Military spending is at historic lows even while fighting two wars. The solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget.
We spent about as much financing the Department of Defense last year as we spent on Social Security and just slightly less than we spent on Medicare and Medicaid combined.
Maybe that kind of war spending made sense when we were confronting global communist empires, but it really doesn't need to be that high.
Speaker on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
In 2010 we spent 685 Billion Dollars on defense. 57% of our tax revenue and the highest amount ever spent by a single entity on its Military.
For 2012 we are slated to spend over 710 Billion dollars on defense. Over half of our entire $1.4 Trillion budget for next year will be Defense spending.
What is the most spent on a military if you discount the US? Because we kind of blow the lid off the curve, and breaking our own previously held record lacks perspective.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
In 2010 we spent 685 Billion Dollars on defense. 57% of our tax revenue and the highest amount ever spent by a single entity on its Military.
For 2012 we are slated to spend over 710 Billion dollars on defense. Over half of our entire $1.4 Trillion budget for next year will be Defense spending.
What is the most spent on a military if you discount the US? Because we kind of blow the lid off the curve, and breaking our own previously held record lacks perspective.
In 2010 we spent 685 Billion Dollars on defense. 57% of our tax revenue and the highest amount ever spent by a single entity on its Military.
For 2012 we are slated to spend over 710 Billion dollars on defense. Over half of our entire $1.4 Trillion budget for next year will be Defense spending.
What is the most spent on a military if you discount the US? Because we kind of blow the lid off the curve, and breaking our own previously held record lacks perspective.
It's from '08.
We could cut our budget by over 80% and still be the largest single nation.
More than half and still have a larger expenditure than the entire continent of Europe sans Russia. Including Russia, Europe would be ever so slightly higher than us if we cut in half.
e: For those curious, the "historic lows" is "As a percent of GDP."
So it doesn't matter if no one else is spending anywhere near as much, nor does it matter that the money being spent on it increases needlessly, so long as exports, consumption, investment, and other govt expenditure increases at a faster rate!
Given the choice between arguably spending too much on Defense and leaving more things to NATO, who can't maintain a bombing campaign over Libya for two months because they run out of bombs, I feel like arguably spending too much is the better option. Could we cut down on foreign bases? Yeah. Wasteful programs? Sure. We aren't going to find 300 billion dollars in the Pentagon's budget. It just isn't happening. And although I detest him, even Paul Krugman admits the Pentagon isn't the real issue http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/realism-on-defense-spending/
This also totally ignores the fact that Medicare and Social Security spending are set to ramp up to really incredible amounts whereas military spending should decline considerably once Iraq and Afghanistan are wrapped up.
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
Given the choice between arguably spending too much on Defense and leaving more things to NATO, who can't maintain a bombing campaign over Libya for two months because they run out of bombs, I feel like arguably spending too much is the better option. Could we cut down on foreign bases? Yeah. Wasteful programs? Sure. We aren't going to find 300 billion dollars in the Pentagon's budget. It just isn't happening. And although I detest him, even Paul Krugman admits the Pentagon isn't the real issue http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/realism-on-defense-spending/
This also totally ignores the fact that Medicare and Social Security spending are set to ramp up to really incredible amounts whereas military spending should decline considerably once Iraq and Afghanistan are wrapped up.
So you agree that the problem is health care costs, which the free market has done absolutely nothing to solve, as it seeks to maximize profits and the market is inherently imbalanced as health care is an inelastic good.
Therefore, you would support a single-payer system to control costs, right?
Given the choice between arguably spending too much on Defense and leaving more things to NATO, who can't maintain a bombing campaign over Libya for two months because they run out of bombs, I feel like arguably spending too much is the better option. Could we cut down on foreign bases? Yeah. Wasteful programs? Sure. We aren't going to find 300 billion dollars in the Pentagon's budget. It just isn't happening. And although I detest him, even Paul Krugman admits the Pentagon isn't the real issue http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/realism-on-defense-spending/
This also totally ignores the fact that Medicare and Social Security spending are set to ramp up to really incredible amounts whereas military spending should decline considerably once Iraq and Afghanistan are wrapped up.
So you agree that the problem is health care costs, which the free market has done absolutely nothing to solve, as it seeks to maximize profits and the market is inherently imbalanced as health care is an inelastic good.
Therefore, you would support a single-payer system to control costs, right?
These words you have put into my mouth are delicious, but have no basis in reality. I also didn't know SS was a healthcare program.
I'm more into facing up to the fact that Social Security is a welfare program, and cutting rich people out of it. Same with Medicare. Figure if you can cut out the top 15-25% of each program and their associated cost, the budget starts looking a lot more secure, along with those tax code reforms that wouldn't let GE get away without paying any taxes.
And if Krugman isn't agreeing with me, I'd like to know what exactly he is saying. If you would be so kind.
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
Given the choice between arguably spending too much on Defense and leaving more things to NATO, who can't maintain a bombing campaign over Libya for two months because they run out of bombs, I feel like arguably spending too much is the better option. Could we cut down on foreign bases? Yeah. Wasteful programs? Sure. We aren't going to find 300 billion dollars in the Pentagon's budget. It just isn't happening. And although I detest him, even Paul Krugman admits the Pentagon isn't the real issue http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/realism-on-defense-spending/
This also totally ignores the fact that Medicare and Social Security spending are set to ramp up to really incredible amounts whereas military spending should decline considerably once Iraq and Afghanistan are wrapped up.
So you agree that the problem is health care costs, which the free market has done absolutely nothing to solve, as it seeks to maximize profits and the market is inherently imbalanced as health care is an inelastic good.
Therefore, you would support a single-payer system to control costs, right?
These words you have put into my mouth are delicious, but have no basis in reality. I also didn't know SS was a healthcare program.
I'm more into facing up to the fact that Social Security is a welfare program, and cutting rich people out of it. Same with Medicare. Figure if you can cut out the top 15-25% of each program and their associated cost, the budget starts looking a lot more secure, along with those tax code reforms that wouldn't let GE get away without paying any taxes.
And if Krugman isn't agreeing with me, I'd like to know what exactly he is saying. If you would be so kind.
Yes, SS isn't a healthcare program. The thing is, it's not a problem for the US budget either. The big thing killing the US budget is low taxes (specifically the Bush Tax cuts) and medical costs.
Also, means testing is generally bullshit, since it costs money to means test and doesn't generally provide a meaningful savings for the cost while also making it a pain in the ass for the people who actually do need the money to get it.
As for Krugman, here's the key:
So by all means, let’s try to crack down on the massive waste that goes on in matters military. But doing so would be of only modest help on the larger budget problem.
He's saying there is massive waste and overspending in the military and it should be dealt with. But that even if you do deal with it, it's still not enough to solve the budget problem since the main culprit is still medical costs.
Pretty sure means-testing Social Security would cost more than it saved. And hey, maybe we couldn't solve all our problems with cutting defense, but there's really no reason to continue paying contractors $400 for stuff we could do ourselves for $40. Also, mercenaries.
All he said was that you can't just solve our problems with defense cuts, which is hardly a position you'll find here anyway. You used his article like it validated your claim, which is silly if you read the article.
Given the choice between arguably spending too much on Defense and leaving more things to NATO, who can't maintain a bombing campaign over Libya for two months because they run out of bombs, I feel like arguably spending too much is the better option. Could we cut down on foreign bases? Yeah. Wasteful programs? Sure. We aren't going to find 300 billion dollars in the Pentagon's budget. It just isn't happening. And although I detest him, even Paul Krugman admits the Pentagon isn't the real issue http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/realism-on-defense-spending/
This also totally ignores the fact that Medicare and Social Security spending are set to ramp up to really incredible amounts whereas military spending should decline considerably once Iraq and Afghanistan are wrapped up.
I think the reason NATO is in the position it's in is thier reliance on us to do the heavy lifting in any military engagement. Why bother spending money on a military when you have the US around to back you up?
I'm really tired of people talking about the deficit commission's "plans" or "recommendations". The group didn't issue jack shit officially, because they couldn't get enough votes on the slash-Social-Security-and-cut-taxes proposal, so stop pretending that outline should be treated as if it had their imprimatur.
I don't think that's how it worked and the coverage is more consistent with my perception. I believe the Commission operated under normal committee rules. Since a majority of the members voted for the Chairmen's plan it is the official Commission Recommendation.
They did not however have the supermajority required to send it to an up-or-down vote to Congress.
Except sending that up-and-down vote was the POINT of the commission in the first place. And the rules were set the way they were for a reason.
Basically, the commission produced nothing except giving a few of it's members a spotlight to highlight their own "fuck the poor" plan.
Is there any feasible (as in one that people would be willing to accept because acting like gutting Medicare or Medicaid is a possibility is a realistic possibility at this point is BS) that doesn't require what the Republican's consider to be raising taxes?
I have a lot of trouble believing that means-testing wouldn't have a significant impact if it found that 20% of the elderly don't need a blank SS check, which seems like a fairly reasonably number to me. Certainly it would increase administrative costs, but I just really have trouble with the notion that it would wipe out all or most of the savings. Unless you're only eliminating it for billionaires or something silly. The program's stated goal is keeping elderly out of poverty, why don't we stop subsidizing the wealthy with it. Same with Medicare.
He's saying there is massive waste and overspending in the military and it should be dealt with. But that even if you do deal with it, it's still not enough to solve the budget problem since the main culprit is still medical costs.
The strongest denouncement, from the Left's intellectual champion, of military spending, is that it would be of modest help in the best case?
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
Is there any feasible (as in one that people would be willing to accept because acting like gutting Medicare or Medicaid is a possibility is a realistic possibility at this point is BS) that doesn't require what the Republican's consider to be raising taxes?
No.
We could eliminate the entire government aside from Defense, Medicare, and Social Security (which is still solvent at this point) and we would still have a deficit.
Any meaningful cuts would have to be from one of those three. SS is still solvent, and can easily be fixed to be continually solvent by accounting for increasing life expectancy/pushing the retirement age back. Defense and Medicare are sacred cows. And everything else is, by and large, meaningless.
All he said was that you can't just solve our problems with defense cuts, which is hardly a position you'll find here anyway. You used his article like it validated your claim, which is silly if you read the article.
My claim was "the solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget", in response to the doctored claim that defense eats half the government's budget. I said we could do a lot of intelligent things like closing down redundant foreign bases and eliminating waste, still failing to see what he said differently.
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
I have a lot of trouble believing that means-testing wouldn't have a significant impact if it found that 20% of the elderly don't need a blank SS check, which seems like a fairly reasonably number to me. Certainly it would increase administrative costs, but I just really have trouble with the notion that it would wipe out all or most of the savings.
Feel free to provide a cite for that argument. I think you're overestimating both how many people make enough not to need a pension, and how many people really have decent pensions that could pay for all of their medical needs.
I have a lot of trouble believing that means-testing wouldn't have a significant impact if it found that 20% of the elderly don't need a blank SS check, which seems like a fairly reasonably number to me. Certainly it would increase administrative costs, but I just really have trouble with the notion that it would wipe out all or most of the savings. Unless you're only eliminating it for billionaires or something silly. The program's stated goal is keeping elderly out of poverty, why don't we stop subsidizing the wealthy with it. Same with Medicare.
Because it's immensely more efficient to tax the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else is.
Also pretty much everyone short of the top couple of percentiles needs medicare.
All he said was that you can't just solve our problems with defense cuts, which is hardly a position you'll find here anyway. You used his article like it validated your claim, which is silly if you read the article.
My claim was "the solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget", in response to the doctored claim that defense eats half the government's budget. I said we could do a lot of intelligent things like closing down redundant foreign bases and eliminating waste, still failing to see what he said differently.
It was a straw man to begin with, no one here is saying cutting down defense is the solution. And Krugman then goes on to say its probably the most wasteful branch.
One of the things you'd get if you means tested social security is you'd get more and more people calling it welfare (which is what you just did!) when it is an insurance program. SSI, you know? And we know what happens to welfare programs in this country:
1) Demonized as only applying to minorities
2) Cut
Anyway, social security isn't a deficit contributor. Short term, the deficit is Bush tax cuts + 9% unemployment + wars/defense. Middle term we're mostly OK. Long term, the problem is health care costs. There are two solutions to that particular problem:
A) Remove Medicare/Medicaid from the government's budget. Also known as the pulling the plug on Grandma/poor people plan. Cost containment. Which the Republicans have offered exactly 0 proposals for. While the Democrats have ACA which will help. Not enough, but it's a first step.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
All he said was that you can't just solve our problems with defense cuts, which is hardly a position you'll find here anyway. You used his article like it validated your claim, which is silly if you read the article.
My claim was "the solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget", in response to the doctored claim that defense eats half the government's budget. I said we could do a lot of intelligent things like closing down redundant foreign bases and eliminating waste, still failing to see what he said differently.
The claim was half of revenue. Which is obviously less than the budget, seeing as how that's the thing you think is so problematic.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
An honest question: If medical costs, low taxes, and military spending are the three biggest issues for our deficit, what would happen if we had UHC in some form; raised the taxes on those making $200,000 or more by say, 5%; and cut military spending by 15% (which sounds reasonable to me but I have no figures on how this would work)?
Again, it's revenue. Your number is right with FICA and what not included. Which of course, conservatives never do, so they can make the claim that half of Americans never pay taxes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
My claim was "the solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget", in response to the doctored claim that defense eats half the government's budget.
Doctored how?
It's 20% by any reasonable metric. It only arrives at 50% when you exclude SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Do you have a source for these numbers?
The 2010 budget (October 2009-September 2010) spent a total of 3.55 trillion dollars, of which .663 trillion went to defense. Of course, we could easily choose to reduce spending on defense, whereas Social Security and several other social programs would be much more difficult, and interest on the national debt cannot be cut, period.
Because raising taxes (by and large, especially on the wealthy) increases revenue, which is rather important to paying off the deficit. Also, S&P wasn't reacting to Obama's speech, but Republican brinksmanship, threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling if they don't get more massive spending cuts.
That doesn't seem completely right. While S&P does mention the partisan political situation, they also mention how U.S. debt accumulation has been at a much higher clip than other triple-A countries for some time now. The President's plan doesn't seem to offer much in the way of significant spending reductions. He threw a few bones out in making a commission on military spending, promised to find "waste and abuse" in programs (a few minutes after he called "waste and abuse" a red herring.)
And taxes aren't a magic money spigot, sometimes lowering certain rates increases total revenue, Kennedy and Reagan both did this.
The United States had a big stimulus package that is ending.
The end of special recession stimulus spending and increasing revenues as the economy recovers narrow things down. It's not as though every single year going forward the government will be dealing with a global economic meltdown.
Also, other triple A rated nations, like Britain, have smaller opener economies that are more vulnerable to finance pressures. They are forced into brutal austerity where we are not - as is demonstrated by the fact that Britain is undertaking some rather sharp measures right now whereas we are receiving polite letters saying that perhaps there is a chance that S&P might consider lowering our rating in several years if some kind of medium range agreement on the budget isn't reached sometime in the next year and a half.
And by the by, tax rates under Kennedy and Reagan were a lot higher. If you think you can cut taxes and have revenue go up at this point you are engaging in the same wishful thinking that created the situation we are in right now. George Bush cut taxes and the economy was pretty luke warm. Bill Clinton raised taxes and the economy was very strong. Clearly cutting taxes and increasing revenue are not tightly related.
I think you might be overstating the British case here, I don't think they were really forced into austerity. Rather their new government choose austerity in response to their situation. Krugman has been talking quite a bit how the British austerity hasn't been going so well for them so far.
Contrast this with Greece, where they are going to need to resort to austerity sooner or later because their numbers simply do not add up. They run massive deficits of Euros, colluded with the big financial companies to hide even more debt under the rug during boom times, have lost all credibility with the bond markets, and have a strong culture of tax evasion and a large underground economy. Even if Greece completely defaults they are still going to need to make big cuts and/or clamp down on taxes to balance themselves out. If Greece could get reasonable rates in the bond markets like quite a few other large debtor countries they might be able to string themselves out longer, but they've lost that.
If all that mattered was the size of your government debt relative to your economy then Japan would have gone belly up years ago. Theirs is off the charts.
And taxes aren't a magic money spigot, sometimes lowering certain rates increases total revenue, Kennedy and Reagan both did this.
Actually no they did not. Not in the slightest. Not in the wildest dreams of the most right wing tax economists (I.E. the people who actually study taxes) did this happen.
One of the things you'd get if you means tested social security is you'd get more and more people calling it welfare (which is what you just did!) when it is an insurance program. SSI, you know? And we know what happens to welfare programs in this country:
1) Demonized as only applying to minorities
2) Cut
Anyway, social security isn't a deficit contributor. Short term, the deficit is Bush tax cuts + 9% unemployment + wars/defense. Middle term we're mostly OK. Long term, the problem is health care costs. There are two solutions to that particular problem:
A) Remove Medicare/Medicaid from the government's budget. Also known as the pulling the plug on Grandma/poor people plan. Cost containment. Which the Republicans have offered exactly 0 proposals for. While the Democrats have ACA which will help. Not enough, but it's a first step.
So, we just shouldn't be realistic about what SS is and does because...we don't want it to be cut? It's not even kind of an insurance program. The idea in insurance is only a few unluckies have to collect. In SS, everyone collects what they put in and a lot more OPM. That sort of works when old people live to be 60, collect for less than a year, and there are lots of young people. It doesn't work when people live to be 80, and people are having a lot less kids.
Your analysis also ignores that, as much as tax rates have fluctuated, government revenue is consistently around 20% of GDP. If spending is above 20% of GDP, you're going to have big deficits anyhow.
FPA20111 on
The paranoid man believes that everyone is out to get him. The intelligent man knows that everyone is out to get him.
Any suggestion of cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security is pointless. Republicans know it is and have run on "Democrats will take your X entitlement" before. Any reforms to control cost with the first two will probably result in them covering more people, something Republicans will accuse of being big government.
In comparison, much less people are dependent on defense spending. Individual communities might be fairly reliant, but it is nothing compared to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in terms of reliance by people. Unlike with the others, cuts can include being less insane with how much shit is bought so can be done fairly gradually. The closest to a gradual change with the others is fucking over every person after a cutoff date. The problem is the usual "abloo, abloo, liberals hate our troops."
Having progressive tax increases does not need to be politically unpopular with a lot of the shit doing well in the polls.
One of the things you'd get if you means tested social security is you'd get more and more people calling it welfare (which is what you just did!) when it is an insurance program. SSI, you know? And we know what happens to welfare programs in this country:
1) Demonized as only applying to minorities
2) Cut
Anyway, social security isn't a deficit contributor. Short term, the deficit is Bush tax cuts + 9% unemployment + wars/defense. Middle term we're mostly OK. Long term, the problem is health care costs. There are two solutions to that particular problem:
A) Remove Medicare/Medicaid from the government's budget. Also known as the pulling the plug on Grandma/poor people plan. Cost containment. Which the Republicans have offered exactly 0 proposals for. While the Democrats have ACA which will help. Not enough, but it's a first step.
So, we just shouldn't be realistic about what SS is and does because...we don't want it to be cut? It's not even kind of an insurance program. The idea in insurance is only a few unluckies have to collect. In SS, everyone collects what they put in and a lot more OPM. That sort of works when old people live to be 60, collect for less than a year, and there are lots of young people. It doesn't work when people live to be 80, and people are having a lot less kids.
Your analysis also ignores that, as much as tax rates have fluctuated, government revenue is consistently around 20% of GDP. If spending is above 20% of GDP, you're going to have big deficits anyhow.
Well, lots of people die before they're eligible to collect because our health care system sucks...
Anyway, social security doesn't contribute to the federal deficit. And it's totally solvent until 2037 at the moment and solvent at 75% of payouts until 2081 or so. Without making any changes. Any inclusion of social security in attempts to solve our long term budget issues is deeply unserious and should be ignored.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
And taxes aren't a magic money spigot, sometimes lowering certain rates increases total revenue, Kennedy and Reagan both did this.
Actually no they did not. Not in the slightest. Not in the wildest dreams of the most right wing tax economists (I.E. the people who actually study taxes) did this happen.
Posts
The solution is that everyone in America should incorporate themselves, and thus be invisible to the Republican Tax Hargleblargle.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
We spent about as much financing the Department of Defense last year as we spent on Social Security and just slightly less than we spent on Medicare and Medicaid combined.
Maybe that kind of war spending made sense when we were confronting global communist empires, but it really doesn't need to be that high.
What is the most spent on a military if you discount the US? Because we kind of blow the lid off the curve, and breaking our own previously held record lacks perspective.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
China, with $114 billion.
So, you know, about 18% as much as us.
It's from '08.
We could cut our budget by over 80% and still be the largest single nation.
More than half and still have a larger expenditure than the entire continent of Europe sans Russia. Including Russia, Europe would be ever so slightly higher than us if we cut in half.
e: For those curious, the "historic lows" is "As a percent of GDP."
So it doesn't matter if no one else is spending anywhere near as much, nor does it matter that the money being spent on it increases needlessly, so long as exports, consumption, investment, and other govt expenditure increases at a faster rate!
This also totally ignores the fact that Medicare and Social Security spending are set to ramp up to really incredible amounts whereas military spending should decline considerably once Iraq and Afghanistan are wrapped up.
So you agree that the problem is health care costs, which the free market has done absolutely nothing to solve, as it seeks to maximize profits and the market is inherently imbalanced as health care is an inelastic good.
Therefore, you would support a single-payer system to control costs, right?
These words you have put into my mouth are delicious, but have no basis in reality. I also didn't know SS was a healthcare program.
I'm more into facing up to the fact that Social Security is a welfare program, and cutting rich people out of it. Same with Medicare. Figure if you can cut out the top 15-25% of each program and their associated cost, the budget starts looking a lot more secure, along with those tax code reforms that wouldn't let GE get away without paying any taxes.
And if Krugman isn't agreeing with me, I'd like to know what exactly he is saying. If you would be so kind.
Yes, SS isn't a healthcare program. The thing is, it's not a problem for the US budget either. The big thing killing the US budget is low taxes (specifically the Bush Tax cuts) and medical costs.
Also, means testing is generally bullshit, since it costs money to means test and doesn't generally provide a meaningful savings for the cost while also making it a pain in the ass for the people who actually do need the money to get it.
As for Krugman, here's the key:
He's saying there is massive waste and overspending in the military and it should be dealt with. But that even if you do deal with it, it's still not enough to solve the budget problem since the main culprit is still medical costs.
This is an interesting choice in words.
All he said was that you can't just solve our problems with defense cuts, which is hardly a position you'll find here anyway. You used his article like it validated your claim, which is silly if you read the article.
I think the reason NATO is in the position it's in is thier reliance on us to do the heavy lifting in any military engagement. Why bother spending money on a military when you have the US around to back you up?
Except sending that up-and-down vote was the POINT of the commission in the first place. And the rules were set the way they were for a reason.
Basically, the commission produced nothing except giving a few of it's members a spotlight to highlight their own "fuck the poor" plan.
The strongest denouncement, from the Left's intellectual champion, of military spending, is that it would be of modest help in the best case?
No.
We could eliminate the entire government aside from Defense, Medicare, and Social Security (which is still solvent at this point) and we would still have a deficit.
Any meaningful cuts would have to be from one of those three. SS is still solvent, and can easily be fixed to be continually solvent by accounting for increasing life expectancy/pushing the retirement age back. Defense and Medicare are sacred cows. And everything else is, by and large, meaningless.
My claim was "the solution is not inside the Pentagon's budget", in response to the doctored claim that defense eats half the government's budget. I said we could do a lot of intelligent things like closing down redundant foreign bases and eliminating waste, still failing to see what he said differently.
We do tend to be the side of "modest"
Also pretty much everyone short of the top couple of percentiles needs medicare.
It was a straw man to begin with, no one here is saying cutting down defense is the solution. And Krugman then goes on to say its probably the most wasteful branch.
1) Demonized as only applying to minorities
2) Cut
Anyway, social security isn't a deficit contributor. Short term, the deficit is Bush tax cuts + 9% unemployment + wars/defense. Middle term we're mostly OK. Long term, the problem is health care costs. There are two solutions to that particular problem:
A) Remove Medicare/Medicaid from the government's budget. Also known as the pulling the plug on Grandma/poor people plan.
The claim was half of revenue. Which is obviously less than the budget, seeing as how that's the thing you think is so problematic.
It's 20% by any reasonable metric. It only arrives at 50% when you exclude SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Do you have a source for these numbers?
The 2010 budget (October 2009-September 2010) spent a total of 3.55 trillion dollars, of which .663 trillion went to defense. Of course, we could easily choose to reduce spending on defense, whereas Social Security and several other social programs would be much more difficult, and interest on the national debt cannot be cut, period.
I think you might be overstating the British case here, I don't think they were really forced into austerity. Rather their new government choose austerity in response to their situation. Krugman has been talking quite a bit how the British austerity hasn't been going so well for them so far.
Contrast this with Greece, where they are going to need to resort to austerity sooner or later because their numbers simply do not add up. They run massive deficits of Euros, colluded with the big financial companies to hide even more debt under the rug during boom times, have lost all credibility with the bond markets, and have a strong culture of tax evasion and a large underground economy. Even if Greece completely defaults they are still going to need to make big cuts and/or clamp down on taxes to balance themselves out. If Greece could get reasonable rates in the bond markets like quite a few other large debtor countries they might be able to string themselves out longer, but they've lost that.
If all that mattered was the size of your government debt relative to your economy then Japan would have gone belly up years ago. Theirs is off the charts.
Actually no they did not. Not in the slightest. Not in the wildest dreams of the most right wing tax economists (I.E. the people who actually study taxes) did this happen.
"Defense" is not only the Pentagon. There are many programs that are entirely defense related which are not on the books as the "DoD"
In fact, it can reasonably said that the Defense budget was about 1 trillion dollars in 2007.
It has not decreased
For an example of how you might account for these numbers, examine http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941
So, we just shouldn't be realistic about what SS is and does because...we don't want it to be cut? It's not even kind of an insurance program. The idea in insurance is only a few unluckies have to collect. In SS, everyone collects what they put in and a lot more OPM. That sort of works when old people live to be 60, collect for less than a year, and there are lots of young people. It doesn't work when people live to be 80, and people are having a lot less kids.
Your analysis also ignores that, as much as tax rates have fluctuated, government revenue is consistently around 20% of GDP. If spending is above 20% of GDP, you're going to have big deficits anyhow.
In comparison, much less people are dependent on defense spending. Individual communities might be fairly reliant, but it is nothing compared to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in terms of reliance by people. Unlike with the others, cuts can include being less insane with how much shit is bought so can be done fairly gradually. The closest to a gradual change with the others is fucking over every person after a cutoff date. The problem is the usual "abloo, abloo, liberals hate our troops."
Having progressive tax increases does not need to be politically unpopular with a lot of the shit doing well in the polls.
Well, lots of people die before they're eligible to collect because our health care system sucks...
Anyway, social security doesn't contribute to the federal deficit. And it's totally solvent until 2037 at the moment and solvent at 75% of payouts until 2081 or so. Without making any changes. Any inclusion of social security in attempts to solve our long term budget issues is deeply unserious and should be ignored.
Neat, I can tack on 200-300 billion dollars to Medicare spending when I talk about it. Dishonesty kicks ass.