NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that the US should spend less money developing new ways to blow things up and more helping its citizens?

Yes.

Plenty of money to go around.

Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily solve it anyway.

Do you think that the US should spend less money developing new ways to blow things up and more helping its citizens?

i would imagine we should.

i do like having a kick butt military though.

maybe we could do more here with what we have to spend ,if we were not handing out billions in foreign aid to every third world country that just wastes it or the leaders flat out steal it for their own selves.
not to mention everyone hates us anyway.

we give aid to countries in africa for example somalia(tons of food)and the scumbag leaders build palaces or steal the food and use it as a weapon against their own people.

we would probably help the average person on the ground by sending people to teach them farming and utility construction,instead of handing the leaders money.

that way,poor people actually get help,we save tons of loot for our own people,and we keep our military well funded.

also...our shiny new smart bombs tend to kill alot less innocents then the good ole days of carpet bombing..so in a way..they are good for humanity in a perverse way.

w00t for shiny things that go boom

Interesting Idea, Secret aj man. Worth consideration

I heard that the US had like 10 thousand nucear warheads that we spend millions if not billions on every year just on their upkeep.

How true do you think this is?

If it is true we really need to retire some of these things as I dont believe we need so many. I really believe we dont need any at all. If the US gets annihalated then that is that - what is the point in destroying everyone else in the process as well? It's such a childish viewpoint that if we can't have it noone can. Yes M.A.D. supposedly keeps others at bay and stops them from blowing us away, which could be true, but the sheer number of nukes is still unecessary. We could retire a lot of crap and save a mint.

Why only be able to destroy the world 3 times over when you can destroy the world 10 times over?

Do you think that the US should spend less money developing new ways to blow things up and more helping its citizens?

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures. We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble. You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!

Do you think that the US should spend less money developing new ways to blow things up and more helping its citizens?

I trust my gummint more with weapons aimed at others than I do with programs aimed at "helping" it's citizens. I pick military spending.

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures. We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble. You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!


or, you know... slowly phase it out and move into other areas of technology like alternative energy. If we lead the way on that we could have a new economy where we are actually making something that we can be proud of and helps people rather than hurts them.

Why only be able to destroy the world 3 times over when you can destroy the world 10 times over?

you make a very compelling argument

I trust my gummint more with weapons aimed at others than I do with programs aimed at "helping" it's citizens. I pick military spending.

lol....how true!

Do you think that the US should spend less money developing new ways to blow things up and more helping its citizens?
In general, I don't support spending government money to help people. The government's job is to maintain a society wherein the people can help themselves.

One of the only valid government expenditures is defense. That said, the US has, of late, been doing more attacking than defending. That's probably not necessary.

I heard that the US had like 10 thousand nucear warheads that we spend millions if not billions on every year just on their upkeep.

A lot of it is due to the fact that number and scale of disarmament treaties between the US and Russia have declined steadily since the early 90's; the Russians have about 16,000 total warheads (7,200 on active duty) and the US has about 12,000 of which 8,000 are on active duty. Neither side really wants to resume disarmament talks, so the whole process has gone to the wayside now that Russia is no longer facing the economic crises it faced in the 1990's and the US has cooled relations and refused Russian propsals to dismantle more of the weapons.

or, you know... slowly phase it out and move into other areas of technology like alternative energy. If we lead the way on that we could have a new economy where we are actually making something that we can be proud of and helps people rather than hurts them.

Economics, old boy, economics. Even converting the entire US to solar/wind/nuclear/coal would be a less than 10 year project with no real exports.

We can debate arms for 300 posts, but at the end of the day arms are one of the major US industries, and that's not going away if the nation is to survive.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see the US do more in alt energy and space... but it never seems to happen. :(

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures. We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble. You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!

That's why we have to sell those service products around the world and go in to high-tech industries to expand the economy beyond its declining manufacturing sector. But then again, not all manufacturing is declining. We're actually gaining jobs in high-tech manufacturing, nano/biotech, and various machinery and metals industries.

Weapons are a high-tech, high-skill industry so the US will remain dominant in the industry for a long time.

you make a very compelling argument
I know. You just have to be extra sure that nothing survives.

A lot of it is due to the fact that number and scale of disarmament treaties between the US and Russia have declined steadily since the early 90's; the Russians have about 16,000 total warheads (7,200 on active duty) and the US has about 12,000 of which 8,000 are on active duty. Neither side really wants to resume disarmament talks, so the whole process has gone to the wayside now that Russia is no longer facing the economic crises it faced in the 1990's and the US has cooled relations and refused Russian propsals to dismantle more of the weapons.

so what? It'll take like what.. 6 warheads to destroy RUssia? Why shoudl we care about the number of warheads Russia has?

I heard that the US had like 10 thousand nucear warheads that we spend millions if not billions on every year just on their upkeep.

How true do you think this is?

If it is true we really need to retire some of these things as I dont believe we need so many. I really believe we dont need any at all. If the US gets annihalated then that is that - what is the point in destroying everyone else in the process as well? It's such a childish viewpoint that if we can't have it noone can. Yes M.A.D. supposedly keeps others at bay and stops them from blowing us away, which could be true, but the sheer number of nukes is still unecessary. We could retire a lot of crap and save a mint.

We need the nukes to blow up asteroids. :D :)

Despite many people's objections to the US military/industrial complex, we would be dealing with someone else's miltary industrial complex if they didn't have theirs. Military spending creates jobs, and maintains the status quo that makes the US appear to be the economic and military centre of the world. It's the disgusting lack of sense put into the use of that arsenal that disturbs me.

That's why we have to sell those service products around the world and go in to high-tech industries to expand the economy beyond its declining manufacturing sector. But then again, not all manufacturing is declining. We're actually gaining jobs in high-tech manufacturing, nano/biotech, and various machinery and metals industries.

Weapons are a high-tech, high-skill industry so the US will remain dominant in the industry for a long time.

Care to name these industries? It's kind of hard to deliver pizza from Manhattan to Singapore.

Economics, old boy, economics. Even converting the entire US to solar/wind/nuclear/coal would be a less than 10 year project with no real exports.

We can debate arms for 300 posts, but at the end of the day arms are one of the major US industries, and that's not going away if the nation is to survive.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see the US do more in alt energy and space... but it never seems to happen. :(

*nods*

I wanna mine hydrogen from the moon or get some Mars dirt... Won't happen anytime soon ='( :( :mad: :( :( :(

so what? It'll take like what.. 6 warheads to destroy RUssia? Why shoudl we care about the number of warheads Russia has?

Where did you get 6 from? You would need at least a few hundred just for the military targets.

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures. We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble. You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!

Then something must be done to fix that. That is a possible way of spending the peace dividend.

What more help do they need?

Economics, old boy, economics. Even converting the entire US to solar/wind/nuclear/coal would be a less than 10 year project with no real exports.

We can debate arms for 300 posts, but at the end of the day arms are one of the major US industries, and that's not going away if the nation is to survive.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see the US do more in alt energy and space... but it never seems to happen. :(


I think it has more to do with comfort with the status quo than anything else.

Everyone seems to be afraid to take risks.

Plenty of money to go around.

Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily solve it anyway.
No there is not plenty to go around. That's why the US can't afford as much education, healthcare or public transport because they overspend on the military.

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures. We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble. You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!
Why does my country not have this problem? Our economy is as developed as America's, with similarly low unemployment, yet we do not make military equipment.

I trust my gummint more with weapons aimed at others than I do with programs aimed at "helping" it's citizens. I pick military spending.
Why?

Service for the benefit of the majority works.

In general, I don't support spending government money to help people. The government's job is to maintain a society wherein the people can help themselves.
I think my support of public transport, education and healthcare is perfectly in line with this statement.

One of the only valid government expenditures is defense.
Why? People need to be protected from illness as much as they do from foreign threats. I say health services are equally necessary.

so what? It'll take like what.. 6 warheads to destroy RUssia? Why shoudl we care about the number of warheads Russia has?

The same question could be asked of the Russians; neither side wants to have fewer warheads than the other because it's somehow a symbol of national pride to be able to destroy the world n+1 times more than the enemy. The old Cold War pissing contests still go far politically in Washington and Moscow.

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures. We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble. You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!
Government expenditures should not be counted as contributing to the economy.

Then something must be done to fix that. That is a possible way of spending the peace dividend.

Yep... fair trade instead of free trade. But that'll never happen, so it will continue to be okay to use slave labor in China and Viet Nam to make the shit the average person buys. Because it's cheaper to make sneakers in sweatshops as 12 cents an hour instead of 12 dollars and hour.

Otherwise, nope. That's why the US is not really a major manufacturer of much these days except weapons and vehicles.

Government expenditures should not be counted as contributing to the economy.
But they often do, whether you think its moral or not.

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures. We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble. You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!


Why does my country not have this problem? Our economy is as developed as America's, with similarly low unemployment, yet we do not make military equipment.


And you live... where, exactly?

oh yes, they should put more spending into developing the social welfare system and education programmes, but of course its an oligarchy ruled by a country club of socio/psychopaths so nothings going to change

Where did you get 6 from? You would need at least a few hundred just for the military targets.


I cant remember where I heard that. lol

I heard that the US had like 10 thousand nucear warheads that we spend millions if not billions on every year just on their upkeep.

How true do you think this is?

If it is true we really need to retire some of these things as I dont believe we need so many. I really believe we dont need any at all. If the US gets annihalated then that is that - what is the point in destroying everyone else in the process as well? It's such a childish viewpoint that if we can't have it noone can. Yes M.A.D. supposedly keeps others at bay and stops them from blowing us away, which could be true, but the sheer number of nukes is still unecessary. We could retire a lot of crap and save a mint.
To be fair we have put a great deal out of commission but I think we could reduce it some while reducing overall millitary spending by a few percent (wich is gigantic when you figure how large their budget actualy is)

Do you think that the US should spend less money developing new ways to blow things up and more helping its citizens?
Does spending money on education necessarily benefit citizens?

How much does the average defense dollar translate into jobs, etc?

It usually results in higher paying jobs, but a bit fewer. Spending more on education results in more jobs, but paying far less per job.

The US economy is already at fairly low unemployment, and we already have too many low paying jobs.

More higher paying jobs!

Care to name these industries? It's kind of hard to deliver pizza from Manhattan to Singapore.

Stock/commodity brokers, computer programming/engineering, management of companies, architectural design, civil engineering, real estate services, e-commerce, ISPs, telecommunications, wholesale trade/delivery, shipping services, airlines, warehousing, logistics, accounting, banking, broadcasting, retailing and a few dozen other industries are all part of the service sector.

Computer and electronic products, machinery, primary metals and electrical equipment/appliances are all expanding fields of US manufacturing. Our industrial production is also growing by about 4%/year. The US is also one of the fastest growing providers of alternative energy equipment and services.

Military projects are just about the ONLY things the US still manufactures.
Kinda sad when you think about it huh?

We stop doing that, and the economy will be in big trouble.
I disagree. The US went through a very prosperous period when Clinton was in office and the US defence budget had been trimmed down.

You can't survive just selling each other insurance and Big Macs!
You forgot Wendy's!!

All kidding aside, invest in infastructure, which has sadly been neglected?

I heard that the US had like 10 thousand nucear warheads that we spend millions if not billions on every year just on their upkeep.

How true do you think this is?

If it is true we really need to retire some of these things as I dont believe we need so many. I really believe we dont need any at all. If the US gets annihalated then that is that - what is the point in destroying everyone else in the process as well? It's such a childish viewpoint that if we can't have it noone can. Yes M.A.D. supposedly keeps others at bay and stops them from blowing us away, which could be true, but the sheer number of nukes is still unecessary. We could retire a lot of crap and save a mint.
If the Government were held to the same standards of accounting that large corporations were, for the 2004 year alone, not counting any previous debt, we would be 3-3.5 trillion in the hole. 2 guesses as to whether or not the vast, vast, vast majority of the money has anything to do with military matters and the first one doesn't count.

Kinda sad when you think about it huh?


I disagree. The US went through a very prosperous period when Clinton was in office and the US defence budget had been trimmed down.


You forgot Wendy's!!

All kidding aside, invest in infastructure, which has sadly been neglected?
Which had jack all to do with clinton and everything to do with the advent of the PC and other tech.

The goal of any national arsenal should be to render your opponent's arsenal irrelevant.

That's the point of the Ballistic Missile Defense, for example (it doesn't appear to work, but that's not the point).

Simply having more nuclear warheads was only valuable because it increased the chances that an opposing first strike would be unable to destroy all of them. Hence deterring that first strike.

Stock/commodity brokers, computer programming/engineering, management of companies, architectural design, civil engineering, real estate services, e-commerce, ISPs, telecommunications, wholesale trade/delivery, shipping services, airlines, warehousing, logistics, accounting, banking, broadcasting, retailing and a few dozen other industries are all part of the service sector.

Computer and electronic products, machinery, primary metals and electrical equipment/appliances are all expanding fields of US manufacturing. Our industrial production is also growing by about 4%/year. The US is also one of the fastest growing providers of alternative energy equipment and services.

And a lot of the technology behind those industries came from....

the military/industrial complex

But they often do, whether you think its moral or not.
Morality doesn't enter into it. It's a question of productivity.

The same question could be asked of the Russians; neither side wants to have fewer warheads than the other because it's somehow a symbol of national pride to be able to destroy the world n+1 times more than the enemy. The old Cold War pissing contests still go far politically in Washington and Moscow.


Thats what I am saying... it's very childish to whine about Russia having more than us and is irrelevant to whether we should get rid of the bulk of ours or not. The only people who care about it are people who are on the "my dick is bigger than yours" kick.

It's like saying they pay their govt workers more than we do so it makes us look cheap by comparison so we need to give Congress another raise. I say it makes us look smart with money if we cut the pay to our over paid assholes runnign our country into the ground as well as if we retire a bunch of shit we never use.

In my eyes, if they have 16,000 warheads and we only have 5,000. We'll be saving the money it takes to keep these stupid things replenished and put it into programs that might help move the country forward (I think we need to concentrate more on internet security as I believe that is where the new front on international conflict will be), while they are wasting money because we could still blow them sky high if we want to.

besides all this - -I've never seen ANYONE say "Oh look as that pussy ass country America who has 4 thousand less nukes than Russia" - I don't care about it... do you? Who is really giong to mock the US for having less nukes? Republicans? We can still overpower any military in the world.

Stock/commodity brokers, computer programming/engineering, management of companies, architectural design, civil engineering, real estate services, e-commerce, ISPs, telecommunications, wholesale trade/delivery, shipping services, airlines, warehousing, logistics, accounting, banking, broadcasting, retailing and a few dozen other industries are all part of the service sector.

Computer and electronic products, machinery, primary metals and electrical equipment/appliances are all expanding fields of US manufacturing. Our industrial production is also growing by about 4%/year. The US is also one of the fastest growing providers of alternative energy equipment and services.

Do you have a breakdown of US exports? I couldn't find one.

And you live... where, exactly?
Sorry. I live in Ireland.

And a lot of the technology behind those industries came from....

the military/industrial complex
Who thinks that there should be no MIC? Umm, nobody.

Do you have a breakdown of US exports? I couldn't find one.

The US consumes 70 percent of what it produces.

Exports are not the major driver of the US economy.

If the Government were held to the same standards of accounting that large corporations were, for the 2004 year alone, not counting any previous debt, we would be 3-3.5 trillion in the hole. 2 guesses as to whether or not the vast, vast, vast majority of the money has anything to do with military matters and the first one doesn't count.

How do you know this? Got a link?

Dont ask me where it all goes... I'm the one asking the questions here. :p

Kinda sad when you think about it huh?

Yep. Especially in my part of the country. Bridgeport, CT used to be a major manufacturing city.

I disagree. The US went through a very prosperous period when Clinton was in office and the US defence budget had been trimmed down.

Nope. While the defense budget was trimmed down a little, the exports still went up.
Any short term dips in revenue btw, can mostly be attributed to the ex-Warsaw Pact states shedding gear and flooding the market.

You forgot Wendy's!!

Yep. I got food poisoned at a Wendy's in Virginia in 1997. Four days of misery. I've never gone back.

All kidding aside, invest in infastructure, which has sadly been neglected?

Yep. But rebuilding roads and bridges (while very important!) is not going to keep 20-25% of the planetary economy moving.

Stock/commodity brokers, computer programming/engineering, management of companies, architectural design, civil engineering, real estate services, e-commerce, ISPs, telecommunications, wholesale trade/delivery, shipping services, airlines, warehousing, logistics, accounting, banking, broadcasting, retailing and a few dozen other industries are all part of the service sector.


ALL of which are cheaper to do offshore.
Some of these don't even have a market, btw. (Warehousing is a known loss, and civil engineering requires to BUILD something...)
Thanks for playing. But none of these (even combined) could take up even 10% of a slackened defense production.

Computer and electronic products, machinery, primary metals and electrical equipment/appliances are all expanding fields of US manufacturing. Our industrial production is also growing by about 4%/year. The US is also one of the fastest growing providers of alternative energy equipment and services.

Again, only if fair trade, not free trade rules.

Sorry. I live in Ireland.


Ah. So do you REALLY want me to explain why the US needs (and the world needs) US defense spending and Ireland hasn't?

The first (and most simple) reason is that Ireland is an island off of an island (The UK) next to an island (Iceland) and is very hard to get to.
Likewise, Ireland is very homogenous and has few problems barring that little tiff about 6 counties. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the US has been in many a scrape over 230 odd years.

A second reason: Imagine if Ireland really spoke Gaelic instead of English. The place would be up shite's creek in a hurry -- the economy would be lucky to be where it was in 1972 (and that was no good year). All because the cheap English speaking labor force would not be available. THAT is a major reason why Ireland doesn't produce arms.

There are many more, such as how sparsely populated Ireland is, the lack of ever having Great Power status, etc. But at the end of the day, the Irish have produced many weapons, mostly in American foundries, since there are more of you here than there! :D

ALL of which are cheaper to do offshore.
Some of these don't even have a market, btw. (Warehousing is a known loss, and civil engineering requires to BUILD something...) Thanks for playing. But none of these (even combined) could take up even 10% of a slackened defense production.

Cheapness isn't the only determinant. A lot of jobs might be done for cheaper offshore, but they're also of a lot lower quality and the costs of setting up facilities are far greater than the savings in wages or benefits. That's why most companies are preferring to bring workers to the US via H1-B programs rather than offshore them; it's easier to pay them more money and bring them here rather than spend money in India and have to deal with a turnover rate of 80 or 90% and soaring wage costs.

There's trillions of dollars in infrastructure being built worldwide, and soaring global trade is creating huge demand for warehousing and shipping services...both of those aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Even military spending has huge services components to it. Training, logistics, engineering, medicinal care, delivery systems, and administration are all huge parts of a functioning military. Without services, manufactured goods would be useless.

Do you have a breakdown of US exports? I couldn't find one.

May 2006 Trade Deficit Report (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/press.html#full)

This breaks down the trade deficit by sector, end use, country, and a bunch of other categories for the month of May.

US Census Foreign Trade Main Page (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/index.html)

The main page of the US Foreign Trade site, with archived releases, annual reports, and miscellaneous trade data.

How do you know this? Got a link?

Dont ask me where it all goes... I'm the one asking the questions here. :p

http://www.scrivener.net/2006/01/you-thought-2005-federal-budget.html

Monday, January 09, 2006
You thought the 2005 federal budget deficit was $319 billion? How about more than $3 trillion, by the accounting rules the private sector uses.

The US government's budget deficit for 2005 was $319 billion, as officially reported by the Treasury. That's the number in the newspapers that everyone editorializes and op-eds about, representing the increase in the government's net liabilities, basically in the form of additional government debt issued during the year. And it's been reported as good news, being down from the $412 billion of 2004.

But wait ... the Treasury has published another analysis on its web site, in its 2005 Financial Report of the United States Government, that gives a very different number for the increase in its net liabilities, albeit one that receives very little publicity: more than $3 trillion.

How can two such hugely different numbers -- on ten times larger than the other -- be provided by the US Treasury for the same thing?

The answer lies in accounting methods: the difference between cash and accrual accounting.

Cash accounting is what individuals use and most people are familiar with. It counts the difference between cash in and cash out during a given time period. The difference is net income or loss. Done.

That's fine for the simple finances of most individuals, but in even moderately more complicated situations it can be highly misleading and is easily manipulated. This is because it ignores accruing legal rights to receive income, and legal obligations to make payments, in the future.

As a simple example, say a firm makes a deal in which it receives $1 million from another party today, in exchange for making a legally binding promise to pay $10 million to the other party five years from now. Obviously that's a loser. Accrual accounting -- which recognizes accruing future liabilities and rights to income -- reports this truth: $1 million receivable today minus the current value of $10 million to be paid five years from now (at a 5% discount rate, about $7.7 million) shows this transaction to have a net cost of about $6.7 million.

But under cash accounting it is a winner, for only the $1 million of income is counted. The attached $10 million liability is ignored. Sure it'll have to be paid someday (or the firm will go bankrupt due to it) -- but that will be somebody else's problem. In the meantime you've boosted the firm's profits by making this deal, so you get a raise and a bonus!

Well, that wouldn't be good. So to prevent such situations the government prohibits cash accounting and requires accrual accounting for all but the very smallest businesses and organizations.

If you use cash accounting anyhow to report income while keeping related liabilities off the books, you are Enron ... or you are the US government. For the government exempts itself from the accrual accounting rules imposed on everyone else, and uses cash accounting to figure its own deficit: that $319 billion for 2005.

OK -- so what is the US government's deficit under the accounting rules that everyone else in the country must use? The Treasury itself tells us. As a "good government" reform -- and in response to plenty of criticism about its accounting methods -- it began publishing these numbers as supplemental information to the official budget a few years back.

The official $319 billion cash basis deficit excludes a host of accrued liabilities, three of which are really big: Medicare, Social Security, and federal employee/military retirement benefits. Here are the numbers, from the 2005 Financial Report...

"Present value of future expenditures less future revenue [p.42] :"

That's $2.333 trillion dollars just for Medicare and Social Security.

Then add a $430 billion one-year increase in Federal employee/veteran benefits payable (to $4,492 billion in 2005 from $4,062 billion in 2004).

And then add the $319 billion official budget deficit.

The total so far is over $3.08 trillion, and we're still not counting lots of things. (The cost of federal employee retiree health benefits isn't computed. Smaller multi-billion dollar items like FEMA, the PBGC, etc., I haven't bothered to add.)

Interestingly, the official budget deficit is the smallest of all the above items ... and while so many people worry about paying future Social Security and Medicare costs, few ever mention the unfunded federal employee/military retiree costs that are as big or bigger.

Some more perspective:

[] All federal income taxes (personal and corporate) totaled $1.2 trillion in 2005. To cover the accruing deficit, income taxes would have to be increased to 3.6 times what they are today (with the increase "saved" somehow in an interest bearing account for future use).

[] All federal receipts (including payroll and excise taxes, tariffs, national park user fees, whatever) totaled $2.1 trillion in 2005. The accruing deficit is 50% larger than that -- so total revenue would have to be raised to 2.5 times its current level to cover it.

[] The total US national debt held by the public is $4.7 trillion -- but the government's unfunded debt to its own employees and military personnel for retirement benefits matches it, exceeding $4.5 trillion (remember, health benefits aren't included in this number) and is growing faster.

[] Total US national income (to individuals, businesses, everyone) in 2005 was $10.7 trillion. The accrued deficit was almost 30% of this. To close it, taxes would have take almost another 30% of national income -- in addition to the about 30% that currently goes to fund federal, state and local government combined.

(By the way, if you think a $3 trillion deficit is bad, the 2004 accrued deficit was $11.1 trillion, thanks to the $8 trillion accrued start-up cost of the Bush-Republican drug benefit plan, Medicare Part D. So much for Republican fiscal conservatism!)

These numbers are so big that when I mention them even to generally well informed people, they simply don't believe it. Yet they are published every year by the US Treasury itself.

Now, I'm very sorry folks -- but we can't increase the national debt by 30% of national income every year for a generation off the books to fund retiree entitlements, and then expect to be able to pay it off, any more than we'd be able to increase the debt on the books by $3 trillion a year and pay it off. It ain't going to happen.

That being the case, why don't Senators and Congressmen stand up and make an issue of these published numbers every day, demanding reform? Why didn't George W. Bush highlight them to educate the public to the urgent need for entitlement reform, starting with Social Security?

Well ... if Democrats suddenly admitted that the entitlement programs that cement the base of their party together are in fact driving a 30%-of-national income deficit, on course to bankrupting the nation, they could hardly defend those programs as being "sound" and untouchable, eh?

And if Republicans suddenly admitted that the real deficit is ten times larger than they've claimed, they could hardly make enacting more tax cuts to make such yawning deficits even worse their key issue. Much less claim to be fiscal conservatives while larding on new multi-trillion entitlements of their own.

Both parties want to keep their key issues working in the next election. So every year the politicians push another $2.7 trillion (and growing) of debt off the books and out of sight, the super-Enron of all time. Sure, these trillions will have to be dealt with some time in the future, or the nation will go broke ... but that will be years from now, and it will be somebody else's problem.

And when that day arrives, a lot of people aren't going to be getting a lot of the retirement benefits that they think they've been promised.

Prepare for it now.

I close with words from GAO as quoted in the Treasury report:

The federal government’s gross debt in the consolidated financial statements ... excludes such items as the gap between the present value of future promised and funded Social Security and Medicare benefits, veterans’ health care, and a range of other liabilities (e.g., federal employee and veteran benefits payable), commitments, and contingencies that the federal government has pledged to support.

Including these items, the federal government’s fiscal exposures now total more than $46 trillion, up from about $20 trillion in 2000. This translates into a burden of about $156,000 per American or approximately $375,000 per full-time worker, up from $72,000 and $165,000 respectively, in 2000...

All more than double in only five years. That's growing a lot faster than the economy. Things have not stabilized, they are getting worse, fast.

Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security...

Given the size of the projected deficit, the U.S. government will not be able to grow its way out of this problem -- tough choices are required.

Traditional incremental approaches to budgeting will need to give way to more fundamental and comprehensive reexaminations of the base of government.

It's time to start such thinking now, folks.

And it might not hurt to supplement your own savings for retirement a little bit, just in case someday you might need more than you expect.

In general, I don't support spending government money to help people. The government's job is to maintain a society wherein the people can help themselves.

One of the only valid government expenditures is defense. That said, the US has, of late, been doing more attacking than defending. That's probably not necessary.

outstanding point...i also think we have been doing a bit to much attacking.

i also despise the nanny state mentality...and think gov. should be minimal..help those that cant help themselves of coarse,but the gov should be about trade/defence/justice/enviro regulations and other then that...go away and leave me be.

i am also against income tax..it's nothing more then a gold card for the gov to spend our money with no need to pay it back...either leave the bill for our children,or raise taxes again to pay down the budget deficit.

i would be in jail if i ran my biz the way the gov does!

if they have a fixed amount of money to work with..ie...value added tax..then they may be a bit more wise with how they spend MY MONEY!

The major problem i have with massive defense spending is that money spent on weapons does not recycle into the economy. Think about it. Military weapons are designed only to destroy, they have no other value other than their military application.

However, if the same amount of money that would be spent on new weapons systems were spent on building/improving infrastructure, actual research and development or tax reductions for all citizens, not just the wealthy, the economy would be much better off because social spending helps promote economic growth and well being.

Sorry. I live in Ireland.

Ireland does produce military technologies. Mostly software and dual use stuff.