[Defenestrated]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911_pf.html

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that he hopes to enact later this year.

Very happy!

 

[stevew]

Dow 5000

 

[IH8Rice]

great, lets cut the budget to the boys that really need it over there. granted, we spend a ton of money over there already, but how will this jeopardize there safety?

 

[Defenestrated]

great, lets cut the budget to the boys that really need it over there. granted, we spend a ton of money over there already, but how will this jeopardize there safety?

For the love of Satan, cutting the military budget does not mean that Obama is going to fly over and collect everyone's kevlar...

Such absolutism is dangerous you know, it makes you much easier to fool and coerce.

 

[IH8Rice]

im not saying theyre gonna be defenseless, but where will the budget be taken out of? they still need more up-armored vehicles and vehicles to protect em. im sure this wont help in keeping them more safer

 

[3D.]

cutting a budget while starting up more war... huh?

raise taxes on corporations from what revenue... they're all finally going broke

this all looks good on paper and is candy for the ear, but that's all it is

 

[Toshi]

For the love of Satan, cutting the military budget does not mean that Obama is going to fly over and collect everyone's kevlar...

Such absolutism is dangerous you know, it makes you much easier to fool and coerce.

amen.

we don't need to spend 10x as much as the next country down in order to have a capable and sufficient military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [5] and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. (Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is adjusted for purchasing power parity.)
The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). In 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and agricultural production in the USA.

Military discretionary spending accounts for more than half of the U.S. federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. federal government budget that is not appropriated for mandatory spending.[6]

In 2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

 

[3D.]

amen.

we don't need to spend 10x as much as the next country down in order to have a capable and sufficient military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

your right, if it was really about defending a nation

Q: NYC... noooo... why?

 

[ohio]

im not saying theyre gonna be defenseless, but where will the budget be taken out of?

Compare the budgets for troops and support to the budgets for equipment that we'll never use over there, or R&D for equipment that will never be built let alone used anywhere, and it's pretty easy to find places to cut without affecting a single troop.

 

[ohio]

your right, if it was really about defending a nation

Q: NYC... noooo... why?

Explain how military spending could have defended us from 9-11.

Note that the Department of Defense does not include the CIA nor FBI. It does, however include the NSA.

 

[3D.]

Explain how military spending could have defended us from 9-11.

Note that the Department of Defense does not include the CIA nor FBI. It does, however include the NSA.

it couldn't have, but don't worry you paid for it, Reichstag fire ring a bell

 

[Defenestrated]

Military spending hasn't defended American soil since 1941. At least not in any tangible way. I am going to assume that nuclear weaponry is a fraction of the budget anyway so basically that bloated whale of a department is funded to not defend American soil but conversely, make others defend theirs.

 

[$tinkle]

so whoever's been trained to defend our soil tapped into which budget?

but more to the point: yeah, dow 5k

 

[dan-o]

Less war is good, higher taxes is bad.
I fear this administration has spent too much time hypothesizing in Harvard Square and too little time in the business world.

 

[ohio]

too much time hypothesizing in Harvard Square

Is that a JFK reference, or do you just forget where all of these guys come from?

 

[jimmydean]

im not saying theyre gonna be defenseless, but where will the budget be taken out of?

Cheney's pocket, I hope.

<edit> for reference:

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

 

[dan-o]

Is that a JFK reference, or do you just forget where all of these guys come from?

Neither. I spend a lot of time around Harvard (friends who work there, are grads etc) and have heard enough drivel to no longer mistake education for experience.

 

[narlus]

look at what an 'experienced business executive' did for us...

 

[ohio]

Neither. I spend a lot of time around Harvard (friends who work there, are grads etc) and have heard enough drivel to no longer mistake education for experience.

How about no longer mistaking experience for wisdom?

 

[dan-o]

How about no longer mistaking experience for wisdom?

I think we can both agree that wisdom is derived through a combination of education and experience.

 

[ohio]

I think we can both agree that wisdom is derived through a combination of education and experience.

and APTITUDE

Gee Dub went to the finest schools, ran several businesses (into the ground) and was a governor. That is experience and education without aptitude... demonstrably unwise.

edit: I think I would also add humility (or something about self reflection and critical thinking) as a necessary ingredient.

 

[SDH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911_pf.html



Very happy!

This might be a foolish move. If you cut defense spending you are defacto cutting jobs in the defense industry. If budgets are cut less money goes on the contracts. The companies do not absorb these costs they just cut people off the contract.

Taxing business' is just plain stupid. The big wigs are stiil gonna take their cut in profit what will suffer is R&D, new starts and carrying people on over head to pay for the increase in tax. Increasing taxes impact a company's discretionary funding to invest in new products and services. Business' tighten and not grow.


Taxing the wealthest? Define wealthy? $100K a year? $200K a year? Man that will be the dealth nell for all of the NE states.

 

[jimmydean]

This might be a foolish move. If you cut defense spending you are defacto cutting jobs in the defense industry. If budgets are cut less money goes on the contracts. The companies do not absorb these costs they just cut people off the contract.

Did you look at the figures I posted? If all they do is TRACK THE MONEY BEING SPENT they could save close to $20B. If a few jobs are lost in the process of proper accounting, then those bastards should have played fair in the first place.

Haliburtin and KBR have sucked the defense budget for all it's got without any remorse for the troops who ultimately suffer. open the bidding up to companies who care about the services they are providing and it creates jobs AND supports the troops.

 

[SDH]

Did you look at the figures I posted? If all they do is TRACK THE MONEY BEING SPENT they could save close to $20B. If a few jobs are lost in the process of proper accounting, then those bastards should have played fair in the first place.

Haliburtin and KBR have sucked the defense budget for all it's got without any remorse for the troops who ultimately suffer. open the bidding up to companies who care about the services they are providing and it creates jobs AND supports the troops.

First, if we banked on them playing fair, shame on us. I never assume a big company is going to play fair.

However, I wonder how much of that "wasted" 20B went into the US economy, for materials, goods and services for jobs.

 

[jimmydean]

First, if we banked on them playing fair, shame on us. I never assume a big company is going to play fair.

However, I wonder how much of that "wasted" 20B went into the US economy, for materials, goods and services for jobs.

You mean Cheney's pocket and related shareholders? The Bush admin set us up to be cheated with no bid contracts from the start. Shame on them, not us. The fact that Cheney's old company was even involved with the war effort should have been a conflict of interest.

 

[ohio]

This might be a foolish move. If you cut defense spending you are defacto cutting jobs in the defense industry. If budgets are cut less money goes on the contracts. The companies do not absorb these costs they just cut people off the contract.

It's this kind of idiotic bull**** that allows republicans to claim they're for small government while creating the largest budgets in history.

We are running a massive massive deficit and spending money we don't have, and you want us to keep building useless **** that does nothing for the economy just to protect jobs? May as well use that money to pay for Gm to build useless cars no one wants to buy. Same thing, maybe even better.

Additionally, defense only creates consistent jobs in a few select areas. Everyone else gets ****ed as congressman win a few years of business for their districts, their districts invest in capacity, and then they lose the business to another district to "spread the wealth" and avoid favoritism.

 

[SDH]

It's this kind of idiotic bull**** that allows republicans to claim they're for small government while creating the largest budgets in history.

We are running a massive massive deficit and spending money we don't have, and you want us to keep building useless **** that does nothing for the economy just to protect jobs? May as well use that money to pay for Gm to build useless cars no one wants to buy. Same thing, maybe even better.

Additionally, defense only creates consistent jobs in a few select areas. Everyone else gets ****ed as congressman win a few years of business for their districts, their districts invest in capacity, and then they lose the business to another district to "spread the wealth" and avoid favoritism.

Actually the Gore initiative for small government got the collective ball rolling for the creative accounting on making government smaller using contract support. Check your facts.

I was taught to think that jobs and economy were linked. Lose jobs the economy drops vice versa. Since when was the stuff considered useless, I thought we were talking about unaccounted stuff not useless stuff. The hard reality is if spending is cut and cut with no warning as usually the case, jobs on the contracts are lost. Overhead goes first then production line folks. In an environment where jobs are tanking, is losing more smarter?

Select areas? I guess company's like GE, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE, Lockheed, Northrup are select areas? Defense and aerospace is HUGE and trickles into the civil sector. This why I think it will not be wise........these are huge sectors and people of employees.....

 

[ohio]

Actually the Gore initiative for small government got the collective ball rolling for the creative accounting on making government smaller using contract support. Check your facts.

WTF are you talking about. I'm referring to the paradox of aiming for small government while refusing to cut government spending. What Gore initiative have you seen over the last 8 years?

I was taught to think that jobs and economy were linked. Lose jobs the economy drops vice versa.

Were you taught anything after 5th grade? Do you really believe the formula to be this simple? Do you think all jobs are equal? Would you really rather spend these billions on weapons we won't use rather than the domestic auto industry? If you're terrified of losing jobs, then great, make it a zero sum shift in money. We'd still be better off spending that money on infrastructure and technology than defense. That is, assuming we're talking about actual defense money, not the billions that have been straight siphoned off per Jimmydean's posts.

Since when was the stuff considered useless, I thought we were talking about unaccounted stuff not useless stuff. The hard reality is if spending is cut and cut with no warning as usually the case, jobs on the contracts are lost. Overhead goes first then production line folks. In an environment where jobs are tanking, is losing more smarter?

Yes, losing spending in a field where there is almost no accountability for results, and no products that provide direct economic stimulus or competitive advantage in the international market is smart. It means that we're minimizing the enormous financial burden we will have to repay in the coming decades. Just because you need to rely on your credit card for a couple of months should you go on a spending spree, or should you use the credit wisely for the areas that make the most sense?

Select areas? I guess company's like GE, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE, Lockheed, Northrup are select areas? Defense and aerospace is HUGE and trickles into the civil sector. This why I think it will not be wise........these are huge sectors and people of employees.....

First of all, trickle down doesn't work. It just doesn't. It is as useful as pissing on a cornstalk and expecting the whole field to grow. It is the least efficient way to stimulate an economy. All the wishful thinking in the world won't make it work.

Second, yes those are select areas. The DoD budget is $650 billion discretionary and $1 trillion in total. DO you think that all goes to the listed companies and do you think that the listed companies only exist in one static location?

Third, if you're so upset about aerospace, are you also stomping your feet about all the lost jobs at NASA?

 

[SDH]

WTF are you talking about. I'm referring to the paradox of aiming for small government while refusing to cut government spending. What Gore initiative have you seen over the last 8 years?


Were you taught anything after 5th grade? Do you really believe the formula to be this simple? Do you think all jobs are equal? Would you really rather spend these billions on weapons we won't use rather than the domestic auto industry? If you're terrified of losing jobs, then great, make it a zero sum shift in money. We'd still be better off spending that money on infrastructure and technology than defense. That is, assuming we're talking about actual defense money, not the billions that have been straight siphoned off per Jimmydean's posts.


Yes, losing spending in a field where there is almost no accountability for results, and no products that provide direct economic stimulus or competitive advantage in the international market is smart. It means that we're minimizing the enormous financial burden we will have to repay in the coming decades. Just because you need to rely on your credit card for a couple of months should you go on a spending spree, or should you use the credit wisely for the areas that make the most sense?


First of all, trickle down doesn't work. It just doesn't. It is as useful as pissing on a cornstalk and expecting the whole field to grow. It is the least efficient way to stimulate an economy. All the wishful thinking in the world won't make it work.

Second, yes those are select areas. The DoD budget is $650 billion discretionary and $1 trillion in total. DO you think that all goes to the listed companies and do you think that the listed companies only exist in one static location?

Third, if you're so upset about aerospace, are you also stomping your feet about all the lost jobs at NASA?

First off, I was pointing out that you were stating that creating the illusion of a small government and then have contractors(as off the books) do the work is a republican game when actually the wheels of that game started in the Clinton years

5th grade correct? Actually I was trying to break it down to a over simplistic level for the reader. My point is losing jobs happens much quicker than creating jobs. Even if there was a zero sum game there is also a delta which i beleive the economy can not handle right now. So for the 5th grader, you cut spending in a particular area, jobs are lost, people tighten up and do not put money in the economy b/c they have none. Now you take that money and invest in a new area, jobs are created but not at the rate that other cut sector jobs were lost, this produces a void (delta)in jobs, and all I am saying is we can not afford such a void while other jobs are being lost in other sectors. Jobs are lost quicky, spending stops quickly, job are created slowly and thus spending picks up slowly. Now, if you engineer the solution, cutting one slowly and increasing the other we have a chance but often this does not happen, mostly for BS political reasons.........look what I have done....."I HAVE TAKEN ACTION!" When in fact you screwed things up more.

Tickle smickle.............that can not be proven or disproven. Economist are still out to lunch on that one. Bottom line... cut a business' taxes they have more money to invest in the business so they can make more money. Do you know anybody who owns a fairly large business? Ask them.

Lastly, you state "The DoD budget is $650 billion discretionary and $1 trillion in total. DO you think that all goes to the listed companies and do you think that the listed companies only exist in one static location?"
Nope not all but most of it goes to companies I listed (and a few others) and their partners and subsities.
Most of the money given to any Government agency finds it way back into the economy.

BTW I did not understand what you meant by static locations.

 

[Defenestrated]

Trickle down does not work, you are a victim of the optimism bias.

 

[ohio]

Tickle smickle.............that can not be proven or disproven. Economist are still out to lunch on that one.

Yes it can, and no they're not. Folks advocating trickle down are the short-sighted ones that benefit immediately from it. Of course businesses want tax cuts. Businesses also make idiotic quarterly decisions that run themselves into the ground.

Bottom line... cut a business' taxes they have more money to invest in the business so they can make more money. Do you know anybody who owns a fairly large business? Ask them.

Former strategy and management consultant. I've worked with the C-level of several multi-billion dollar organizations. I know exactly what folks in charge of large businesses think, and not all of them think the same. However, they would all gladly take any kind of immediate handout (corporate tax cut) even if it was at the expense of the overall economy.

BTW I did not understand what you meant by static locations.

I mean that lockheed themselves move the money to all different locations just like the government itself, which means that exactly the job loss and job creation delta you were talking about occurs and it is specifically rampant in defense and aerospace contracts.

 

[$tinkle]

Yes it can, and no they're not. Folks advocating trickle down are the short-sighted ones that benefit immediately from it. Of course businesses want tax cuts. Businesses also make idiotic quarterly decisions that run themselves into the ground.

what significant difference do you see between previously implemented private sector trickle down & the proposed gov't trickle down?

 

[ohio]

what significant difference do you see between previously implemented private sector trickle down & the proposed gov't trickle down?

You know all those infomercials about cutting out the middle man? Yeah, that.

 

[$tinkle]

You know all those infomercials about cutting out the middle man? Yeah, that.

so richie rich gets his G5 & employs a maintenance/flight crew, rents hangar space, buys jet fuel, maintains it, keeps atc's & all manner of supply line people employed....

but the gov't cuts out the middle man?

in my line of work, the gov't allocates the military - usually a.f. - funds, who then advertise for rfp's, eventually award the contract, which then gets divvied out to some number of contractors & sub-contractors, resulting in this here food chain:

mil -> g.s. -> prime awardee -> subs

not to mention all the other gov't entities who are naturally brought into the lifecycle under the guise of "accountability". you see, in the first example, other peoples' money stops at the first variable, but in the second it bleeds all the way through, stopping just short of the subs

ed: if it wasn't obvious to others, the gov't IS the middleman
ed2: yes, i know richie rich doesn't pay atc's, but does contribute to making their job necessary

 

[ohio]

I was referring to food stamps, etc.

If you're talking about all of the infrastructure and tech spending, then it would be more efficient for it to come straight from company coffers, if you could somehow compel companies across all industries to route a significant portion of their profits into technology R&D and public works.

 

[Defenestrated]

Trickle down economics is known as supply-side economics. The opposite is demand-side economics, not gov't trickle down.

Demand-side economics seeks to empower the consumer rather than benefiting the already advantageously positioned producer.

 

[$tinkle]

Demand-side economics seeks to empower the consumer rather than benefiting the already advantageously positioned producer.

so let's seek to empower G5 consumers

 

[Secret Squirrel]

so let's seek to empower G5 consumers

They already are empowered...that's why they're G5 consumers...

I need to be empowered so that I can just know someone who knows someone that might have a G3....