they don't have to entertain the idea that they might be right.

I feel sorry for Donald Rumsfeld who has repeatedly called for US to close several of its military bases worldwide, in order to save $50 Billion....But he has received loads of opposition, from people deluded the US can still spend the budget of a small country on its military, AND fight off the deficit.

That's as ridiculous as a heavily in debt businessman thinking he can clear his debt whilst still keeping his mansion, classic cars, all his employees, and buying expensive gifts for his wife.

In actuality to solve the problem he'd have to cutback. Sell his mansion and downsize a bit, sack 25% of his employees, sell most of his cars, and stop the expensive gifts. Only then can the paying off of his debt become a reality.

That is what the US has to do. It has to scale back. And the best way to free up the money is to stop spending so crazily on its military. However the consequence of a cut back military is that the USA Will lose it's hyperpower status, because its power projection has been deeply reduced.

America needs to scale back to defeat the deficit. It cannot do it and remain a hyperpower with a super-consumer lifestyle. If they still go on trying to think they can defeat the deficit whilst remaining a hyperpower then the timebomb will explode and America won't decline....it will freefall.

I'm saying this to try and help Americans, not stick the boot in.

---
Top movies- please comment!
http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=17574

[–] gnome-5 15 years ago

As an American, I hear you and appreciate what you're saying. As far as "scaling back" is concerned, it's tough to do when your whole economy is based on the idea of growth. Even people who should know better seem to think that our energy and resource use can grow forever. I remember reading a few years ago about an economist who said that the world could support our economy growing at its then present rate for another 7 billion years. Of course someone smarter than the economist did the math. The human race, experiencing only several thousand years of exponential growth, would outweigh the planet!

[–] surface6669 14 years ago

"That is what the US has to do. It has to scale back. And the best way to free up the money is to stop spending so crazily on its military. However the consequence of a cut back military is that the USA Will lose it's hyperpower status, because its power projection has been deeply reduced."

Again, while I agree on cutting back on U.S. "defense" spending, you have to realize that the "defense" industry has basically been a really, really expensive jobs program in the USA for many, many decades now. Literally every single U.S. Congressional district is almost hip-deep in "defense" spending.

Just look at the recent effort to cut back on the F-22 program. Even though *the military* fully agreed that they didn't need as many of those stealth fighters anymore, even Democrats were hard-pressed to cut back on F-22-related jobs in their own Congressional districts. Also, the needless, roughly 30-year-old V-22 program was cut & brought back many times...to the tune of $27 Billion as of 2008...with each plane costing around $67 Million as of 2010.

[–] PopularFrontJudea 15 years ago

"The best way to reduce the deficit is to slash the humongous defence budget, and close several of the foreign military bases around the world. The money these things drain is through the roof."

Please. I agree with both of those ideas, but even if the US eliminated every cent of defense spending, welfare, farm subsidies, infrastructure spending, etc. the size of the federal government will still be on pace to destroy us. At this point social Security, medicare, and medicaid are going to grow so large that cuts to any other programs are useless if they don't cut spending here. Those three alone will be 20% of the GDP by 2050, today the government only spends 18% of GDP. So we could cut every cent that won't go to those three, and the government would still be grow larger than it is today. The only way to fix the deficit problem is to address those three programs, there simply isn't enough defense spending to cut.

[–] Devans00 15 years ago

I'm curious, PopularFrontJudea. I often see comments like yours that claim social programs such as social Security, medicare, and medicaid are on the same level as defense spending.

In your eyes, why does government exist? Doesn't the government exist to provide social safety nets and and infrastructure spending? Personally, I think this is a more realistic role than being policeman for the entire planet.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

[–] surface6669 14 years ago

"I'm curious, PopularFrontJudea. I often see comments like yours that claim social programs such as social Security, medicare, and medicaid are on the same level as defense spending"

...which they aren't in any way, shape, or form, period!

[–] surface6669 14 years ago

"Please. I agree with both of those ideas, but even if the US eliminated every cent of defense spending, welfare, farm subsidies, infrastructure spending, etc. the size of the federal government will still be on pace to destroy us."

LOL...as of FY2009, the total U.S. "defense" budget was around $661 Billion (or around 58% of the total budget), and "welfare, farm subsidies, infrastructure spending" was only less than $200 Billion in total!

http://www.nenasili.cz/en/3020_proposed-us-discretionary-budget-fiscal-year-2009

"At this point social Security, medicare, and medicaid are going to grow so large that cuts to any other programs are useless if they don't cut spending here. Those three alone will be 20% of the GDP by 2050, today the government only spends 18% of GDP. So we could cut every cent that won't go to those three, and the government would still be grow larger than it is today. The only way to fix the deficit problem is to address those three programs, there simply isn't enough defense spending to cut."

What you fail to note is that up until very, very recently, virtually every, single penny of the Social Security budget & the vast majority of the Medicare budget was PAID FOR (& then some!) every, single year. Only around $224 Billion of the FY2009 budget was for Medicaid & the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

While I fully agree that federal farm subsides need to be reformed & cut and that both Social Security & the way that we pay for health care in the USA need to be reformed, you are WAAAAAY off base otherwise.

[–] PopularFrontJudea 12 years ago

Responding to crazy old posts? Responding to crazy old posts.

You missed the point of what I said entirely. I never equated defense spending to farm subsidies, infrastructure, and welfare. I simply said that even if all of those programs were cut entirely the United States would still be on a completely unsustainable fiscal path.
Also, what caused deficits in the past isn't really relevant at this point. The big three entitlement programs (medicare especially) are growing at a rate we can't afford to pay long term. Think of it this way, if you made 50,000 dollars a year and have no reason to believe you're going to get a raise any time soon and say had 10,000 to spend on housing and spent that 10,000 on rent and utilities, but you know that over the next few years your landlord was going to double the rent. Would you say to yourself "Rent isn't a problem for me financially, I've always been able to pay it in the past!"? If you would, then hopefully someone manages your money for you.

In regards to another post replying to me, one that's even older, I believe in social safety nets. And if I was given control of the US budget, I'd take a machete to defense spending. It's just that even if we got rid of the armed services entirely, that would buy us maybe a decade or two before the problem comes back. We have to reform these programs at some point, it's just arithmetic. The earlier it's done, the less painful it will be. If a government runs up debt that leads to it paying 10% of GDP to service that debt, that severely limits its ability to provide social safety nets. Also, I'm not even sure if programs like medicare and social security that give money to upper and middle class seniors are really safety nets.

[–] surface6669 12 years ago

"Also, what caused deficits in the past isn't really relevant at this point."

Of course it is! One cannot get out of a particular situation without knowing how exactly one got into that situation in the first place. History is always instructive.

"The big three entitlement programs (medicare especially) are growing at a rate we can't afford to pay long term."

Social Security (SS) can be easily fixed for many, many decades to come by doing one or a few of some very basic things. Medicare & Medicaid spending is directly related to the U.S.'s health care spending in general, which is waaaay out of whack with what other countries spend on health care (where they get many better results than the USA does BTW). The fastest growing portion of Medicare over the next decade or so is Medicare Part D, which, of course, was never paid for in the first place when it was put in place under GWB.

"Think of it this way, if you made 50,000 dollars a year and have no reason to believe you're going to get a raise any time soon and say had 10,000 to spend on housing and spent that 10,000 on rent and utilities, but you know that over the next few years your landlord was going to double the rent."

Levels of federal taxation are at literally all-time lows...whether one looks at taxation rates or a percentage of federal revenue to GDP. The U.S. federal budget can NEVER be balanced without increases in federal revenues, period.

"And if I was given control of the US budget, I'd take a machete to defense spending. It's just that even if we got rid of the armed services entirely, that would buy us maybe a decade or two before the problem comes back."

Baloney. You simply don't understand how U.S. federal budgets operate.

"If a government runs up debt that leads to it paying 10% of GDP to service that debt"

LOL...federal govt. debt interest payments have NEVER been much above 3% of GDP in modern times.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1910_2016USp_13s1li011mcn_90f

Net interest as a percentage of total federal outlays in the modern era is at near all-time lows as well.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/budgetdebt.html

That has a lot to do with interest rates in general, which are at extremely low levels & aren't set to go anywhere but basically where they are at now for a long time to come. Try to stick to speaking about things that you know PFJ...whatever that may be...ugh...

"Also, I'm not even sure if programs like medicare and social security that give money to upper and middle class seniors are really safety nets."

Medicare & SS are social insurance programs. I'm in favor increasing Medicare costs for the wealthy (seniors that earn more than ~$80/year or couples than earn more than ~$160K/year) by raising their prescription drug premiums & drug rates, which will save only around $20 Billion over the next decade or so. I'm also in favor of cutting SS benefits for the very wealthy & increasing SS taxes for the wealthy (above around $100-190/year), which would save around $620 Billion over the next decade or so.

However, drastically restricting SS benefit payments to the rich really won't do much to help the overall fiscal health of SS, since there aren't that many rich people in total in the USA. Single men & women that make more than around $60K/year are already not getting all of their SS tax payments back to them, on average, after they retire. According to the SS Administration, only about 8% of families in the USA over age 65 have incomes of $100K/year. If around 1 million of the rich (out of around 55 million that get some kind of SS payment) in the USA totally waived their SS benefits for 1 year, the annual reduction in payments, net of taxes, would be only around $20 Billion. SS also does a lot more than just make payments to retirees, rich or not. Dramatically weakening SS for the rich will just make SS a program that enjoys significantly less political support with a group of people that, unfortunately, are going to become more & more politically powerful in the wake of bonehead Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United & Buckley v. Valeo. SS is way too important a program to go by the wayside, since it's been key in dramatically dropping the number of households in poverty over the last many, many decades.

[–] PopularFrontJudea 12 years ago

"Social Security (SS) can be easily fixed for many, many decades to come by doing one or a few of some very basic things. Medicare & Medicaid spending is directly related to the U.S.'s health care spending in general, which is waaaay out of whack with what other countries spend on health care (where they get many better results than the USA does BTW). The fastest growing portion of Medicare over the next decade or so is Medicare Part D, which, of course, was never paid for in the first place when it was put in place under GWB."

The "social security can easily be fixed" meme is a myth. Are the policies to fix it there? Sure. Are they at all politically feasible? Not really. However, the bigger problem is obviously the healthcare programs. You've identified the problem, but there's no solution here. The United States healthcare system is a *beep* but that doesn't mean that bending the cost curve is a simple thing to accomplish.

"Levels of federal taxation are at literally all-time lows...whether one looks at taxation rates or a percentage of federal revenue to GDP. The U.S. federal budget can NEVER be balanced without increases in federal revenues, period."

Agreed. I'd support tax raises as well. I'd prefer to see us try to raise revenue more though closing loopholes than higher rates, but accept that it will take a lot of both. "Entitlement spending needs to be cut"!="I fully support the current tax system and levels of defense spending."

I disagree with your statement that we're at all time lows using revenue/GDP. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg That's wikipedia, but it cites the federal Office of Management and Budget, so I think it is trustworthy. It has the current percentage at just under 20%, and at under 15% around 1950. Plus, I'm sure the 19th century had much lower rates. Either way, it's not really relevant since I don't disagree with the need for revenue increases.

"Baloney. You simply don't understand how U.S. federal budgets operate. "

Ad hominem. The CBO projects government spending to be 20% of GDP in 2020. (I use 2020 because it lists them in ten year increments and the current numbers are obviously inflated by automatic fiscal stabilizers." The 2050 projections have the big three entitlement programs at about 18%. That means that to keep the federal government at the same size, we'd have to slash 75% of spending outside those three. Military spending is about 50% of that number. WE COULD COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE MILITARY and medicare, medicaid, and social security would still eliminate all those savings within a generation and a half.

"LOL...federal govt. debt interest payments have NEVER been much above 3% of GDP in modern times.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1910_2016USp_13s1li011mcn_90f

Net interest as a percentage of total federal outlays in the modern era is at near all-time lows as well.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/budgetdebt.html

That has a lot to do with interest rates in general, which are at extremely low levels & aren't set to go anywhere but basically where they are at now for a long time to come. Try to stick to speaking about things that you know PFJ...whatever that may be...ugh..."

I used the word "if". You aware what that means? Is ten percent likely any time soon? Of course not. But if the debt keeps rising, interest rates rise, and investors either lose confidence in bonds or expect large inflation of US dollars and demand higher rates for bonds, it's not out of the question in our lifetimes. In fact, the CBO projects interest payments to be 11.9% in 2080. A long way off certainly, but ten percent is possible.

And again, you're right. Social security and the other programs do help poor people. We extend them to people who don't really need them to help ensure political support. But, that doesn't make the entire program a "social safety net". Part of it is a safety net, part is a payoff to gain support.
As to what I do know: I can name every Stone Roses lineup ever, even the ones where Ian Brown is on bass and they're not even called the Stone Roses yet.

[–] surface6669 12 years ago

"The 'social security can easily be fixed' meme is a myth."

No, it really isn't. Social Security (SS) is literally one of the most popular & successful federal programs ever. If the American people have the political will to keep SS around, then it will continue to be around with an array of needed reforms.

"You've identified the problem, but there's no solution here."

There are plenty of solutions to that problem. VT & MT are currently working on American versions of a single payer health care system. The 2010 federal health care reform, if given the chance to be implemented, will cut a large amount of cost to the current system & cover way more people than we do now nationally...and it's all paid for!

"I disagree with your statement that we're at all time lows using revenue/GDP"

...because you simply don't understand the facts behind what has happened with our federal system of taxation over at least the last 30 years or so.

"It has the current percentage at just under 20%, and at under 15% around 1950. Plus, I'm sure the 19th century had much lower rates."

Your graph goes into the projected future (~2016)...it doesn't stop at the current situation. Current levels of tax federal revenue are at their lowest point since 1949-1950 at below 15% of GDP. As for federal tax rates, the lowest tax bracket hasn't been taxed as low as they are now since 1913-1941 & the highest tax bracket hasn't been taxed as low as they are now since 1988-1992 & 1925-1931.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/12/06/chart-of-the-day-u-s-taxes

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

As for "the 19th century", the USA basically didn't have the progressive type of federal income taxes (that we have now) before 1913, but so what? Federal tax revenues could be increased by somewhere between $5-6 Trillion over the next decade or so by seriously & progressively reforming our federal tax code.

"The CBO projects government spending to be 20% of GDP in 2020"

...and, as I've shown already, the USA has had tax revenues in that range as recently as the 1990s. Does that mean that nothing can or should be cut from federal spending? No, around $1 Trillion could be cut from federal spending over the next decade or so by getting rid of or reforming things that we as a country don't really need (like some foreign aid & earmarks, future stealth fighter development & "missile defense" that we'll never use in an actual war, farm subsidies, etc.) or getting rid of things that don't work (like No Child Left Behind, etc.).

"The 2050 projections have the big three entitlement programs at about 18%."

No one knows what the U.S. economy will look like some 4 decades from now...they can't even accurately predict those kind of things a year or less out. As we've been over before, federal entitlement programs have been & will be reformed in the future.

"Military spending is about 50% of that number."

Total U.S. "defense" spending is somewhere between $1-1.5 Trillion right now & that's more than double what it was some ten years ago. We're at war with people that literally plan their attacks in caves in the Middle East, and we're not going to war with any significant country in the future. Our level of military spending is the USA is an unnecessary, over-bloated jobs plan that we mostly don't need.

"I used the word 'if'. You aware what that means?"

Yes, and now you're aware that your fear of the USA "paying 10% of GDP to service debt" is an irrational & completely unfounded fear, period.

"In fact, the CBO projects interest payments to be 11.9% in 2080."

LMAO! You keep worrying about things that we never happen some 7 decades from now PFJ...ugh...

"But, that doesn't make the entire program a 'social safety net'."

Sure it does. Almost no matter how rich you are in the USA, you're only one personal, financial or medical disaster away from losing your shirt.

"As to what I do know: I can name every Stone Roses lineup ever, even the ones where Ian Brown is on bass and they're not even called the Stone Roses yet."

Good...stick to that then...because you at suck at the U.S. federal budget situation, period.

[–] PopularFrontJudea 12 years ago

First, you're acting like a gigantic *beep* You could actually debate the things I'm saying instead of just repeating that I don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't taken a single personal shot at you.

"No, it really isn't. Social Security (SS) is literally one of the most popular & successful federal programs ever. If the American people have the political will to keep SS around, then it will continue to be around with an array of needed reforms."

The reform I see floated most often is scrapping the cap. For the richest Americans, this would be an extra 15% tax hike. Considering one of the major parties would see any tax raise as "class warfare", 15% isn't all that likely. Plus, I'm not sure that kind of tax increase doesn't push us to the right side of the Laffer Curve.

"There are plenty of solutions to that problem. VT & MT are currently working on American versions of a single payer health care system. The 2010 federal health care reform, if given the chance to be implemented, will cut a large amount of cost to the current system & cover way more people than we do now nationally...and it's all paid for!"

I admit to not being an expert on how to reform the healthcare system. I'm confident you're not either though. I recently bought an healthcare economics textbook and am working my way through it though, while I'm pretty sure you just come on the internet and emphatically state how correct you are. Anyway, one thing I do know is that the 2010 healthcare reform doesn't actually save any public money, claims that it does are all accounting magic.

"Your graph goes into the projected future (~2016)...it doesn't stop at the current situation. Current levels of tax federal revenue are at their lowest point since 1949-1950 at below 15% of GDP. As for federal tax rates, the lowest tax bracket hasn't been taxed as low as they are now since 1913-1941 & the highest tax bracket hasn't been taxed as low as they are now since 1988-1992 & 1925-1931."

My mistake on not looking carefully at the X axis. Anyway, you said we were LITERALLY at our lowest tax rates ever, using revenues/GDP. That graph shows that we have had slightly lower revenues within the last 50 years. Plus, these tax revenues are lowered by attempts at supply side stimulus. I think using the post recession projections is a better reflection. I know tax rates are currently low, but I was responding to your "literally lowest ever" comment, which is demonstrably untrue.

"As for "the 19th century", the USA basically didn't have the progressive type of federal income taxes (that we have now) before 1913, but so what?"

"Levels of federal taxation are at literally all-time lows.."

All-time lows. I admitted it's not all that relevant, but you said all time lows. Your words. They're wrong.

"Federal tax revenues could be increased by somewhere between $5-6 Trillion over the next decade or so by seriously & progressively reforming our federal tax code."

Agreed, they could be. Whether or not that's politically possible is another question. Plus, ultimately 600 billion per annum doesn't close the long term deficit.

"No one knows what the U.S. economy will look like some 4 decades from now...they can't even accurately predict those kind of things a year or less out. As we've been over before, federal entitlement programs have been & will be reformed in the future."

What are we arguing about then? My original point was that defense spending and tax raises aren't enough to close the deficit, that entitlement spending has to be cut too. You seem to be conceding here that we need to and can cut entitlement spending while continually asserting that we need to raise taxes and cut defense spending, which I have never disagreed with.

"Total U.S. "defense" spending is somewhere between $1-1.5 Trillion right now & that's more than double what it was some ten years ago. We're at war with people that literally plan their attacks in caves in the Middle East, and we're not going to war with any significant country in the future. Our level of military spending is the USA is an unnecessary, over-bloated jobs plan that we mostly don't need."

Why do you keep saying this? I think the military is too big. I think it needs to be cut. I haven't made a post in this topic in which I haven't stated that. My only point is that it's not enough.

"Yes, and now you're aware that your fear of the USA "paying 10% of GDP to service debt" is an irrational & completely unfounded fear, period."

You've shown nothing of the sort. Predicting the future of debt servicing costs requires more than looking at past debt servicing costs. Do I personally think we will ever pay that much? No. For all my pessimism about the political process, I think that the kind of debt it would take to reach that level will be so painful that reforms will happen before then. But, if we leave our problems unchecked it very easily could happen in our lifetimes. Assuming you're not super old.

[–] surface6669 12 years ago

"You could actually debate the things I'm saying instead of just repeating that I don't know what I'm talking about."

Hey, at some point in the (hopefully near) future, you're going to realize that you really don't know what you're talking about & simply stop talking about it!

"The reform I see floated most often is scrapping the cap. For the richest Americans, this would be an extra 15% tax hike."

No, it's really not. It would merely involve the rich paying the exact same percentage in payroll taxes as the rest of Americans pay right now. Yes, getting rid of the Social Security (SS) payroll tax cap (which is at slightly above $100K/year) in its entirely would fully fund 100% of the projected, long-term SS shortfall, but that's not what I've advocated for already. Moving the SS payroll tax cap back up to where its been traditionally (at around 90% of wages instead of in the mid 80s where it is right now) will get rid of around 39% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Raising the full SS retirement (not early retirement, which the vast majority of SS recipients choose to take already) age gradually over time to age 70 will get rid of around 36% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Keeping estate taxes on estates of $3.5 Million or more (down from the current cap of $5 Million), which will only affect another 0.5% of estates in the USA, will get rid of around 27% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Extending SS coverage to more state & local govt. employees will get rid of around 10% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. That covers over 110% of the projected, long-term SS shortfall...problem solved! Fixing SS for the long-term will ultimately involve political compromise, just like it has in the recent past.

"I'm not sure that kind of tax increase doesn't push us to the right side of the Laffer Curve."

That's a ridiculous argument on the face of it. Studies have shown that people don't take significant steps to significantly evade taxes until tax rates get up above 70-80%. FICA taxes for SS are only 6.2%.

"I admit to not being an expert on how to reform the healthcare system"

...then stop talking about it!

"Anyway, one thing I do know is that the 2010 healthcare reform doesn't actually save any public money, claims that it does are all accounting magic."

Baloney. The health care reform legislation that passed in early 2010 was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reduce the federal deficit by around $145 Billion over the next decade or so & many times that amount in the next decade after that. Reforming Medicare Part C's unnecessary overpayments alone saves around $180 Billion over the next decade. Total new tax revenue from this reform plan will amount to around $410 Billion over the next decade or so.

"these tax revenues are lowered by attempts at supply side stimulus"

...which have failed miserably twice now over the last 30 years.

"I think using the post recession projections is a better reflection."

Those projections are based on a baseline that assume that all of the Bush tax cuts (for mostly the rich) go away, which unfortunately hasn't occurred yet. Just allowing all of those useless tax cuts to expire gets at least $3 Trillion more in federal revenue over the next decade or so.

"Plus, ultimately 600 billion per annum doesn't close the long term deficit."

The recent CBO 10-year baseline deficit projections were around $5-7 Trillion over the next decade or so.

"What are we arguing about then?"

You tell me...again, you simply don't know what you're talking about!

"You seem to be conceding here that we need to and can cut entitlement spending"

Do so-called federal entitlement programs need to be reformed? Of course they do, and I've said nothing to the contrary about that. But gutting them altogether is completely & totally unnecessary, period.

"Why do you keep saying this?"

Because you keep downplaying the negative impact of "defense" spending in the U.S. federal budget. The USA has more than double the combined amount combat, fixed-wing aircraft of our next two biggest rivals in the world, Russia & China, and the USA has more than 5 times the number of combat helicopters than Russia & China combined. The USA has troops based in over a dozen countries where we really don't need them to be in the first place...like in Germany, where we have military facilities in over two dozen localities...some two decades after the end of the Cold War. We could cut way more than $400 Billion from our "defense" budget alone over the next decade or so & not hurt our ability to project power around the world & effectively defend the USA.

"You've shown nothing of the sort."

Sure I have. Once again, you just don't want to admit the *fact* that you don't know what you're talking about.

"Predicting the future of debt servicing costs requires more than looking at past debt servicing costs."

Once again, history is almost always illustrative. The USA has carried a MUCH higher publicly-held debt-to-GDP ratio than it does right now without any doom.

[–] PopularFrontJudea 12 years ago

"Hey, at some point in the (hopefully near) future, you're going to realize that you really don't know what you're talking about & simply stop talking about it!"

Or you could actually refute the things I'm saying. If I'm really that ignorant it shouldn't be hard for you to do.

Claims I've made that caused you to assert that I don't know what I'm talking about:
1. That any budget balancing done through tax hikes and discretionary spending will ultimately be undone by rising entitlement spending.
2. 10% of GDP going to debt service is possible.
3. That I disagree that in terms of revenue/GDP government revenue is "literally" at an "all time low."

If you can refute these three arguments backing up my initial claims, then I don't know what I'm talking about.

1. Unless it is successfully reformed entitlement spending is going to rise indefinitely both in absolute terms and as a share of GDP indefinitely. That is either going to result in lower private consumption through higher taxes or lower spending in other areas. You can cut discretionary spending all you want, raise as much revenue as possible, but at some point unless entitlement spending stops growing those savings are going to be wiped out.
2. If the debt/GDP ratio rises permanently, there is going to be more debt to service. It stands to reason that at some point, bond buyers will demand higher rates because of fear of a default or (much more likely) high inflation caused by the federal reserve trying to lower the real value of that debt. If the debt and the interest on that debt increase which they both will long term, then the service charges increase exponentially. If this is allowed to happen, some day we will reach 10%. It is a long way off. (Note: CBO is on my side, chief.)
3. You are demonstrably wrong. The graph I posted showed that there were slightly lower rates fifty years ago. Then you tried to argue that half of the nation's history doesn't count when considering when something is an all time low. I really hope you respond to this one.

"No, it's really not. It would merely involve the rich paying the exact same percentage in payroll taxes as the rest of Americans pay right now."

Are you trying to argue that increasing the payroll taxes one must pay isn't a tax increase? If that's the case, I'm pretty sure you're arguing against a tautological statement. Even if it somehow isn't a tax increase, it is going to fall on a group that is very well represented. It will take a lot of political capital to get it done and make Americans more hesitant to take short term sacrifices for the long term fiscal situation.

"Moving the SS payroll tax cap back up to where its been traditionally (at around 90% of wages instead of in the mid 80s where it is right now) will get rid of around 39% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Raising the full SS retirement (not early retirement, which the vast majority of SS recipients choose to take already) age gradually over time to age 70 will get rid of around 36% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Keeping estate taxes on estates of $3.5 Million or more (down from the current cap of $5 Million), which will only affect another 0.5% of estates in the USA, will get rid of around 27% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. Extending SS coverage to more state & local govt. employees will get rid of around 10% of the the projected, long-term SS shortfall. That covers over 110% of the projected, long-term SS shortfall...problem solved! Fixing SS for the long-term will ultimately involve political compromise, just like it has in the recent past."

Right, we need to cut benefits. I've been saying that all along. My original post in this thread said we needed to do this. Also, I don't see where you get the idea that this is going to be so well accepted.

"That's a ridiculous argument on the face of it. Studies have shown that people don't take significant steps to significantly evade taxes until tax rates get up above 70-80%. FICA taxes for SS are only 6.2%."

If I was an *beep* I'd tell you you don't know what you're talking about here. Instead I'll point out that only counting the employee contribution and not the employer shows you never took Econ 101 or slept through the day on tax incidence. Or that you think forcing tax evasion is the only reason higher taxes have diminishing returns on revenue gains. There's also the problem that you're increasing the attractiveness of picking labor over extra work hours. Also, there's no reason to look at FICA taxes in isolation, it would be about what they do to the whole tax package. the marginal tax rate in this situation for some will be over 50%. That's probably on the left side still, but at the point where things are flattening out.

"...then stop talking about it!"

I actually haven't advocated a single specific reform. Just that the growth in cost needs to be cut. Healthcare is a ridiculously complex answer that no one posting on an internet message board has near the expertise to comment on seriously. That includes you and me.

"Baloney. The health care reform legislation that passed in early 2010 was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reduce the federal deficit by around $145 Billion over the next decade or so & many times that amount in the next decade after that. Reforming Medicare Part C's unnecessary overpayments alone saves around $180 Billion over the next decade. Total new tax revenue from this reform plan will amount to around $410 Billion over the next decade or so. "

That's cute that you think they're actually ever going to cut payments. They've never done it before, but next time when it comes up, they're going to be all over it. Anyway, anyone serious will tell you the CBO's ten year projections are accounting magic. The medicare actuarial office has blasted those projections since they came out. Also, the reforms involve new expenditures and new revenues. The revenues outweigh the expenditures, but grabbing all the low hanging revenue fruit while adding spending isn't the same as cutting costs.

"Those projections are based on a baseline that assume that all of the Bush tax cuts (for mostly the rich) go away, which unfortunately hasn't occurred yet. Just allowing all of those useless tax cuts to expire gets at least $3 Trillion more in federal revenue over the next decade or so. "

This makes your claim of literal all time lows even less accurate.

Summaries:

My initial point was this would require significant entitlement reform as well as defense spending cuts. Your original response, when not showing your incredible lack of reading comprehension said that I was way off base. This was despite you agreeing that we needed significant reform. You make no sense.

[–] surface6669 12 years ago

"Or you could actually refute the things I'm saying"

...which, of course, I've already done. Read them again...& see below.

"1. That any budget balancing done through tax hikes and discretionary spending will ultimately be undone by rising entitlement spending."

That's not what I've said at all. What I've said is that Social Security (SS) & federal health care spending can be reformed, in some cases, rather easily. I've even shown you how some of it can be done. Issue closed.

"2. 10% of GDP going to debt service is possible"

...which it clearly isn't...as I've already explained at length. Issue closed.

"2. If the debt/GDP ratio rises permanently"

...which it won't. Issue closed.

"It stands to reason that at some point, bond buyers will demand higher rates because of fear of a default or (much more likely) high inflation caused by the federal reserve trying to lower the real value of that debt. If the debt and the interest on that debt increase which they both will long term, then the service charges increase exponentially."

This is called bond vigilantism, and it's a silly concern at this point & time...just ask Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman.

"Then you tried to argue that half of the nation's history doesn't count"

Well, we are in modern times my troubled friend. If you want to focus on periods of time when the USA was much, much smaller than it has been for some 50 years now, or The Gilded Age, or Colonial America, or the Jacksonian Era, or the Reconstruction Era, then have at it, but it doesn't have much relevancy to the way that our federal govt. has been structured & working for the last century or so.

"Are you trying to argue that increasing the payroll taxes one must pay isn't a tax increase?"

Of course not, but the idea that having the rich pay payroll taxes on a slightly larger amount of their income will be devastating is just a silly argument on the face of it. SS payroll taxes were originally set to cover around 90% of income in the USA. We've literally DONE this before!

"It will take a lot of political capital to get it done and make Americans more hesitant to take short term sacrifices for the long term fiscal situation."

Nonsense, since a vast majority of Americans have been in favor of raising taxes on the rich for quite some time now. Anyone that has looked at federal spending trends knows that we need to spend our money way more wisely than we have in the recent past.

"Right, we need to cut benefits."

Read what I said again. Most of what I'm proposing (which has been proposed by many different organizations BTW) is NOT a cut in benefits! Learn to read!!

"Also, I don't see where you get the idea that this is going to be so well accepted."

LOL...SS is one of the most popular & successful federal programs of all-time. It will continue to exist in the future (with needed reforms) as long as the American people transfer their political will on this issue to their politicians to keep SS there.

"Instead I'll point out that only counting the employee contribution and not the employer"

LOL...we're talking about people that make significantly more than $100K/year. They're rich people, and the people that are employing them are rich as well. It the recent past, SS taxes were paid on 90% of all income, and nothing negative happened to our economy. Get a grip man...

"Also, there's no reason to look at FICA taxes in isolation"

...because you'd lose that argument on the face of it...just like now! LOL...

"the marginal tax rate in this situation for some will be over 50%."

So what?? Federal tax rates have been as high as around 70-90%, and our govt. & economy operated just fine tyvm. Supply-side, voodoo economics is just a failed set of ideas, period.

"I actually haven't advocated a single specific reform"

...because you don't know what you are talking about! How many times do I need to say that to you before you get it??

"That's cute that you think they're actually ever going to cut payments."

They already have, moron.

"Anyway, anyone serious will tell you the CBO's ten year projections are accounting magic."

Ahhhh, but their estimates of what will happen some 4-7 decades from now need to be taken very, very seriously. LMAO...what a joke you really are PFJ...give it up man!

"The medicare actuarial office has blasted those projections since they came out."

Baloney. Money was cut from programs like Medicare Part C (because it's been pretty much a failure) over the next decade & that's a fact!

"Also, the reforms involve new expenditures and new revenues"

...which all match up. Also, there are dynamic changes that will come into play if the reforms don't work out the way everyone says that they will in the future.

Summary:
You're an abject moron PFJ...stop wasting my time with this nonsense. Run along now...

[–] PopularFrontJudea 12 years ago

"That's not what I've said at all. What I've said is that Social Security (SS) & federal health care spending can be reformed, in some cases, rather easily. I've even shown you how some of it can be done. Issue closed."

I know you didn't say that. I did. You have severe reading comprehension issues.

"...which it clearly isn't...as I've already explained at length. Issue closed."

As Michael Palin once said "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." Refuting my points would involve more than saying "you are wrong" over and over.

The office in charge of budget projections for the United States government projects it to happen, but you, guy on the internet who self LOLs his own comments, is conducting a bold experiment to replace all punctuation marks with ellipses, and has "69" in his screen name declares it impossible. I wonder who I should trust.

"...which it won't. Issue closed."

Without reforms it will. I make statements about what will happen without reform (keep in mind that my initial point here was we needed entitlement reform), and you try to refute them with statements that assume reform. Learn how to read and respond to what is actually being said.

"This is called bond vigilantism, and it's a silly concern at this point & time...just ask Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman."

Key phrase: This point and time. I've never said it will happen tomorrow or next year or even the next twenty or thirty years. But at some point, if debt/GDP keeps increasing (which it will without entitlement reforms) at some point it will lead to higher rates on bonds. If both debt/GDP and the rate to service that debt increase, then debt servicing/GDP will increase exponentially. Allow that to happen indefinitely, and we will reach 10%.

"Well, we are in modern times my troubled friend. If you want to focus on periods of time when the USA was much, much smaller than it has been for some 50 years now, or The Gilded Age, or Colonial America, or the Jacksonian Era, or the Reconstruction Era, then have at it, but it doesn't have much relevancy to the way that our federal govt. has been structured & working for the last century or so"

You said "all time lows". All time means all time. In this case the entire history of the United States as an independent country. If you want to claim that half of it isn't relevant, I agree with you. I acknowledged the first time I mentioned it. It doesn't change the fact that your all time lows comment was demonstrably wrong.

"Of course not, but the idea that having the rich pay payroll taxes on a slightly larger amount of their income will be devastating is just a silly argument on the face of it. SS payroll taxes were originally set to cover around 90% of income in the USA. We've literally DONE this before!"

Did I call it "devastating" anywhere? My original comment would be that it would raise taxes. I basically said "raising taxes is raising taxes" and you responded that I was overstating the damage of those tax raises.

"Nonsense, since a vast majority of Americans have been in favor of raising taxes on the rich for quite some time now. Anyone that has looked at federal spending trends knows that we need to spend our money way more wisely than we have in the recent past.

LOL...SS is one of the most popular & successful federal programs of all-time. It will continue to exist in the future (with needed reforms) as long as the American people transfer their political will on this issue to their politicians to keep SS there."

Social security has clearly needed reforms that you claim are very basic for over a decade. The majority of the country wants to raise taxes on the rich. Yet neither of these reforms have happened. Even when the Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency. That doesn't show you that maybe these reforms will be difficult to enact?

"LOL...we're talking about people that make significantly more than $100K/year. They're rich people, and the people that are employing them are rich as well. It the recent past, SS taxes were paid on 90% of all income, and nothing negative happened to our economy. Get a grip man...

So what?? Federal tax rates have been as high as around 70-90%, and our govt. & economy operated just fine tyvm. Supply-side, voodoo economics is just a failed set of ideas, period."

Despite your attempts to refer to it as "voodoo economics" the Laffer Curve exists. Liberal economists will tell you that. The lie is that we're on the right side of it, when we're quite clearly on the left. I never said definitely that these tax raises would put us on the right side, just that it was possible. At the very least, we'd be at the point where the slope is closer to zero than it currently is. And again, I'm for tax raises.

"...because you'd lose that argument on the face of it...just like now! LOL... "

Not all tax raises affect behavior equally. Going from 0% to 5% is going to have less of an affect than going from 40% to 45%. That's why referring to it as a 5% tax and ignoring the currently existing taxes is nonsensical.

"Ahhhh, but their estimates of what will happen some 4-7 decades from now need to be taken very, very seriously. LMAO...what a joke you really are PFJ...give it up man! "

The CBO has specific rules they need to follow when making these short term projections. The supporters of the reform knew these rules and gamed their program to look like it would produce savings.

What do you think is actually wrong with the CBO's long term debt servicing projections? You can't say that the programs will be reformed to bring down prices because the whole point of what I and those projections are saying is that we're screwed without reforms. Are you counting on above expected growth? Technological improvement to bring down healthcare costs?

"Baloney. Money was cut from programs like Medicare Part C (because it's been pretty much a failure) over the next decade & that's a fact! "

Google "medicare actuary health care reform." Then tell me that it's *beep* that they have blasted the projections you keep pointing to.

"'Also, the reforms involve new expenditures and new revenues'
...which all match up."

Again, pretending you're spending more than you bring in. Working forty hours a week. Someone offers you work on the weekend and you use the extra money to move into a more expensive apartment. The expenditures and revenues match up, but do you see what the problem is here? You need to increase revenues more than you increase expenditures and you just took your easiest source of new income and spent it. Now to raise the money to cover your deficit you have to enact painful ways of raising revenue (working nights during the week perhaps) or make painful cuts to consumption to lower expenditures.

That's what this reform did. It raised easy money and spent it all, leaving us with a deficit that now needs to be closed in more painful ways since they eliminated easy revenue sources.

[–] surface6669 12 years ago

"If you want to claim that half of it isn't relevant, I agree with you."

Thanx for agreeing that I was right PFJ...lol...

"Did I call it 'devastating' anywhere?"

LOL...you tried to invoke some silly Laffer Curve nonsense on having the rich return to paying Social Security (SS) payroll taxes on some 90% of income...same difference, moron.

"you responded that I was overstating the damage of those tax raises"

...which you clearly were. Try & backpedal all that you want to...it's not working, moron.

"Social security has clearly needed reforms that you claim are very basic for over a decade. The majority of the country wants to raise taxes on the rich. Yet neither of these reforms have happened"

...because the GOP has filibustered & obstructed them.

"Despite your attempts to refer to it as 'voodoo economics' the Laffer Curve exists"

...and it's been proven over the last 30 years to be a steaming pile of dung, period.

"I never said definitely that these tax raises would put us on the right side"

Sure you did...lol...continue your futile backpedaling all that you want to. It's all you really have left at this sad point...ugh...

"Not all tax raises affect behavior equally."

Once again, unless one is talking about tax rates of some 70-80+%, raising taxes yields much more revenue than leaving them the same or cutting them, period.

"The CBO has specific rules they need to follow when making these short term projections. The supporters of the reform knew these rules and gamed their program to look like it would produce savings."

Sheer & utter nonsense that I've already proven to be false. Keep believing those 4-7 decade projections my idiotic friend. Hug them as close to your body as you can...because that's all that you have to cling to at this sad point.

"What do you think is actually wrong with the CBO's long term debt servicing projections?"

Once again, economists have a hard enough time forecasting what will happen with our economy a few years out, let alone 4-7 decades from now. Come on now...this line of baloney is just being intellectually dishonest, and you know it!

"You can't say that the programs will be reformed to bring down prices"

Of course I can, since that's the entire point of reforming the way that we pay for health care in the USA! Try & keep up PFJ!

"Are you counting on above expected growth?"

No, we cannot grow our way out of the situation that we're in with the federal budget deficits & debt.

"Technological improvement to bring down healthcare costs?"

That's part of it, but not as much as many people think. Standardizing & computerizing health care records actually costs money (around $70 Billion over the next decade or so) to do in the short-term, mostly because getting doctors to do it would likely involve incentives for them to change.

"Google 'medicare actuary health care reform.'"

LOL...you mean the "articles" from Right-wing front groups like Fox "News", the Daily Caller, Forbes Magazine, National Journal, Town Hall, & The New American?? Please...

Fact: Spending per insured person will be more than $1,000 lower in 2019 because of the 2010 health care reform law, which is 9% below previous projections.

Fact: The 2010 health care reform law allows for state health insurance exchanges, a new Medicare innovation center & incentives for healthcare providers to coordinate care, which will all save money on health care costs.

Fact: Projected Medicare spending will go down by at least 0.5% of GDP over the next decade or so because of the 2010 health care reform law.

Fact: "The 2010 Affordable Care Act contains essentially every cost-containment provision policy analysts have considered effective in reducing the rate of medical spending."

Fact: "The Congressional Budget Office concludes that repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act would increase the cumulative federal deficit by $230 Billion over the next decade, and would further increase the deficit in later
years."

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/01/pdf/budgetcommitteefinal.pdf

"pretending you're spending more than you bring in."

No, once again, the entire 2010 health care reform law is paid for, and it has safety values in it that will come into play if the reforms don't work out the way everyone says that they will in the future, period.

"It raised easy money and spent it all, leaving us with a deficit that now needs to be closed in more painful ways since they eliminated easy revenue sources."

Baloney. I've already shown that the 2010 health care reform law will SAVE the govt. money on health care spending & repealing it will COST the govt. more money, period.

I think we're done here. I'm growing tired of debating a moron...ugh...

[–] wg1 14 years ago

If this was just the demise of a super power than I could agree with your assessment, but unlike previous power shifts you mentioned, we are in a global economy and when the US falls it affects everyone. It's like a row of dominoes and that's why this documentary (horror movie) is so compelling.

Governments depend on the ignorance of the populace (sheeple) so that they can continue on with their destructive ways and spend us into oblivion. The belt tightening not only has be done on Main Street but more importantly, in the halls of (all) government as well! Everyone should see this movie! Do it for yourself. Do it for your children. And then get off your butt and become less of a "party" member and more of an involved citizen. It's time to end the "blame game" and realize that in the USA, both parties have dirty hands in this mess.

------
The man who stands for nothing,
Will fall for anything...

A Government that is big enough to give you everything you want,
is also big enough to take away everything you have...

[–] surface6669 14 years ago

"It's time to end the 'blame game' and realize that in the USA, both parties have dirty hands in this mess."

WRONG! The Party that has been the chief architect of the near bankrupting of the USA is the Republican Party (the GOP). Just look at when things started to go off the rails in terms of the federal budget debt & deficits...it was back in the 1980s under Reagan! We've tried two iterations of "supply-side", Voodoo economics (under two GOP Presidents & while *either* Party was in control of Congress) now, and all that's done is balloon the federal debt & deficits and make the gap between the rich & poor get even wider!

[–] Devans00 14 years ago

The latest sign of the decline of a superpower:

Congresspeople, both Republicans and Democrats, fighting tooth and nail to retain tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. While the economy continues to slide down the tubes, the poverty rate is growing, the unemployment rate is still unacceptably high and the US is engaged in "nation building" other countries.

Talk about screwed priorities.

If the USA was really concerned about being remaining a superpower and improving our future, none of these distractions would be happening.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

[–] surface6669 14 years ago

I don't think that we'll end up extending the tax cuts for the wealthy this year. I wouldn't even be sorry if they just like ALL the GWB tax cuts expire, since they were bad policy in the first place.

What will really suck is if all the tax cuts are extended for 1-2 more years, then Obama will have little to no chance at significantly reducing the U.S.'s federal deficit before the 2012 elections.

[–] Devans00 14 years ago

Remember, a majority of US Congress people fall within the category of the highest earners in the country. And so do their friends, business partners, neighbors and acquaintances. (so much for representative democracy) As far Congress people are concerned, re-instating taxes for the wealthy is unfairly impacting only people they know. They'll feel like they need to protect the tribe regardless of how it ruins the country for the rest of us.

I'll be shocked if Dubya's tax cuts expire.

Personal greed trumps personal responsibility to pay their fair share.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

[–] surface6669 14 years ago

"Remember, a majority of US Congress people fall within the category of the highest earners in the country."

Come on now...there's no way that the GOP can run on trying to balance the federal budget while trying to save their tax cuts for people that are doing the BEST in the U.S.'s current economy. Once again, there's literally NO WAY to balance the U.S. federal budget without raising some kind of tax!

"I'll be shocked if Dubya's tax cuts expire."

LOL...without any action on anyone's part, they WILL expire at the end of this year, which is fine by me!

"Personal greed trumps personal responsibility to pay their fair share"

...for the GOP maybe...

[–] the_urban_prince 13 years ago

too bad you were wrong surface...

[–] surface6669 13 years ago

LOL...too bad that there's still no way to balance the federal budget without raising taxes on somebody...watch & learn noobs...

[–] the_urban_prince 13 years ago

i don't disagree about the tax thing, i'm just saying you were wrong aboutr bush's tax cuts.

[–] surface6669 13 years ago

The Bush tax cuts (for mostly the rich) are doomed. The American people have already overwhelmingly spoken about their preference for raising taxes on the rich to battle the federal debt/deficit. At the very least, the next time that the Dems completely take over Congress while Obama is President, they will be ended.

[–] Tish-The-Scorpion 13 years ago

At the very least, the next time that the Dems completely take over Congress while Obama is President, they will be ended.

i want to believe that but i doubt it lol

[–] surface6669 14 years ago

"They need to wake up to the fact that this is China's century, they will be the worlds no1 soon (as the documentary showed, they practically own America's debt)."

While it's true that Red China currently is the foreign nation with the largest share of our nation's debt, they still don't own anywhere near most of it. I'd also argue that China is a looooong way from ever becoming as powerful as the USA. They don't have anywhere near the infrastructure or the military might that we do.

"The deficit can be solved, but to believe you can do it whilst still spending $1 billion on stealth bombers is delusional."

While I fully agree that the "defense" budget needs to be cut, we've only spent around $44.75 Billion in total on the B2 project through 2004 & each one cost around $737 Million in 1997 U.S. Dollars.

[–] halomaniac88 9 years ago

America has no history, the people tend to live in a glass bubble if not downright delusional about certain things. I find it all quite amusing, don't you love watching rich people going bankrupt?