Republicans: crybabies or patriots?

[Fire_on_High]

, it's highly likely that should the US have a full default, the entire global economy is likely to destabilize in a rather unpleasant manner for just about everybody.

It's going to happen eventually. There would actually be a lot of strategic value in doing it at a time of our choosing where we're prepared for it and no one else is. America can time it in such a way to trim as much deadwood as possible, and ensure it hurts everyone else a lot worse...if we're smart about it.

It would accomplish a lot of good things at once to take the pain and get it over with already, which is why it'll never be allowed to happen.

[s_stabeler]

It's going to happen eventually.

I'm not sure it will, actually. First, there is a focus on cutting the deficit spending that is at the root of the problem. If the US can eventually get a surplus, then can start paying off their national debt, stepping away from the point when they would face economic meltdown. Second, it depends on what you mean. i the event of the US collapsing economically, the likely response will be a switch to the Chinese underpinning the economy. ( note that the US only really started underpinning the economy within the 20th century. Prior to that, it was other countries. The world has survived a change n economically dominant power before)

[Greenday]

It'd be nice to have a surplus for once, but how do you actually propose we do it? What do we cut? Who do we raise taxes on?

[Gravekeeper]

It'd be nice to have a surplus for once, but how do you actually propose we do it? What do we cut? Who do we raise taxes on?

Defense spending.
Rich Assholes.

-.-

[s_stabeler]

where I would cut spending: 1) waste- there is a LOT of spending that is for no, or very little, reason. see about cutting said waste 2) check to see if you can flatten the organizational structure- see if there are too many middle managers.


Also, about defense spending: you need to decide the purpose of the Armed Forces. Are they there to intervene in other countries, or are they there to defend the US? Are they there to find and defeat terrorists? Because if you want to defeat terrorists, you'd be better off cutting the size of the Army, and increasing the size of the Special Forces. Terrorists are primarily defeated through techniques like infiltrating terrorist cells. Not by invading countries. The army is currently still designed to deal with the threat from the Soviet Union back in the Cold War. These days, smaller, more mobile units might well be a better idea. Basically, decide what you want the Armed Forces to do, then design them around that.

where I would raise taxes: there are a million and one different loopholes n the tax system. Start by closing those. Especially the ones which allow a company earning multiple billions of dollars to pay a couple hundred thousand pounds in tax. Yes, some companies might leave. Most will stay. (The ones that will leave are the ones that already outsource just about everything to China)

basically, cut waste, and raise taxes on people that are already paying, percentage-wise, virtually nothing. It will at the very least help a lot. ( another thing- I would reconsider the exemption from income tax for religious organizations, where the main purpose is to spread their religious message. If the main purpose is charitable, fine. But if the main purpose is religious? tax them just as you would any other organization)

[Skunkle]

What to cut? What to fix? Yes, waste-- especially military waste. The military should be funded, but properly. Every dollar should go exactly where it's supposed to go. With the billions we're spending, the troops should have every bit of armor they need. I think it's gotten a bit better, but back during the Iraq war I had friends-of-friends over there whose job it was to repair vehicles... only they had no tools or parts. NONE. Not one of the repair spots in their area had anything. They were told to "look busy." If we're spending billions - and we certainly were then - nothing even remotely like that should occur. At that time, I asked a Conservative acquaintance why he thought that might be happening; he said, "we go to war with what we have, not with what we wish we had." When I told him that the remark made sense when it was made but, with what we were spending, it shouldn't now, he repeated that it was all the explanation that should be necessary. Do the best with whatever's in front of you, and if you need more, sorry.

Said person eventually got fed yup with the Republican party, so much that he refuses to associate with them any longer, but he still calls himself fiscally conservative, and I loved the way he put the issue of military spending at that point: "Conservative spending means you spend only as much as you have to spend. But you spend AS MUCH AS you have to spend, and you make sure you don't overpay, nobody pockets some of it along the way, and every bit goes exactly where it's needed. Because otherwise, you're wasting money." And that's what we've been doing with the military budget: wasting money. Spending on the military isn't bad. Spending the way we've been doing it, however, is.

As for deficits, the same acquaintance once told me, long ago when he was a hardcore Republican drinking the proverbial kool-aid, "A deficit is always better than a surplus. Because when you have a surplus, the Democrats waste it all on stupid shit. If there's no extra money to throw down the toilet, we're better off." Again, it has been realized in time that spending is not inherently bad. Wasting is bad. To get anything done, you have to spend something.

[Greenday]

Sorry, but the word waste is a cop out. Yea, there's tons of waste. But what specifically?

[mikoyan29]

Sorry, but the word waste is a cop out. Yea, there's tons of waste. But what specifically?

Where's the other 700 or so F-22's we're supposed to get?

[Gravekeeper]

How about the hundreds of tanks they keep building that the military doesn't want or need but congress keeps forcing them to take because the factories are in their voting districts? -.-

[Andara Bledin]

Or the programs that the miliatary command structure wants to shut down because keeping them running actively reduces our military's ability to function but that they are forced to keep running, because budget?

[s_stabeler]

Sorry, but the word waste is a cop out. Yea, there's tons of waste. But what specifically?

1) get rid of cost-plus contracts. (they basically say "we will pay you the cost of developing X, plus X amount") use fixed-price contracts instead. Maybe that'll make initial budgets more accurate, rather than being about 1% of the total final cost as it is now.
2) tanks are being built at the moment, while the US has enough tanks to just ship out a new one when the old ones get damaged until that type of tank would be phased out anyway. ( not even mentioning that tanks have somewhat limited usefullness in the urban environment that most battles are fought in these days.)

the entire point is you need to determine what IS waste- then get rid of all the waste if possible.