http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=0151l00p
I would do other things here that aren't listed though, like remove the child tax credit and other welfare programs...
Yay, I solved the deficit!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=0151l00p
I would do other things here that aren't listed though, like remove the child tax credit and other welfare programs...
It was a bit scary to see they thought the savings on reduced deployment in Afghanistan will still be effective in 2030.
Congratulations America
Hazir - I don't know for certain, but they're probably comparing their savings to a public projection - either the CBO or the White House's. As such, if the projection is assuming X troops levels until 2030, but the revised budget calls for a lower number Y, the savings are still valid.
I find it unlikely that all of the US troops will leave either Afghanistan or Iraq any time in the next decade or two. Sure, numbers will go down for a few tens of thousands, but the US has invested a lot into their presence in the region, and continued US troops there are probably a good thing for Iraqi and Afghan stability, as well.
It's already been a decade and people are fed up. I can only hope it won't take another decade before the tax payers say Enough.Originally Posted by wiggin
<looks at S. Korea, Germany, and Japan>
Nope.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Not many would want me in charge. I'd close US military installations all over the place and just leave diplomatic embassies.
Back to pollsters taking the pulse of Americans, and who's willing to cut what to solve the deficit:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-Ba...9tZXJzYQ--?x=0
Gee, what a surprise.Why Baby Boomers Are Bummed Out
They're reluctant to sacrifice. Boomers are well aware of the problems facing America, especially in Washington. But they're nervous about doing anything different, perhaps because they've got so much invested in the system the way it is. One way to raise more government revenue and pay down the national debt is a federal sales tax, for instance, but 54 percent of boomers oppose that idea--a higher proportion than among those both younger and older. Boomers also oppose two other ideas to help balance the government's books--eliminating the tax deduction for mortgage interest, and taxing company-provided healthcare benefits as if it were income--by much higher margins than other population groups.
Boomer opposition to higher taxes is no surprise, since boomers would probably face a bigger hit than other groups with less disposable income. But some of the nation's biggest looming problems--like an underfunded Social Security system and a Medicare program that's on track to run out of money--will also affect baby boomers directly if they're not fixed. Something's got to give. And the baby boomers know it.
LOL. If you were President, I'm sure you would not have been the first to have wanted to do that...yet there they still are... care to hazard a guess why?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I could, but then I'd get flamed for being naive or stupid or......
The floor is yours, for opining and/or complaining about the US military industrial complex.
No, that was not where I was going.I could, but then I'd get flamed for being naive or stupid or......
The floor is yours, for opining and/or complaining about the US military industrial complex.
They are still there cause the President can't close bases willy nillly. He/she would need congressional support to do so...good luck with that...no matter what party is in power.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Oooh, well sure, that goes without saying! Party in Power is meaningless. What matters are the people who make (or save) money from our military presence around the globe, and their lobbyists.
I don't know who's the biggest influence---smaller or poorer countries who like US "protection", or those that make billions in profit on bombs and tanks and fighter jets or drones. A tangent for another thread....
Not entirely true; the BRAC process sort of circumvents Congress - the DoD makes recommendations, the President signs on, and Congress has the option of voting against it (which rarely gets traction). Furthermore, I think that's more of a courtesy than anything else - the President can order the DoD to change their deployment essentially at will. We have already seen significant realignments of our military posture in Europe after the Cold War, largely by executive decree and not an act of Congress.
I don't doubt they could make political trouble, but a slow drawdown in our forces overseas is very doable for a President. I think the reasons they choose not to do so have much more to do with practical military and diplomatic concerns than anything to do with domestic politics. To be honest, I doubt much of Congress even knows about our detailed overseas deployment.
I agree, but every President takes into account political ramifications in the future and the here and now. Again it may be doable...but why hasn't it happened?
Actual military need in part...but the rest IS politics.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Because we still refer to POTUS as The Most Powerful Person In The World?
It's hard to find "advisors" who don't exploit the Fear Factor, or "experts" who agree with each other. Politics has a lot of psychology and propaganda baked in the cake, so it can be fairly hard to know, for the average Joe at least.Actual military need in part...but the rest IS politics.
Let's see, our major deployments are in South Korea, Japan, Germany, the Middle East, and afloat.
The S. Koreans would go ape if we significantly reduced our presence there, with good reason. It's also a good idea for US interests to keep an eye both on N. Korea (a rogue nuclear state with ballistic missiles) and some containment on China's growing military power. Japan has similar strategic reasons, though they might be a little more receptive to a drawdown in forces than the Koreans (not so much, though; the Japanese rely on American muscle in the event of a confrontation with China). Our presence there also has important effects on Taiwan, and gives us very good projection power across the Pacific.
That deals with why we're in Asia; what about Germany (and some significant deployments in other European allies)? First, Germany is a major logistical hub for our overseas combat operations - losing it would be a blow. It's theoretically possible, though, to cut down our troop presence there some, which we've already done. The Germans might be a bit unhappy from an economic perspective, but most Europeans don't think a return to the days of planning a defense against Russian armor in the Fulda Gap is very likely. Even so, we can't reduce our presence too far, since Russia has been flexing their muscles in Eastern Europe, and a hefty American presence makes our allies there feel a lot more secure - and keeps Russia from doing anything silly (they already have pulled out of the conventional forces in Europe treaty). So, it's provisionally possible to move 20 or 30k troops back to the US from Europe, but not much more. Given the absolutely awful state of most NATO countries' militaries, it might either be a good thing (to spur more defense spending) or a bad thing (to allow weaker nations to fall into Russia's sphere of influence), but that's a significant consideration as well.
Our deployments afloat aren't likely to change at all; this is the backbone of rapid American projection power.
That leaves us with the Middle East. Outside of combat zones (Iraq and Afghanistan) we have fairly modest deployment, but it is a significant presence nonetheless. Given the fact that the US is (a) concerned about world oil supplies and (b) currently engaged in a decades-long struggle against Islamist extremism and worldwide terrorism, it's not surprising that we've focused much of our new deployments there. This is clearly a strategic goal of the US and likely the reason why we're there to stay, at least for the time being. Deployments in Iraq will probably continue to drop as time goes on, and Afghanistan will at some point start to see a drawdown in troop numbers (past the mini 'surge', of course), but it's likely that those countries will need support (especially Afghanistan) for a long time to come, given their execrable infrastructure, education, and military training. Given the dangers of letting Afghanistan descend into chaos (and possibly pulling Pakistan with it), it's likely the US will stay there until some semblance of order is achieved. Interestingly, it seems that much as Iraqi and Afghan lawmakers and leaders may publicly deplore indefinite US presence in their countries, it seems like in private they are much more concerned about keeping the US around. Containment of Iran is likely another major reason for our heavy deployment in the region. (I wouldn't place oil too high on the importance scale. The US gets only a small fraction of its oil from the Gulf, now, and what we're really doing there is protection worldwide supply - notably China's and some other countries - from sudden price shocks and volatility due to a deteriorating security situation.)
So, of all of our major overseas deployments there are clear strategic reasons for keeping a significant presence in place. It's possible to move a few tens of thousands of troops home and consolidate some of our bases, but we have something like 350k+ troops overseas; most of those are likely to stay there.
See, I managed to get y'all to answer GGT's question!
Ender, you may see the above as needed (and I may or may not agree) in a military sense, but others like GGT, do not.
Politics.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I'm still the only one here who has solved the deficit.. perhaps the only man alive.
Aw, sorry but that NYT interactive was linked in another thread when it was first posted. It's just buried somewhere else, and I didn't care to find it.
Oooh... didn't notice it was somewhat old.
Yes, by proposing to hurt childrener, well done...
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Like a month old, isn't it?
Sure. But, that wasn't in the options, unfortunately.Yes, by proposing to hurt children
Almost 2!
I was able to balance it pretty well, mainly by cutting Social Security.
I did it mainly with cuts in defense spending.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I had to do both -- retirement to 70 I believe. I tried to go easy on the taxes, except I added a sales tax. (doh!)
I'm struggling to remember what I did. I think I raised retirement age (something I'd support even if there were no budget crisis), modestly cut defense (ditto), and other stuff that I can't remember.
I just wonder how many people don't realize that much of this is not real; that it is just a fun thing. The economy isn't linear and you can't really predict stuff like this... cutting something or raising taxes somewhere has broad implications that can't be measured by their immediate year 1 budget savings.
Well sure. IIRC the accompanying article was pretty clear in pointing out that it was an exercise. But it was also helpful to get people to think about what they'd be willing to give up to balance the budget.
There was an interesting followup a couple of weeks later, where they polled people on their preferences and political positioning.
Lobby democracy is the name. You can vote for different types of deficit. You can vote for a favorite way to make debt to grow.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
*facepalm*
Yes, facepalm deficit...
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote