US can 'no longer drive global growth'

[Jetboogieman]

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world "cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past".

In an exclusive interview, Mr Geithner said that other major economies would have to grow more for the global economy to prosper.

He also played down any differences in policy between the US and Europe regarding deficit reduction.

Mr Geithner was speaking ahead of a G20 meeting this weekend.

He said all members of the group were "focused on the challenge of [building] growth and confidence", and would be working to this end at the meeting in Toronto.

BBC News - US can 'no longer drive global growth'

 

[Deuce]

In other news, water is wet.

 

[Renae]

In other news, water is wet.

And Duece agains adds nothing to a thread.

Why did America Elect such people taht have no faith in the Country? The shame of this Administration will take a generation to expunge.

 

[cholla]

And Duece agains adds nothing to a thread.

Why did America Elect such people taht have no faith in the Country? The shame of this Administration will take a generation to expunge.

I think we can expunge in less time than that, I for one, do not want to hand this country to my kids in the current liberal give me give me condition.

 

[ric27]

If his majesty, Obama and his administration were smart instead of the fiscal idiots they have turned out to be, we could still head this off, by freezing new Federal spending, cutting the Government's give-away programs and balancing the budget now.....but it ain't gonna happen

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If his majesty, Obama and his administration were smart instead of the fiscal idiots they have turned out to be, we could still head this off, by freezing new Federal spending, cutting the Government's give-away programs and balancing the budget now.....but it ain't gonna happen

So how much of the military would you like to see be cut?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Martin Sorrell disagrees.

The new capitalism will have an Asian-Pacific, Latin American flavour – more orderly, more pragmatic and more flexible. Where General Motors cannot go, India’s cut-price Nano and China’s Geely will. Despite the rise of other regional economies, US innovation and ability to raise capital will be undiminished.

 

[Renae]

So how much of the military would you like to see be cut?

Another misguided poster that doesn't realize that Social Spending is like 3-1 over Military Spending. But hey, don't let that interfere with your silly "military cost cutting" non-sense.

 

[The Mark]

So how much of the military would you like to see be cut?

No greater than 25%, preferably 10% or less.

Greater cuts in other areas, of course.

 

[MSgt]

So how much of the military would you like to see be cut?

There's a difference between the military and the gross Defense Industry.

Billions can be saved by stream lining the Defense Industry. Putting the brakes on the F/A-22 was a start. But the ironic rub towards Washington and the elected "wisemen" who run it to the ground is that their periodic attempts to save tax payer dollars by cutting the number of troops since the end of the Cold War has merely produced scenarios where they are spending more on civilian contractors to do what others in uniform did for less.

Cutting the military equals Blackwater. But maybe the Washington mouth pieces were right in 1989....."Our wars are over."

 

[ric27]

So how much of the military would you like to see be cut?

Good start would be A-stan. The absolutely asinine amounts of money that were and are being practically thrown down the ****ter in there. Without a second thought, I'd close that down

Let me see what else. Hmmm...what about firing 1 in 3 or 4 of any general over 2 stars. You'd save millions

btw I'm NOT be sarcastic

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Another misguided poster that doesn't realize that Social Spending is like 3-1 over Military Spending. But hey, don't let that interfere with your silly "military cost cutting" non-sense.

I thought it would have been a given that to balance the budget right now social spending would have to be cut

That the military budget would also have to be cut should also be a given

Around I think about 30% of the federal government budget is from borrowed money. Meaning significant cuts, and no party would get relected if it only cut social programs

 

[Renae]

I thought it would have been a given that to balance the budget right now social spending would have to be cut

That the military budget would also have to be cut should also be a given

Around I think about 30% of the federal government budget is from borrowed money. Meaning significant cuts, and no party would get relected if it only cut social programs

When the first thing you post is "How much military spending you want to cut" shows to the readers taht you belive that is where the most waste and most savings can be found. The attempt at back tracking you made here I think says all we need to know.

 

[Deuce]

And Duece agains adds nothing to a thread.

Why did America Elect such people taht have no faith in the Country? The shame of this Administration will take a generation to expunge.

Our own growth has stalled, what makes you think we can drive growth for the rest of the world?
Being aware of our limitations is not the same thing as not having faith.

 

[ric27]

Another thing....TVs. TV's are like crack to brass in Iraq and A-stan. it's ****ing ridiculous. Wide screen TVs everywhere, and freaking jumbotrons!

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

When the first thing you post is "How much military spending you want to cut" shows to the readers taht you belive that is where the most waste and most savings can be found. The attempt at back tracking you made here I think says all we need to know.

No backtracking at all

The person who I quoted is listed as being very conservative, as such I did not expect him to object to social spending cuts, but object to miitary spending cuts. I was suprised by ric27 support of cutting certain aspects of military spending

 

[ric27]

I was suprised by ric27 support of cutting certain aspects of military spending

Why? I think a $50 to 60 billion cut would be fairly easily doable with a little fiscal restraint and thoughtfulness across the DOD. The truly unhappy part of all this is that cutting the mil budget never prevents the kind of fraud, waste and abuse that goes on with certain ridiculous projects. The same amount of cash still gets funneled into the same ****ty, corrupt contracts and who pays for it at the end? The actual rank and file elements are the ones who get shafted on supplies and training budgets.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Why? I think a $50 to 60 billion cut would be fairly easily doable with a little fiscal restraint and thoughtfulness across the DOD. The truly unhappy part of all this is that cutting the mil budget never prevents the kind of fraud, waste and abuse that goes on with certain ridiculous projects. The same amount of cash still gets funneled into the same ****ty, corrupt contracts and who pays for it at the end? The actual rank and file elements are the ones who get shafted on supplies and training budgets.

A generalization by me, based on your "very conservative" leaning in your profile

I have not seen many "very conservatives" who support cutting the military budget at all

 

[Slartibartfast]

Why did America Elect such people taht have no faith in the Country? The shame of this Administration will take a generation to expunge.

I don't think Geithner was elected.

 

[ric27]

A generalization by me, based on your "very conservative" leaning in your profile

Assumption is the mother of all

I have not seen many "very conservatives" who support cutting the military budget at all

Defense spending is foremost, the one of the bills your nation MUST pay...how else can we expect to maintain adequate strategic influence in the future? Period, but some cuts are doable in DoD (waste, fraud, etc)

Oh, and before you get teary-eyed on me. Call me cold hearted, but if I am to choose between a carrier battle group and helping fight AIDS in Africa...I'll take the carrier. Screw Africa

 

[MSgt]

Another thing....TVs. TV's are like crack to brass in Iraq and A-stan. it's ****ing ridiculous. Wide screen TVs everywhere, and freaking jumbotrons!

It is absolutely true that money has been horribly squandered in Iraq and Afgahinstan. But let's get beyond the sophomoric of things. The military was given blank checks and it squandered way too much. But the vast majority of wealth squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan came from checks written by politicians for civilian contractors. Both theatres were economically mismanaged.

1) How much money would it have saved to enlist Iraqis to fix the infrastructure they knew instead of pouring billions into contractors to fix infrastructure they didn't know? This would have not only saved money, but two other problems for the military. One, local people are less likely to blow up systems they are working on, and two, young people would have busied their time in the employment of bettering their up and coming nation instead of joining insurgencies.

2) How much money would it have saved to keep our military at proper numbers instead of fooling ourselves into thinking that we are saving money throughout the 90s? The money we saved merely quadrupled when it came time to ride the backs of our military and counter their lack of numbers with paid mercenaries. Keeping our military at proper numbers would not only have saved money, but also solved two problems for the military. One, all combat personel in the AO would have been under military jurisdiction, and two, the image of the military would not have had to rest on the conduct of unprofessional civilian agents.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan should have cost as much as it did. And please don't default to "we shouldn't be there." If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own. Pretending that we don't have to be there or involved from time to time is not practical. It only compounds the treasure and blood in the end.

 

[Deuce]

Assumption is the mother of all


Defense spending is foremost, the one of the bills your nation MUST pay...how else can we expect to maintain adequate strategic influence in the future? Period, but some cuts are doable in DoD (waste, fraud, etc)

Oh, and before you get teary-eyed on me. Call me cold hearted, but if I am to choose between a carrier battle group and helping fight AIDS in Africa...I'll take the carrier. Screw Africa

What if you're choosing between 11 carrier battlegroups + AIDS fighting OR 12 carrier battlegroups? How about 14? 20?
Military spending has diminishing returns like everything else.

 

[MSgt]

Military spending has diminishing returns like everything else.

Well that depends. The free world has spent much on powerful militaries and the returns are seen everyday in our normal every day lives.

 

[ric27]

It is absolutely true that money has been horribly squandered in Iraq and Afgahinstan. But let's get beyond the sophomoric of things. The military was given blank checks and it squandered way too much. But the vast majority of wealth squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan came from checks written by politicians for civilian contractors. Both theatres were economically mismanaged.

1) How much money would it have saved to enlist Iraqis to fix the infrastructure they knew instead of pouring billions into contractors to fix infrastructure they didn't know? This would have not only saved money, but two other problems for the military. One, local people are less likely to blow up systems they are working on, and two, young people would have busied their time in the employment of bettering their up and coming nation instead of joining insurgencies.

2) How much money would it have saved to keep our military at proper numbers instead of fooling ourselves into thinking that we are saving money throughout the 90s? The money we saved merely quadrupled when it came time to ride the backs of our military and counter their lack of numbers with paid mercenaries. Keeping our military at proper numbers would not only have saved money, but also solved two problems for the military. One, all combat personel in the AO would have been under military jurisdiction, and two, the image of the military would not have had to rest on the conduct of unprofessional civilian agents.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan should have cost as much as it did. And please don't default to "we shouldn't be there." If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own. Pretending that we don't have to be there or involved from time to time is not practical. It only compounds the treasure and blood in the end.

Agreed 1000% There is a lot of waste in defense spending. A lot of companies have taken advantage of the system and stretched out programs and gotten a lot of extra cash out of the government. I'm all for tighter regulations or choke holds on these contracts when companies don't live up to their side of the bargain. Unfortunately, who is going to put a stop to this?

 

[Deuce]

Well that depends. The free world has spent much on powerful militaries and the returns are seen everyday in our normal every day lives.

Meanwhile, North Korea spends pretty much everything it has on its military. Also, we possess enough nuclear weapons to end the world twice. Not really sure why that's helpful!