This is a valid point, but Brian from WA is going a step further and arguing that the current budget will decrease as well a decade from now, which is silly. I never denied the inflation aspect though. The government creates the inflation so it is their problem. But it goes both ways, the government can just create the funding they need, inflation exists to take care of deficits. Edit- Inflation is a net gain for them, and a massive tax on us. Also, you mean military offense will get cut? I'm all in.
If you want to debate the "short-term" that's different. "Part of research is understand what you can trust, what makes you wrong when you put faith into it and what new research has come out that validates or invalidates your hypothesis and testing methods." Until you present me with some statistical data for long-run projections you don't have anything there. The CBO is a statist institution that will try to make the government look good and efficient. The fact that they are predicting government growth anyway is bad for you. Yes 70 more billion, if you think the Prez's budget means anything. But it doesn't and he sucks. Assertion without evidence. Let's rephrase what you said to me: 1. The president made a "lower" budget which doesn't matter, and you tried to use that as a new baseline which is weird. Then you accused me of not knowing how the government is funded, which is also not true. The projections knew at least how governments are funded going in. 2. There was a sequester, which the CBO already took into account in the last projection I saw. Your entire retort is on the rocks. You tried to double count some cuts there. 3. A bad projection will still result in growth probably, your position is pretty unlikely. The CBO tends to underestimate, exactly thanks for helping me. The fact that they're still predicting growth is bad for you dude. Let's see who's more credible, the CBO or BrianfromWa who uses imaginary budgets and short-term trends? I guess I should sell all my gold too since it dipped recently in the market. I posted a chart saying defense spending was going "down" also, going by your logic. So then are you accusing me of calling myself a liar as well? Define "liar". The CBO also knows about this weak dip, that's not much of an argument. I even brought it up, with snazzy colors. :O Define "liar". You skimmed over my post then, that's not what I said. Sure I'm down with this. Define "spending". Even with a bad projection the spending will probably still increase. All it takes is one neocon, anything is possible with government debt. That's a shame, you should read into it. Hmm... Well of course, I never contended this. The President can recommend Wendys' to congress, I'm more interested in what happens 10-20-30 years from now.
The real dollar spending is being decreased as well. By $500B over 10 years ($50B/year) due to the sequestration deal, and by $2T over 10 years if Paul Ryan's budget were to be passed. Ryan's budget likely has no chance, but the size of his cuts are likely to be realized in any budget that ultimately will pass. If you spent a little time reading what Brian has related to us, though anecdotally, he's seeing the effects of real cuts. The military isn't able to afford to keep on as many soldiers, sailors, etc. That's from his perspective only. The amount and number of cuts to weapons programs are significant as well.
I'll add something for jlprk's benefit. The longest and most expensive war in US history was the Cold War. The second longest is the war on poverty. We won the first. We haven't come close to winning the second. Those make a conflict like Iraq or Afghanistan (or both combined!) look puny. The war on drugs is an expensive failure, too.
Bush funded his stuff with Central banking, it is a two way street. 3% is not particularly low either. In the long-run I don't think spending has to keep up with GDP to be "larger". Paul Ryan's budget has no shot, and I'm talking about real (unadjusted for inflation) cuts not 500 billion in future cuts which is what you're (mostly) referring to. I think this is fantastic, I never denied that. My problem was he made it sound like Ron Paul was the Prez, the cuts aren't quite at that level. RP would also eliminate indirect Bush taxes.
$50B in real cuts from a ~$500B total budget is significant. It's real. And it's a shitload of money.
Yes it was a "real" cut for this year. I think I pointed that out a while ago. Nah, not for a Libertarian. For Ronald Reagan or someone like that, I imagine that would be a nice little cut.
I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul. I don't recall him ever saying he'd just slash military spending to get the cost down. He was much more realistic than that. What I do remember him saying is he could cut costs by bringing the troops home, but that he'd need acts of congress (not easy or fast to do) to gut spending to levels he'd like. I'm a fan of Brian, too. I would never call him a liar - he's anything but.
This isn't anything personal, so relax Den. I'm attacking the need for forced funding, by all means go try and save the world just not on my dollar. RP isn't the best Libertarian, and you're not entitled to my money whether it is the politically correct opinion or not. I don't care if it is "not easy" to do, I'm in the privatizing business and that's all. I'm a fan of Ron Paul a lot more than you like Brian, and I'll call RP a liar when I feel it is appropriate. RP is inconsistent on some positions and has affiliations with dubious people that are dangerous.
I'll quote Ron Paul directly: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/a...efense-cut-military-spending-to-strengthen-us My Plan to Restore America does not cut one penny of defense. But it helps make America more secure, and it brings our troops home to defend this country. Under my plan, America will retain the strongest national defense in the world, but we will end expensive foreign wars, overseas nation building, and foreign welfare. Under my presidency, the United States will still spend more money on defense than President Bush did in FY 2005. America will still spend four times more on defense than China and more than all the countries of Western Europe combined. We will continue to maintain our status as the most dominant military force on the planet, but we will do so with a much more sensible and sustainable foreign policy.
RP is also a conservative who wants to restrict who private property owners give jobs to. He's not to be put on a pedestal and there are reporters on Fox News who are more Libertarian, to put him in perspective. Yes there's a difference between "realistic budget" and "ideal budget", you don't seem to comprehend that subtlety. I can say things he can't because he's a populist.
You don't seem to comprehend the subtlety. No person can be elected president and get defense spending cut by a massive amount all at once.
Um no, I do understand I just said so.... I don't need to waste time making compromises, whereas politicians that want to remain in power have to acquiesce to the masses.
You could cut defense spending exponentially and still be lightyears ahead of anyone else in the world. We're going way, way, way above and beyond a reasonable figure to be comfortably confident that we're the most powerful military in the world. Seems absurd for a libertarian to promote spending on something that is an extreme luxury.
Defense is actually called for in the constitution. He's talking about cutting spending to below 2006 levels, FWIW.
Department of Education breaks their budget down to cost per student. Can we see DOD's cost per enemy combatent killed and cost per innocent bystander killed?
I can only assume that the founding fathers meant defense as in having the means to defend the nation. Not like today's "defense" which pays for the country to be in a constant state of war and occupation abroad.
Lets use Obamalogic. Think of all the US citizens whose lives were saved. Until the marathon IED, no attacks on US soil.
