Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
An aversion to telling the truth
Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:39 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:AT THEIR RESPECTIVE conventions over the past fortnight, warring Democrats and Republicans agreed on their determination to administer bitter medicine to the American people. “The work ahead will be hard,” vowed Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. “I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy,” Mr. Obama chimed in. But as the dust settled over Tampa and Charlotte and we tried in vain to recall a single hard truth any of the candidates had told us, it occurred to us that maybe they were stressing their supposed courage to distract us from their true point of convergence: their mutual, utter and utterly depressing failure to grapple honestly with the nation’s biggest problem. That problem is the nation’s debt. We say so not because we think budgets matter more than anything else but because nothing else — nothing that really matters to people — will be unaffected if the nation does not get its long-term finances in order. The classroom overcrowding Mr. Obama promised to ease? The military Mitt Romney vowed to strengthen? Neither can happen if entitlement programs and interest on the debt consume every dollar of revenue — but that’s what will happen by 2025 on the current path, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By 2055 interest payments alone would eat up the totality of revenue. It’s heartening, on one hand, to realize how fixable the problem is. Modest tax increases and challenging but manageable adjustments to Social Security and Medicare could buy a lot of time. Confidence would return, and along with it economic growth, which is what the country needs most of all. The United States is in a better position to handle the challenge than most developed countries. But that advantage will dissipate if the political system does not rise to the task. Mr. Romney professes to care deeply about the debt. But his tax cuts would cause more of it. He promises to counter them by limiting deductions and loopholes, but which ones and by how much? Mortgage interest? Charitable giving? He won't say. He promises also to ”fundamentally reduce the size of government,” as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie boasted at the GOP convention. Mr. Romney’s brave, sacrificial offering: the National Endowment for the Arts, less than a fingernail’s worth of the federal budget. Mr. Obama says that he cares, too. He will take “responsible steps to strengthen” Social Security. Which steps? Raising the retirement age? Slowing cost-of-living adjustments? He doesn’t say. He will save Medicare by controlling health-care costs. How, since he ruled out Mr. Ryan’s competition-driven plan? He won’t say. “You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear,” Mr. Obama said in his acceptance speech. “You elected me to tell you the truth.” Mr. Christie said, “We believe in telling hardworking families the truth about our country’s fiscal realities.” With less than two months before the election, is there any hope of hearing fiscal truth from either candidate? Can reporters press harder for answers, or can debate questioners? Given their shared reticence, Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney may have an inclination not to press each other for honest answers about their plans. Maybe such fudging is tactically sound. The country, though, deserves better.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:43 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:31 AM
CANTTAKESKY
Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:35 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:51 AM
WHOZIT
Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:58 AM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Even the Washington Post are averse to telling the truth. The truth is we can't afford 2 wars and a nearly $700 BILLION Pentagon budget. And that is just the official numbers, not the real Pentagon budget.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:59 AM
Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:15 AM
Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:23 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:If / when we're fully out of Afghanistan, the transportation cost of our military will barely drop one bit. Because of how many bases we have all over the world
Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:43 AM
Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Even the Washington Post are averse to telling the truth. The truth is we can't afford 2 wars and a nearly $700 BILLION Pentagon budget. And that is just the official numbers, not the real Pentagon budget. And both candidates vow in their acceptance speeches to "...sustain the strongest military the world has ever known." (Obama) and "...preserve a military that is so strong, no nation would ever dare to test it." (Romney). So cutting the Pentagon budget is not likely to happen.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:56 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:The Pentagon outlined a plan Thursday for slowing the growth of military spending, including cutting the size of the Army and Marine Corps, retiring older planes and trimming war costs. It drew quick criticism from Republicans, signaling the difficulty of scaling back defense budgets in an election year. The Army would shrink from a peak of 570,000 to 490,000 within five years, and the Marines would drop by 20,000, to 182,000. Those are considerable declines, but both services will still be slightly larger than on 9/11, before they began a decade of war. Both will keep their footholds abroad, although the Army will decrease its presence in Europe and the Marines plan to increase theirs in Asia. Panetta said the administration will ask Congress for $525 billion to run the Pentagon in 2013 - $6 billion less than the current budget. War costs, which are not considered part of the base budget, would decline from $115 billion to $88 billion, reflecting the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Republicans were quick to pounce on the proposed Army and Marine Corps reductions. "These cuts reflect President Obama's vision of an America that is weakened, not strengthened, by our men and women in uniform," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jan/26/pentagon-army-marines-to-shrink-as-budget-slows/
Quote:You wouldn’t know it from listening to the Obama campaign, but there’s only one Presidential candidate in 2012 who has cut Medicare: Barack Obama, whose Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare by $716 billion from 2013-2022. Today, the Romney campaign reiterated its pledge to repeal Obamacare, and promised to “restore the funding to Medicare [and] ensure that no changes are made to the program for those 55 and older.” (Disclosure: I am an outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues, but the opinions in this post are mine, and do not necessarily correspond to those of the campaign.) It’s an important point of policy clarity. Left-of-center writers, such as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, accurately point out that Paul Ryan’s 2011 and 2012 budgets repeal Obamacare while preserving Obama’s cuts to Medicare. “The difference between the two campaigns is not in how much they cut Medicare,” he writes, “but in how they cut Medicare.” When it comes to comparing Obamacare to the Ryan plans, Ezra is right. I’ve long argued the same thing: that the way to understand the difference between Ryancare and Obamacare is not in the scale of the cuts to Medicare, which are roughly similar, but in the competing mechanisms used in reform. Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. The Wyden-Ryan plan, co-authored by liberal Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Paul Ryan, preserves the Obamacare targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans. House Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, passed something very similar to Wyden-Ryan in their 2012 budget. One notable difference are that the GOP budget targets Medicare growth of GDP plus 0.5 percent, just as the FY 2013 Obama budget does. (Wyden-Ryan targeted GDP plus 1 percent.) Importantly, as I noted above, the GOP budget repeals Obamacare, but preserves that law’s Medicare cuts. However, as Romney noted in his 60 Minutes interview over the weekend, his plan and Ryan’s plan are not identical. In response to a question about the Ryan budget, Romney responded, “I have my budget plan, as you know, that I’ve put out. And that’s the budget plan we’re going to run on.” And the Romney campaign has explicitly stated that it will not preserve Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare. “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have always been fully committed to repealing Obamacare, ending President Obama’s $716 billion raid on Medicare, and tackling the serious fiscal challenges our country faces,” said Romney policy director Lanhee Chen in a Monday statement. “A Romney-Ryan Administration will restore the funding to Medicare, ensure that no changes are made to the program for those 55 or older, and implement the reforms that they have proposed to strengthen it for future generations.”
Sunday, September 9, 2012 6:57 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: So cutting the Pentagon budget is not likely to happen.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Obama HAS already shrunk the size of the military,
Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:20 AM
Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:23 AM
Quote: "These cuts reflect President Obama's vision of an America that is weakened, not strengthened, by our men and women in uniform," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services
Sunday, September 9, 2012 8:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: America *IS* weakened by the military,
Sunday, September 9, 2012 8:40 AM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 8:57 AM
Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: We could cut our military in half and still be "the strongest military the world has ever known."
Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:17 AM
Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:If / when we're fully out of Afghanistan, the transportation cost of our military will barely drop one bit. Because of how many bases we have all over the world Cites? Figures? It's not personal. It's just war.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:12 AM
Quote:the whole ' investment ' crap ? That's just an excuse to make govt bigger, and become a bigger drain on our economy.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 11:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:the whole ' investment ' crap ? That's just an excuse to make govt bigger, and become a bigger drain on our economy. Infrastructure? Education? High tech research? These will be a drain on the economy? It's not personal. It's just war.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:09 PM
NEWOLDBROWNCOAT
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: If / when we're fully out of Afghanistan, the transportation cost of our military will barely drop one bit.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:the whole ' investment ' crap ? That's just an excuse to make govt bigger, and become a bigger drain on our economy. Infrastructure? Education? High tech research? These will be a drain on the economy? It's not personal. It's just war. Ahh... I see you've bought into the rhetoric, then.
Quote: We pay taxes. We pay a LOT of taxes, fines, fees, etc... every damn day. We pay. I contend that we ALREADY pay , more than enough, to fund education, infrastructure, fire and police, but much of our money gets WASTED. Then, when we run short, the politicians put on their dog and pony show, and pitch the - routine. That's all anyone has to say... 'Think of the children!', and that closes any and all debate on the matter. Well, guess what. 16 Trillion bucks in the hole, I say it IS time someone thought of the children, and put a stop to this run away spending.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: If / when we're fully out of Afghanistan, the transportation cost of our military will barely drop one bit. AH, yes. The price of the military moving stuff around won't change. But let's see, maybe the cost for new bombs and bullets to replace the ones used up fighting will go down, 'cuz they ain't being used up. The cost of replacements for combat-lossed equipment, like helicopters, drones, trucks, Hummers will go down, 'cuz there won't be any. The payroll cost for combat pay will go down. Death benefits for those killed in combat will go down. Medical costs for wounded in combat will go down, as will life-time pension costs for the permanently crippled. But, hey, I'm the Rappenfuhrer, I found the only item in the military budget that won't go down, so that proves that ending the war won't save money.
Sunday, September 9, 2012 4:29 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Monday, September 10, 2012 5:01 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: This is one time when I can't offer up anything, other than... you're just gonna have to trust me on this one.
Monday, September 10, 2012 6:06 AM
CAVETROLL
Monday, September 10, 2012 7:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: This is one time when I can't offer up anything, other than... you're just gonna have to trust me on this one. I literally LOLed at this one. "Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
Monday, September 10, 2012 7:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This may have already been addressed, but the biggest problem the USA faces is NOT the deficit. I can name five or six bigger problems right off the bat, As far as the deficit... what does a deficit do, exactly? Well, it puts more money into the economy without necessarily increasing production. In theory, it makes the dollar worth less. So who does that affect, mostly? Well, it affects entities which hold a lot of dollars... China, banks. and... China, banks... and China... banks... Not the average sinking middle class... they don't even HAVE savings anymore. So yeah, I can imagine how the banks (and China) might be screaming about the deficit. After all, their currency is vulnerable to depreciation through inflation. But for the average family? It depends very much on where that extra money flows. It can either be a positive event, or a neutral one.
Monday, September 10, 2012 8:02 AM
Quote: the $400 billion cited by the president comes from a 2011 Department of Defense Efficiency Initiatives report that details $178 billion in savings over the next five years. Baer said those savings amount to $400 billion over 10 years — although the Pentagon report does not project that far out. But here's the problem with that thinking: Only $78 billion of the $178 billion represents actual reductions in the defense budget. OMB Director Jack Lew acknowledged this in a Feb. 14 blog entry on the president's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. Lew wrote: "The Budget cuts $78 billion from the Pentagon’s spending plan over the next five years." Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained in a Jan. 6 statement at the Pentagon that $100 billion of the $178 billion was reinvested in the military.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 2:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat: But, hey, I'm the Rappenfuhrer, I found the only item in the military budget that won't go down, so that proves that ending the war won't save money.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And Kwickie, if we'd have not wasted so much money on Solyndra, and various other boondoggles this President has engaged in, to appease his political agenda, we'd have more than enough for a bunch of Curiosity missions, I bet. Curiosity serves mankind far more than a bankrupt solar energy company.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL