Half of U.S. Social Program recipients claim they have never received assistance

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would agree, but two things come to mind, first of all the U.S. mandate is that they have to be able to fight two major wars and contribute to peace keeping missions at the same time. Now thats good in theory, but even with the level of funding that they have put into the military they've failed at it. We saw mass equipment shortages in Iraq and to a smaller extend Afghanistan. If you look at weapons development, the American's have scaled back on that, for example the f-22 raptor programs, and the Seawolf sub class were all killed because they were too expensive.

America also still considers itself at war, they might be far ahead of other nations in terms of technology and sheer brute force, but we saw what some determined terrorists did for cheap.



In terms of the NASA argument, I'm with you, but looking at it as a right now, going from exploitation (shuttle) and switching back to manned exploration is just going to be a hidious expense. For now

I realize the US is in no position to go ahead with manned space exploration right now but I really really REALLY hope they don't cancel the James Webb Space Telescope.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

False dichotomy.

A Chinese takeover is happening regardless of American military might. Finance trumps all.

I think it all depends on what the US does with the economy and budget.

If they control the deficit, start paying down the debt and create a level playing field for businesses to compete, the economy will start growing like crazy again.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The Chinese food here is an insidious head fake to lull us into complacency. It's not at all like the Chinese food in China.

Actually, if you find the good Chinese food here, it's pretty similar. Mind you, Mrs. Impaler kept me from eating Andrew Zimmern style , so we pretty much stuck to chicken, duck, and pork...

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

False dichotomy.

A Chinese takeover is happening regardless of American military might. Finance trumps all.

I think the "Chinese Threat" is overblown.

Their economy is still smaller than the US economy. Further, the strength of their economy is predicated on North American consumption. But given their population, they need their current economy to continue to grow at a rapid rate, which then requires the US to continue to increase their consumption at that rate.

At some (near) point in time, a country of 1 billion producers are not going to see sufficient demand from a country of ~400 million consumers. Their large stores of US Treasury has additionally trapped them into a corner (if they sell the US dollars they threaten strengthening their currency which in turn hurts their exports). Couple that with the inherent domestic demands of a billion people (how many ghost cities can they build to keep people busy?), and the environmental damage they're inflicting on their country...

It's not going to be all that pretty imo.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think the "Chinese Threat" is overblown.

Their economy is still smaller than the US economy. Further, the strength of their economy is predicated on North American consumption. But given their population, they need their current economy to continue to grow at a rapid rate, which then requires the US to continue to increase their consumption at that rate.

At some (near) point in time, a country of 1 billion producers are not going to see sufficient demand from a country of ~400 million consumers. Their large stores of US Treasury has additionally trapped them into a corner (if they sell the US dollars they threaten strengthening their currency which in turn hurts their exports). Couple that with the inherent domestic demands of a billion people (how many ghost cities can they build to keep people busy?), and the environmental damage they're inflicting on their country...

It's not going to be all that pretty imo.

Not only that but their people are going to want to make a decent wage some day, and countries that are suffering because of their trade policies are going to eventually demand equal and fair access to Chinese markets.

And they can't keep their dollar artificially deflated forever.

Plus most of their larger industries are run by their military.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The Chinese food here is an insidious head fake to lull us into complacency. It's not at all like the Chinese food in China.

Well that's just because folks in China haven't tried ginger beef, or blood red sweet and sour pork.
If the had, they most certainly would be eating it every day!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think the "Chinese Threat" is overblown.

Their economy is still smaller than the US economy. Further, the strength of their economy is predicated on North American consumption. But given their population, they need their current economy to continue to grow at a rapid rate, which then requires the US to continue to increase their consumption at that rate.

At some (near) point in time, a country of 1 billion producers are not going to see sufficient demand from a country of ~400 million consumers. Their large stores of US Treasury has additionally trapped them into a corner (if they sell the US dollars they threaten strengthening their currency which in turn hurts their exports). Couple that with the inherent domestic demands of a billion people (how many ghost cities can they build to keep people busy?), and the environmental damage they're inflicting on their country...

It's not going to be all that pretty imo.

All good points, this thread isn't about the imminence of a Chinese takeover. It just responded to the comment that without a strong military the Chinese will takeover which is just stupid. Conventional military might is simply not a major determinant of the new game among great power nations especially in the nuclear age.

With that said, the Chinese are by not means assured the next seat at the head of the global table but it looks likely just be sheer demographics and economics. As they develop they will develop their own consumer class which will more than outweigh the loss of the American consumer. At least that's what will happen if things go right for them.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

All good points, this thread isn't about the imminence of a Chinese takeover. It just responded to the comment that without a strong military the Chinese will takeover which is just stupid. Conventional military might is simply not a major determinant of the new game among great power nations especially in the nuclear age.

LOL. It's a shame Mao et al did not read "Great Power Politics" by Tinordi. I guess had they, they would not be busy building aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, frigates, etc. etc.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Perhaps. However, I assume it is US policy to have sufficient hardware to prevent a physical take-over of S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. If your only means of stopping the aggressor is nuclear, it's a bit difficult saying "stop or I'll kill both of us"... I assume there is some sort of an internal standard, like the British used to have in the Empire hey-day (I believe it was that the British Navy had to be more powerful than the next two most powerful navies put together). The US probably feels it needs to maintain a military powerful enough to prevent an invasion of S. Korea and, say, Kuwait AT THE SAME TIME. I'm only speculating - I used to be a lot more interested and learned in strategic issues back in my historian salad days.

Right.

And if the US can't afford pensions, healthcare or education for their citizens as a result, I guess that's the price of "freedom".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Right.

And if the US can't afford pensions, healthcare or education for their citizens as a result, I guess that's the price of "freedom".

I don't see why they can't afford both.

Their welfare programs are so costly because they're not setup right, and as a result are costing more than they should.

Especially healthcare.

[Kefka]

Originally Posted by Azure

The US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world as is.

Problem is no one pays it. GE for example got a REFUND due to great tax lawyering.

Ending the loop holes would be a huge influx of revenue for the government.

[CaptainCrunch]

With 18 days left in the debt negotiation deadline Obama storms out of the meetings

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/...lks_grow_.html

Cause it worked so well with Israel when he stormed out of that meeting.

[yads]

Originally Posted by Kefka

Problem is no one pays it. GE for example got a REFUND due to great tax lawyering.

Ending the loop holes would be a huge influx of revenue for the government.

Only in 2009, but they are still paying well below 10% tax on their income in the years they did pay.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

With 18 days left in the debt negotiation deadline Obama storms out of the meetings

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/...lks_grow_.html

Cause it worked so well with Israel when he stormed out of that meeting.

Would you prefer Obama bend over grab his ankles and give the Republicans everything they want?

Only one side is negotiating in good faith here and it ain't the GOP. Everything is politics as usual with them.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Would you prefer Obama bend over grab his ankles and give the Republicans everything they want?

Only one side is negotiating in good faith here and it ain't the GOP. Everything is politics as usual with them.

They are both negotiating in equally good/bad faith, which is one of the major problems with the US political system...

[CaptainCrunch]

Bunk, neither side is negotiating in good faith at this point, and with 18 days left, it looks like nothing is going to get done at all.

taking your ball and going home is not effective leadership.

[Tinordi]

I don't think that's necessarily accurate.

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

[Weiser Wonder]

Obama is dealing in good faith, which is what most Democrats have a problem with. He gets worked over every time by the Republicans because of it.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I don't think that's necessarily accurate.

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

Fair enough - I get my Economist in the mail, so I am a week behind.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Kefka

Problem is no one pays it. GE for example got a REFUND due to great tax lawyering.

Ending the loop holes would be a huge influx of revenue for the government.

Small businesses all pay it.