Personal View site logo
US: Debt and goverment spending
  • 69 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy So far you don't think government should raises taxes nor cut spending. Not even for the military. Those are the two of the main things government does. What do you propose as a policy solution? Regulate out of recession? Print money?

  • @dsavage

    Yep, btw this is another example of Simple Solutions (r).

    Zero Hedge love him :-)

  • Just curious if you guys have heard of Ron Paul. He's got a lot of grass roots support, but the corporate-owned media mostly ignores him. Easily the most well-versed presidential candidate in economic matters.

  • @brianluce

    I don't think my views are extremist. The

    I do not see where someone called them extremist :-) All I said was that I do not share them.

  • Regarding views on government, I don't think my views are extremist. The US Presidential campaign may cost each candidate a billion dollars this year. A Governor might spend 100 million on an election. I can assure you, it's not the average citizen that funds these campaigns. Once elected, who do these politicians serve? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904070604576514791591319306.html

  • http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2857/italy-going-down#Item_5

    Good example of small cuts and taxes rises (nothing very serious yet).

  • Dear Vitaliy,

    I am just a photographer. I do not have such skills, actually I doubt if anybody does. I like to read your blog though.

    But my reasoning was if USA is very consumer oriented and most of their taxes are from consumer spending then doubling those would take care of the deficit.

  • @PapaRomeo

    How about make proper calculations first?
    Taking into account impact of this new prices on products costs?

  • Gasoline! Gas costs about 4,30 per gallon is USA. This is about 0.85 euros per litre. In Europe the gasoline cost is double around 1.70 euros per litre or USD 8.50 per Gallon.

    Also sales taxes are nominal compared to EU equivalents. Americans 8% compared to Europe's double or triple rates. Also Americans don't pay sales taxes on out of state purchases. Here in Europe we do not get such treats.

    Raising the gasoline and sales taxes to match more the European equivalents could solve US budget deficits easily but ofcourse might kill the American lifestyle. On the other hand the much higher taxes in Europe are not much helping Europeans maybe doing just the opposite. Anyway I love the USA. Still the best country in the world!

  • I specially asked you to take timout. As I do not have intentions to talk on emotions.

    With each new message you are going more into emotions. This is why I asked to make some pause.

    @brianluce

    I got your position on goverments, military guys and politics.
    I just do not share it.

  • The wrong assumption is that world leaders are some how smarter and more amazing than the rest of us. My assumption isn't that they're dumb, it's that they're not demigods or intellectual titans. I have known politicians in different countries and many are born into power -- others are lucky. Some are greed driven, others power driven. Some are smart, some are altruistic. I think it's a dangerous attitude to assume the world's showrunners enjoy a superiority over the rest of us. You seem to want to cede to their authority and (bad) judgment. Sorry, I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, so it's tough for me sign on to the idea that world leaders have something over the rest of us.

    "It contains simple assumption that professionals and military have more information and batter understand needs of their country, and they are not dumb."

    Our politicians, just like many politicians all over the world, are owned by corporations. Some of those corporations aren't even American. So why should anyone assume they have the nation's best interest at heart? They don't work for the nation. They work for Exxon and BP, not us.

    I don't trust our leaders, they've never given me a reason to. The F-35, 1.66 TRILLION dollar program. For the people's benefit? Wrong tool for the wrong job. The Generals are on the take as well, not all of them, but a lot, especially during the Iraq war, many retired military "Experts" provided propaganda to the media to juice up support.

  • You hurt my feelings

    :-)

    Clearly the implication is that the leaders of great nations are by default brilliant/informed and conversely I am stupid.

    Comment does not have anything like it.
    It contains simple assumption that professionals and military have more information and batter understand needs of their country, and they are not dumb.
    If you have implications that all of them are dumb, it is wrong assumption (and you made it for both China and US already).

    And here's your mighty Chinese Carrier, it looks about as threatening as a floating casino

    I specially asked you to take timout. As I do not have intentions to talk on emotions.

  • "Chinese, who actively started building their own carrier groups are of course dumb, not like you. Same for India and Russia." -Vitaliy Kiselev

    Clearly the implication is that the leaders of great nations are by default brilliant/informed and conversely I am stupid. If you'd lived through GW Bush as a US Citizen, I bet you wouldn't hold that opinion.

    And here's your mighty Chinese Carrier, it looks about as threatening as a floating casino -- which was what Chinese purchased it for, at the staggering price of 20 million USD -- sheesh, there are cars that cost more than that. And based on reports of recent sea trials, I think the Chinese overpaid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_ex-Varyag

  • @brianluce

    The Chinese bought a Ukranian Carrier slated for the scrap heap.

    I think you are pretty far from understanding this area. Let's do this way - you spend some time researching this field and we return to this in about a week. As level of discussion drops with each your message,

    More importantly, the USA is not a totalitarian sweat shop like China is

    I make you last warning. We are not using here terms invented to wash brains of idiots.
    Same as "most advanced and affluent country on the planet" :-)

    About the Afghans, they sell drugs. That's what they do, if we're there or not. I don't know how much more simple I can make it. Look at your own chart.

    I think you went into recursion repeating your words just to assure yourself in them.

  • The Chinese bought a Ukranian Carrier slated for the scrap heap. The Ukranies were going to make beer cans out of it. That shows how serious the Chinese are about their Navy. Perhaps the Chinese can float the Bismark and use that too for their fleet. Besides, they have ongoing territorial disputes with neighbors wherein the US doesn't. Google Spratlys. It's feasible that a carrier might have some Peacock utility. More importantly, the USA is not a totalitarian sweat shop like China is, there's little point in comparing them to the USA, the most advanced and affluent country on the planet. Further, if you're flying efficient unmanned predators and running attack helipcopters, you don't need a trillion dollar weapons program like the F35 and carriers that float them around like sitting ducks.

    About the Afghans, they sell drugs. That's what they do, if we're there or not. I don't know how much more simple I can make it. Look at your own chart.

  • The chart proves my point, not yours. Afghanistan is head of OPEC for heroin. Taliban choked trade for about 8 months which just caused prices to rise.

    It is just natural to grow narcotics on Afganistan. Much more productive due to sun and climate, same in Mexico.
    "8 months which just caused prices to rise" is just nonsense.
    As everyone could look at the history and look that happened in US and leter in Afganistan after they "just caused prices to rise". Same thing, as you can look at the charts, both periods than US controlled Afganistan are similar (90-96). Even starting of production rise are fully attributed to US as in 86 they started providing weapons much more actively, and teach terrorists how to live and get money.

    Carriers are sitting ducks. Just about everyone has a hypersonic missile capable of sinking one

    This "sitting ducks" are most efficient way to get big number of highly efficient modern jets near enemy territory. And being near allow much faster and more effective strike, as well as having new waves appear fast. Same for guided rockets that each group have in big amounts.

    Chinese, who actively started building their own carrier groups are of course dumb. Same for India and Russia.

  • The chart proves my point, not yours. Afghanistan is head of OPEC for heroin. Taliban choked trade for about 8 months which just caused prices to rise.

    Carriers are sitting ducks. Just about everyone has a hypersonic missile capable of sinking one. It's 10 billion dollars to build a carrier, and then real expenses of operation and maintenance start. They're great for saber rattling and parades but in real warfare against a real enemy, they're extremely vulnerable. How about aircraft? the cost of f35 over it's service life is 1.5 TRILLION dollars. These system are excessively costly, and obsolete.

    Do these numbers make sense to you? Do they seem like an efficient way to project power and influence events? I think there are better, more efficient ways. Here's an example of our clunky cold war weapons applied to modern battlefield. C130 gunship fires a huge cannon at parked cars, guys running across a field, and my favorite, a cave. Listen to the lack of precision in their conversation, "Blow up the square building or rectangular one?" These fuckers don't know what they're shooting at. This is a disgrace.

    You won't find politicians and insiders explicitly state to get rid of carriers and top guns but they DO say, constantly, that the modern world needs a new model, that small elite special forces, unmanned predators, espionage, ears on the ground is the proper approach. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the subtext.

  • Come on, this is basic information.

    Here is the thing. I said that your words are wrong for a reason.
    Afganistan produced narcotics for long time. But. Taliban really could control it, and data for 2000 (showing slight decrease) and 2001 (tragic drop that real rulers punished quickly) years prove it. Making your statement completely false. Next, production of narcotics and especially direct distribution via NATO rised significantly.
    This data is quite easy to find. All of the fields are indentified and visible and no one still fights it.

    image

    I know you love those simple answers

    I don't like simple solutions that you propose.
    I also like to see references where professionals openly state that carrier groups have no use.

  • You're saying Afghan drug trade is a new thing? You're wrong, they've always ran neck and neck with Burma as the world's leading producer of Opium. They're the Saudi Arabia of heroin production. Come on, this is basic information.

    It's true that carriers can be useful. For example, they were great in the Battle of The Coral Sea. Unfortunately, we live in a very different world now. Even our own military says the future belong to small, highly trained elite forces and unmanned aircraft. The reason we don't have it is simple: the Defense Lobby. I know you love those simple answers :)

  • Sorry I just don't believe today's wars are fought with carrier battle groups and 200 million dollar strike fighters and billion dollar bombers that don't work.

    They are. You need all this and carrier groups are tools that played extremely important role in all US wars.

    And I can't speak for Germany or Japan but I'm skeptical of your claim they'd bring back militarized governments as it didn't work out last time they tried that.

    No one is talking about some "militarized governments ".
    They'll just start to protect their interests, not US ones.
    This will require good army, development will require more resources, etc.
    It is nature. And it is completely different that US citizens think about it.

    And drugs have always been Afghanistan's rice bowl, the Taliban couldn't even control it.

    Documents and numbers contradict with this words.

  • Sorry I just don't believe today's wars are fought with carrier battle groups and 200 million dollar strike fighters and billion dollar bombers that don't work.

    And I can't speak for Germany or Japan but I'm skeptical of your claim they'd bring back militarized governments as it didn't work out last time they tried that. Most Germans I know won't even talk about it. Further, Japan and Germany seem to do a good job of competing with us already , in part because they're not saddled with an archaic cold war military that consumes huge amounts of money and gives zero in return.

    And drugs have always been Afghanistan's rice bowl, the Taliban couldn't even control it. Drugs will flow if we're there or not.

  • @brianluce

    Cutting defence is worse from ALL provided "solutions".
    Whole generation is US somehow thinks that everybody loves them and resources are provided because they "pay more on competitive market".

    Why are we in Japan and Germany?

    To support your life level :-) Both are strategic countries and bases ensure that they won't turn into full fledged empires who'll compete with US. Remove the bases and in few years you'll be surprised :-)

    And PLEASE throw us out of Afghanistan.

    Thing is that Afganixtan is also very important, as having army here allowed to rise narcotics production, eliminating huge amout of people in Asia and Europe.
    Strategic placement is also very important allowing to tightly control Pakistan and be near India.

    That amazes me is logic in this proposals. Assuming that goverments, military and analists working whole life in this and having acess to all information are somehow stupid and making always completely wrong decisions, but we... ouch we are mightly ducks basing our opinions on TV and few blog posts, we know better.

  • Vitaliy I don't for an instant believe cutting defense would have profound negative impact. It's corporate welfare and I'd be happy to be "Thrown out of other countries". Why are we in Japan and Germany? And PLEASE throw us out of Afghanistan. I think your long standing premise that war is good for the economy is a failed one. And why do we have a military that can fight a cold war? Why do we need all those Top Guns? Unmanned drones are far more efficient. 23% of budget goes to defense, I don't think any other country spends such a high amount. Defense industry is a big fat hog and that's not what's needed in the world of Terrorism and rogue nukes. You accuse us of providing simple solution, your predicted outcomes of these solutions are just as simple. Big changes are needed.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    In this case, the "possible" is a single-payer socialized medical care system -- like they have in Canada, most of Europe and Asia -- which is far cheaper than the American system, covers everyone (unlike the American system) and provides better care.

    You may be right: such a system may be politically impossible in the U.S., despite the fact that it's a proven method in the rest of the world. But eventually, I suspect that even the U.S. will have no choice but to adopt it.

    As for my math, which is based on annual computations, not monthly ones -- I don't know what else I could do to persuade you that my figures add up, so I'll leave it there.

  • @jrd

    I provided calculations for one month. And it shows that this savings (that are absolutely impossible) are not enough. Any tax cuts "savings" require links to models proving that they, indeed mean savings and not disaster. As far as I am aware, most normal economicsts support POV that NONE of your proposed solutions can be realized.

    Politics is the art of the possible.

    Always remember this.