U.S. 2012 Election

[aesop081]

  Without question, I need 2 or 3, but 11??

Trouble with your logic is that if the US needs 3 carriers available at all times, they need to have 6 or more. To have 3 available, you need more because of long-term maintenance and training issues.

The same applies to the SSBN force. If you want one on-station at all times, you need 4 (The one that is out, the one that just came back, the next one to go out and one in long-term refit) plus at least one for training.

The same applies to anything where you need X number available at all times.


So while you don't need 11 Ferraris, you don't have to keep 3 on the road 24/7 either.

 

[exabedtech]

Nope, not a foreign policy expert at all!  Just a guy who knows that when you consistently spent more than you make, you're going to be in trouble. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/federal-deficit-on-track-stay-under-1-trillion_n_1202626.html

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government will run a $973 billion deficit for the entire 2012 budget year, which began on Oct. 1. While lower than last year's $1.3 trillion imbalance, it would be higher than any previous deficit before fiscal year 2009"

You know what they say... $1 here, $973 Billion there... before you know it, its real money. 

Having a defence budget of $687B (2010) is fine when either you can afford it, or your existence demands it.  Neither is the case for the US.  Quick search of wikipedia reveals that the US defence budget is actually greater than the next 20 countries budgets combined. 
They need to stick with what is truly required for their military and it'll take smarter men than I to figure out what the hell that is exactly, but one thing is for sure - it needs to cost a lot less.

How many trillion dollar deficits can they run before the debt is so out of control that the interest payments become your single largest government expense?  How long before you need to trim the essentials to keep up those payments??  Do you default? With a debt of $15.2 trillion (as long as you read this in the next 10 minutes or so)  they have no real option other than to find a plan to bring them to balanced budgets at some point.  Cutting the military is a pretty obvious one, but to make real progress, this will need to hurt everyone.  Us included.

 

[aesop081]

Not saying it isn't handy having 11 or so aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans,

Further to my last, you do realize that all 11 are never at sea at the same time, all the time, right ?

11 carriers total will likely leave you with around 4-6 available for ops at any given time.

 

[exabedtech]

Further to my last, you do realize that all 11 are never at sea at the same time, all the time, right ?

11 carriers total will likely leave you with around 4-6 available for ops at any given time.

Yes, like you, been around the military long enough to know the basics.  :nod:  Just saying that they have tough choices to make.  When the US has 11 operational carriers compared to the rest of the planet having a total of 10 operational carriers, there may be an opportunity to cut given that they are going broke.
If they were not going broke, and had balanced budgets and a strong economy, then why not have 11?  Why not 50 if you can afford them?  My point is simply that they cannot afford them.

 

[Sythen]

Nope, not a foreign policy expert at all!

the US defence budget is actually greater than the next 20 countries budgets combined. 
They need to stick with what is truly required for their military and it'll take smarter men than I to figure out what the hell that is exactly, but one thing is for sure - it needs to cost a lot less.

So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?

The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.

 

[aesop081]

Just saying that they have tough choices to make.

They do and i don't think American's themselves know what they want their place in the world to be so i doubt you do as well. Until they have a much bigger debate, cutting the defence budget will be an exercise in futility or a comedy of errors at best.

When the US has 11 operational carriers compared to the rest of the planet having a total of 10 operational carriers,

Another argument that sounds good but make little sense. Your argument is little more than comparing apples to baseball bats. Countries have different interests abroad, different geo-political realities and different foreign policy objectives.

My point is simply that they cannot afford them.

yeah, we got that.

 

[exabedtech]

So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?

The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.

I have no idea where they should focus their military.  Should they worry about China?  Iran? Russia?  That's really up to them.  My point is simply that they can't afford the military that they have.
Interesting quote from Wikipedia here " the United States constitutes roughly 43 percent of the world's military expenditures."  43% of the entire world!!!  That's great when you can afford it, but history is full of empires who overstretched themselves until they collapsed.  Granted, nothing like the US has ever existed before, but simple principles like spending within your means still apply.
I don't think the US has a single department that can escape the sort of cuts they need to sort themselves out.  A larger problem is that resolving this would take the sort of long range planning that a 4 year election cycle makes virtually impossible.
I'm certainly not against having a strong military.  I served my country for a long time and am proud of it. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, they had 11 or 12 CVBGs during the years of the Clinton "surplus", didn't they?  That must mean the problem lies elsewhere - so they should fix that problem.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I'm sure you're a qualified foreign policy expert giving an informed opinion on the American military needs, right? Makes me think of a guy asking why a scarecrow is needed for a particular field when there are no crows to be seen around the scarecrow.

So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?

The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.

If you have a problem with his opinion, that he has a right to, rebutt it logically and stop the personal attacks.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Haletown]

It will be  a most entertaining election  . . .  the folks that get to create the advertising/ counter advertising are going to have an abundance of ammunition now that The One has The Record rather than the Blank Slate Hopey Changey Thingy from last go-around.

"Obama's approach has been the opposite — a huge increase in regulations; meager, targeted and temporary tax cuts; a massive increase in size and scope of the federal government; and a barrage of invective against businessmen and the wealthy. Obama has bashed Reagan's approach, saying that cutting taxes and regulations "has never worked" to spur growth."

http://news.investors.com/Article/599291/201201271850/economy-continues-to-underperform-under-obama.htm

 

[cupper]

Not that I want to get this off track again, but The Washington Post has a brief article covering a CBO report that indicates that Federal Government (US Gov't) workers do make more than their private sector counter-parts, with the exception of those with professional or graduate degrees.

CBO: Federal workers make more than their private-sector counterparts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-federal-workers-make-more-than-their-private-sector-counterparts/2012/01/30/gIQAlxcEdQ_blog.html?hpid=z3

The Congressional Budget Office has found that the federal government pays slightly more in average wages and significantly more in benefits than the private sector. But the advantages mostly accrue to less-educated workers, while compensation for federal employees with professional and doctoral degrees lag significantly behind their private-sector counterparts.

On average, the CBO discovered that the federal government pays about 2 percent more in total wages and about 16 percent more when the employer-provided benefits are factored in, comparing workers with similar occupations and backgrounds. But there was a big range based on education level: Federal workers with no more than a high-school degree earned about 21 percent more than comparable private-sector workers, while those with a professional or doctoral degree earned about 23 percent less on average.

Anecdotal evidence seems to back this up, too: The highest-paid White House advisers made $172,200 last year, as Derek Thompson points out, and it’s reasonable to assume that former Office of Management and Budget chief Peter Orszag makes significantly more at his new job at Citigroup. Though, as Modeled Behavior rightly notes, his compensation may be higher because of his White House experience, revealing the latent benefit of federal employment for higher-educated workers who leave for the private sector.

Similarly, if the value of benefits were factored in, those with a high-school degree at most had 36 percent higher total compensation, while the professional/doctoral set earned about 18 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. The biggest factor behind this gap is “the defined-benefit pension plan that is available to most federal employees,” the CBO explains, noting that private employers have been moving away from such benefits.

 

[Sythen]

If you have a problem with his opinion, that he has a right to, rebutt it logically and stop the personal attacks.

Milnet.ca Staff

He can have his opinion, as I can have mine. No where do I say he can't. Also, no where in my posts do I make any personal attacks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

He can have his opinion, as I can have mine. No where do I say he can't. Also, no where in my posts do I make any personal attacks.

Quote from: Sythen on Yesterday at 21:26:51

And I'm sure you're a qualified foreign policy expert giving an informed opinion on the American military needs, right? Makes me think of a guy asking why a scarecrow is needed for a particular field when there are no crows to be seen around the scarecrow.

Quote from: Sythen on Yesterday at 21:59:33

So you're an expert military analyst who is giving an informed opinion about what is "truly required"?
The correct answer is you're talking about things that I am willing to bet no one on this board has a truly informed opinion about. No one can disagree about spending beyond your means, but anytime you ask someone what the USA should cut, they always say the military first. It was even said at the height of the cold war when there was a realistic chance there would be a huge war any day.

There are the personal attacks. Your sarcastic innuendo. It's not needed.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Haletown]

The Congressional Budget Office has spoken on the 2012 American economic forecast.

"    The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday predicted the budget deficit will rise to $1.08 trillion in 2012.  CBO also projected the jobless rate would rise to 8.9 percent by the end of 2012, and to 9.2 percent in 2013.  These are much dimmer forecasts than in CBO's last report in August, when the office projected a $973 billion deficit. The report reflects weaker corporate tax revenue and the extension for two months of the payroll tax holiday.

    A rising deficit and unemployment rate would hamper President Obama's reelection effort, which in recent weeks has seemed to be on stronger footing. If the CBO estimate is correct, it would mean that the United States recorded a deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of Obama’s first term. The deficit was $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.3 trillion in 2011. The largest deficit recorded before that was $458 billion in 2008.

    CBO had forecast an 8.5 percent unemployment rate for the end of 2012 in its August report. It now expects the jobless rate to be higher, and to still be at 7 percent in 2015. The higher unemployment numbers are due to lower economic growth than previously estimated. Gross domestic product for 2011 is now estimated to have grown 1.6 percent in 2011, down from the 2.3 percent forecast in August. CBO a year ago had predicted 3.1 percent growth for 2011. The outlook for 2012 has also worsened. GDP is forecast to grow only 2 percent this year, compared to a previous estimate of 2.7 percent."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/01/31/white_house_panic_gruesome_2012_economic_forecast_could_doom_obama

The One that promised Hopey Changey as a plan now has a record, the results of his decisions.

It will be a most interesting election to wacth.

 

[exabedtech]

This election will be won or lost on the issue of the economy.  Obama may look pretty cosy in his office right now, but as they say, a week is a very long time in politics.
Granted, he didn't exactly take office at the best possible time, but from my experience nobody cares what you inherited, only what you've achieved.  So far, it looks like he's managed to achieve a steady output of $1T+ deficits.  To put that number in perspective, Canada's GDP is approx $1.58T .

A sharp republican would give old Stevie Harper a call and ask about what it takes to keep the message firmly on the economy even though people think you are either dull, evil or both.  The republicans may do well to stop with the pandering to their base which will clearly vote for them regardless, and focus on a simple and easily explained vision for economic growth.
'Little' things like Keystone will bite Obama right in the @ss come November.  Yes, the granola vote may be lost, but come election time, they tend to be more interesting in finding some munchies than actually getting out to vote.

Whichever candidate can find a way to deliver a simple consistent message towards the working man/woman will carry the day.  Not sure i've seen that man yet.

 

[Redeye]

The pandering to the base is particularly heavy right now because in the primary process that's who's voting and thus who candidates have to reach. Romney (I'm going to go ahead and put my money on him being the candidate) will, once nominated, have to start connecting with those independents and trying to win their votes. I'm not sure he'll be an easy sell though, for a variety of reasons already discussed. It'll be a matter of economic sentiment over the summer, mostly. There are plenty of great remarks from the primary campaign that I'm sure the Democrats are saving for their ads in various markets.

This election will be won or lost on the issue of the economy.  Obama may look pretty cosy in his office right now, but as they say, a week is a very long time in politics.
Granted, he didn't exactly take office at the best possible time, but from my experience nobody cares what you inherited, only what you've achieved.  So far, it looks like he's managed to achieve a steady output of $1T+ deficits.  To put that number in perspective, Canada's GDP is approx $1.58T .

A sharp republican would give old Stevie Harper a call and ask about what it takes to keep the message firmly on the economy even though people think you are either dull, evil or both.  The republicans may do well to stop with the pandering to their base which will clearly vote for them regardless, and focus on a simple and easily explained vision for economic growth.
'Little' things like Keystone will bite Obama right in the @ss come November.  Yes, the granola vote may be lost, but come election time, they tend to be more interesting in finding some munchies than actually getting out to vote.

Whichever candidate can find a way to deliver a simple consistent message towards the working man/woman will carry the day.  Not sure i've seen that man yet.

 

[RangerRay]

But you have to admit, Romney would have an easier time attracting independents, moderates and conservative Democrats than the other  :clown: s.

I'm not calling this one yet.

 

[Redeye]

But you have to admit, Romney would have an easier time attracting independents, moderates and conservative Democrats than the other  :clown: s.

I'm not calling this one yet.

To an extent, that may well be true. But it takes away the ability to argue over healthcare reform, since there's so many similarities between their healthcare plans, and the "state vs federal" argument may or may not resonate. The fact that Romney is a Mormon may turn off the evangelical set, but that impact is also a large variable that isn't easy to call. Gingrich would have been easy to attack based on his personal history, Romney not so much. However, the Swiss bank accounts, the perception of him being a massively wealthy man totally out of touch with the average American, and such things may still resonate. It's going to be an interesting campaign for sure.

 

[dapaterson]

William Goldman is well-known Hollywood writer, having penned films as The Princess Bride.  He also wrote a column on movies, where he'd delight in pointing out the many, many mistakes that those in the industry would make in their predictions.  He penned a phrase that applies very well to the two groups talking past each other on this thread. 

"Nobody knows anything."



(Of course, Sturgeon's Law applies equally here)

 

[cupper]

But you have to admit, Romney would have an easier time attracting independents, moderates and conservative Democrats than the other  :clown: s.

I'm not calling this one yet.

Not so fast. Heard on the news this morning that Romney's favorability rating has dropped significantly over the past month amongst independents.