As we speak we are paying millions of dollars to purchase helicopters for Afghanistan from a foreign country.
U.S. watchdog raps Pentagon for buying aircraft for Afghan unit | Reuters
The watchdog - the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction - urged the Pentagon to suspend the $553 million Russian arms deal as well as a $218 million contract for 18 planes from a U.S. firm until plans were in place to fully recruit and train the Afghan special forces unit.
The Pentagon was already under fire for agreeing this month to buy 30 additional Mi-17 helicopters from the Russian arms dealer, Rosoboronexport. That company is a major supplier of weapons to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is battling rebels trying to overthrow his government
I find it curious that the tea party people see no problem with this type of ridiculous spending.
Military spending efficiency should clearly be one of our top priorities in the years to come. Theres way too many cooks in that kitchen all trying to keep their units/bases/ports/contracts fully funded.
From the article: "America will never “pay off” its load of federal debt."
How do you pay off debt that is mostly future assets to the American public?
I agree with you but the author of the article you posted sure seems to indulge in some peculiar solutions including "a reduction of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other health and retirement benefits to hold the line on further indebtedness".
Well, as he points out, Social Security and Medicare trusts buy treasury bonds from the treasury in order to "loan" it money (and also to act as an investment I suppose). With the SS and Medicare expenditures set to increase significantly over the next few years, they will no longer be able to use the funds in their trusts to buy treasury bonds and may even need to start getting some of the money they loaned the treasury back which will lead to larger deficits and higher interest payments as a percentage of GDP down the road. If we reform SS and Medicare to delay their needing to do that AND to eventually prevent them from needing to use general funds to fund their programs, we'll have an easier time paying off debt.
I find it curious that the tea party people see no problem with this type of ridiculous spending.
Why should the debt be "paid off"?
Is that a serious question? Because we have to pay interest on it. Do you think we can seriously stay 17 trillion dollars in debt for ever? By the time we get around to balancing the budget, itll be ~24 trillion. That means we'll be spending ~750 billion a year in interest alone. I understand its much more likely that we will pay it down some than pay it off, but we still have to attain a true budget surplus including the interest payments to do so or do you think can just pay the interest on them until they all mature without ever running any sustained budget deficits again?
That "down the road" time frame is @ 20 years, we have already started to get a lowered rate of change in medical costs ....and very small changes in rates will keep SS solvent once we get past the boomer bump.Well, as he points out, Social Security and Medicare trusts buy treasury bonds from the treasury in order to "loan" it money (and also to act as an investment I suppose). With the SS and Medicare expenditures set to increase significantly over the next few years, they will no longer be able to use the funds in their trusts to buy treasury bonds and may even need to start getting some of the money they loaned the treasury back which will lead to larger deficits and higher interest payments as a percentage of GDP down the road. If we reform SS and Medicare to delay their needing to do that AND to eventually prevent them from needing to use general funds to fund their programs, we'll have an easier time paying off debt.
That "down the road" time frame is @ 20 years, we have already started to get a lowered rate of change in medical costs ....and very small changes in rates will keep SS solvent once we get past the boomer bump.
The issue that is not emphasized is the discretionary side, this is where the problem is as far as spending goes...but even that ignores the main problem, that the debt is being created primarily from reduced revenues.....because of depressed demand.
Demand is the base issue.
Yes, the question was serious. Tell me what obligation the government cannot meet since it has a monopoly on the currency in which its debt is denominated. Can profligate spending ruin the economy, sure, but that issue has nothing to do with debt repayment...
The obligation it cannot meet would be the one it has to its citizens if it were to try to manipulate its currency sufficiently to get out of debt. The issue of government debt repayment includes the issue of controlling inflation so that you don't destroy the wealth of your country in order to repay debt.
That "down the road" time frame is @ 20 years, we have already started to get a lowered rate of change in medical costs ....and very small changes in rates will keep SS solvent once we get past the boomer bump.
The issue that is not emphasized is the discretionary side, this is where the problem is as far as spending goes...but even that ignores the main problem, that the debt is being created primarily from reduced revenues.....because of depressed demand.
Demand is the base issue.
The issue relates to spending in areas the produce no return. Yes, inflation is a very real concern because much of the government's current spending is done in areas that produce nothing...
We ran budget deficits in the early 2000's when the economy was starting on its bubble boom. Is that a demand problem?
Could you be more specific which areas you are saying produce no return? Are you referring to interest payments?
Thats funny since even the OP was honest enough to note that FICA has been a funding source for discretionary spending.The budget/spending issues are on the entitlement side, not the discretionary side. The entirety of the deficit/debt over the past 50 years has been caused by entitlements that were not given a specific source of funding...
Thats funny since even the OP was honest enough to note that FICA has been a funding source for discretionary spending.
Actually, we were experiencing a recession in 2001 and spending increased while revenues declined as a percentage of GDP....due to the Bush tax cuts.....so yes, part of the problem was a demand component. The RE bubble was credit driven.We ran budget deficits in the early 2000's when the economy was starting on its bubble boom. Is that a demand problem?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?