Defense – America’s real spending problem
I’ve frequently said, “We don’t have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem.” That is true as long as you are talking about domestic spending. Domestic programs from food safety inspections to college loan guarantees are cut to the bone. “Entitlements” such as Social security add nothing to the debt and could easily be self-sustaining well into the future with modest revenue side reforms. However, if you talking about the US budget in its entirety, the wingnuts are right. We do have a spending problem. We have a pretty big fucking spending problem.
The U.S. spends more on the military than the next 14 countries combined and vastly more than any possible enemies: roughly 5 times more than China, 10 times more than Russia, and 95 times more than Iran. The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, and Australia) together spend about $1.2 trillion on their militaries, representing 70 percent of the world’s total.
Does anyone think that we are getting a good return on our defense spending dollars?
Do we really need to be spending $113.7 billion a year in Afghanistan?
Do we need a bloated officer corp?
Do we need to be paying $250,000 per year to unaccountable mercenaries?
Do we need weapons spending boondoggles like the V-22 Osprey, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – that only serve to protect that profits of defense contractors?
I’d love for the “fiscal conservatives” in our congressional delegation to have that conversation one day.
I agree that defense spending needs to be cut but you’re fooling yourself if you think that’s the only spending problem we have. The budget is almost twice as big as it was when Clinton left office and both parties have added unneeded spending to our budget. We need to raise taxes on everyone including the poor and cut spending in everything including entitlements.
It might not get us all the way to a balanced budget but if we don’t start trying to fix the problem the interest we’ll be paying on the debt will end up being an enormous amount of the government’s annual spending at some point which will crush every program from defense to welfare.
Clinton knew how to manage government spending/taxes and he cut both defense and entitlements while raising taxes across the board which in turn gave us the biggest surpluses in history.
Debt isn’t evil. Do you own a house? Did you pay for it with cash? Do you own a car? Did you trade chickens for it?
Of course you didn’t. When you borrowed to buy a house, did you say – “Oh no – I’m in debt, I need to slash my income!” Of course you didn’t. That’s what we are telling the government to do.
Borrowing is historically cheap right now. We should be borrowing to invest in projects to put people to work. The problem isn’t government spending it is government spending on stupid shit like V-22 Ospreys and occupations.
Where did I say to slash income? I actually said to raise taxes if you read what I wrote.
Also the low interest rates we currently have are crippling the ability of people to invest for their retirement. Unless you’re investing in the stock market there is no place to garner a reasonable return on your investment because the federal reserve is keeping interest rates at the lowest percentages in history. Unlike you I think investment from the private sector is better then the alternative which is the government investing in ways to create jobs. The government does a better job in some investments such as infrastructure but in my opinion it doesn’t invest as efficiently as the private sector does in most cases. Either way keeping interest rates low to keep the interest on the debt from exploding is killing seniors who invest in things such as CDs to earn income once they retire.
We should be borrowing to invest in infrastructure projects to put people to work. (If you need a fine point on it.)
The private sector is sitting on huge cash reserves. We can probably agree that corporate tax reform is needed.
America’s defense spending problem is located in policy that specifically takes on the policing for the world. Except for a couple of recent events (Mali, Libya), our treaty partners are happy to join coalitions of the willing as long as they don’t have to shed any blood and they don’t have to spend much. Why we spend a decent part of our GDP to protect France or Great Britain is beyond me. The best thing that could happen to our long-term budget problem would be to turn off the world-wide policing, tell the Defense Company Lobbyists that the party is over and then hand them a map to the Defense Agencies of our NATO partners.
Cassandra for President!
I’d vote for Cassandra!
We “protect” a lot of countries like Great Britain because we have military bases located there, in other parts of Europe, and around the world.
…and your point is?
omment by Jason330 on 27 March 2013 at 1:21 pm:
“Debt isn’t evil. Do you own a house? Did you pay for it with cash? Do you own a car? Did you trade chickens for it?
Of course you didn’t. When you borrowed to buy a house, did you say – “Oh no – I’m in debt, I need to slash my income!” Of course you didn’t. That’s what we are telling the government to do.
Borrowing is historically cheap right now. We should be borrowing to invest in projects to put people to work. The problem isn’t government spending it is government spending on stupid shit like V-22 Ospreys and occupations.”
Unnecessary debt is absolutely evil,especially when it leads to living well beyond ones means it’s catastrophic personally and for the economy overall. The home foreclosure disaster is a perfect example.
Answering your questions
yes we paid cash for both our homes
We paid cash for our cars
I agree borrowing is cheap but we are borrowing from China. Our economy also hinges on the import /export ratio of goods we are not exporting anywhere near the rate we are importing. That effects the strength of our borrowing power.
The problem with the government is all the social welfare programs with generations of abusers costing the states and nation billions of dollars. There is absolutely no incentive to get off a program of handouts that provides everything for free. Most jobs require drug screening yet the governments welfare system which hands out free food, free money, free medical doesn’t require testing. There’s something wrong with that no matter what party you belong to.
I’m sure it makes you feel better to think all of that nonsense, and express it here. Since it is only a recitation of wingnut catechism, don’t expect to be engaged.
“We “protect” a lot of countries like Great Britain because we have military bases located there, in other parts of Europe, and around the world.”
And through this so called protection of our “Allies” we are borrowing money to provide jobs programs to Great Britain Germany France Etc. through the civillian employment that those bases provide both direct and indirect. Instead we should be using that borrowed money to employ people in this country. What exactly are we protecting those countries from????
Andy I don’t think we are protecting the countries per se as much as we are protecting our bases. Instead of borrowing money we should be getting people off the welfare programs that are sucking this country dry.
Jason330 If you don’t have a problem with the fact that people who are willing to work are required to get drug tested and have co pays for hospital, doctors and prescriptions while mary knockedup is pregnant for the third time gets free housing, free food, free medical with no co pay, then you are part of the problem.
I’ve never lived beyond my means maybe if more people and our government learned to do that we wouldn’t be in such a mess as we are.
Like it or not you are preaching the same thing fiscal responsibility, difference is you can’t admit it. ;
William, Get lost with that bullshit. If you can’t see that the we are spending peanuts on the social safety net and billions on defense and corporate welfare – they you are too dumb to bother with.
What I can’t believe is that billy boy here has been posting non-stop sice 6am this morning
It’s now 11pm, no wonder the kids turned out Ike they did- disengaged and disinterested parent.
To obsessed with anything else. 17 hours, non- stop is kinda obsessive
I think someone needs medications, or an intervention……
And before Billy here says anything………I at least took a looooong break for several hours.
Lol…….like in said, I don’t have to prove anything, Billy does it all by himself.
Jason’s stupidity really shines in this post.
He is correct that military spending needs to be cut, but remember he also voted for a war monger for president. He knows what he wants, but has no idea how to get it.
But its his response to Francis that his public school education really shines. Government debt and private debt are two completely different things. A person goes to a bank to borrow money to expand their business. If the bank feels they are a safe risk, money is lent and hopefully wealth is created.
The government has no such incentive. The government borrows 3 billion dollars to purchase perfectly good automobiles and then destroys that capital. Of that 3 billion dollars, 2 billion goes to Asian car manufacturers and 1 billion to US car manufacturers. The tax payers are stuck with the principle and interest, and no jobs or wealth is created.
Add all Green jobs to that list.
He then drags out the old we should borrow to “invest” in infrastructure. Does he not know that we already hand over 70 billion dollars every year to this group to maintain said roads. Does he not know that the people he wants to borrow money for us are the same people that have been borrowing money from those funds to finance other projects.
Not having the reality on your side, you overcompensate with bile. (If I had a dollar every time some Chicago school nut came here with nothing but bile and a supply-side dream, I could retire). That reminds me, my $50.00 bet is still open Owen. Maybe you can apply your deep trickle-down wignut thinking to trying to claim it?
Good luck.
Owen,
If anyone at Delaware Liberal actually understood basic economic theory and mathematics, they’d probably be libertarians and free-enterprise supporters. Given how arrogant the regular readers are, they really believe Obama has cut the deficit and Keynesian Economics is successful and we need more of it, a la Krugman. All we need for this glorious socialist paradise is for evil rich people to pay their “fair share”, regardless of how much they ever end up paying (or dodging due to the tax code).
Try for the $50.00 if you think you can back up your big talk.
Disagree with lumping the MV-22 in there with lemons like the EFV, F-35, and F-22. Was the process of acquiring it executed piss poorly? Yes, but it is an extremely valuable operational asset to the Marine Corps. It actually saves money on maintenance costs, and has a relevant mission set for decades to come.
The MV-22 has a very relevant mission set, even more so in a crisis response role. That is an investment that could reasonably pay operational dividends in asymmetrical environments.
Heck it has already happened, look at Libya.
Aoine Thanks for being so concerned with my personal life. Since you are so good at looking up Del Code. Look up hate crimes, harassment, and stalking. Your little diatribe is applicable and meets the criteria for criminal charges.
TITLE 11
Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Criminal Code
CHAPTER 5. SPECIFIC OFFENSES
Subchapter VII. Offenses Against Public Health, Order and Decency
§ 1304. Hate crimes; class A misdemeanor, class G felony, class F felony, class E felony, class D felony, class C felony, class B felony, class A felony.
(a) Any person who commits, or attempts to commit, any crime as defined by the laws of this State, and who intentionally:
(1) Commits said crime for the purpose of interfering with the victim’s free exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege or immunity protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
§ 1311. Harassment; class A misdemeanor.
(a) A person is guilty of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
(1) That person insults, taunts or challenges another person or engages in any other course of alarming or distressing conduct which serves no legitimate purpose and is in a manner which the person knows is likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response or cause a reasonable person to suffer fear, alarm, or distress.
§ 1312. Stalking; class G felony, class F felony, class C felony.
(a) A person is guilty of stalking when the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person and that conduct would cause a reasonable person to:
(1) Fear physical injury to himself or herself or that of another person; or
(2) Suffer other significant mental anguish or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling.
(c) Stalking is a class F felony if a person is guilty of stalking and 1 or more of the following exists:
(3) The victim is age 62 years of age or older
(1) “Course of conduct” means 3 or more separate incidents, including, but not limited to, acts in which the person directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, follows, monitors, observes, surveys, threatens, or communicates to or about another, or interferes with, jeopardizes, damages, or disrupts another’s daily activities, property, employment, business, career, education, or medical care. A conviction is not required for any predicate act relied upon to establish a course of conduct. A conviction for any predicate act relied upon to establish a course of conduct does not preclude prosecution under this section. Prosecution under this section does not preclude prosecution under any other section of the Code.
AOINE YOU HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AS I WAS ADVISED TO DO IN THIS FORUM. ANY FURTHER POSTING BY YOU DIRECTED AT ME, MY FAMILY, MY CHILDREN, POSTS CONTAINING LINKS TO OTHER SITES WITH COMMENTS ABOUT ME WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE SAME BEHAVIOR AND THE AUTHORITIES WILL BE NOTIFIED.
Hey- take your best shot- in a public forum u address me I free to address you
You are a bully and a coward who tries to shut people up
Look, you won’t do that to me- not ever
So, go ahead file your complaint- I will post whatever is freely available at will
You came to this forum – You address me
So BILLY BOY – game on
Put your money in your mouth and file your complaint
I am waiting……. Anxiously
Are you suffering FEAR. ALARM DISTRESS? Ahhhhhh. Poor baby,
You are the one who said you carry a weapon
Are you really that much of a coward- really?
Like you said- you see Bodenweiser every Friday- you sure are two of a kind
In more ways than one
Make the call BILLY BOY- file the complaint- come on……
ROTFLMAO- no wonder you are a failure and raised failures.
Lol. And who gave you that advise? The sheriff?
Remember he tried to get Vance arrested- and could not
He tried to get arrest powers and could not
His lawers can’t win a case
As for you? You think citizens can go around arresting people. Is this the world you see with the crazies like you in charge?
You could not even get you own family arrested after turning them in for something way more serious than what you are accusing me of
Nor something done about a crack house in Georgetown
Face it- you are impotent and it just infuriates you to no end
A sad pathetic man who hitched is wagon to what he saw as a throughbred
But instead turned out to be a jack ass
You bad judgement is not my problem- it’s yours
So, MAKE THE CALL…..FILE THE CHARGE
And as soon as you do you will understand what filing a false claim looks like.
Now….. Start dialing BILLY BOY.
Comment by Jason330 on 27 March 2013 at 10:30 pm:
“William, Get lost with that bullshit. If you can’t see that the we are spending peanuts on the social safety net and billions on defense and corporate welfare – they you are too dumb to bother with.”
Jason Allow me to lower myself to your level perhaps you will grasp the concept better. “the social safety net” is the new bullshit buzz phrase that replaced the equally repugnant phrase “entitlement programs”.
I have no problem with programs that help someone out TEMPORARILY.
I do have a problem with generational families and single mothers who are baby factories, those are the ones who aren’t using the assistance as a “safety net”, it’s their lifestyle. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone a free handout.
As far as defense spending don’t just target the big tag items look at the everyday equipment, the items that any civilian can purchase that is marked up 300%+
Jason told you to get lost
Are you gonna file a charge against him too- do you feel threatened
Ok- by design here you have FOUR posts
Five if you count the other thread
Have at it- would you like the phone number? Now remember , you complain a lot about their response time so you better start calling now- might be ummmmm. Several hours before u get a response
You are their favorite customer.
W.F.C. ,
Thanks for the chuckle.
It’s way more than a chuckle- it’s a flat out guffaw…
No knock on the door yet…. No phone calls
http://courts.delaware.gov/legal%20memoranda/download.aspx?ID=15888
@William F Christy – get a hobby.
@Owen & Occam – Nothing but the sound of crickets chirping in the distance. How unsurprising. These austerity backers have always been all bluster. No proof.
Lol- he has a hobby……….it’s posting on blogs
For days in a row, without a break
For what it is worth William Christy isn’t commenting here anymore. There is no substance to his comments, and they are just spam at this point. He doesn’t like welfare. Fine. Whatever. Moving on.
Aw, c’mon, Jason. Every circus needs a clown. Let him post.
One thing we do not lack for here are clowns. We just hit our quota.
Comparisons between things like defense spending and spending on social programs are honestly specious arguments and quite literally comparing apples to oranges.
Defense spending can only be considered in context of the threat, vulnerabilities, and the mission. Ditto weapons programs. The crux of the argument should be on what we as a nation are asking the Department of Defense to do.
There have long been arguments on the use of the military as an instrument of foreign policy. It boils down to, if you say something, you eventually may be required to back it up. So when the President draws a line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, for example, the words carry weight because the President is influential, but also because we have the power to back it up.
I will also note, that our defense spending reflects our role (regardless of the arrogance of it) as the world’s policeman. I’m not sure we asked for it or whether it was thrust upon us. I suspect that we have interests in other countries partially for strategic reasons that arose out of the Cold War, but even further back because we are a nation of immigrants and we care about what happens to the people in these other countries. We are Polish, South African, Vietnamese, Syrians, Egyptians, and more. We identify with these other countries. I am predominately Irish-American. I don’t think about being that every day, but I care about what happens in Ireland. I suspect that we all have those connections, whether ethnic or nationalistic.
Having said that, there is wasteful spending and Jason highlighted some of the weapon programs that are reflective of that waste. But there are also programs whose benefits outweigh the costs, such as drones, which will soon be deployed to fight forest fires, search and rescue operations, and other missions.
In sum, the defense budget reflects the mission plus waste. When we debate the budget, we should first debate the missions. We went to war in Iraq for no good reason. We had a good reason to go to Afghanistan. The problem in Afghanistan was one of arrogance in looking at it as a field of dreams and thinking that if we build it they will come, as a means to overcome centuries of tribal warfare. Ultimately it was a fruitless exercise, because tribal behavior, a fuedal and paternalistic society, and religous zealtory combined to create a deadly combination that was centuries in the making and will be centuries in overcoming.
I have problems with both the mission and the waste. We are still staffed and equipped to fight a big war (alone) against a defunct Soviet Union.
No honest discussion of national priorities should leave defense spending at 1/2 of what it is today.
Cyber attacks, asymmetrical warfare – there are legitimate threats out there. We don’t need spend more than the 14 next countries COMBINED to address these threats. In fact – spending that much probably diminishes our ability to address those threats.
good call Jason
“We are still staffed and equipped to fight a big war (alone) against a defunct Soviet Union.”
I agree. Still the ship doesn’t turn on a dime. Asymmetric warfare as a term did not come in existence until around 1975 (although it’s use has been around for centuries) and the asymmetric threat was not the primary threat until end of the Cold War until sometime round 1989.
We ought to be able to move faster, but really, it seems that nothing we do as a nation can be done quickly, whether it is military, political, or social.
Unfortunately, change means moving out of our comfort zone, wandering in the wilderness for awhile, then adopting new paradigms. That’s why I like computers better than people. When I decide to do something different, I just load a new program and voila! None of this dicking around making people feel good about change.
The crux of the argument should be on what we as a nation are asking the Department of Defense to do.
This should be the question for every single Government Department. Whether we asked to be the world’s policeman or it was thrust upon us doesn’t make much difference to the *policy* choices made by US governments since the end of WWII to be the world’s policeman. We can still be a formidable power and spend less money on the kind of force needed to defend ourselves. And what kind of formidable power can we be if we can’t get our treaty partners to hold up their end?
The difficulty of change is an argument for inertia, not for change. But there is no doubt that the very large spending is baked in the cake. And part of the reason that it is baked in the cake is that many of our treaty partners have been able to rely on our muscle while they are busily investing their GDP in their citizens (single-payer, anyone?). But there is some effort to try to trim some of this back.
We might have interests in other countries, but in many of those countries, our interests and those of the specific nation are aligned. But we don’t have bases in the UK to defend the UK as much as they are closer to the old Soviet Block than US bases. It is the old Cold War thinking that we are still paying for and it is well past time to remind ourselves that we aren’t engaged in the Cold War anymore.
Jason is looking for “tried and true policies of small government and low regulation” actually created any broad based, long term, durable economic growth …ever”
We know Jason lacks any working knowledge of economics, but now we can add history to the list. He seems to believe that we have always had a Federal Government that spends 18% to 25% of GDP, and wants proof that reducing that number will have any positive affects.
From the founding of our nation, 1787-1849 (63 years) federal spending averaged 1.7% of GDP. For the next 51 years, 1850-1900 (including fighting the Civil War) spending averaged only 3.1%. From 1901 till 1930 (including fighting WWI) it never reached 8%, and averaged approximately 3.2%.
At the height of the progressive movement (including FDR’s New Deal) federal spending as a percentage of GDP never went above the 1934 level of 10.7%. Even after the historic 1944 (WWII) level of 43.6%, spending had fallen by 1948 to 11.6% of GDP.
In short, for the first 130 years of the U.S.’s 224 year existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%
To put the sequester into perspective, we were talking about a 2% cut in spending. After WWII we cut spending 40% and, wait for it….the economy boomed.
As for your $50, you can keep it and may I suggest purchasing a copy of Henry Hazlitt’s book, “Economics in One Lesson”, it may change your life.
A swing and a miss. The rugged individualist theory of economics. Cute. I really do appreciate the effort though. You are the first wignut to even try. A history lesson that elides pre-industrial and post industrial government spending while ignoring the economic impact of public investments in everything from the building the Erie Canal to the defeat of Soviet Communism actually proves my point, you see that – right?
Check out “A Monetary History of the United States.”
How much should it cost to run a superpower of 350 million people?
Owen’s history of Spending/GDP doesn’t quite hold up.
But then, wingnut math wasn’t on *my* SAT exam, so what can I say.
“As for your $50, you can keep it and may I suggest purchasing a copy of Henry Hazlitt’s book, “Economics in One Lesson”, it may change your life.”
Why? So he could learn an economic philosophy which can’t even describe the past and present let alone be useful in charting a future course?
We have enough morons like you in the culture.
All you guys trying to prove that your economic theory is right and that the other side’s isn’t are funny (guess what both have worked at different times and both have failed at times for a true historical perspective). The economy is struggling because there is no confidence in Washington and the private sector won’t invest with the amount of uncertainty we currently have. They’re holding onto all the cash they have because they’re just waiting for things to go from bad to worse with the way Washington is working.
If we get our fiscal budget in order the economy will take off on the back of the private sector not the government. The only thing I’ll say that I know will bring growth is to tell any manufacturer that has moved overseas that if they come back they won’t pay taxes on the profits that come from any of the factories they bring back. They wouldn’t be paying taxes on them anyways if they’re in another country but at the very least we’ll have some good paying jobs for people that wouldn’t have had them otherwise. That’s how we create jobs and I’m pretty sure it’s something most people could agree with especially since it was manufacturing that made this country great. Economics involves common sense and it’s not as simple as pure capitalism vs. Keynesian economics for all you scholars our there.
Right. That’s how Germany, for example, manages to keep its manufacturers. It pays them a stipend to stay in the highly unionized high tax, universal healthcare hell- hole that is Germany.
Grow up Francis. It was low the elimination of banking regulations that created the current crisis.
Manufacturing built the middle class in this country and right now it’s helping China close ground on the US for world’s biggest economy. Banking was a big cause of the financial crisis but I’m more worried about finding ways to fix the problem not what caused it. Unions are fine by me but what good is a union if there isn’t any jobs for the union workers?
Costs are starting to rise for manufacturers in China but companies will simply look for the next cheap place to set up shop. We need to do everything we can to make America that next cheap place and offering a tax free period of something like 10 years could be the solution. As I said they wouldn’t be paying taxes to the US gov. in another country anyways so why not do everything we can to at least bring those jobs back. I don’t see you throwing out any ideas of how to fix things except that the government should tax more and spend more which we’re currently doing and although we’re seeing some improvement it’s not anywhere near what we should be seeing. I’m trying to have an adult conversation instead of blaming everyone except those I support for the current problems we have and you should try doing the same my friend.
Racing to the bottom isn’t the solution. aganin see Germany. Make banking boring again by bringing back Glass-Steagall, and close tax loop holes that encourage manufactures to locate jobs and profits overseas. These problems are only hard to solve because we have a know-nothing congress that wants to do the opposite of what is nesiscary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/opinion/krugman-cheating-our-children.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&
“The economy is struggling because there is no confidence in Washington ”
Wrong. And unprovable.
“and the private sector won’t invest with the amount of uncertainty we currently have.”
Demonstrably false. Business owners have been surveyed on this for the past several years, and the clear majority blame a lack of demand.
“They’re holding onto all the cash they have because they’re just waiting for things to go from bad to worse with the way Washington is working.”
You are talking politics, not economics.
“If we get our fiscal budget in order the economy will take off on the back of the private sector not the government.”
You mean the way the economy of Great Britain has taken off? See, it doesn’t matter that classical economics once “worked,” by which you mean described what happened. It hasn’t done so for many, many, years as capitalism has entered the post-industrial era.
“The only thing I’ll say that I know will bring growth is to tell any manufacturer that has moved overseas that if they come back they won’t pay taxes on the profits that come from any of the factories they bring back.”
In that case, I’d say you don’t know anything. Why would car companies manufacture autos in America for shipping to fast-growing Asian markets? It makes no economic sense for them. Please, stick to your day job.
“They wouldn’t be paying taxes on them anyways if they’re in another country but at the very least we’ll have some good paying jobs for people that wouldn’t have had them otherwise.”
That’s a swell aim you have there — the very least.
“That’s how we create jobs and I’m pretty sure it’s something most people could agree with especially since it was manufacturing that made this country great.”
Get out of the past. This is a post-industrial society. Machines have replaced human hands. The program you describe would be wonderful — for a third-world country with no manufacturing base.
“Economics involves common sense…”
No, actually, it doesn’t. Economics — especially non-Keynesian economics — substitutes assumptions about human behavior for actual, observed human behavior.
“it’s not as simple as pure capitalism vs. Keynesian economics for all you scholars our there.”
What the fuck are you talking about? “Pure capitalism” is not an economic term on par with Keynesianism. You probably can’t even describe Keynesian theories.
If you’re interested in the subject, take some college courses and get back to us in a couple of years.
“We need to do everything we can to make America that next cheap place and offering a tax free period of something like 10 years could be the solution.”
You f’ing moron. You’re saying we should drop wages to levels of China? You don’t even understand that labor costs are more important to businesses than tax rates, and by an enormous margin. You pay labor costs whether you make a profit or not. You pay taxes only on profits.
Please, do us all a favor and stop voting.
Glad to see the discourse on here is above a 1st grade level.
Geezer I’d love to debate you on this but judging by your response to my comments I’d say it’s a waste of my time since you obviously think a dysfunctional government is good for the economy. I never said lower wages I said offer tax exemptions which are 2 completely different things. Next time someone talks intelligently in your presence try not to scream and yell like a child and you might actually learn something. The simple fact the healthcare law has provided more uncertainty to businesses then just about any law in the last century proves you probably didn’t think critically about a single thing I wrote and just posted what you think is correct and not what actually is correct.
“I never said lower wages I said offer tax exemptions which are 2 completely different things.”
Yes. Precisely my point. People don’t local manufacturing offshore because of the tax rate. They do it because of the labor rate. They’re two different things, but because you’re a moron you don’t realize that labor is a much larger expense.
There’s nothing to debate. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
“you probably didn’t think critically about a single thing I wrote”
Right. That’s why I offered a point-by-point critique of your grab-bag of conservative tropes. Your inability to understand it is not my problem.
Wages in China are going up or did you miss that in my comments, I actually wrote a paper on this and it’s expected that it will be cheaper to manufacture in the US by 2015 then in China. My paper suggested that Apple should move some of their manufacturing facilities back to the US which they have already done (look it up if you don’t believe me).
Also I’m a democrat but don’t let your hate for those who disagree with you get in your way. I just don’t fall in line with everything I’m fed by my party, the media, or anyone for that matter. You’d be surprised if you actually took me seriously but I can’t force you to do that.
“Wages in China are going up or did you miss that in my comments, I actually wrote a paper on this and it’s expected that it will be cheaper to manufacture in the US by 2015 then in China.”
Yes, they’re expected to hit $6/hour by 2015. Wow!
You’re not going to get anywhere cherry-picking your data. Here’s a link to a story that shows how limited your analysis of the situation is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-economy/2012/0510/As-Chinese-wages-rise-US-manufacturers-head-back-home
For those without the time, a few excerpts:
“How many jobs reshoring is creating is hard to determine. When a large, well-known company like Master Lock brings 100 jobs from China to its factory in Milwaukee – and earns a visit from President Obama and a mention in his State of the Union address – it’s big news.”
100 jobs. One fucking hundred jobs.
“BCG estimates that the average US worker is now some 3.4 times more productive than the average Chinese worker. “That takes us out of having to compete with China for low-wage jobs, because we’re producing things that require more sophisticated robotics,” Mr. Kuehl adds.”
Get it? The factories don’t produce jobs for people because THEY’RE RUN MOSTLY BY ROBOTS.
“Many of the high labor-content products, like shoes, textiles and most clothing are probably gone forever. … BCG points to seven industries that are nearing that break-even point: electronics, appliances, machinery, transportation goods, fabricated metals, furniture, and plastics and rubber – all products with relatively low labor content and high transportation costs.”
I should point out that this article was TOUTING the return of manufacturing from China. Pretty weak tea.
Businesses make business decisions based on the numbers, not on your unsupported ideas about “uncertainty.” If it were true — and surveys of business owners show it isn’t — wouldn’t industry basically be saying that they are fucking over the country because they don’t want to pay their taxes? You’re OK with that?
I don’t care which party you vote for. You don’t know what you’re talking about either way.
And I don’t “hate” people who ‘disagree’ with me. I’m telling you don’t bring that weak shit in here unless you want it rejected.
geezer can’t help it but don’t hold that against the poor guy G_D he’s still stuck on am radio
Unsupported ideas about uncertainty? You mean like how the U.S. debt is reaching the point where many in the business community consider it the #1 problem facing the country today? Or a new healthcare law that nobody knows the effects from at the moment? Businesses don’t expand unless they’re certain they’re able to predict the economic factors they need to know for the future. I know numbers and regardless of operating profit and net income no company will expand if they feel another recession is all but certain or that our debt won’t devalue the dollar. Those are factors every competent CEO takes into account and your dismissing them as if they’re some child’s fantasy. Have you ever ran a business or made decisions such as the ones you’re talking about because I haven’t but I know that anyone who doesn’t take them into account is putting their business and their employees at risk by doing so.
Also nowhere did I intertwine taxes and uncertainty you said that I didn’t as they were 2 completely separate points I was making.
Comment by cassandra m on 28 March 2013 at 9:13 pm:
Owen’s history of Spending/GDP doesn’t quite hold up.
Cassandra sweetie, your chart actually substantiates what I wrote. I mistyped one digit on my WWI number. Everything else was correct, and thank for finding that chart that backs up everything I said.
To restate my point from my previous post: In short, for the first 130 years of the U.S.’s 224 year existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%
And Jason my nitwit friend.
Are you really bringing up the Canal’s in this country as evidence of good public investment? As States in the early 1830’s “invested” in the building of more and more canals to promote economic investment (green energy anyone) the private sector was investing in railroads. In less then a decade the states were in debt with outdated technology that no one wanted.
See State Bankruptcies of the 1840’s you dingbat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_bankruptcies_in_the_1840s
If you are going to sit at the big boy table, please come prepared.
Owen, asshole, your math still doesn’t quite add up. You want to frame your argument in averages over time periods that it suits you to make those averages. That is a bullshit argument and the usual conservative tactic. Besides, your throwing around of averages arbitrarily grouped into periods that are useful to you pretty much ignore what America’s GDP was in those years you are skimming by an what the government was doing with its money. Nobody was building interstates or the Golden Gate Bridge in 1791. But the costs of expansion into the west were largely those of killing not a few Native Americans whose land was taken, rather than fairly compensated. And what about the deficits and debts of the early years? If you are going to account properly for your narrative, you need to include that too. Bottom lime, you are trying to fool people with your averages AND pretend that the government of 1791 is the same as the government now.
So if you think you are sitting at the big boy table, you need to get up and look around. Because the big boys are pointing and laughing at your ignorant ass.
As States in the early 1830’s “invested” in the building of more and more canals to promote economic investment (green energy anyone) the private sector was investing in railroads.
More bullshit. The “private sector” was investing in railroads on lands give to them by the government and subsidized by government bonds. In addition, the government provided security in the form of soldiers who helped secure the lands that were being taken from those who lived on it already.
I took my birthweight and my weight now and averaged it to find out that my ideal weight is 97 pounds. That’s how he libertarian bullshit artists do It.
You mean like how the U.S. debt is reaching the point where many in the business community consider it the #1 problem facing the country today?
This is the Chamber of Commerce’s meme. And it is quite wrong. The #1 problem for businesses (at least the smaller ones who need customers to make money vs the larger ones who can live on their hoarded cash)is demand. There still are not enough customers out there. There are no businesses out there who are turning away real business because of “uncertainty”. And if you knew something about how business runs you would know that.
And before you start running off at the mouth again, there are several people on this blog running their own businesses or running parts of other firms. So go show off your ignorance on a conservative blog where they’ll never know how idiotic you are.
So, a good friend shared with me today that since June of 2012 they have made a return of about 20% On their investments in the stock market- that was just for one fund this person has.
I thought there was a recession on…..
Obviously the business community is focusing on making money and the US debt is not their priority- spending their money and not paying taxes on it is REALLY their number one concern
BTW,the friend in question……a retiree, Who was and still is a UNION member.
“You mean like how the U.S. debt is reaching the point where many in the business community consider it the #1 problem facing the country today?”
But when you ask the #1 problem facing business they say lack of demand. Seriously, you are mistaking politics for economics.
“In short, for the first 130 years of the U.S.’s 224 year existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%”
Is this your goal? Do you advocate returning to the past? Why? You seem to indicate that you would prefer private infrastructure, which would be operated for profit, with public infrastructure, which is paid for without an operating profit built in. Why?
You have not indicated a willingness to engage on any but this most impersonal level. Why?