Are we living in 1980s Soviet Union, fiscally speaking?

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@John_Mace

Soviet Union in the 1980s or Greece in the 2010s? I hope those aren’t the only two choices…

Fortunately, it is not. There is always Scandinavian social democracy.

---

Forbes Francesca Levy, 07.14.10, 05:00 PM EDT

The fact is good times probably have more to do with the size of your wallet than the size of your trophy shelf. The five happiest countries in the world–Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands–are all clustered in the same region, and all enjoy high levels of prosperity.

“The Scandinavian countries do really well,” says Jim Harter, a chief scientist at Gallup, which developed the poll. “One theory why is that they have their basic needs taken care of to a higher degree than other countries. When we look at all the data, those basic needs explain the relationship between income and well-being.”

The World's Happiest Countries

[spifflog]

@wevets

xtisme, I think you’re confusing me with the OP in terms of how much I would cut the military. To be more specific, I looked up some numbers from Wikipedia and the US Navy’s website: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=100&ct=4

Of the 22 aircraft carriers in service around the world, 11 are American and 7 more belong to American allies.

I propose we cut the US carrier force from 11 to 6.

It’s always easier to do something, when you really don’t know what you’re talking about, isn’t it?

So you think we only need two aircraft carrier hunh? One per coast? Let’s hope you’re right. Because having 6 aircraft carriers really means you have two or three. Because 1/3 are usually in some type of availability and 1/3 are doing work ups or coming home.

And if we stop building aircraft carriers, what happens when the ones we have now need to be replaced? Because the shipyards (and workers) aren’t just going to hang out, for no pay, waiting for the next one five years from now.

It’s not defense that will screw us. It’s entitlement growth.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

No, it is defense that will screw us. Look at Scandinavia. Low military, extraordinary entitlements, extreme happiness. Us: extreme military, anemic entitlements, Tea Party.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

That said, the difference between Soviet military spending and ours is significant. I’m not sure it torpedoes the analogy, but it certainly weakens it. Entitlement programs, however, do not: those same democratic nations that get a free ride on our military dime have much larger entitlement programs than we do, and have for a long time, and they’re not all suffering.

The Scandinavian countries have much more extensive entitlement programs than we do. I doubt very seriously that they feel the need for our military protection. After 9/11 Osama bin Laden said, “We did not attack the United States because the United States was weak. If we wanted to attack a weak country we would have attacked Iceland.”

He also said that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and lead to the fall of the Soviet Union, and that the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq would have the same effect on the United States. So far it seems to be happening.

It is too easy to imagine what the fall of the United States would look like. The red states and the blue states would split off. Unlike the fall of the Soviet Union, the fall of the United States would be violent - possibly as violent as the American Civil War.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

No, it is defense that will screw us. Look at Scandinavia. Low military, extraordinary entitlements, extreme happiness. Us: extreme military, anemic entitlements, Tea Party.

Republicans would rather spend money destroying life than improving it.

[Mr.Moto]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The Scandinavian countries have much more extensive entitlement programs than we do. I doubt very seriously that they feel the need for our military protection. After 9/11 Osama bin Laden said, “We did not attack the United States because the United States was weak. If we wanted to attack a weak country we would have attacked Iceland.”

First of all, three of the Scandinavian countries are NATO members (for the purposes of this discussion I am counting Iceland as a Scandinavian country).

And in fact Iceland is entirely dependent on the United States and NATO for its defense, not having a military of its own.

Third, using Scandinavia is interesting - since financial crises and recessions can affect them as well - and deeply. Iceland is suffering through a deep recession currently, as the banking crisis there caused a steep drop in asset shares, employment, production, and basically every positive economic indicator. Sweden experienced a massive economic shock in the early 1990s that took years to recover from.

In short, you seem to be at least incomplete in your information.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Mr.Moto

And in fact Iceland is entirely dependent on the United States and NATO for its defense, not having a military of its own.

Indeed they are. They’re dependent on the UK for financial income, to, and I think they just learned what a terrible idea that was. But that’s irrelevant, since nobody’s claimed that a smaller military renders you immune from fiscal crisis; the claim is a much weaker one, that spending less on the military frees you up to spend mor eon other things. Certainly that’s happened in Iceland, and also in countries like Norway that have weathered the global financial crisis with relatively few bruises.

It’s very simple: if someone else is paying for your military defense, then you get to spend more on quality-of-life issues, while the nation footing your bill gets to spend less.

[Shodan]

But the source of the problem is the growth in entitlement spending, and since we cannot cut defense by enough to make up for increases in entitlements, talk about cutting defense by 75% is heading down the wrong path.

You cannot deal with entitlements growth by cuts anywhere else - you have to cut the growth in entitlements.

It’s like talking about dealing with the deficit by cutting foreign aid - there isn’t enough to cut, and it doesn’t address the cause.

To deal with the deficit, we are going to have to make painful cuts to programs that you want to preserve. And by “you”, I mean everybody.

OK, so we agree to cut defense by X%. Are you willing to cut Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security? If you aren’t, then defense cuts will make no difference.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

You don’t have to make all your cuts in one place. You could cut the defense budget drastically, establish means tests for entitlement programs (thereby cutting their budget), and raise taxes, and in so doing balance the budget.

[Shodan]

Certainly, and that’s pretty much what we will have to do. IOW, it is not defense that will screw us.

Regards,
Shodan

[BlinkingDuck]

Can’t we just outsource the military? Isn’t that the next step in decline?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Certainly, and that’s pretty much what we will have to do. IOW, it is not defense that will screw us.

I’m not sure how that’s IOW. Right now there’s even less political will to slash defense than there is to slash social security, and that’s pretty sad. Social Security is of much greater benefit to us than defense, I believe, especially to the extent that we Americans are underwriting other folks’ security. I’d much rather see defense cuts emphasized severely.

But if your point is that cutting defense alone won’t cure everything, then I agree. I’m just saying it ought to be an easy and deep cut to make.

[gonzomax]

No cutting the military won’t solve the budget. It will take raising revenue. Gotta raise taxes.

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Social Security is of much greater benefit to us than defense, I believe, especially to the extent that we Americans are underwriting other folks’ security. I’d much rather see defense cuts emphasized severely.

I think that is where you head wrong. The instant you start talking about cutting defense instead of making significant and painful cuts to Social Security (and Medicare and Medicaid and so on) you have essentially abandoned any chance of balancing the budget.

But if your point is that cutting defense alone won’t cure everything, then I agree. I’m just saying it ought to be an easy and deep cut to make.

Then no offense, but ISTM that the notion that cutting defense is easy is pretty naive.

And again, no matter how severely we emphasize defense cuts, it will make no difference unless in addition, we also make deep and non-easy cuts to Medicare and Social Security and other forms of entitlement spending.

I have this conversation a lot on the SDMB. Sure, I am in favor of revoking the Bush tax cuts - providing we also make deep, painful cuts to entitlements at the same time. Yes, we can cut defense - providing we also make deep, painful cuts to entitlements at the same time.

Any deal that states “we can raise taxes now and cut defense now, but let’s discuss other cuts some other time” is a deal that should be absolutely refused, IMO.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Then no offense, but ISTM that the notion that cutting defense is easy is pretty naive.

None taken, since you changed the verb and in so doing changed what I said. When Clinton said it depends on what your definition of “is” is, I’m pretty sure he didn’t think “is” and “ought to be” were identical.

And again, no matter how severely we emphasize defense cuts, it will make no difference unless in addition, we also make deep and non-easy cuts to Medicare and Social Security and other forms of entitlement spending.

…or unless we raise taxes commensurately.

[XT]

Well, it ‘ought to be’ easy to produce a sustained and controlled fusion reaction. I mean, nature does it all on it’s own, so we ‘ought to be’ able to do it to. And yet, it’s not easy to do.

Cutting defense would have all sorts of consequences, even leaving aside the possibility that we might actually need that military capability sometime in the future. One would be where are you going to make these deep cuts? A large part of the military budget is in personnel costs, training costs, maintenance and the like. Not for the flashy new weapons or R&D that most people THINK are large parts of the military budget. So…you going to start laying off soldiers and sailors? Cut their pay? Cut their benefits? Stop fixing and maintaining equipment? Stop training our soldiers? The devil is in the details, and if you want to cut 75% of the military budget then it’s going to be very painful (and politically impossible, but that’s another matter).

So, those of you who want to cut the defense budget, where would you be cutting it from and how much do you expect it would save? And what would we do with the money? What would be the goal of those cuts? Balance the budget? More money for social programs and entitlements? Money for infrastructure?

And what other cuts are we talking about here? Because large as the defense budget is, it makes up a relatively small percentage of the overall budget. Social Security and Medicare make up larger percentages each. So…what else will we be cutting, and again, what’s the goal here? If it’s a balanced budget, and if we are talking across the board tax increases as well, then I’m in favor. If we are talking about cutting defense only to increase social or entitlement spending, with perhaps a tax increase for ‘the rich’ only, then I’m opposed.

-XT

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@xtisme

And what other cuts are we talking about here? Because large as the defense budget is, it makes up a relatively small percentage of the overall budget. Social Security and Medicare make up larger percentages each. So…what else will we be cutting, and again, what’s the goal here? If it’s a balanced budget, and if we are talking across the board tax increases as well, then I’m in favor. If we are talking about cutting defense only to increase social or entitlement spending, with perhaps a tax increase for ‘the rich’ only, then I’m opposed.

-XT

“Fusion reaction” is a cheap shot and silly, so I won’t respond.

Where do we cut? Personnel and equipment. Yes, that’s a lot of layoffs. Those people are doing unnecessary jobs. If we need a government work program, let’s put them to work doing something necessary instead.

And it’s only relatively small compared to the rest of our budget. Compared to the budget of every other not-at-war democracy, it’s relatively ginormous.

[Shodan]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

None taken, since you changed the verb and in so doing changed what I said. When Clinton said it depends on what your definition of “is” is, I’m pretty sure he didn’t think “is” and “ought to be” were identical.

Well, if you mean in some imaginary world it would be easy to cut defense, fine and dandy, but I’d rather talk about this one.

And it’s only relatively small compared to the rest of our budget. Compared to the budget of every other not-at-war democracy, it’s relatively ginormous.

So what? We are talking about balancing this budget, not somebody else’s.

If you are trying to balance this budget - not somebody else’s, not in some make-believe world where the US has no need to defend its overseas interests - then talking about balancing a budget with cuts to one of its “relatively small” components makes very little sense indeed. And this -

Where do we cut? Personnel and equipment. Yes, that’s a lot of layoffs. Those people are doing unnecessary jobs. If we need a government work program, let’s put them to work doing something necessary instead.

doesn’t make any sense at all. How do we reduce spending by laying off people who work for the government in the military, and hiring them back to work for the government someplace else?

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Well, if you mean in some imaginary world it would be easy to cut defense, fine and dandy, but I’d rather talk about this one.

Yes, and it ought to be easy in this one. What’s stopping it is a combination of machismo and profoundly excellent lobbying. Those ought not influence our budget.

So what? We are talking about balancing this budget, not somebody else’s.

Yes we are. And to do so, we ought to look at the spending priorities of nations that succeed in balancing their budgets. Norway has a budget surplus of 11% (as of 2009), with a far more robust entitlement program than ours.

If you are trying to balance this budget - not somebody else’s, not in some make-believe world where the US has no need to defend its overseas interests - then talking about balancing a budget with cuts to one of its “relatively small” components makes very little sense indeed.

Again, the fact that it’s relatively small is immaterial. It’s huge relative to what we’re getting out of it. It’s wasted money. Social security is not huge compared to what we’re getting out of it.

doesn’t make any sense at all. How do we reduce spending by laying off people who work for the government in the military, and hiring them back to work for the government someplace else?

Seriously, if you wouldn’t extrapolate stupid ideas from what I said, what you got from my posts wouldn’t be so stupid. I didn’t say that we need a government work program; I’m all about the layoffs. I said that, even if you want a government work program (thereby not reducing the deficit), the military is a poor one to use, for many reasons.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
“Fusion reaction” is a cheap shot and silly, so I won’t respond.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not a cheap shot…it’s a demonstration that things that ‘ought to be easy’ sometimes aren’t. Cutting the military budget only looks easy when you are looking at it from the outside, and you don’t actually understand the complexity of the thing. It would be like me saying ‘well, it ought to be easy to cut 75% from Social Security’. It would only look easy if I didn’t know what all the money in Social Security went too, and what sorts of disruptions would occur if I were to try and make cuts, especially deep and meaningful ones.

Those people are doing unnecessary jobs.

Based on your own value judgment. I disagree that the jobs are unnecessary. Personally, I think that without a strong US military our overseas interests would be in danger, which would cost us a lot more in strict monetary terms.

If we need a government work program, let’s put them to work doing something necessary instead.

And if we need our interests protected and there isn’t anyone to do it? What do we do then? The military isn’t a government jobs program.

But, ok…let’s pretend it is. There are millions of service men and women, and many millions more in primary support and contractor jobs, and many millions more in secondary or tertiary jobs. So…you are prepared to simply give all those folks to boot and tell them to go find better, more meaningful work? During a recession? And you figure this is a viable solution? It sounds like fantasy to me…wet dream type fantasy. I could just as well say ‘why don’t we completely eliminate Social Security, welfare AND Medicare…think of all the money we’d save!’. Or, perhaps wish for aliens to come down and simply solve all our problems. It’s not realistic. Just as saying that the military does nothing useful and is simply a government works program is…not realistic.

And it’s only relatively small compared to the rest of our budget. Compared to the budget of every other not-at-war democracy, it’s relatively ginormous.

Why compare apples to oranges? None of those other democracies are the US. None of them have the overseas commitments that we do. And all of them have one other large advantage that we don’t have…they have America to act as their sword and shield, where as we don’t have anyone but ourselves to protect us (and them). They can afford to spend less as a percentage of their budget on the military because we spend the money needed. We also have another advantage…we are a lot richer than any other single democracy out there. We are, for instance, nearly as rich as the entire European Union COMBINED.

What all that means is that, since we have a vested interest in protecting our (mutual) overseas interests, and since we are still the worlds only hyperpower, and since we are a wealthy country, and since there isn’t anyone to do the protecting for us, we are stuck with the job for now, and probably will be into the future. We could cut the defense budget somewhat (and in fact, I think we will do so…and I’d support modest cuts to defense). Perhaps other countries allied to the US and with similar interests will step up and start spending their fair share…or perhaps they won’t. Modest cuts to our military shouldn’t substantially weaken our overall strategic position globally, nor will it signal those countries unfriendly towards the US or who seek to infringe on our global interests that they can take advantage of a weaker US. But modest cuts are going to be modest, and because the military budget isn’t the largest part of the overall budget it’s only going to help modestly. Deeper cuts would help a bit more, but even cutting it all wouldn’t solve anything…while making us completely vulnerable and probably costing us much more in the long run.

-XT