Deficit/Debt Discussion Thread

[Dinner]

I'm not sure I quite understand why the white line on Drake's linked graph is rising so high based on projections. I read the article and it did not explain that line (or maybe I skimmed that part).

Clinton actually had surpluses, but likely due to the economy (aka more tax revenues).



I'm pretty sure that being mired in Afghanistan and Iraq is going to put us on the same path as Russia.

I can't find the graph I saw the other day, but Great Britain has a larger debt to GDP ratio than the US does.

With all the people out of work, tax revenues have to be down.

The graph is nice but it is pretty useless if it isn't adjusted for inflation.

[Guynemer]

Not necessarily. Much of the pre-crisis stress on the budgets was from military expenditures. Eventually, those will go away or we will restructure our military to spend less money.

You're kidding, right?

No American politican will ever have the balls to suggest such a thing; the rare exceptions will have their heads kicked in come election time.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're kidding, right?

No American politican will ever have the balls to suggest such a thing; the rare exceptions will have their heads kicked in come election time.

Military spending is actually far easier to cut than entitlement spending and was at relatively low levels before 9/11. I see no reason why defense spending won't be lowered in the near future, even beyond the reductions that will come when the war in Iraq (and eventually, Afghanistan) winds down. The Pentagon sees things the same way and is planning for an era of persistently lower military budgets.

[Guynemer]

Military spending is actually far easier to cut than entitlement spending and was at relatively low levels before 9/11. I see no reason why defense spending won't be lowered in the near future, even beyond the reductions that will come when the war in Iraq (and eventually, Afghanistan) winds down. The Pentagon sees things the same way and is planning for an era of persistently lower military budgets.

There's the key, Drake. What politican is going to run on cutting defense spending in the "post 9/11 world"? They would get destroyed by attack ads calling them soft on terrorism, or America haters, or traitors, etc. etc. And they'd get crushed in the polls. At least for the forseeable future.

[Drake Tungsten]

The salience of 9/11 in the public mind lessens with each passing day; the military has already seen the peak of additional funding as a result of 9/11 and is now looking at falling budgets for the forseeable future. Something has to give as rising entitlement expenditures put more and more pressure on the federal budget and military spending is going to bear the brunt of the reductions.

[Guynemer]

Something should have to give. Both entitlements and defense should have to give. However, there's no way the American public would vote for someone who advocated such.

[Drake Tungsten]

It doesn't matter whether politicians advocated it or not; politicians lie all the ****ing time. The budget is going to get cut (or, more accurately, increased at a lesser annual rate), however, and the military is going to bear the brunt of those cuts. Defense spending is nowhere near the untouchable third rail that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are.

[Guynemer]

I'll believe it when I see it, Drake. I think the opposing party will jump all over anyone who cuts defense spending, and they'll win by doing it.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'll believe it when I see it, Drake.

You have seen it; both of us are old enough to remember the military budget cuts under Clinton. There's no reason to think military spending has suddenly become untouchable. 9/11 didn't change everything.

[Guynemer]

The cuts under Clinton came after the end of Cold War. We had no enemies then.

And RoboCon would disagree with you.


Honestly, I hope you're right, I really really do. I just don't think the politicans or the public at-large will tolerate defense cuts--apart from a withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars are never put under the defense budget anyway, which puzzles the **** out of me, but whatever.

[Drake Tungsten]

As you can see, real cuts in the Defense Department's budget are already planned and more are expected...

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

[Guynemer]

Fair enough, hopefully they'll follow through.


And yet--we'll still be spending 50% more than we were in 2000. That's a problem.

[Dinner]

Drake, nice graph (I like it because it is inflation adjusted) but I do have to wonder if it includes off budget items like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know Obama has moved them on to the official budget (that was a good chunk of the appearence of the budget deficit going up) but it would seem that would effect the defense portion of the graph from 2001 to 2010.

[Drake Tungsten]

I do have to wonder if it includes off budget items like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It does.

[HalfLotus]

Who needs 9/11 pandering when we have a new terr'ist attack every time the Patriot Act is up for renewal.

Terr'ists will be kept fresh in the minds of Americans, and if it starts to wane, we'll get another 9/11 movie, or some phone call tapes released, or some new videos released. It's like clockwork.

9/11 will be milked until the next big terr'ist attack, which all intelligence professionals agree is a near certainty.