Yayyyyy they'll pass a bill that 60% of the population doesn't want! Hooray for Democracy!
As genuinely embarrassed as I am to admit this, I kinda love The Situation now.
We need to burn our universities to the ground with the faculty still inside and start over.
@allyzay: Um, its probably smart to not make personal judgements about the lifestyles of commenters here, because there's just no way to know.
If you can't do the time...
Doesn't all equipment need to pass a certain milspec for things like resistance to dust and dirt, drops and general abuse? I can't imagine the iphone passing that. My dad used to have an old Nextel that was milspec and it was built like a brick with buttons.
Um, Chris and Jacob are pretty much dead-on. Get a job, hack.
@Grandpapular: You're an idiot.
European nations are indeed going bankrupt because of their outlandish social obligations. Quickly. In fact, most EU nations are desperately trying to untangle themselves from the social welfare business as much as possible, just as we (well, some of us) seem bent on trying it out for ourselves. I'm sure we'll do better though!!
And the economies of scale play heavily into this as well... even if we offer a fraction of what EU-style socialism offers, our population is so large in comparison, and our tax rate so low, that we're actually putting ourselves in a far more precarious situation than they are. Of course you say 'raise taxes!' but just no. High taxes doom the economy to stag-flation (which is what Europe experienced for about the last 15 years or so). Its also political poison and nobody is going to last very long standing on a podium talking about how we need to increase the tax burden across the board. Obama tried it and he's tanking, as is his party. And if they try to force it any further, I can pretty much guarantee its not going to end well. Like, with violence.
@atlasfugged: Yes, there is. Nobody is advocating the outright elimination of taxes, or the abolition of all social services. But we're quickly crossing the point of diminishing returns here. Its a balance that needs to be reached... keeping taxes at a point where they allow the function of the government, but not to the point where it stifles growth and encourages outlandish government spending. Its an ebb and flow for sure.
The other thing is that the most lavish social programs, with very few exceptions, simply don't work as intended in the eyes of the general population, and therefore are popular targets to get cut. Much moreso than a tangible defense program that might employ thousands of skilled people and result in an actual national asset like an aircraft carrier or a fighter plane. Psychologically its a much easier thing to comprehend for many people.
I think that what most people take issue with is the idea that humans are causing the climate change and that we need to spend, literally, hundreds of trillions of dollars to stop something that may not be stoppable at all. And in so doing set up massive global bureaucracies with the power to tax and punish private citizens around the world with impunity and without any electoral recourse.
But of course the people who stand to directly benefit from the expenditure of those trillions of dollars are pure as the driven snow and not at all influenced by money or power. To imply otherwise is just crazytalk. They just want to save the planet. Right?
@Mediahohoho: Yeah ok. Funny, that's exactly what I think about everything you write also. Amazing how opinions work like that.
Fortunately the people who think the way I do are the ones with the guns.
@Mediahohoho: Except that defense is pretty much the only major expenditure actually, you know, IN the Constitution. Social programs are not. If you don't like it, work towards changing the Constitution to say that all Americans have a right to free health care and college education. But you can't because most Americans just don't believe in it. So thats that.
But again its still the whole infantile 'they wasted money so why can't we waste more money' argument. I don't care who wasted the money first, the fact is that we're in this situation regardless and we can't afford it anymore.
And as for cutting defense spending; if we did close all our overseas bases and go on a purely defensive footing... which there are solid arguments for... you'd still not be able to afford the kind of social welfare you're talking about... AND we'd need a hell of a lot more equipment like the B2 and F22 in order to have a credible deterrent threat. In a defensive posture like that, it all becomes about force projection (particularly airpower) and the best tools we have are in fact the B2, F22 and our carrier and sub fleet. I'd say that if we closed our bases we'd need a 30% increase in strategic airpower and a 15% increase in naval force, including two more carriers. It would still be a net savings.
BUT... if you think the world hates us now because our soldiers are everywhere... just wait until you see how much they hate us when we're gone. Personally I don't care about world opinion, but the liberal-types who usually advocate this kind of thing tend to be quite sensitive about it.
But ultimately it all comes down to personal philosophy. Some people want to be taken care of by a big parental government, and always will see that as the solution to everyone's problems and will seek to impose this on all people. And some will be happy to succeed or fail on their own merits because they have confidence in their own abilities as an individual and see government oversight as a limitation on their freedom.
@intime: Yeah but read my response. Its apples and oranges. You can't compare our situation then to now. We have long term financial liabilities on the books right now that are beyond anything we could have imagined back then. Spending and spending and spending isn't going to do it when we're already borrowing every dime we have and don't have any income. You can't grow the economy that way.
Our war debt and the fact that we were the only nation left intact after WWII with any kind of industrial or economic production capability is ultimately what saved us... not wanton government social spending. This is the simplest thing in the world to understand... like 1+1=2 simple. You can't keep spending borrowed money in exponential quantities and expect to come out better off for it.
@pmarble: It didn't? Really? REALLY?Because I think its actually happening right now. We're the future generation that's screwed. Tadaaa!
This didn't happen overnight. This is 20+ years of bad fiscal policy.
@intime: Are you insane? If you can look at that graph and not see doomsday, then you need to seriously reevaluate your definition of the word.
We're up over 80% of GDP right now, with no sign of reversal. And, I hate to inject common sense into your little rainbow-and-lollipop fantasy world there, but the big difference between post-WWII and today is that we did not have anywhere near the kind of unfunded financial liabilities on the books for social programs and so forth as we do today. AND at that point we were a creditor nation, with most of the world actually OWING us money. These two factors made paying down our debt then relatively easy. Its the precise opposite today.
So, with actual reality taken into account, you can see that, no, its really really really not like the post-WWII era at all. And yes, we are quite doomed.
@edosan: Ok good. You're right. Totally. Whatever. I don't care. We've had about 20 years of very irresponsible fiscal policy from both parties and their own priorities and now here we are. It's an infantile argument to say that since republicans got to waste money on THEIR little project its only fair that WE keep spending. The money is gone. Like, its not there anymore. We don't have it. It's bad. We need to get a handle on this very serious reality and get it under control. THEN we can begin to talk about other things. Because otherwise we're going to flat out loose everything.
@i'm a bottle: I'm chastising in general. This bill doesn't help though. And most serious people believe the idea of it being able to lower the debt is pie in the sky BS. And you sort of hit it on the head yourself when you said 'care and precision', which in case you haven't been paying attention for the last 200 years or so, isn't exactly the specialty of our government. There have been virtually no government programs, ever, that have come in on target with their projected long term costs. I think the average is something ridiculous like 150% above projection after 10 years.
But it's so far beyond this bill right now. The only speeches Obama should be giving at this point are about the need for sacrifice and belt-tightening. We're so fucked its not even funny.
@rag254: We didn't have the same debt issues in 2004 and 2006. We're on the verge of collapse here and every dime we spend is borrowed from China. Every dime. We can't afford it.
"some abstract notion of future debt..."
Really? Really really? C'mon guys.
Our debt is not abstract, future or otherwise. Its a real, actual problem that will have real, actual consequences. Its not some boogeyman that politicians are making up to scare people. Every dime we spend right now is borrowed. ALL of it. We will have debt well over 100% of GDP very soon, and yet we keep spending like we're rich. And when the economy collapses and the government ceases to be able to even send out paychecks to its employees much less provide any kind of social services whatsoever, you'll see how non-abstract the debt issue really is. It's going to happen. You'll see.
DON'T THEY SEE HOW CRAZY THIS IS?
Gah... I know, brainwashing etc, but c'mon. This is batshit.
