Age of America nears end

[04SCTLS]

Age of America nears end

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bombshell-age-of-america-about-to-end-2011-04-25

BOSTON (MarketWatch) — The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.
For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.
And it’s a lot closer than you may think.
According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.
Put that in your calendar.
It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in Washington right now. It raises enormous questions about what the international security system is going to look like in just a handful of years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their privileged status as the liabilities of the world’s hegemonic power.

According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fund’s website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy.
Most people aren’t prepared for this. They aren’t even aware it’s that close. Listen to experts of various stripes, and they will tell you this moment is decades away. The most bearish will put the figure in the mid-2020s.
2020s.

China’s economy will be the world’s largest within five years or so.


But they’re miscounting. They’re only comparing the gross domestic products of the two countries using current exchange rates.
That’s a largely meaningless comparison in real terms. Exchange rates change quickly. And China’s exchange rates are phony. China artificially undervalues its currency, the renminbi, through massive intervention in the markets.
The comparison that really matters

In addition to comparing the two countries based on exchange rates, the IMF analysis also looked to the true, real-terms picture of the economies using “purchasing power parities.” That compares what people earn and spend in real terms in their domestic economies.
Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and rising.
Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s.
Naturally, all forecasts are fallible. Time and chance happen to them all. The actual date when China surpasses the U.S. might come even earlier than the IMF predicts, or somewhat later. If the great Chinese juggernaut blows a tire, as a growing number fear it might, it could even delay things by several years. But the outcome is scarcely in doubt.

This is more than a statistical story. It is the end of the Age of America. As a bond strategist in Europe told me two weeks ago, “We are witnessing the end of America’s economic hegemony.”
We have lived in a world dominated by the U.S. for so long that there is no longer anyone alive who remembers anything else. America overtook Great Britain as the world’s leading economic power in the 1890s and never looked back.
And both those countries live under very similar rules of constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and the rights of property. China has none of those. The Age of China will feel very different.

Victor Cha, senior adviser on Asian affairs at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me China’s neighbors in Asia are already waking up to the dangers. “The region is overwhelmingly looking to the U.S. in a way that it hasn’t done in the past,” he said. “They see the U.S. as a counterweight to China. They also see American hegemony over the last half-century as fairly benign. In China they see the rise of an economic power that is not benevolent, that can be predatory. They don’t see it as a benign hegemony.”
The rise of China, and the relative decline of America, is the biggest story of our time. You can see its implications everywhere, from shuttered factories in the Midwest to soaring costs of oil and other commodities. Last fall, when I attended a conference in London about agricultural investment, I was struck by the number of people there who told stories about Chinese interests snapping up farmland and foodstuff supplies — from South America to China and elsewhere.
This is the result of decades during which China has successfully pursued economic policies aimed at national expansion and power, while the U.S. has embraced either free trade or, for want of a better term, economic appeasement.
“There are two systems in collision,” said Ralph Gomory, research professor at NYU’s Stern business school. “They have a state-guided form of capitalism, and we have a much freer former of capitalism.” What we have seen, he said, is “a massive shift in capability from the U.S. to China. What we have done is traded jobs for profit. The jobs have moved to China. The capability erodes in the U.S. and grows in China. That’s very destructive. That is a big reason why the U.S. is becoming more and more polarized between a small, very rich class and an eroding middle class. The people who get the profits are very different from the people who lost the wages.”
The next chapter of the story is just beginning.
U.S. spending spree won’t work

What the rise of China means for defense, and international affairs, has barely been touched on. The U.S. is now spending gigantic sums — from a beleaguered economy — to try to maintain its place in the sun. See: Pentagon spending is budget blind spot .
It’s a lesson we could learn more cheaply from the sad story of the British, Spanish and other empires. It doesn’t work. You can’t stay on top if your economy doesn’t.
Equally to the point, here is what this means economically, and for investors.
Some years ago I was having lunch with the smartest investor I know, London-based hedge-fund manager Crispin Odey. He made the argument that markets are reasonably efficient, most of the time, at setting prices. Where they are most likely to fail, though, is in correctly anticipating and pricing big, revolutionary, “paradigm” shifts — whether a rise of disruptive technologies or revolutionary changes in geopolitics. We are living through one now.
The U.S. Treasury market continues to operate on the assumption that it will always remain the global benchmark of money. Business schools still teach students, for example, that the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury bond is the “risk-free rate” on money. And so it has been for more than a century. But that’s all based on the Age of America.
No wonder so many have been buying gold. If the U.S. dollar ceases to be the world’s sole reserve currency, what will be? The euro would be fine if it acts like the old deutschemark. If it’s just the Greek drachma in drag ... not so much.
The last time the world’s dominant hegemon lost its ability to run things singlehandedly was early in the past century. That’s when the U.S. and Germany surpassed Great Britain. It didn’t turn out well.
Updated with IMF reaction

The International Monetary Fund has responded to my article.
In a statement sent to MarketWatch, the IMF confirmed the report, but challenged my interpretation of the data. Comparing the U.S. and Chinese economies using “purchase-power-parity,” it argued, “is not the most appropriate measure… because PPP price levels are influenced by nontraded services, which are more relevant domestically than globally.”
The IMF added that it prefers to compare economies using market exchange rates, and that under this comparison the U.S. “is currently 130% bigger than China, and will still be 70% larger by 2016.”
My take?
The IMF is entitled to make its case. But its argument raises more questions than it answers.
First, no one measure is perfect. Everybody knows that.
But that’s also true of the GDP figures themselves. Hurricane Katrina, for example, added to the U.S. GDP, because it stimulated a lot of economic activity — like providing emergency relief, and rebuilding homes. Is there anyone who seriously thinks Katrina was a net positive for the United States? All statistics need caveats.
Second, comparing economies using simple exchange rates, as the IMF suggests, raises huge problems.
Currency markets fluctuate. They represent international money flows, not real output.
The U.S. dollar has fallen nearly 10% against the euro so far this year. Does anyone suggest that the real size of the U.S. economy has shrunk by 10% in comparison with Europe over that period? The idea is absurd.
China actively suppresses the renminbi on the currency markets through massive dollar purchases. As a result the renminbi is deeply undervalued on the foreign-exchange markets. Just comparing the economies on their exchange rates misses that altogether.
Purchasing power parity is not a perfect measure. None exists. But it measures the output of economies in terms of real goods and services, not just paper money. That’s why it’s widely used to compare economies. The IMF publishes PPP data. So does the OECD. Many economists rely on them.

_______________________________________________________________

The time will come when we take an axe to defense spending and bring it inline with what our economy will support.
The party is almost over.
The Chinese are purposely undervaluing their currency to prop us up and keep sucking our money out of us while building a first class military they can easily support.
Fattening the pig before slaughter comes to mind.
Meanwhile mentally challenged conservatives are fiddling away emotionally hung up on pride and divisive unimportant social issues as a big part of their agenda especially on the state level.
Godless China outwits and surpasses religious America.
So it will be written.
So it shall pass.
America is God's country indeed.

 

[Calabrio]

Do you really need to take an important subject and ruin any conversation with your i insecure hostility towards religion? Is that necessary? You continue to confuse being clever or though provoking with merely being able to bait a passionate person like Fossten into a reaction. He's not here anymore, now you're becoming the turd in the punchbowl.

We need to reduce military spending. We need to reduce our military exposure internationally. However, this is not a silver bullet towards achieving economic revitalization. Military spending is but a fraction of the entitlement spending the government is obligated to pay right now. The cost of interest on the debt is quickly approaching the size of the military budget as well. So, while I will not deny the need to reduce military spending, I would add that it must be part of a BROAD initiative to cut ALL government spending. To reduce the entire size of the federal government.

Your focus on military and religion missed the true focus of the story.
The strength of the dollar and our monetary policy.
The size of our economy is not really the issue, it's the strength of our currency. This is especially important when you consider how it's still the reserve currency of the world.

What happens when countries decide to stop holding our unsustainable debt. What happens when countries decide they no longer want to hold our devalued, hyper-inflated dollars? What happens when commodities cease to be valued in dollars?

The price of gas right now is largely being pushed upwards because the value of the dollar continues to fall as this nation collapses in debt and the monetary policy keeps devaluing the currency through quantitative easing and other less publicized decisions being made by the Federal Reserve.

Sadly, people do not understand how dire the future is right now. Everything is about to change. In order to save our way of life, our country, and our freedom, EVERYTHING needs to be on the table. We can't continue to take things for granted or presume that things we've come to expect will always be.

And, if you really want to interject religion into this, now is precisely the time to find that spiritual guide. To embrace the concept of the individual as expressed in the judeo-christian faiths, and reach out to each other, NOT to a centralize government. Now is precisely the time for people to be re-inspired by faith.

Lastly, we all need to be a little careful when discussing the power of China. At a glance, it may look strong, but upon inspection, there are some massive cracks in that society. It's hard to provide a synopsis in a single paragraph, but there are cultural issues of bad debt, there is the massive pending class conflict between the inconceivably poor and the wealthy coastal regions, the aggressive Chinese military leadership that is coming to power and their desire to reduce foreign influence and isolate the culture. It's actually a quite volatile country.


Also of note-
this economic crash isn't limited to just the U.S. Europe is crashing as we speak and they don't have significant miltiary spending.
The economic and governmental policies of the past century have failed and the consequence is becoming apparent.

 

[04SCTLS]

And, if you really want to interject religion into this, now is precisely the time to find that spiritual guide. To embrace the concept of the individual as expressed in the judeo-christian faiths, and reach out to each other, NOT to a centralize government. Now is precisely the time for people to be re-inspired by faith.

Ya right that's the whole problem looking at this spiritually instead of soberly.
You're getting your wish as the country is more religious now than any time in it's history.
Coincidence to our continuous decline replacing reason with religious thoughts and agendas?
Don't worry, be happy, God has a plan and will see us through.
We're the USA... founded on the Bible!
Perhaps the vengeful punishing God of the Old Testament likes the centralized chinese model better.
That would probably be more inline with his sentiments.
Dad has decided to take over and he likes discipline.
The country is slowly going down the tubes and conservatives
are upset over gay marraige, abortion and contraception as the most important things to them.
Planned Parenthood is the real enemy although republican attack statements are self admittedly not meant to be factual, merely lies and propaganda to stir up the ignorant.

Well there's always guns and religion to cling to.

 

[04SCTLS]

Military spending is but a fraction of the entitlement spending the government is obligated to pay right now.

It's 30% of the budget.
If we slashed military spending by 30% or more in line with our stature there would be plenty of money without having to reduce entitlements.
Which is more important, the wellbeing of our citizens or our sinful pride(one of the seven deadly sins) in our killing machine?
If we diverted that kind of money away from the military instead of some tiny incremental changes to spending it would make a big difference right away.
At some point it will become obvious who the monster in the room is.
Our empire will dismantle itself anyways since we can't afford it anymore.
Better to do it sooner than later.

 

[04SCTLS]

Americans depend more on federal aid than ever

Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly 2 years old.

A record 18.3% of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.
The income data show how fragile and government-dependent the recovery is after a recession that officially ended in June 2009.
The wage decline has continued this year. Wages slipped to another historic low of 50.5% of personal income in February. Another government effort — the Social Security payroll tax cut — has lifted income in 2011. The temporary tax cut puts more money in workers' pockets and counts as an income boost, even when wages stay the same.

From 1980 to 2000, government aid was roughly constant at 12.5%. The sharp increase since then — especially since the start of 2008 — reflects several changes: the expansion of health care and federal programs generally, the aging population and lingering economic problems.

Total benefit payments are holding steady so far this year at a $2.3 trillion annual rate. A drop in unemployment benefits has been offset by rises in retirement and health care programs.


Government help is growing

Government social programs made up a record share of the nation's personal income last year. Change by decade:
Source: USA TODAY; Bureau of Economic Analysis



Americans got an average of $7,427 in benefits each in 2010(this includes the half of the people who don't get any government handouts), up from an inflation-adjusted $4,763 in 2000 and $3,686 in 1990. The federal government pays about 90% of the benefits.
"What's frightening is the Baby Boomers haven't really started to retire," says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes of the 77 million people born from 1946 through 1964 whose oldest wave turns 65 this year. "That's when the cost of Medicare will start to explode."
Accounting for 80% of safety-net spending in 2010: Social Security, Medicare (health insurance for seniors), Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and unemployment insurance.

______________________________________________________________

Realistically the only place to find the kind of spending savings we need to keep entitlements and assistance going is in the defense budget which is the biggest piece of pork in the country.
I'm a Goldwater Conservative but I think we p!ss away more money on defence than any other government program.

We just don't need another carrier group to add to the 8 we already have as well as all the relic programs and weapons systems from the cold war.

IMO The real issue is pride an emotion that trumps reason and nessesity.
I can just hear conservatives howling over how if we cut defence we're castrating ourselves and will wind up with only a little dick to fuk with and no one will take us seriously.
Better to take a fall later to preserve our "values" than solve our current problems.

 

[Calabrio]

Ya right that's the whole problem looking at this spiritually instead of soberly.

You're fundamentally mistaken if you think that those are mutually exclusive. Infact, that statement demonstrates how shallow your understanding of "faith" really is.

People need to be self-reliant. They need to put their faith and reliance in something OTHER than government. Being religious DOES NOT mean you kneel in your backyard and simply pray that stuff falls from the sky. Arguably, that's what reliance on government teaches you.

Instead, it teaches of the value of the individual. It teaches about consequence and free will and personal responsibility. It teaches a moral obligation to offer help to you neighbor and be a responsible member of your community. And it teaches about the nature of liberty.

You're getting your wish as the country is more religious now than any time in it's history.

......That is how YOU understood the very poorly written, poorly researched article you posted yesterday.

Coincidence to our continuous decline replacing reason with religious thoughts and agendas?

Do you want to make this very uninformed, ignorant argument that doesn't even amount to a causal relationship?

I'm fully aware that this thread is another intellectually deficient effort for you to miss the actual point and simply troll on the subject of religion. But can you explain the modern religious sentiment that is causing our problems?

You can't.
The problem isn't that people are religious, it's that people want to use the power of government to manage other people's lives.

Religious people are certainly capable of wanting to use the power of a strong government to do that, but so are secular people. And in modern times, secular groups are MORE inclined to do so.

The solution to this problem isn't to condemn religion but to simply LIMIT THE POWER OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT so that it can't be used like that. To limit the role of the government in our lives.

And then, the issues of charity and the like can be addressed by religious people or secular people who feel a calling to do so. NOT the central government.

It's absolutely true, the progressive movement at the turn of the last century had religious undercurrents. But, as stated, that's not a condemnation of religion, but a recognition that the power of government should constantly be limited so that it can't be abused by ANY group, or ANY motivation.

Don't worry, be happy, God has a plan and will see us through.

You're not going to fool anyone here, your ignorant sarcasm will neither pass for wit, nor will it trick any of us into thinking your more intelligent or better informed than you really are.

The country is slowly going down the tubes and conservatives
are upset over gay marraige, abortion and contraception as the most important things to them.

Really? And the tea party movement is about contraception?
Paul Ryan's proposal was about gay marriage?
Your comment, your thoughtless observation, is simply ignorant. As is always the case with you, you simply state your uninformed preconceptions, regardless the facts that contradict them, and without the intellectual interest to actual research the truth.

Why don't you provide some examples?
Where can you find that the national dialog of "conservatives" (how ever you chose to define this term) and the religious right (not the "religious left) is dominated solely on social issues like contraception?

And answer this, would those issues cease to national, wedge issues if the federal government were reduced in it's size and power back to what it was originally intended? The answer is yes. If the federal government were not actively involved in policy associated with marriage OR funding abortions and contraception, it would cease to be a national image capable of distracting the public from the looming dangers in the future.

Just as you began to discover in the other posting, the powers of the state are supposed to be different than that of the federal government. Those issues should be resolved locally.

Planned Parenthood is the real enemy although republican attack statements are self admittedly not meant to be factual, merely lies and propaganda to stir up the ignorant.

If the federal government weren't involved in funding Planned Parenthood or any other organizations like it, it would cease to be a national issue. If your town or state wants to fund such an organization, it should be addressed locally. Maybe they'll fund it in San Fransisco, CA but not in Greensborough, N.C. And if you don't agree, you can get involved in the local politics or vote with your feet. Such options don't exist on the national level.

Well there's always guns and religion to cling to.

 

[Calabrio]

It's 30% of the budget.
If we slashed military spending by 30% or more in line with our stature there would be plenty of money without having to reduce entitlements.

I won't even argue that we can or can not cut the military budget by 30%. Of course, such a cut in a single stroke would be disastrous, but even if it were possible, that won't solve our debt issues.

"Military spending" is a catch all term that covers everything from the DOD to the FBI to veteran benefits. It's about 1-1.5 Trillion dollars.
30% of that entire military budget would be $300-500Billion.
Department of Defense spends about $700B of that 1.5T. So 30% of that would be abut $210B.

This year, our one year federal deficit will be $1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Just to be clear, that means in a single year, the government was 1,600,000,000,000 in the red.
The federal debt is currently $14,300,000,000,000 ($14.3 Trillion)
And the U.S. currently has about 113,500,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities ($113.5 T)

We have to address everything, first an foremost is the role of the federal government. Should it be involved in wars around the world? Should we maintain bases throughout the world? And should it be used to finance a federal welfare state?

We can find the answer to this in the constitution. The politics of the 20th century, both socially and militarily, need to be rolled back. They can't be accepted as a natural state of being or permanent. They are not sustainable nor are they consistent with the idea of liberty the country was ideally founded upon.

The government should no more force people to embrace a religion for their own good than it should prevent me from eating french fries, for my own good.

The military should be strong enough to protect our nation, provide a devastatingly powerful deterrent for other countries from attacking us, and ensure that the seas and air space are safe for our commerce. And all military engagements should be brief and definitive.

 

[04SCTLS]

Since I posted this I can't see how I'm trolling myself.
Religion relies on faith over reason which is make believe.
Conservatives are fiddling with social issues while Rome burns.

It is obviously easy to get traction in this country appealing to faith but much harder to make policies based on reason.

Religion is a fact of human existence based on the fear of death but needs to be kept in it's proper place here on earth below the civil governments like it is in other countries that are not declining like we are.

I didn't say it was causal we're declining while getting more religious but if I was religious I could point to something coincidental like this and based on faith I would point to it and say "see"

The Muslim world is more religious than we are and they are even more pathetic in their wisdom and accomplishments.
Do you think there is a relationship there between the sorry Muslim states and the unaccomplishments of their people with this better example or is this just a coincidence as well?

IMO religion is a force for the personal good and wellbeing to those who need it but in government is a moral hazard that dumbs people down and diverts them from what's really important.

 

[04SCTLS]

Department of Defense spends about $700B. So 30% of that would be abut $210B.

Yes but you're ignoring the respending factor.
That 210 can become a 1 trillion stimulus quite easily.
Since there is no profit motive in benefits all the money handed out gets spent stimulating the whole economy.
I've never heard of people saving to any extent their retirement benefits.
They are 2 different kinds of spending defence and social programs with benefits having a much higher respending factor.
Unless you use your military for conquest, booty and plunder there is only expense and no income.
It's a big huge hole to throw money into that could be better spent.

 

[foxpaws]

People need to be self-reliant. They need to put their faith and reliance in something OTHER than government. Being religious DOES NOT mean you kneel in your backyard and simply pray that stuff falls from the sky. Arguably, that's what reliance on government teaches you.

Instead, it teaches of the value of the individual. It teaches about consequence and free will and personal responsibility. It teaches a moral obligation to offer help to you neighbor and be a responsible member of your community. And it teaches about the nature of liberty.

Well, Cal - you are somewhat narrow here in your definition - you might want to state 'what religion/s' because I am more than certain not all religions (in your mind) fall into this description.

 

[04SCTLS]

Well, Cal - you are somewhat narrow here in your definition - you might want to state 'what religion/s' because I am more than certain not all religions (in your mind) fall into this description.

Maybe Cal was thinking of the Rastafarians LOL!

 

[04SCTLS]

Originally Posted by Calabrio

People need to be self-reliant. They need to put their faith and reliance in something OTHER than government. Being religious DOES NOT mean you kneel in your backyard and simply pray that stuff falls from the sky. Arguably, that's what reliance on government teaches you.

Instead, it teaches of the value of the individual. It teaches about consequence and free will and personal responsibility. It teaches a moral obligation to offer help to you neighbor and be a responsible member of your community. And it teaches about the nature of liberty.

In this world the lessons of life show the spoils do not go to the moral and just but the swift strong and ruthless.
Just because you are moral and just doesn't mean you get the reward.
Cheaters win in real life more often than not.

Life's lessons are more honest and self evident than the idealized religious notions of fairness and responsibility and love for one's fellow man you may aspire to.

 

[Calabrio]

Religion relies on faith over reason which is make believe.
Conservatives are fiddling with social issues while Rome burns.

The fact is, both of these statements are simply not true.
They are not based in fact, they are based purely on you preconceptions.

But more importantly, in this discussion, religion is not important. Your distraction isn't productive or appropriate. The issues threatening the country are not "too much religion" but TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.

It is obviously easy to get traction in this country appealing to faith but much harder to make policies based on reason.

It's obviously easier to get traction with humanity when you make an emotional appeal. Be it spiritual or secular.

Religion is a fact of human existence based on the fear of death but needs to be kept in it's proper place here on earth below the civil governments like it is in other countries that are not declining like we are.

I'm not going to bother having a theological or philosophical discussion about the place of religion with you. That's pointless. Not only am I not the best suited to do so, not only are you frustratingly uninformed, you're also profoundly biased. This would be like discussing civil rights with a klansman.

However, I will address your political point regarding the role of religion.
RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT MUST BE KEPT SEPARATE.
The power of government should not be used to impose religion on people, just as the power of government should never be used to impose any ones will on other people, regardless how noble the intentions of those involved. This can be prevented by LIMITING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT.

You framed this paragraph as though we were moving towards a Christian theocracy in this country. That's not happening.

But rather than debating the merit of religion, why don't you simply align yourself with what I'm saying. Limit the power of the government in our lives, then such fear of a phantom theocracy is impossible.

... but if I was religious I could point to something coincidental like this and based on faith I would point to it and say "see"

I don't have a comment for this, I think you comment is more a statement about yourself than anything I'm talking about.

The Muslim world is more religious than we are and they are even more pathetic in their wisdom and accomplishments.

All religions, all cultures, and all philosophies are not equal.
But if you want to go in this direction, you would then be forced to recognized the explosion of technology and science came through Western civilization.

And in the last century, while the God-less communist world stagnated and rotted from the inside, the creativity of the Western world continued to innovate and improve the quality of life of individuals.

So, in short, the points you make are as contradictory as they are uninformed.

Do you think there is a relationship there between the sorry Muslim states and the unaccomplishments of their people with this better example or is this just a coincidence as well?

As I stated, all religions, cultures, societies, and philosophies are not equal.
The Judeo-Christian faith is vastly different than Islam.

IMO religion is a force for the personal good and wellbeing to those who need it but in government is a moral hazard that dumbs people down and diverts them from what's really important.

I will agree that religion should be about personal choice and that it should be separate from religion. Frankly, when they mix, you get a toxic nightmare that corrupts both.

The rest of your point is simply nonsense. Religion, specifically the Judeo-Christian faiths which are relevant to this discussion, don't dumb people down or cause people to focus on things that are unimportant. Actually, I'd argue that when religion is separate, and government is limited, that religion actually helps people focus on precisely what IS important in their lives.

The issue isn't religion. The issue is the power of government and how power corrupts.

In this world the lessons of life show the spoils do not go to the moral and just but the swift strong and ruthless.
Just because you are moral and just doesn't mean you get the reward.
Cheaters win in real life more often than not.

Live your life however you'd like., it's of no consequence or interest to me.
You ethics are of little relevance to this conversation.

Life's lessons are more honest and self evident than the idealized religious notions of fairness and responsibility and love for one's fellow man you may aspire to.

Again, I have no interest in your secular philosophy and it's entirely unrelated to the discussion we're having.

 

[04SCTLS]

The fact is, both of these statements are simply not true.
They are not based in fact, they are based purely on you preconceptions.

But more importantly, in this discussion, religion is not important. Your distraction isn't productive or appropriate. The issues threatening the country are not "too much religion" but TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.


It's obviously easier to get traction with humanity when you make an emotional appeal. Be it spiritual or secular.


I'm not going to bother having a theological or philosophical discussion about the place of religion with you. That's pointless. Not only am I not the best suited to do so, not only are you frustratingly uninformed, you're also profoundly biased. This would be like discussing civil rights with a klansman.

However, I will address your political point regarding the role of religion.
RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT MUST BE KEPT SEPARATE.
The power of government should not be used to impose religion on people, just as the power of government should never be used to impose any ones will on other people, regardless how noble the intentions of those involved. This can be prevented by LIMITING THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT.

You framed this paragraph as though we were moving towards a Christian theocracy in this country. That's not happening.

But rather than debating the merit of religion, why don't you simply align yourself with what I'm saying. Limit the power of the government in our lives, then such fear of a phantom theocracy is impossible.


I don't have a comment for this, I think you comment is more a statement about yourself than anything I'm talking about.


All religions, all cultures, and all philosophies are not equal.
But if you want to go in this direction, you would then be forced to recognized that the explosion of technology and science came through Western civilization.

And in the last century, while the God-less communist world stagnated and rotted from the inside, the creativity of the Western world continued to innovate.

So, in short, the points you make are as contradictory as they are uninformed.


As I stated, all religions, cultures, societies, and philosophies are not equal.
I think Islam is a death cult. The Judeo-Christian faith is vastly different than Islam.


I will agree that religion should be about personal choice and that it should be separate from religion. Frankly, when they mix, you get a toxic nightmare that corrupts both.

The rest of your point is simply nonsense. Religion, specifically the Judeo-Christian faith which are relevant to this discussion, don't dumb people down or cause people to focus on things that are unimportant. Actually, I'd argue that when religion is separate, and government is limited, that religion actually helps people focus on precisely what IS important in their lives.

The issue isn't religion. The issue is the power of government and how power corrupts.

I see more agreement here between us than disagreement.
Power used to be more in the hands of religion where it was a corrupting influence like the whole Henry the 8th misadventure which led the founding fathers to punt religion off to the states with the establishment clause.
If you want to limit the power of government then it's contradictory to hand it over to zealots driven by ideology religious or otherwise.

 

[04SCTLS]

Live your life however you'd like.
It's of no consequence or interest to me.

I was talking about and commenting on human life in general not mine specifically.
I've been screwed around by immoral thieves and cheaters in my life and am on guard.
Lawsuits are an example that the strong sometimes cheat the weak who have no other recourse.

Scammers get away with the rewards and a lot of time there's nothing people can do about it.

 

[Calabrio]

I see more agreement here between us than disagreement.

And I think we should focus on that agreement.

If you want to limit the power of government then it's contradictory to hand it over to zealots driven by ideology religious or otherwise.

And if you want to ensure your freedom and liberty, you have to make sure that the government's power is limited so that it can't be ceased by an ideology or theology to impose their will upon you.

 

[04SCTLS]

Getting back to the original post topic
I think the military is where we can cut the most spending with the smallest consequences.

However paradoxically it seems to be a third rail with conservatives.
That foolish pride big dick thing rears it's head again.
Nations have fallen over misguided pride.
We could easily cut more from defence without putting anybody out than anywhere else in our budget.
After an initial shock from say putting a carrier group in mothballs there would suddenly be money for most of the currently underfunded promises to our old and disadvantaged.

 

[Calabrio]

Getting back to the original post
I think the military is where we can cut the most spending with the smallest consequences.

I'll agree with the cuts, but it's insufficient.
EVERYTHING needs to be cut as aggressively.

However paradoxically it seems to be a third rail with conservatives.

Again, I think you're making this statement based on your preconception, not on the actual facts.

Most conservatives will absolutely support cuts in defense.
However, everyone knows that the cuts would be insufficient. We need to reevaluate the role of government and cut everything, not just military.

So, you'll find, that most conservatives will support such cuts to the military provided it's included with the significant cuts to entitlement and the other discretionary spending.

Intelligent cuts to the defense spending can be made conscious of the security dangers in the world.

That foolish pride big dick thing rears it's head again.

Again, your posts are a window into your soul disassociated with reality. Military cuts should be included in the downsize of the government, but they shouldn't be limited to just military. And after decades of legislative tricks where conservatives compromise on issues like tax increases with the promise of spending cuts, you won't see anyone leading with such an offer, particularly during a period of global instability, as a gesture of good faith.

After an initial shock from say putting a carrier group in mothballs there would suddenly be money for most of the currently underfunded promises to our old and disadvantaged.

As was demonstrated already, cutting the military budget is insufficient.
The government is $1.6 trillion in the red this year alone. Even if we cut 100% of all defense spending, including the FBI and veterans affairs and homeland security, the budget still would not be balanced. And I know of no one that would argue the defense budget should be cut by 100% anyway.

Those entitlement programs must be addressed and reformed. There is no way to avoid doing so. We can still maintain a safety net for those too old to plan accordingly, but it's a lie to tell everyone else that those programs will be there for them. There's a point when the pyramid scheme collapses.

 

[foxpaws]

The rest of your point is simply nonsense. Religion, specifically the Judeo-Christian faiths which are relevant to this discussion, don't dumb people down or cause people to focus on things that are unimportant.

Cal - you really need to temper this with 'most' or 'often' - the thread on the Westboro Baptist people alone negates your statement - NeoNazis often associate themselves with Christianity - AFA Action could certain be labeled a 'hate group' by many.

There is plenty of 'dumbing people down' in the name of the Lord. Always has been, always will be.

 

[04SCTLS]

As was demonstrated already, cutting the military budget is insufficient.
The government is $1.6 trillion in the red this year alone. Even if we cut 100% of all defense spending, including the FBI and veterans affairs and homeland security, the budget still would not be balanced. And I know of no one that would argue the defense budget should be cut by 100% anyway.

It is not my contention that a big cut in the military will balance the budget.
That is a rhetorical over argument disproportionate to my proposal.
However I do think there is more that can be cut from the defense plum than the rest of government especially with the greater respending factor.
We should cut 50% more from defense than entitlements.

Cutting entitlements means the alleged old and weak suffer more immediately and die sooner whereas a cut to defense does not bring real suffering to anyone.
Sure several hundred thousand military people may get sent home and the military industrial complex won't net 20% on shiny sexy weapons but in comparison to the 50% of the population (160 million people) getting some form of assistance that needs to be cut, theres really no comparison.
What does it say about our country and our priorities that 50% of the population cannot get by on it's own.
Is this sorrow the new american exceptionalism?
It is a great strategic weakness compared to our rivals.
Our population is older and fatter than our competitors and they're really the one's paying for what Eisenhour said about every destroyer being a school or hospital not built.
Since people are living longer there has to be a change in priorities.

 

[Calabrio]

However I do think there is more that can be cut from the defense plum than the rest of government especially with the greater respending factor.
We should cut 50% more from defense than entitlements.

I suggest you actually research these numbers rather than just making arbitrary pronouncements .

If your point is that military spending can be cut, I will agree. It needs to be cut along with the rest of government. Nothing should be off limits and the purpose, justification and missions of every federal expenditure needs to examined and critiqued.

If you think that should be done in an effort to prevent entitlement reform, then I will argue that you are mistaken. At best such a gesture would be little more than a political gesture that would accomplish little. And we shouldn't just be juggling numbers, cutting hundreds of billions here to contribute to an unsustainable spending program there. Those cut need to amount to reduced annual spending.

Cutting entitlements means the alleged old and weak suffer more immediately and die sooner whereas a cut to defense does not bring real suffering to anyone.

For someone critical of religion based on your perception that religious emotional appeals are used to influence politics, you're awfully quick to base your entire arguments based on emotional appeals based on your poorly informed preconceptions.

The term "cutting entitlements" by itself means nothing. Cutting entitlements could mean ending all aid altogether to all people or just reducing the size of the staff in the office. It could mean changing the standards or shifting the responsibility to states or an increased emphasis on charitable giving. Whatever it is, your emotional appeal doesn't address the specific method so it's impossible to directly respond to you point.

And cutting defense would impact real people and cause "real suffering" when you consider programs that role into "military spending."

But, if you REALLY to discuss things with logic and reason, avoiding emotional appeals and manipulation, you should determine what programs accomplish their goals, are they being performed efficiently, and if the federal government really has the authority to be engaged in the activity in the first place.

The government does have a responsibility to perform national security, I don't think the federal government has the constitutional mandate to finance sex-education classes or buying school lunches.

What does it say about our country and our priorities that 50% of the population cannot get by on it's own.
Is this sorrow the new american exceptionalism?

Again, you're making emotion based arguments.
Do you think 50% of the population actually needs that help or simply enjoy it?

Do you remember the reports of the government actually solicited people to register for food stamps in the past?

And what is the cause of this emotional sorrow you speak of? Is this sorrow alleviated or made worse by reliance upon the government?

It is a great strategic weakness compared to our rivals.

What is?
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? It's like your taking the factually unsupported concepts in your mind, throwing them up on the board here, and hoping something sticks.

What is our strategic weakness?
An increased reliance on social welfare? And you think the answer to this is increased dependency on soul crushing government welfare?

That more regulation need be created, more rules imposed, and more wealth redistributed in order to make people feel better? Have you spent any time in the "urban areas?" Are those happy places?

Our strategic weakness is this increased reliance on government and liberty stealing expanding federal government. This innovation and wealth crushing regulations are destroying the elements of American exceptionalism that differentiated us from the rest of the world. Ultimately, if they were even sustainable, they lead to a lazy, complacent marxist state.

And, calling back to the first point, before that happens, it'll lead to a financial collapse because it's unsustainable. Does it cause more "sorrow" to enact difficult cuts now or to lie to the public and have them all fail in the future?

Our population is older and fatter than our competitors and they're really the one's paying for what Eisenhour said about every destroyer being a school or hospital not built.
Since people are living longer there has to be a change in priorities.

Why do we need to trade a destroyer for a school?
Why do you have the federal government building schools in that quote?

We need to change priorities, we need to re-evaluate responsibilities as well. The systems created during the 20th century don't work. To remain beholden to them, to just accept that they are permanent or the way things always were, is a suicidal mistake.

I think I'm agreeing with you to a point, but you're not going far enough.

There's also another element to what your saying that I profoundly disagree with. Your pragmatic solutions always seem to involve more central government. I bet you think one of the advantages that China has over us it the fact they are a fascist state with a state controlled economy. Do you think we'd be better off if we had a similar kind of central planning? A system where "smart" people were in charge and one where those "dumb" people, maybe religious people, had less of a say on policy?
Is that what you want? A "state capitalism."

 

[04SCTLS]

What is?
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? It's like your taking the factually unsupported concepts in your mind, throwing them up on the board here, and hoping something sticks.

Our strategic weakness is 50% of the population getting a handout.
You must have read through this too quickly and perhaps I wasn't quite clear.
Also our population is older than China's and other countries where the median age is 25 or 30.
A growing population of old people living 15 years past retirement sitting around usually don't produce much of anything and cost the government money.

And cutting defense would impact real people and cause "real suffering" when you consider programs that role into "military spending."

These people and the military don't produce booty or taxable profit but are an expense.
We're talking about sending home maybe 300,000 people who would be cheaper if we just gave them money.

I'm not arguing for more welfare just less military welfare.
The overall welfare should stay the same just reprioritized.
We would at least be able to come closer to what has been promised to retirees.

 

[04SCTLS]

Why do we need to trade a destroyer for a school?
Why do you have the federal government building schools in that quote?

We need to change priorities, we need to re-evaluate responsibilities as well. The systems created during the 20th century don't work. To remain beholden to them, to just accept that they are permanent or the way things always were, is a suicidal mistake.

I think I'm agreeing with you to a point, but you're not going far enough.

There's also another element to what your saying that I profoundly disagree with. Your pragmatic solutions always seem to involve more central government. I bet you think one of the advantages that China has over us it the fact they are a fascist state with a state controlled economy. Do you think we'd be better off if we had a similar kind of central planning? A system where "smart" people were in charge and one where those "dumb" people, maybe religious people, had less of a say on policy?
Is that what you want? A "state capitalism."

I'm talking general government revenues not specifically about the federal government funding schools.
It's a general example that spending money on more military means less money for schools and hospitals and other infrastructure however it makes it's way to said examples.

Communism is cronyism and the best talent doesn't get a good chance to make it to the top.

China has some advantages over us as the current balance of payments shows.
Their empire is on the rise as ours seems to be slowly setting.
They are more disciplined and work harder than americans.
Anecdotally an associate spent several months there and commented on how young fit and healthy people seemed to be.
People use stairs and he said he didn't see one fat @ssed Chinese person in all his travels.
We on the other hand have a lot of big butt sloth with 40% of the population overweight.
We are the creators of ideas and stuff though.
There is no Chinese Microsoft Boeing or Apple leading a juggernaut.
American movies rule.
Our culture breeds more creative people with imagination
We have set the modern standard of living(till now).
The Chinese are good copiers and producers but don't respect the value of creativity like we do probably out of fear of being overthrown.
They would rather steal our secrets and hire our talented people and pay them well to get what they need since their system doesn't produce so many of their own.

Government offers services that are identical throughout the country so a centrally planned vertically integrated control and command structure would be the most efficient for that.

Businesses are the first tier to the government's second and large corporations all embrace some central planning.

We already have a state capitalism with military welfare and so many dependant on the government for some or all their income.
The military is run on central planning from the Pentagon so we already have some of that.

 

[Calabrio]

Our strategic weakness is 50% of the population getting a handout.
You must have read through this too quickly and perhaps I wasn't quite clear.
Also our population is older than China's and other countries where the median age is 25 or 30.
A growing population of old people living 15 years past retirement sitting around usually don't produce much of anything and cost the government money.

O.k. I agree with you.
And that's why it's so important that we really re-evaluate the systems in place right now, before it's too late.

With that said, I'd reassure you that the rest of the world is experiencing similar problems with population. China, especially after the 1 child policy, is going to be facing serious demographic problems in the future as well, so they aren't guaranteed the exponential growth that you might be imagining. There are other factors involved in China, but if they were to care about human rights in the future, they'll have a very old population supported by a very small working population. Europe as we know it may cease to be within our lifetime based on demographic trends.

I'm not arguing for more welfare just less military welfare.
The overall welfare should stay the same just reprioritized.
We would at least be able to come closer to what has been promised to retirees.

If we act immediately, I think we can still honor the spirit of the arrangements to retirees who are dependent upon it, those who no longer have the ability to prepare otherwise.

But we need to transition out of the system.
This will be politically unpopular because everyone is going to feel shorted. Those in the system may have to do with less. Those who aren't old enough may lose what they think they've put in. And those who are young will resent having to pay the retirements of generations of people who are taking out far more than they put in.

This is all an ugly byproduct of the disastrous systems that were put in place under the progressive administrations of the 20th centuries, and expanded under Republicans and Democrats alike.

If we don't, then there will be no safety net for anyone. There won't be a chance for a crash landing, just an implosion.

We already have a state capitalism with military welfare and so many dependant on the government for some or all their income.
The military is run on central planning from the Pentagon so we already have some of that.

Why don't we eliminate that "state capitalism" system here, roll back the size and scope of government, it's spending, and the seizure of capitol, and instead recreate the atmosphere that true fosters innovation and individual creativity?

Another byproduct of the current system is, what happens when the U.S. stop creating and innovating? What will the Chinese steal? I've spoken with Chinese and they'll readily admit that they work well in a team but they have no creativity or right brain thinking. As the British would say, they don't have any genius inventors creating and innovating in their shed, changing the world. There's no bicycle maker's creating flight. There are no college drop outs creating the PC.

And even if such a laisez faire, small government policy fails to maintain us as the industrial power house, at least we'll be free. And as you pointed out, we don't need "that foolish pride big dick thing rearing it's head again" in the pursuit of economic power.

 

[Federali Aundy]

Well, Cal - you are somewhat narrow here in your definition - you might want to state 'what religion/s' because I am more than certain not all religions (in your mind) fall into this description.

Cal shouldn't have to tell you he's talking about Judeo-Christian religion given the historical and cultural context of U.S. history which has long been dominated by Judeo-Christian belief. The United States faces physically external threats (i.e. terrorism) and internal threats (i.e poor economy), but the very soul of the United States is under assault by the secular Left which seeks to dislodge religion and replace it with the State.

Religion has long done the work that the State is attempting to do. Modern poverty in England, for example, only arose after the destruction of the monastaries (where the poor could come and count on a daily loaf of bread, some meat, and a pint of ale). It is religion that can call men to give of themselves, to lay down their own desires, and truly help another. The secular Left knows this and realizes it must do what it can to fight religion because a Judeo-Christian worldview stands opposed to an overbearing central government.

Cal and the rest can make a political argument against the bankruptcy of the Left, but I prefer to take the high ground on the argument from religion, planting a flag for America's soul.