B-2 and defense spending

[donnage99]

The only purpose of National Defense is to protect the welfare of the people. That welfare includes their health, education, etc. So if you have a national budget that dwarfs the sh&%*t out of education, for example, we need to consider whether our welfare is truly protected or not. Now, if that money is truly needed for national defense, such as in the Cold War (not that in the Cold War we didn't have wastful spending), i'm all for it. However, many of our doctrine is from the Cold War and irrelevant today. For example, do we really need that many carriers? Do we need carriers to be able to be patrolling everywhere in the world. How realistic is it that we expect a super power just popped out of nowhere near cambodia, about to launch a nuclear missile that we must have constant patrolling every corner of this world, while Americans are unemployed, and colleges are cutting classes due to funding constraint.

Other unquestionable mandates such as nuclear triads seemingly do not make sense, and we are pouring so much money into it. Or a full fleet of stealth aircraft?

 

[bobbymike]

donnage99 - I respectively disagree National Defense is for the defense of the nation against foreign enemies not to protect the individual welfare of the citizenry. So if I flunk out of high school and cannot get a good job to secure my own welfare I should call in the Marines?

I don't need the armed forces to buy a house or food or find a doctor or save for my retirement. Oh I know you are talking about the "collective" welfare of the people but guess what our welfare, our pursuit of happiness, is an individual pursuit not a collective one. Unless of course one adheres to Marxist or Maoist philosophy.

 

[sferrin]

On my calculator, 50% of $4 trillion is $2 trillion. What kind of calculator are you using?

Scott, I find it hard to believe that your sarcasm detector is broken

Alright, I'm slow today.

 

[donnage99]

donnage99 - I respectively disagree National Defense is for the defense of the nation against foreign enemies not to protect the individual welfare of the citizenry. So if I flunk out of high school and cannot get a good job to secure my own welfare I should call in the Marines?

I don't need the armed forces to buy a house or food or find a doctor or save for my retirement. Oh I know you are talking about the "collective" welfare of the people but guess what our welfare, our pursuit of happiness, is an individual pursuit not a collective one. Unless of course one adheres to Marxist or Maoist philosophy.

I think u got me wrong. What I meant is that protection against foreign power is part of the citizens' welfare. The military's job is to fullfil that catergory (protection against foreign powers), which contributes to the whole of the citizens' welfare, just as the FBI and police's job is to keep order. Too much money into national defense against no realistic threat, though do not compromise its particular job, compromises the welfare of the citizens as a whole, which in turn, defeats the ultimate goal that the military is a part of.

And you know that there are many unemployed citizens out there who never flunk high school.

 

[bobbymike]

donnage99 - I think we agree but are probably using different terms to describe the same thing. Of course the military secures my welfare but barring actual tangible threats (USSR, al Qaeda) more in the abstract. They are not like the beat cop making me feel safe by walking the streets. Providing a secure nation and domestic tranquility so I can pursue my own welfare is the role of the federal government NOT provide for me what I can go provide for myself.

 

[donnage99]

I'm not suggesting that the military should running around the neighborhood busting drug dealers. I'm saying too much money is poured in a wasteful manner, compromising the welfare of the citizens, as wasted money is the same as robbed money, because something else has to be sacrificed for these tax dollars to be devoted to military. If the military can protect my house from being bombed, great! but if its robbing money away from something else that could have helped me keep my house from being closed down by banks, its purpose is defeated.

And secondly, the economic structure of modern time has become so complex and entangled that telling the average joe to study hard and work hard without government's involvment is simply impossible. Our current recession and the Great Depression were both indirectly due to the lack of economic regulations from government.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Throwing more money at education won't fix the problem, though the teacher's unions will say otherwise. I simply don't want money previously going to national defense to be wasted on some universal healthcare boondoggle or some foolish attempt to be like (insert Western European/Scandinavian country here). Money is wasted, but saving that money shouldn't involve cutting capabilities and leaving our forces with the same equipment for the next 50 years.

And there seems to be this mindset that everyone's job matters besides for those who work in the defense industry. Every other industry needs a bailout, but what about workers at shipyards and factories if people like Barney Frank get their way? We once had 15 carrier battle groups and nearly 600 ship Navy. To imply we can't afford 11 carriers and less than 350 ships while gradually modernizing the fleet is ridiculous.

Similar cases apply to the Army and Air Force. When it comes to aerospace in general we should be striving to further advance the technology. Or we just settle for mediocrity and hope the Chinese do a good job with it...

 

[donnage99]

This is exactly what I feared. Whenever I said something like this, the opposing party immediately bring my argument into the extreme. I never suggested that we should completely shave off our military budget to the point our military become incompetent to face potential threat and our industrial base become obsolete.

And yes, we can sustain 11 carriers and other ships. In fact, with 2 trillion tax dollars annually, we can sustain 20 carriers, that doesn't mean that it is wise to do so.

And please, not the China Boogeyman. Our military and industrial base are way ahead of them in term of advancement and number, and our military budget dwarfs the crap out of them. It's like 2 runners that are not only significantly apart, but also running at a different speed. So the real question has never been "Do we want to completely stop our advancement and compromise our advantage?" but rather "Can we scale back and still maintain a significant edge over the competitor?" The answer is simply a resounding "Yes!"

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

it's good to scales things back if only they prioritized things that needed priority and not their friends which aren't really a priority.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Our current recession and the Great Depression were both indirectly due to the lack of economic regulations from government.

Both were *directly* due to *excessive* government regulations and meddling. Economic cycles of boom and bust are a normal feature of capitalism, but it takes a government (like FDR's constant meddling or Barney Frank & Co forcing banks to issue intentionally crappy loans) to turn a normal downturn into a major disaster.

What the US could use is an "Office of the Repealer," someone given the power to simply scrawl a line through the massive US Code and wipe out spending and regulations. Or make it a rotating office... each Representative has one day to be the Repealer, with the power top wipe out one line of spending, while each Senator can wipe out ten lines.

Or, perhaps better, have every single law and regulation sunsent, starting with the very first. Set up the schedule so that in 20 years every single law will have been stricken from the records. Congress & the President (or whatever each nation choses to use) will then have to vote on new laws to fill the books... new laws that will themselves sunset in 20 years. The only laws that will not sunset are those that provide *limitations* on government power. Thus "freedom of speech" remains automatically, while the 16th Amendment, which gave the US the disastrous income tax, will fade out inside of 20 years.

The need to keep up with the *old* laws will keep Congress too busy to pass *new* laws.

 

[bobbymike]

donnage you said - "And secondly, the economic structure of modern time has become so complex and entangled that telling the average joe to study hard and work hard without government's involvment is simply impossible. Our current recession and the Great Depression were both indirectly due to the lack of economic regulations from government."

Government involvement in what? Because government has their fat little fingers in everything I now need their help just to live? Your right I am calling the government to begin to run my life starting tomorrow with the "National Wake up call Service"

Here's a simple premise "Life is so complex we as individuals (300 million of us) cannot figure out how to live BUT a couple of million bureaucrats in Washington can figure everything out for the 300 million of us?" Really?

And I don't even know where to start on your last statement as it is just flat out wrong. I suggest you read "New Deal or Raw Deal" or the "Forgotten Man" as just two books that totally debunk the "Depression was caused by lack of regulation" As for today have you ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans? The banks have largely recovered tell me why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still sucking bailout money.

But I can tell you this any further posts are a total waste of time because we are diametrically opposite with regard to economic theory, many of your comments border on Marxism.

 

[donnage99]

Well, I guess our opinions differ, then. I could slice up each of your statements into pieces, but I guess you would do the same in your following response. But please, don't call my statement bordering "Marxism." I have experienced first hand the horror of Communism, and there's nothing I detest more. So the typical McCarthyism isn't gonna make your argument more convincing. Having said that, I would think I can recognize when my breath starts smelling like Marxism. I don't suggest a government take-over, nor a government structure run by 1 sole party, etc. What I meant by the complexity of the economy today compared, lets say, back 200 years ago, is that there's this little thing called the Stock Market that didn't exist back then, for example. I, as an individual studies hard hoping to find a good job, but if one of those who lives in Wall Street made a selfish decision, my degree wouldn't matter anymore. Let's face it - the individual workers are but puppets in the hands of big corporate America without governmental regulations.
I think it's really hypocritical to say that we don't want government involvement. Without its regulations, we wouldn't have minimum wage. But then, not many of us want minimum wage to be removed, do we? A complete free market without govermental regulation would lead to big company sucking out smaller bussiness, monopolizing certain vital aspects of the country, therefore eventally wielding a significant amount of political power. We seen this happened. Now, that doesn't mean I don't like free market or capitalism. I think they are the best that mankind has created. However, that doesn't mean that capitalism or free market are perfect. Therefore, a little governmental regulations are needed. So the question is "how much governmental regulations are enough?" And I think it's both intelligent and logical that people engage in this debate, instead of throwing the invective turd of McCarthyism whenever such an opportunity for intellectual debate presents itself.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Without its regulations, we wouldn't have minimum wage.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you were unemployed, would your rather take a job that pays $1 per hour below the "minimum wage," or would you rather just draw off the public dole in hopes of a job more to your liking comes along? If the latter, you're a parasite.

On the other hand, let's say you're a small business that's struggling. You need to have someone stand on the streetcorner and hold up a "visit my shop" sign. But your budget only allows for $4 per hour. There's some pimply teenager capable of doing this minimalist job, willing to do it, needing the money, and incapable of finding other work. But the government bureaucrat says "no." So, you don't get the job done, the pimply teen doesn't get the pay or the work experience and reference for future employment. How has a minimum wage law helped *anyone* here?

But then, not many of us want minimum wage to be removed, do we?

You'd apparently be surprised.

So the question is "how much governmental regulations are enough?"

Enough to arrest people who are stealing stealing or murdering. Much more than that and the only purpose it serves is to stamp human freedom.

Let's say you are truly poor. Not enough money to even buy food, never mind pay your cable bill, run the air coinditioner, get the latest Playstation games, etc. But there are no jobs. So, let's say as you're wandering form store to store looking for a job, you see a work crew digging a ditch. You ask the foreman if he's hiring. He says no. So, what are your options?
1) Keep moving on, looking for work
2) Go on welfare, which robs your fellow man
3) Rob your fellow man directly
4) Tell the foreman that you'll work for 10% less than he's paying the lowest-paid member of the work crew.
5) Suicide

So what do you do? If you do not even consider #4, then you're not really in dire financial straits, and should not be *allowed* to have any welfare.

 

[bobbymike]

Some Stock market information

In the 1300s, the Venetians were the leaders in the field and the first to start trading the securities from other governments.

Belgium boasted a stock exchange as far back as 1531, in Antwerp. Brokers and moneylenders would meet there to deal in business, government and even individual debt issues.

In the 1600s, the Dutch, British, and French governments all gave charters to companies with East India in their names. On the cusp of imperialism's high point, it seems like everyone had a stake in the profits from the East Indies and Asia except the people living there. Sea voyages that brought back goods from the East were extremely risky - on top of Barbary pirates, there were the more common risks of weather and poor navigation.

The first stock exchange in London was officially formed in 1773, a scant 19 years before the New York Stock Exchange. Whereas the London Stock Exchange (LSE) was handcuffed by the law restricting shares, the New York Stock Exchange has dealt in the trading of stocks, for better or worse, since its inception. The NYSE wasn't the first stock exchange in the U.S., however, that honor goes to the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, but it quickly became the most powerful.
===============================================================
More than 200 years ago my how did these Rubes from our past manage to live with such complexity ???

 

[donnage99]

Bobby Mike, what I meant by Stock Market is Wall Street (which I stated in my previous post) and international corporations that have ripple effects from one part of the world to the other.

As for how they could live in the past with such complexity - do Carnegie and Rockefeller ring a bell?

 

[donnage99]

Without its regulations, we wouldn't have minimum wage.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you were unemployed, would your rather take a job that pays $1 per hour below the "minimum wage," or would you rather just draw off the public dole in hopes of a job more to your liking comes along? If the latter, you're a parasite.

You bring this into a very narrow boundary just to make that point? Yes, if I'm out of a job, I be willing to work for whatever wage. However, without minimum wage whatsoever, corporations will pay whatever they want. And the human nature of endless greed will only see further and further reduction in wages. The employers will use the desperate living condition of the employees to force unfair wage down their throat in order to profit. And it happened before. That's why we implimented minimum wage. For History's sake, minimum wages were originated from sweat shop, not the other way around.

 

[Orionblamblam]

However, without minimum wage whatsoever, corporations will pay whatever they want.

Damned straight! And if they don't pay enough, people will leave for companies that pay better. I've travelled thousands of miles for better pay, far in excess of minimum wage. Why should companies pay many multiples of minimum wage? Because that's the way to get the better employees. This would not change if the minimum wage suddenly vanished from the lawbooks.

And the human nature of endless greed will only see further and further reduction in wages.

Methinks yer a little vague on how modern capitalism works.

Sweat shops come from an era when the employees:

A) Don't know any different

B) Couldn't move to the better jobs

And as it turns out, sweat shops still exist, just outside the US. Why? Because it's cheaper to pay a pittance and ship things halfway around the planet than to pay even minimum wage. If it's cheap to ship freighterloads of cheap crap across the planet, it's cheap to drive your unemployed ass a hundred miles to a better job.

 

[Orionblamblam]

do Carnegie and Rockefeller ring a bell?

They do indeed. It's sad that schmucls like FDR get their faces on coinage, when true heros like Carnegie and Rockefeller - who did far more to modernize, industrialize and enrich this country than any President - are seen as villains.

 

[donnage99]

Are you suggesting that the workers back in the sweat shop era were lacking the basic intelligence to know that another company out there would be willing to pay higher, or more historically accurate, that because sweat shop exists everywhere that it doesn't matter where you move to?

If you think that big corporations do not know how to divide wealth in order to all unfairly profit from their workers, you are too naive. It would be alot harder if there's alot of corporations and small bussiness to establish the gradual degradation of workers' wages. However, without regulations, monopolies will rise, while smaller bussinesses and competitions die out, giving a few big guys to devide their wealth and....well, you get my point.

As for how much Carnegie and Rockefeller have helped advancing their respective industry. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Are you suggesting ...

Read what I wrote to see what I've suggested..

If you think that big corporations do not know how to divide wealth in order to all unfairly profit from their workers...

Apart from Breach of Contract, how does one "unfairly" profit from a willing employee? If the employee has not the wits about him to read the contract, who does he have to blame but himself if the terms are stupid?

However, without regulations, monopolies will rise, while smaller bussinesses and competitions die out

*With* regulations, it's far harder and more expensive to start new, small companies. *With* regulations, you cannot do *anything* without running up against a wall of red tape. *With* regulations, the US has gone from a nation with a dozen or more major aerospace companies to a nation with *two* major aerospace companies, only one of which is in the business of building fighters, and only one of which is in the business of building jetliners, and only none of which is in the business of building bombers. *With* regualtions, we haven't built a new nuclear power plant within the lifetimes of many readers of this forum. *With* regulations, the cost of health care and education have gone up, while the results have gone down (certainly so WRT education). *With* regualtions, we've gone froma nation which could put a man on the moon inside of a decade, to a nation that by the end of the year cannot even launch it's own astronauts.

Good job.

As for how much Carnegie and Rockefeller have helped advancing their respective industry. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Then why'd you bring them up?

But the most important question in the debate over the minimum wage is: "How much is that job *worth?*" If it's only worth a buck an hour to the employter, why should he pay more than a buck an hour for it?

 

[donnage99]

Are you suggesting ...

Read what I wrote to see what I've suggested..

If that's the case, then excuse me for withdrawing from this debate the same way I would excuse myself from any debate with holocaust denier, as I find the historical incorrectness is too great to bear in my personal view.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

so a minority here aren't austrian thinkers

 

[Orionblamblam]

If that's the case, then excuse me for withdrawing from this debate the same way I would excuse myself from any debate with holocaust denier...

This from someone who whined about his comments being called Marxist.

"Whenever I said something like this, the opposing party immediately bring my argument into the extreme."

Pot, kettle.

And as always, the all-important question of "what is the job *worth*" is left unanswered. Typical. And telling.

 

[donnage99]

I never called you an extremist nor I made any comparison to you being an extremist, but if chopping up sentences to bring them out of their context suits you, well, go for it!

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

ahem, gentlemen

take it easy pazalshta :-[

 

[bobbymike]

Orionblamblam - well reasoned and well argued. Did you spend some time at the Chicago School with Milton Friedman? Your minimum wage analysis is spot on I would add one thing "If a private company has to only legally pay someone, say $7/hr, why does any employee make above this wage?"

Why does labor (a capital input) not respond to supply and demand like everything else on this planet (that's not price controlled by government regulations). I would suggest another book by the great Paul Johnson "Modern Times: The World from the 20's to the 90's" In this book he describes how almost every economic problem was caused by government involvement or with bureaucrats colluding with their friends in some industries to hurt their competitors.

Also when it come to sweatshops let's look at child labor in Britain during the industrial revolution. Did you know those children came to the factories from farms where they were probably working harder FOR NOTHING! And that they became very important contributors to the family?

AND as importantly it was the continued progress of free market technology that made production more and more efficient so less and less people were needed in the factories, including child labor.

And on a general note, government gets bigger and bigger with regulations that now number in excess of 100,000 pages in the federal registry and yet there is unemployment and recessions, how can this be? Where is this big government utopia able to eliminate the business cycle? How much power should they have? Governments with their monopoly on the coercive use of force have killed hundreds of millions. As bad as the economy is now I have never earned as much because I work for an organization that values my skill set and rewards me for it.

Donnage99 I apologize for the Marxist comparison but in my defense the last time I read comments about the evils of capitalism and the "robber barons" like Carnegie and Mellon and Rockefeller was in books by authors that were.............Marxist.

I am a free market libertarian and proudly embrace my philosophy.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I never called you an extremist nor I made any comparison to you being an extremist,...

Just a "Holocaust denier."

but if chopping up sentences to bring them out of their context suits you, well, go for it!

I "chop up sentences" in order so that you know what point I'm replying to, without reposting your entire screed.

And I note that, once again, you utterly failed to even *try* to tackle the substance of the arguement. This tells me everything about *your* position that I need to know.

UPDATE: Another shining example of the wonders of regulations:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/clean-energy-china-ahead-us/story?id=10934443

Short form:
1) American from New Jersey invents a better photovoltaic solar cell
2) Government regulations (like a $750K "application fee") prevent him from going ahead with developing his PV cells
3) Finally, the government cuts through the red tape and helps him out.
4) Now plans are in place to build a factory and create hundreds of jobs making these new PV cells
5) Yay!
6) ...
7) Profit!
8) Oh, yeah, did I mention, it's the *CHINESE* government that's helping this guy out, not the American government? Yes, I'm sure I did.

 

[donnage99]

I never called you an extremist nor I made any comparison to you being an extremist,...

Just a "Holocaust denier."

Try harder, then! I never compared you to the extreme nature of political ideals that are usually associated with Holocaust deniers. I was comparing the historical incorrectness, which has nothing to do with being an extremists or not. that's why the latter part of the sentence was important. Saying that workers were too stupid to move to another company during sweat shop era is just unbearingly disturbing as far as history goes.

As for Bobbymike, if you think only Marxist literature is suggesting Rockefeller's monopoly was bad (and again, I never suggested that Rockefeller as a PERSON was bad), then you're in for a big scare, because that's what teachers are teaching kids as we speak accross the States. But like I said, there will always be an amount of people who already commit themselves to a political ideals, which causes them to see what they want to see from history, and twist it the way they see fit in order to further justifying, while thinking that the government is the big machine of lies feeding these wrong information about American heroes into kids through their education of brainwashing. And no, I'm not talking about creationists ;D

As for you being libertarian, in Washington these days, libertarians are the only ones who still have souls and integrity, though I think that they are delusional and should never be elected into the executive branch

 

[Orionblamblam]

Goodbye!

What, again?

And yes, once again you failed to even *try* to answer the most basic question.

 

[donnage99]

What, again?

Reread my post. I just edited because I thought that speaking the way I did would not enlighten you in anyway, defeating the purpose of my continuing posting as a whole (And for that, I apologize). And yes, "again!" because the level of your irrelevancy continues to surprise me, which leads me to the second point.

And yes, once again you failed to even *try* to answer the most basic question.

Asking me to answer your "basic" question? Are you serious? After you have dodge every valid point I made with a bunch of self-defeating slogans. Example:

The point I was making:

...without regulations, monopolies will rise, while smaller bussinesses and competitions die out [due to] big bussinesses squeezed out smaller one

And instead of explaining how this concept is illogical and/or historcially inaccurate. This is your response full of typical generic slogans that are self defeating in itself at parts.

*With* regulations, it's far harder and more expensive to start new, small companies. *With* regulations, you cannot do *anything* without running up against a wall of red tape. *With* regulations...... cannot even launch it's own astronauts.

The reason I said it's thoughtless because how did government's regulations reduces dozen aerospace companies down to just 3 and not because the Cold War is over, and the amount of programs die out? And if the government's job is only to protect its people from foreign powers, keeping order, and punish crimes, then how can you justify NASA using tax money to shoot a person onto the moon? And how did regulations cause education's cost to go up while results go down? How would reduced funding and no oversight help improving education exactly? And with all that posted, you have yet to counter my view how monopolies squeeze out competitions and smaller businesses, while demanding an answer from me to your "basic question?"