Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Future of the USA

13»

Posts

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Richy wrote:
    Buttcleft wrote:
    WMain00 wrote:

    WHERE THE FUCK IS MY HOVERBOARD?!!!!

    last I saw it was in 1885

    Well catch the next train and go there to get it!

    A train? Where do you think you are? Soviet Russia? Or, for that matter, some country that has an actual working commuter train system that isn't being turned into a political pariah?
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    MyDcmbr wrote:
    @Pi-r8

    Sounds like a great book.

    You should write it.
    Haha, I'll be like the reverse Tom Clancy.

    The US army kicking ass all over the world- as the bad guys.

    Tom Clancy meets Noam Chomsky.

    I think this only ends one way--in Washington, with a giant bronze statue of a Chinese PLA sergeant holding an assault rifle in one hand, his other open, palm facing in the direction of where the US Capitol used to be. Under him, a pedestal constructed of the only surviving portions of Capitol building stonewrk, bearing a message bolding declaring victory in Mandarin. To either side of him, giant pillars arranged in a semi-circle, repeating the message of the world's victory over the United States on the main pedestal, in French, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and, of course, English. Chinese tourists, along with tourists from the other victor states, will flock to it to take photographs of the changing of the guard around it, as they lay wreaths in the nearby Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

    Pretty bitchin' photo op by 2075.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    In 2001 the United States accounted for 32% of world GDP. In 2011 the number is 22% with not one indicator of the trend reversing. 2000 was the last year the US economy grew by 4.0% or more

    2020 isn't lifetime away, and the short-term doesn't look good for the long-term. To get out of the recession and maintain a healthy economy America needs to increase spending and then later raise taxes and simplify the tax code. What they're doing instead is cutting spending, with no visible indicator that they'll raise taxes.

    It has long ago managed to lose its edge in social mobility, and that seems to be of little interest to most its politicians.

    The United States has all the markings of a country heading toward economic stagnation.

    Its foreign policy will become increasingly leaner. But maybe it'll manage to get itself into one last hurrah; in Iran or something. Who knows. I sure as hell don't.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    In fairness, the U.S. has really only dominated the global economy so far because of its early lead in the early 20th century in the area of manufacturing, its coming out ahead compared to all of Europe from the World Wars, and technological and financial innovation from the '50s on. Even if we do everything right economically for the next decade, the rise of the BRIC countries represents an inevitable correction of the century-long imbalance in global trade between the U.S. and the rest of the world (and a centuries-long imbalance in development between the Eastern and Western hemispheres).

    So really, I don't know that China becoming the largest economy on the planet is so much a failure of the U.S. as an inevitable result of globalization.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Elki wrote:
    In 2001 the United States accounted for 32% of world GDP. In 2011 the number is 22% with not one indicator of the trend reversing. 2000 was the last year the US economy grew by 4.0% or more

    2020 isn't lifetime away, and the short-term doesn't look good for the long-term. To get out of the recession and maintain a healthy economy America needs to increase spending and then later raise taxes and simplify the tax code. What they're doing instead is cutting spending, with no visible indicator that they'll raise taxes.

    It has long ago managed to lose its edge in social mobility, and that seems to be of little interest to most its politicians.

    The United States has all the markings of a country heading toward economic stagnation.

    Its foreign policy will become increasingly leaner. But maybe it'll manage to get itself into one last hurrah; in Iran or something. Who knows. I sure as hell don't.

    Luckily, Europe is obsessed with austerity and has the Euro around its neck and China is building its trains out of lead. That leaves Russia, Africa, the Middle East, India, Japan, and Australia. The fist seems perfectly happy to be crazy in its own domains, the second if fucked up beyond belief, the third is trying its damned best to reenact The Highlander on an ethnic scale, the fourth has similar problems to the US and is involved in a mini Cold War, the fifth is running out of working-age people to look for that decade, and the last is where mother nature keeps her doomsday devices.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    It depends entirely on how many Americans dislike their country enough to vote for Tea Party / GOP candidates*.

    If I had to make a guess, I'd say the American economy will continue to decline slowly, and in 20 years Americans will have less money, less ability to direct foreign affairs, fewer rights, a lower standard of living (as an average. Little Jimmy Walton will fire union organizers from his hover car), because too few people are committed to selfless improvement of the country using rationally considered policies.

    It saddens me to say it, but I think America is its own worst enemy right now and I think we are an extremely dangerous foe. If it 20 years we aren't worse off and it wasn't primarily our own fault, I will be pleasantly surprised.

    * Yes, I realize in rare cases it is the right choice given the alternatives, but in general the conservative movement is FUBAR right now.

    programjunkie on
    Wicked Demiurge in most games. Solacus is my main in GW2.
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    In order:

    Will the Democrat/Republican two-party system be replaced by Republican/Tea Party? No
    Will there be a new secession? Will it be along north/south lines, or urban/rural lines, or ethnic lines? Will it lead to a new American Civil War? No
    Will companies become so powerful they become sovereign entities like in Shadowrun and are granted extraterritoriality and immunity from US laws? Not quite
    Will the austerity measures be taken to such a degree that the middle-class disappears and American society becomes a third-world-like super-rich and super-poor? Not quite
    Will China just move in and buy everything and everyone? No

    Or

    Will the Republican and Tea Party split, leading to the isolation of the insane fringe and the return of the Pubs to sanity? No
    Will the polarization of American society along party lines come to be seen as the silliness it really is? Yes, (eventually)
    Will the Murdoch empire collapse, and the rest of the US media look into their pants and rediscover their fucking testicles? Yes to the first (though "collapse" isn't quite the right word), a qualified no to the second
    Will the US recover economically, fix up its education, healthcare and welfare systems, and return to being an enviable world leader? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and no
    Will Canada just move in and buy everything and everyone? No

    Or

    Will the wars in the Middle East spread while Western involvement increases, leading to World War III? Not quite WWIII but lots of dying, unfortunately
    Will terrorists gets nukes and kill everyone? No
    Mars or bust? Mars (eventually)
    Will we suffer a global economic collapse and return to industrial-revolution society? No to the first, to the second: closer than we'd like
    Will robots just move in and buy everything and everyone? No

  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    continued slow decline if you vote mostly for dems, thrashing retarded fuckface "invade everywhere to use our military to do things because our economy can't any more" if you vote for repubs/tea party

    ~the choice is in your hands~

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    I largely expect the tea party to flame out following this presidential election. A lot of what they're saying/doing only works when the large segment of the population isn't really paying attention.

    The U.S. is still an incredibly wealthy country in terms of land and natural resources, and there is still a large amount of monetary wealth concentrated here. Even if the chinese economy "passes" ours or whatever, it's unlikely to turn the U.S. into some barely-first-world country (as seems to be the implication.) There might be a few rough years but this is still a pretty statist country and when push comes to shove we'll vote that way.

    I don't think the general "polarization along party lines" is likely to change any time soon, nor am I convinced it's even that unhealthy.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • AspectVoidAspectVoid Registered User regular
    You know what I find highly amusing in a sad and depressing way? Its the fact that we could solve our government deficit and be in the positive in a single year. It's really not that hard. There are a TON of funding for a bunch of crap that could be cut and easily get us out of debt.

    The problem, though, is that if all of that spending is cut, vast chunks of congress will be voted out of office because they'll all have to go against their party in order to succeed. And every last one of them cares FAR more about getting re-elected than they do about doing what is right for the country.

    PSN|AspectVoid
  • SpacklerSpackler Registered User
    AspectVoid wrote:
    You know what I find highly amusing in a sad and depressing way? Its the fact that we could solve our government deficit and be in the positive in a single year. It's really not that hard. There are a TON of funding for a bunch of crap that could be cut and easily get us out of debt.

    The problem, though, is that if all of that spending is cut, vast chunks of congress will be voted out of office because they'll all have to go against their party in order to succeed. And every last one of them cares FAR more about getting re-elected than they do about doing what is right for the country.

    Do you mean that we could run a budget surplus via spending cuts only? Or that we could somehow pay off ~$15 trillion on a GDP of ~$14 trillion?

    Where do the cuts come from?

  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS
    There will be a coup d'etat led by someone who anoints himself Count Dracula II. All members of Congress will be executed, and Washington will groan under the tyranny of a man who demands one impalement every meal he has.

    In response to this, Texas representatives move to war, but are attacked by rabid rats which spread the Black Plague, wiping out 60% of the population in Texas. There will be much rejoicing.

    Montana also declares war: a war against the world. They are promptly and swiftly ignored.

    All roads are devoured by genetically modified thermites, created by Doctor Kolossus the Evil.

    Since Rome turns into a radioactive crater (long story), Salt Lake City becomes the new seat of the Papacy (longer story).

    Thanks to the machinations of the Masons, the Alabamans become a hivemind; using their combined intellect, they are finally able to stroll through "ABC for Kids".

    Mexico invades because LOLOLLOLOL.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    Look, here in the UK we had the largest empire in the world that fell apart after WW2, with only a few strategic territories remaining as crown dependencies.

    We lost our supremacy, but our country didn't automatically explode as a result. There was a time where our culture and politics had to adapt to the new state of affairs but our nation didn't explode or tear itself apart. In fact, the UK, along with most of Europe remains highly affluent with high standards of living.

    What I'm saying is that the US may lose its global dominance and will have a period of soul searching as you become accustomed to its new position, but the idea that you will implode is ludicrous. When the cold war ended, with the collapse of the USSR, the disparate and massive country that is Russia remained without splintering into many independent states.

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Hamurabi wrote:
    In fairness, the U.S. has really only dominated the global economy so far because of its early lead in the early 20th century in the area of manufacturing, its coming out ahead compared to all of Europe from the World Wars, and technological and financial innovation from the '50s on. Even if we do everything right economically for the next decade, the rise of the BRIC countries represents an inevitable correction of the century-long imbalance in global trade between the U.S. and the rest of the world (and a centuries-long imbalance in development between the Eastern and Western hemispheres).

    So really, I don't know that China becoming the largest economy on the planet is so much a failure of the U.S. as an inevitable result of globalization.

    The first part of that is just a trend to be acknowledged, because it has to do with America's foreign policy. There is nothing inevitable about becoming Italy, however, so the rest has to do with more with choices than history or globalization.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    I largely expect the tea party to flame out following this presidential election. A lot of what they're saying/doing only works when the large segment of the population isn't really paying attention.

    The U.S. is still an incredibly wealthy country in terms of land and natural resources, and there is still a large amount of monetary wealth concentrated here. Even if the chinese economy "passes" ours or whatever, it's unlikely to turn the U.S. into some barely-first-world country (as seems to be the implication.) There might be a few rough years but this is still a pretty statist country and when push comes to shove we'll vote that way.

    What Americans will see it? US real wages have been on a downward spiral for close to half a century now, and shows no sign of reversing. Our vacation and free time is extremely lackluster compared to European counterparts, and our health care system is less effective, more expensive, and has a dangerous lottery effect.

    I don't think we'll see seven digit numbers of street orphans like legitimately developing nations, but the US is in danger of permanently losing its power and wealth. We should be taking advantage of structural problems in other countries (China has an inferior education system, particularly for generating people capable of advanced novel research, but we cannot even decide as a nation to accept the fact that science is real, to give one example) to assert ourselves as a continuing economic juggernaut for at least another century, but instead we're playing fiddles while Rome burns.
    I don't think the general "polarization along party lines" is likely to change any time soon, nor am I convinced it's even that unhealthy.

    You don't think that parties voting against their own damn policy positions because the other side adopted them has a negative impact on the nation as a whole? I've seen it obstruct good policy time and time again during this term, not even needing to look back further.

    Wicked Demiurge in most games. Solacus is my main in GW2.
  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS
    Look, here in the UK we had the largest empire in the world that fell apart after WW2, with only a few strategic territories remaining as crown dependencies.

    We lost our supremacy, but our country didn't automatically explode as a result. There was a time where our culture and politics had to adapt to the new state of affairs but our nation didn't explode or tear itself apart. In fact, the UK, along with most of Europe remains highly affluent with high standards of living.

    What I'm saying is that the US may lose its global dominance and will have a period of soul searching as you become accustomed to its new position, but the idea that you will implode is ludicrous. When the cold war ended, with the collapse of the USSR, the disparate and massive country that is Russia remained without splintering into many independent states.

    What? Are you claiming that a process that led Moscow to have no political sovereignty over Kiev, Minsk and Riga was not a brutal collapse, and that "Russia remained"? Russia is the USSR without the USSR's political power; and Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and so on and so forth, which are countries today, were hostages - hostages of a superpower that exploded, leading to numerous wars and quite a few deaths...

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Look, here in the UK we had the largest empire in the world that fell apart after WW2, with only a few strategic territories remaining as crown dependencies.

    We lost our supremacy, but our country didn't automatically explode as a result. There was a time where our culture and politics had to adapt to the new state of affairs but our nation didn't explode or tear itself apart. In fact, the UK, along with most of Europe remains highly affluent with high standards of living.

    What I'm saying is that the US may lose its global dominance and will have a period of soul searching as you become accustomed to its new position, but the idea that you will implode is ludicrous. When the cold war ended, with the collapse of the USSR, the disparate and massive country that is Russia remained without splintering into many independent states.

    Indeed. America becoming the second or third biggest economy in the world shouldn't have an impact on Americans' living standards, and most of the current economic woes are self-inflicted. But declining Britain still managed to find itself in the Suez Crisis, and America is no less capable of making blunders.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    I refuse to read this thread because I absolutely know that all you bastards are going to do is depress the shit outta me and make my hatred of half of this country burn even hotter. At this point in time I simply refuse to do that to myself.
    <3

    TheCanMan on
  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    Elki wrote:
    Hamurabi wrote:
    In fairness, the U.S. has really only dominated the global economy so far because of its early lead in the early 20th century in the area of manufacturing, its coming out ahead compared to all of Europe from the World Wars, and technological and financial innovation from the '50s on. Even if we do everything right economically for the next decade, the rise of the BRIC countries represents an inevitable correction of the century-long imbalance in global trade between the U.S. and the rest of the world (and a centuries-long imbalance in development between the Eastern and Western hemispheres).

    So really, I don't know that China becoming the largest economy on the planet is so much a failure of the U.S. as an inevitable result of globalization.

    The first part of that is just a trend to be acknowledged, because it has to do with America's foreign policy. There is nothing inevitable about becoming Italy, however, so the rest has to do with more with choices than history or globalization.

    I don't think anyone predicts that America will become a second-tier first-world country or anything. The outcome I see as being most likely is that, in the intermediate future (10-30 years from now) we find ourselves in a "many + one" hierarchy of global power, where the BRIC countries are the "many" who sit on a relatively even geopolitical playing field, while the U.S. sits just one tier above everyone in the political, military and probably economic spheres. Eventually, though, it seems inevitable that if India and China can both get their population's per-capita GDP close to that of the U.S., that those countries will have enough economic clout as to no longer be under the heel of U.S. dictate.

    This is all in a balance-of-power realist perspective, of course. I don't think that a world in which the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower will be an inherently less desirable or pleasant world (though if present trendlines hold, it will definitely be a dirtier / critically unsustainable world).

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    American nearly broke up about half a dozen times in the 19th century, usually with the Northeast threatening to pull out over some idiotic Southern war or pro-slavery policy.*

    Mass immigration, settlement of the West and the lingering lesson of the Civil War put an end to this until the 20th century, when the world wars, the growing power of Washington, federal national development of infrastructure and laws and massive prosperity made secession a dead issue.

    I see no reason why the ebbing of these factors wouldn't put us right back to where we were in the 19th century, with the nation threatening to crack up every couple decades or so.

    * The irony of the Civil War was that the South had been in the drivers seat of the nation until the 1850s, threatened the shit out of the New England states who kept hiding slaves and threatening secession and then pulled out over a single election where they didn't get there way.

  • WMain00WMain00 Registered User
    Eddy wrote:
    Calling it

    India gonna do something ca-razy

    The last I checked India were in a reasonably stable position. They're busy. The real threat is Pakistan, where radicalism is slowly seaping into Government control. That happens and we'll have a bit of a problem, particularly since Pakistan has an ICBM.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    China, India, and Brazil will grow into economic monsters. The roles of the US as a sole superpower will end.

    Ropughly one quarter of Americans will see this as the pie getting bigger and a risign tide lifting all boats. they largely won't care about the economic rise of the rest of the world, but WILL care that ocial mobility at home has evaporated, which they'll blame mostly on conservative domestic decisions and policy making.

    One quarter will resent the rest of the world, seeing their gains coming at American expense. They will favor hostile or isolationist foreign policy and a desire to return to 'the glory days', and will espouse the backwards policies designed to hold back the developing market jones' they resent rather than attempt to keep up with them: they'd rather the pie stays the same size if their portion of the whole is smaller.

    One quarter will be undecided, somehow managing to hold both of the preceding positions. This will generally be based on their own employment status, but in a stunning display of doublethink may also just indicate that they actually belive both.

    The last quarter won't care at all.


    So basically, exactly like today except that the gap between rich and poor will be larger and more entrenched, and other major world economies will be much bigger forces.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    I don't think the general "polarization along party lines" is likely to change any time soon, nor am I convinced it's even that unhealthy.

    You don't think that parties voting against their own damn policy positions because the other side adopted them has a negative impact on the nation as a whole? I've seen it obstruct good policy time and time again during this term, not even needing to look back further.

    While I agree that the U.S. legislature is undemocratic and frequently dysfunctional, that's been the case for the entire history of the country (sometimes, it's been worse than it is now.) It's a structural problem that's a result of how the system is set up, and while I favor changing it to a more parlimentary structure, we've muddled along so far.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I don't think the general "polarization along party lines" is likely to change any time soon, nor am I convinced it's even that unhealthy.

    You don't think that parties voting against their own damn policy positions because the other side adopted them has a negative impact on the nation as a whole? I've seen it obstruct good policy time and time again during this term, not even needing to look back further.

    While I agree that the U.S. legislature is undemocratic and frequently dysfunctional, that's been the case for the entire history of the country (sometimes, it's been worse than it is now.) It's a structural problem that's a result of how the system is set up, and while I favor changing it to a more parlimentary structure, we've muddled along so far.

    And to be fair, parliamentary systems have their own problems as well - the Knesset is pretty much a case study in how minority blocs can wield outsized power.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SiskaSiska Shorty Registered User regular
    Lolken wrote:
    There will be a coup d'etat led by someone who anoints himself Count Dracula II. All members of Congress will be executed, and Washington will groan under the tyranny of a man who demands one impalement every meal he has.

    In response to this, Texas representatives move to war, but are attacked by rabid rats which spread the Black Plague, wiping out 60% of the population in Texas. There will be much rejoicing.

    Montana also declares war: a war against the world. They are promptly and swiftly ignored.

    All roads are devoured by genetically modified thermites, created by Doctor Kolossus the Evil.

    Since Rome turns into a radioactive crater (long story), Salt Lake City becomes the new seat of the Papacy (longer story).

    Thanks to the machinations of the Masons, the Alabamans become a hivemind; using their combined intellect, they are finally able to stroll through "ABC for Kids".

    Mexico invades because LOLOLLOLOL.

    Koontz, is that you?

    Izuela.png
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    I don't think the general "polarization along party lines" is likely to change any time soon, nor am I convinced it's even that unhealthy.

    You don't think that parties voting against their own damn policy positions because the other side adopted them has a negative impact on the nation as a whole? I've seen it obstruct good policy time and time again during this term, not even needing to look back further.

    While I agree that the U.S. legislature is undemocratic and frequently dysfunctional, that's been the case for the entire history of the country (sometimes, it's been worse than it is now.) It's a structural problem that's a result of how the system is set up, and while I favor changing it to a more parlimentary structure, we've muddled along so far.

    Well the system doesn't have a particularly good track record - all the South American countries in the 19th cen (and Africans in the 20th) that copy-pasted it had terribad things occur. The actual nuts and bolts of a constitutional framework matter less than body politic's competency and trust in the system and themselves.

    As to muddling along so far, in its history America has basically only had three types of international relationships - isolation, massively overwhelming power, and everything being marshalled against a distant foe. These are all simple enough to herd the cats in congress towards. In a flexible and multipolar world of many impinging and overlapping international and economic interests, the structural dysfunctions may cause america to make mistakes that it can't afford any more.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    WMain00 wrote:
    Eddy wrote:
    Calling it

    India gonna do something ca-razy

    The last I checked India were in a reasonably stable position. They're busy. The real threat is Pakistan, where radicalism is slowly seaping into Government control. That happens and we'll have a bit of a problem, particularly since Pakistan has an ICBM.

    Their longest range (known) missile is the Shaheen-2, with a range of 3500km. This puts it in the MRBM class, which is enough to be a threat to anyone Pakistan cares about (aka India and China), but not the US. If Pakistan wants to develop an ICBM (which seems doubtful since they've supposedly canceled the latest versions of their MRBMs), they're probably 30 years from doing so.

  • HallowedFaithHallowedFaith Call me Cloud. Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Spackler wrote:
    Do you mean that we could run a budget surplus via spending cuts only? Or that we could somehow pay off ~$15 trillion on a GDP of ~$14 trillion?

    Where do the cuts come from?

    I am not saying that we could just CUT shit out, however there is an overwhelming amount of money being hemorrhaged by support units that don't actually DO anything and cost far more to run and maintain than the units that are actually engaged in shit. This system is way fucked up, and while it won't shave off trillions of dollars, it's a fact that if you look at it over time, the volume of money just being burned away year after year is pretty sad.

    I would start a stricter look into the medical process for troops who are injured in support MOS jobs.

    Wanna know something? There are more medboards and profiles by FAR for support units than combat units. Especially Air Defense. Brigades average 220 PT scores, with a 20% failure rate, and have nearly 60% on a medical status. I'm gonna go a little further because it pisses me of.

    When you figure in Basic combat training, the schooling, and all the extra shit that goes into it, include paying for the manpower to enroll the soldier and track them; it varies from 80 to 250k to train a soldier and assign him to his first active unit.

    The solider signed on for 3 years and got a 40k sign on bonus, with a 38k kicker, and the GI Bill, you're adding another 150k on top of that. Soldier is being paid too.

    6 months into training, soldier complains his back hurts, fell, hit his head, or whatever. Most soldiers are just going online now-a-days and looking up symptoms that are hard to diagnose but not to ignore. After a few visits, some acting here and there, a couple MRI's (all this costing a fucking FORTUNE with TriCare), you're considered for a medical board. Few months later, your medical discharge is approved. You keep your bonus. You keep your GI Bill, you keep your benefits. You are welcome to a portion of VA support (even if you're under the 2 year requirement)... all that shit is yours.

    Oh and it was a medical board, which means now you're being paid for life. Upwards to 2grand a month, and the VA can get you more.

    In under 1 year, you just raped the government for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they will continue to keep paying over time. This happens every - fucking - day. Although this is just one example I am particularly pissed off about, this type of unorganized chaotic management coats the walls of nearly every single department.

    And all of this costs money and it is sad. In so many ways it is said, but it is money none the less.

    Notice: Not all soldiers that this happens to are trying to the milk the system. Untrained leadership effects training troops as well, and improper training leads to hurt troops.

    HallowedFaith on
    I'm making video games. DesignBy.Cloud
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    So this is interesting. New data from the Economist on which states are freeloaders.
    spending-map.gif
    Secession would not go well for the south.

    Pi-r8 on
  • DockenDocken Registered User regular
    Uh, you spend like $700Billion a year on the military... NOT including "emergency" spending on two wars.

    This really is a simple equation to fix and yet huge sections of your country doesn't seem to want to get it... you'll continue to strangle yourselves until you wake up and realise that all a massive military (twice as big as everyone else COMBINED) gets you is more wars and wasteful, non-productive spending.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    Huh... I was under the impression we in Vermont were pretty good on the whole self-sufficiency thing. Guess I was wrong.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    My prediction for the future:

    Rocks Stocks fall, everybody dies.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Shadowfire wrote:
    Huh... I was under the impression we in Vermont were pretty good on the whole self-sufficiency thing. Guess I was wrong.

    If you talk about being self-sufficient, you aren't.

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    What goes into the calculations there? Is it just taxes paid versus revenue received? I'm curious if there's a breakdown of what's what.

    Also interesting that our neighbor is in the green with no income or sales tax, and similar property taxes.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Muse Among MenMuse Among Men Suburban Bunny Princess? Its time for a new shtick Registered User regular
    Houn wrote:
    My prediction for the future:

    Rocks Stocks fall, everybody dies.

    I think the thread can die now. There is nowhere to go from here but downhill.

  • HamurabiHamurabi AmsterdamRegistered User regular
    Docken wrote:
    Uh, you spend like $700Billion a year on the military... NOT including "emergency" spending on two wars.

    This really is a simple equation to fix and yet huge sections of your country doesn't seem to want to get it... you'll continue to strangle yourselves until you wake up and realise that all a massive military (twice as big as everyone else COMBINED) gets you is more wars and wasteful, non-productive spending.

    On the one hand, in the modern geopolitical climate, I think the idea of a democratic peace has a lot of merit, thanks to globalization's ability to make the entire globe one vast, interdependent network.

    On the other hand... we've never known a world where the U.S. didn't have an enormous military advantage over everyone else. I don't know what kind of unintended consequences a substantive reduction in military spending might have.

  • Muse Among MenMuse Among Men Suburban Bunny Princess? Its time for a new shtick Registered User regular
    I do think we spend too much on military spending but I don't know that we could suddenly fold everything up and expect things to be roses. I don't think they should have to be, but the military employs a lot of people. I honestly don't know how we could make that transition less painful.

  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Optimistic: The United States will gently and slowly decline, allowing for other world powers (which include corporations as well as governments) to fill the niches that the crumbling empire can no longer fulfill. There will be small bouts of civil unrest due to the echoes of American exceptionalism that has captured the minds of most of the populace, but nothing so serious as a civil war. China and the United States will maintain a solid trade partnership, but China will begin to suffer its own problems as more of its population demands a first world lifestyle, leading them to focus inward and allowing the US to once again jumpstart its manufacturing sector with competitive prices (low wages and higher prices for consumer goods becoming the norm).

    Pessimistic: The U.S will experience a sharp and injurious decline, that would have ripple effects that would affect the entire world negatively. If such things as the rapid devaluation of fiat currency and the loss of all governmental support systems were to occur at once, massive civil unrest would affect everything, including most international corporations (as thier base of operations, and thus the the majority of employees at the heart of the companies, would be affected by or participate in said unrest). If the governmental body is compromised, the military industrial complex , out of fear of losing its billions (and out of a desire to preserve America as they see it) will attempt to save the day, afffecting a de facto military coup. Said leaders would attempt to "save" the united states at any cost, promoting order and civility at gunpoint and beginning the process of leveraging the power of the hundreds of military bases around the globe in an attempt to force "weak" nations to help the United States recover and sustain economic superiority.
    Disclaimer: I assume this thread is for fun and profit, so don't take the above paragraphs 100% seriously. No one person can ever predict the future to any marginal degree of accuracy. Which I suppose is the point of this thread... greater public opinion of what the future will look like will likely shape what the future looks like. By extension its useful to examine multiple opinions on the subject, even if no one person will ever be correct, just various degrees of correct, a group as a whole, taken together, may provide some small insight.

    Shurakai on
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.