Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

[Mr. Harley]

One of the tenants of the new conservatives, or neocons, in the US is "starve the beast". That is, run up large deficits so the goverrnment cannot start/invest/waste (depending on your spin) money on new programs. Thus the huge deficits are not a problem. The resulting government debt will keep "the beast" in check.

Whatever the reason, that course will eventually, in 10 to 20 years, destroy the US military. Every country who has seen their economy tank has also seen massive damage to their military complex. Whether Russia during the economic contraction following the demise of the Soviet Union, Great Britian at the start of WW2 (that's why the US got bases for the WW1 destroyers, GB was out of gold reserves), the USA at multiple points in it's history (post Civil War is an excellent example), in general a world class military cannot survice a fiscally starved government.

For those "supply-side economics" (better known as voodoo ecomics - by Bush Sr.) please understand that we are not talking dogma, only economics. What I mean by that is if supply-side economics was truly science, they would calculate based on hard (though projected) numbers the point of diminishing returns, i.e. if you cut taxes below a certain point the government will have less money, period.

If any of you supply-side types can show, using standard economic statistical methods, where the sweet spot is, i.e. take taxes to exactly this point and the government optimizes between growth and being a drag on the economy, such that you optimize growth and tax revenue, then post on the issue. Please feel free to submit this to the Nobel committee, while starting your own thread This thread is for the "starve the beast" mantra, huge deficits, and the resulting damage to the US military, if not reduction to a second class power.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Re: Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
One of the tenants of the new conservatives, or neocons, in the US is "starve the beast". That is, run up large deficits so the goverrnment cannot start/invest/waste (depending on your spin) money on new programs.

Slight typo there, its the liberals and Democrats who are running up the deficits, the conservatives and Republicans who are trying to reduce spending.

Hence the origin of the term "tax and spend Democrat."

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Slight typo there, its the liberals and Democrats who are running up the deficits, the conservatives and Republicans who are trying to reduce spending.

Hence the origin of the term "tax and spend Democrat."

Then please explain how under the current Republican Administration and Congress we have racked up the biggest deficit in history, as well as the largest spending increases.

And then how under a Democrat before that we saw a reduction in spending and in the deficit.

And before that, under conservative icon Reagan, we also saw the largest deficit and spending increases prior to that point.

In fact, the notion that Democrats rack up debt is a lie. It has been Republican administrations that have been the big spenders and getting us into debt. The one Republican who tried to do something about it, Bush Sr., got turned out because his own party was mad he tried to stop racking up debt. That's how much Republicans really care about stopping spending.

Your post was almost Fez-level in terms of being a BAM.

[Drake Tungsten]

Then please explain how under the current Republican Administration and Congress we have racked up the biggest deficit in history, as well as the largest spending increases.

It's not the biggest deficit in history unless you judge by actual dollar amount, which is really stupid. Judging by percentage of GDP would be the wiser course of action.

[Boris Godunov]

Which makes it the 2nd biggest deficit in history, IIRC.

Regardless, nitpicker, the deficit is going up under Bush, not down. And it's going up at a massive rate.

[Stuie]

Re: Re: Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Slight typo there, its the liberals and Democrats who are running up the deficits, the conservatives and Republicans who are trying to reduce spending.

Hence the origin of the term "tax and spend Democrat."

So the fact that Democrats actually want to pay for the programs they introduce is a bad thing?

Guess we need a new term: "Borrow and spend Republican."

[CerberusIV]

So which Democrats are going to get elected and then turn round and say "As the Republicans have shafted the government's finances all the military has to go" and how many senators and congressmen will stand by and watch bases and contractors close and the local economies and jobs of those whose votes they want disappear?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Re: Re: Re: Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Then please explain how under the current Republican Administration and Congress we have racked up the biggest deficit in history, as well as the largest spending increases.

And then how under a Democrat before that we saw a reduction in spending and in the deficit.

And before that, under conservative icon Reagan, we also saw the largest deficit and spending increases prior to that point.

Under Clinton conservative/Republican CONGRESSIONAL forces spearheaded spending reductions. Under Bush liberal/Democratic CONGRESSIONAL forces spearheaded spending increase.

You need an education in how the US Government works, CONGRESSIONAL committees hammer out budget items and submit them to the President. Your clueless concept that the President is an all-powerful god who sets all financial decisions and budgets of his own sole will and directive is a bit off.

In truth the President is more a figurehead whose primary weapon is sound bites and speechs.

And I've never heard of a Democrat paying for anything unless it was another round at the bar.

[Shi Huangdi]

If a Republican Administration was in place during Pearl Harbor, the people here would quickly whine about the debt that piled up then too.

[Shogun Gunner]

Geez...everyone talks about business cycles like it sits cleanly within one president's four (or eight) year terms. They don't of course.

Different economic conditions, political objectives and willingness of the electorate to go after national goals dictates the budget surplus or budget deficit. It's always oversimplified in the press.

Many people (on both sides) already have a formulated a political view, seize on facts reported, and use that information to support their own arguments. There are probably less than .01 percent of the population who really have the big picture and understand all the dynamics of the economy and international economics.

Deficits aren't the worse thing to happen in an economy. Unemployment is far more damaging. Trade inbalances are also far more damaging - since that usual affects net employment. "Budget Deficit damage" is usually manifested in a long term effect of "crowding out" of available money to borrow. To the consumer, that means higher interest rates. Since interest rates are at a very low historical level, the danger is minimal -- but go ahead and sieze on this and argue to your heart's content.

While we discussing economics, let's talk about the signifcance of the DOW hitting 10,000...that's also real important...

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Under Clinton conservative/Republican CONGRESSIONAL forces spearheaded spending reductions. Under Bush liberal/Democratic CONGRESSIONAL forces spearheaded spending increase.

You need an education in how the US Government works, CONGRESSIONAL committees hammer out budget items and submit them to the President. Your clueless concept that the President is an all-powerful god who sets all financial decisions and budgets of his own sole will and directive is a bit off.

In truth the President is more a figurehead whose primary weapon is sound bites and speechs.

And I've never heard of a Democrat paying for anything unless it was another round at the bar.

This BAM was worse than your first one.

You seem not to remember when the Clinton Budget was passed in the U.S. Senate without a SINGLE Republican vote. This was a major reduction of spending and attempt to cut the deficit, and not ONE Republican supported it. Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.

Likewise, Reagan made no attempt to cut spending or the deficit--this is admitted by any knowledgeable Republican, even. They give him a free pass, however, as he cut taxes on rich folks and spent everything on the military. But it was still his spending.

Presidents certainly have a big influence on how the budget is worked and how spending is done. While Congress has ultimate approval, the President has the bully pulpit and can use it quite well. Like when Clinton handed the GOP their arse during the government shutdowns.

[DanS]

Neoconservatives don't have a domestic program so it's pretty ridiculous to say that they will destroy the military by spending too much.

Also, Bush 43 isn't spending too much (I'm watching like a hawk to make sure he doesn't run off the rails, though!). He is just taxing much less. That's why you have a deficit. Clinton was the opposite, in that he reduced spending, but taxed a lot.

[DanS]

Here's a chart that I worked up.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Historically Neoconservatism will destroy the US military.

You just can't get anything right can you?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You seem not to remember when the Clinton Budget was passed in the U.S. Senate without a SINGLE Republican vote. This was a major reduction of spending and attempt to cut the deficit, and not ONE Republican supported it. Gore cast the tie-breaking vote.

They didn't vote for it because it added BILLIONS in NEW spending, once again your tax and spend Democrats verus your cut the spending Repubicans.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Likewise, Reagan made no attempt to cut spending or the deficit--this is admitted by any knowledgeable Republican, even. They give him a free pass, however, as he cut taxes on rich folks and spent everything on the military. But it was still his spending.

When did we bring Reagan into this? We were talking Dubya versus Clinton. If ANY Republican President can be substituted for any other one, can I subsitute Jefferson Davis for Clinton? Their both Democrat Presidents.

Oh, my bad, couldn't come up with any evidence in your favor could you? Better luck next time.

[Whoha]

Reagan cut spending on social services if this book i've got is correct, he then spent it all on the Military.

Yea bush is adding up about a 600 billion dollar deficit(real, the fake numbers they are using are raiding the SS trust fund for money, that will eventually not be possible), but the only ways to close it are to eliminate his Tax cut and cut the military to zero,or eliminate the welfware state. Neither one of these things has very much likelyhood of happening.