The obvious issue is that our government spends way too much money on BS

they need to eliminate social security completely for example (IMHO)

What did you think they were through with us?
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8...ec0f954661.gif

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Fistonia, damnit:stare:

If the ability to wipe out the 10 biggest Russian cities and kill two dozens of millions of Russians, and intoxicate this number again over the next decade - if that is not recognised by the Russians as a believable deterrance, than the ability to wipe out 1,000 Russian cities would not be recognised as a deterrance either.

Moscow alone has over 10 million population. Petersburg has 4,5 million, 10 more cities have between 1 and 2 million.

You do not need 2000 warheads for a nuclear deterrance. A hundred already would be enough for intimidating not only one but all possible enemies on this earth simultaneously.

Not to mention that if you want a huge military, you need to have an economy able to maintain it.

Ow right, sorry had forgotten that. :oops:

Its not the ablity to wipe out a thousand Russian cities over ten its the ability to make sure our warheads reach those ten cities. Don't forget that the Russians have a ballistic missile defense system in place (and its been in place since the 1960s). We need those warheads to saturate their defenses and reach the their targets, which are BTW the Russian ICBM sites and not their cities. We need something like one warhead for each enemy ICBM plus one for each ABM... its adds up. :03:

EDIT: Correction... we need one ICBM for each ABM not one warhead since the Soviet/Russian ABMs are area effect weapons (nuclear) they can take out several MIRVs each.

I have not ignored missile defenmce. But I wonder whether it is reasonable to assume that the Russian's existing system works so much more reliable than the american planned missile shield based in Poland, Czech republic etc . I also wonder why you invest so hilariousa mmounts of money into developeing the B-2 if it still does not make you confident that you can penetrate any air defence with that (several missiles instead of one B-2 woulöd be the mor economic solution). Next, there have been and still can be nuclear TLAMs, or comparable systems, plus SLBMs whose flight time to target does not compare to that of an ICBM, reducing their reaction time.

Next, I never believed in the ide aof sclaed nuclear exchaange between nuclear arsenals as big as the Russian and American ones. Any strike versus a taregt in the other nation hardly will be seen as a "limited" strike, but will trigger a full response. When America and Russia start to exchange nukes, you can bet your money on that they reach fast the stage when they do not target "military" goals (in closer vicinty to civil cities...), but cities, starting with the capitals Washington and Moscow.

Finally, you maybe have not understood what a deterrance is. Deterrance is not to let the enemy believe you would limit your strikes and keep one arm bound on your back. Detrrance means that you make the other believe that if he blinks you immediately will hang on his throat.

The luxury of limiting a nuclear exchange to "military targets" only (tell that a radioactive cloud wandering with the wind - we do not talk about nuclear bunker busters and mini-.nukes here, but ICBMS and SLBMS and major airdelivered nuclear bombs)...) a nation will only afford - when the enemy has no nukes at all. ;) Once both enemies have nukes, we talk about the destruction of cities from much sooner on than you maybe believe. Becasue then both believe they are both fighting nut for some abstract concept of "victory", but for mere biological, physical "survival".

Point of it all is: the threat of even just warhead coming through, already is sufficent a detrrance. No side can or will ever be able to guarantee that it can elimininate 100% of all incoming warhgeads, no matter how many or how few there are. Ands that uncertainty that always remains - that is what the balance of terror really was and is basing on.

It's not about a thousand big bangs. It is about even just one. The chance that they will lose Moscow, will make the Russians think twice. Americas will never risk a conflict when it needs to gamble over New York or Los Angeles.

You now see why I am so bitterly detemrined to deny Iran nukes, and to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Mid East, and why I am so outraged over Pakistan having been allowed nukes. Pakistan has around 50 warheads and not even intercontinental carrier systems - and already is claimed to be untouchable by many. North Korea is not even proved but suspected to have even less - and they are considered almost untouchable. It is like with a submarine in naval war. You do not need to have a sub in the vicinity ofd the enemy fleet for real - just letting the enemy think that there is a sub already forces him to massively alter and limit his actions.

We have a large military so the rest of the west doesn't have to.

You're welcome.

That said, the military is a large, but legitimate expense. Both legit from a Constitutional standpoint, and as a "public good" (some libertarians will likely argue this, and I'm cool with that). The real problem is "programatic" spending. AKA the "entitlements." Failure to massively curtail the latter means failure to tame the budget.

There were a few good ideas that just came out of the Obama admin's panel, but they don't go far enough in some areas, and do other things that are wrong. Mainly increasing the taxes to pay for it. There is a trouble here. The SSA calls SS (OASI and DI) a trust fund. We all know that it really isn't in any normal sense (like a trust fund I might set up for the kids). That said, the language implies that we get the money we put in back. Raising the cap (which is how they talk about raising the tax) means that more, or even all income above 100-whatever grand it is today (105?) will be taxed. The amount I would get BACK, however, would still be capped. Wither the "trust fund?" I'm supposed to get out what I put in, if we pay some multiple of what we do now, but only get the same "benefit" how can I get paid back? Do I get to live longer by the same multiple (there's a benefit I'd pay for, happily)?

No. They can't maintain the fiction of a trust fund if they collect higher taxes, and do not give those that pay more larger returns commensurate with the raised cap. They expose it for the ponzi scheme it is. The trouble of course is that the boom is ended, and now there are fewer workers to pay in.

I say cut benefits NOW. Yep, cut benis. Have the people collecting now paid in already? Yes, yes they did. They paid in too much, and the government THEY controlled took the excess money (SS has been over collecting for decades (ie: surplus)) and... loaned it to the USA via t-bills. Where it was spent. This is no secret. The SS surpluses have always been spent, just laundered through t-bills. Who benefitted from all that spending? The people who are now collecting SS, that's who. It was spent on programs for THEM, during their working (and voting) lifetime by people THEY elected. They are responsible.

So no, I don't think anyone has any special exemption from taking a hit, and the entitlements have to be FIRST on the chopping block, as they are the largest expense, and are not constitutionally defensible into the bargain.

I could not complete it as it did not list all the possible solutions.

For instance, concerning Social Security. The first thing I would do is remove the $106,000 cap on taxation. :yep:

I found it, it was later in the survey

Well from a foreigner's perspective, a bit heavy on tax maybe because it will not be me who's going to take it :O:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=gj1645lm

You want a big spending on military? Then make sure you can pay for that all by your own money. Can you? You are the world's greatest debtor, and economically critically dependant on foreign powers and their good will to keep your body floating. Like the US society, your state finances your military megatoys - on tic.

The Chinese are more healthy. First they allowed you to run into the trap of becoming financially depending on their good will I (which they are increasingly losing), following the motto of "If you see your enemy making mistakes, don't interrupt him", next they started to build their military - but not on tic but on a basis that they can finance by their own economy. You weakened your economy, they trengthened their economy, and still do and gain more and more strategic advantages. At the same time they did not get fixiated on hard power, but concentraded on soft powers - and these are the qualities that will beat your military without one shot being fired. Guess who is more clever here!? ;)

Nervi belli pecunia infinita. Real money that has a real value - no state bonds and bubbles and play money. Most of the the great european powers of the past 500 years had allowed to ruin their economies and state finances over gallopwing spendsings for bigger and bigger militaries. All of such nations had to declare state bancruptcy at least once in said 500 years. America is repeating their very same mistakes, refusing to learn by their example. Book tip on this matter: Paul Kennedy - The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Also: Herrfried Münkler - Empires. The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States.

Lotsa stuff either not included, too inclusive or not inclusive enough but FWIW:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zzyp7jn0

^^^ funny that the only option is reducing benefits for high incomes. Reduce benefits across the board.

Reduce employer tax break... how about we dump employers providing insurance in the first place, let the employees do that.

They also give an option of reducing Medicare growth, which sounds fine, but due to the way things work that also changes contractual obligations with real insurers. medicare already pays below cost in some cases, yet to save money they want to reduce payments to providers. Keep payments the same, and ration what care is paid for. The docs doing the work should get paid, and not cut-rate, but the same as real insurance. If medicare lacks the money, then medicare can tell people to pay up themselves, or not get X done. Docs should not be forced to have to PAY to work.

Also, they probably project the "cost" of tax increases and costs very simply, and do not include (how could they?) possible growth due to tax reduction, or contraction due to increases (since revenues remain pretty constant as a % of GDP regardless of tax rates).

And watch emergency rooms become clogged to the point of shutdown as people flood them for basic medical care.

Because there's absolutely zero evidence for increases or decreases in tax rates having an effect on any measurable metric of growth, be it unemployment, GDP or personal income.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=zx1k4270

What is really bad is they didn't have the things in there that I really would have pushed for.

Elimination of the social safety net for the "undocumented".
Denial of all but emergency services for the "undocumented".
Elimination of the Federal Department of Education.
Elimination of income tax, replacing it with a consumption tax instead.
Elimination of Social Security.
Elimination of all other expenditures not directly authorized by the US Constitution...

Of course - the last one alone would balance the button with one click, and remove Federal government from being the all encompassing monstrousity it has become.

So a tax rate of 100% wouldn't have an effect either?

After some thoughts

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=gj1140m3



I think that would be a better policy :D

As a foreigner I'm worried about the growing China military aggression towards its fellow Asia neighbors and to think they are just beginning to expand militarily.

A reduced US military presence in Asia could tighten Chinese political and military influence in Asia and South East Asia.

So I decided to cap Medicare growth to GDP growth plus one percent starting from 2013 not sure how it would affect the public. I care less about expensive doctors and hospitals.

But I think the bankers will start a riot because of the bank tax and many other Americans for many other things in the policies.

In the Soviet Union people still worked under an effective 100% tax rate. Not saying that's the model we should aspire to, but saying that hours worked are inelastic to tax rates.