2012 Election Thread (probably contains partisan bickering)

[Arthur Dent]

What in the world are you talking about?

There has been no devaluation in the dollar and the government is doing wonderfully financing the deficits, with investors begging to give it more cash. Who is being screwed by the deficit? The actual people screwed are those who must work for a living and can't find employment or must cling to the job they have regardless of conditions. Large scale job cuts just make that situation worse.

The deficit has zero to do with communism and everything to do with the terrible economy. The best path to a balanced budget would be policies that promote full employment.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

That's not a strawman at all. I think we all agree the military budget needs to be cut. But, you all are arguing we can't do it because then those employed by the inflated military budget will be unemployed. Okay, fine. But, what makes the military budget so special? I don't agree the government should continue to give too much money to the military just because it already does.

[Arthur Dent]

Nothing makes the military budget special. But job destruction right now would mean just that. If we agree that too much military spending is not a good use of resources, then that productive capacity should be directed to some less wasteful end.

[Arthur Dent]

It's also worthy pointing out that this whole discussion of Johnson is not really some great break from the major parties. Deficit hysteria followed by calls for massive cuts to federal spending but no new revenue is more or less the mainstream of the Republican party these days. It is symbolized by the Romney supported Ryan plan passed by the Republican controlled House.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Nothing makes the military budget special. But job destruction right now would mean just that. If we agree that too much military spending is not a good use of resources, then that productive capacity should be directed to some less wasteful end.

I agree it should be redirected, but that's the short term answer. For how long should the federal gov. continue to borrow money to pay for the productive capacity necessary to keeping workers employed, regardless of what sector it is?

[Socnorb11]

That's not a strawman at all. I think we all agree the military budget needs to be cut. But, you all are arguing we can't do it because then those employed by the inflated military budget will be unemployed. Okay, fine. But, what makes the military budget so special? I don't agree the government should continue to give too much money to the military just because it already does.

I don't think ANYBODY said that we can't make any cuts in the military budgets. I even agreed that reducing overseas military spending would probably be a good place to start.

We're simply saying that cutting spending by 43% is not a good policy......... and if that's what this guy is saying, then I don't want any part of him.

[Socnorb11]

Nothing makes the military budget special. But job destruction right now would mean just that. If we agree that too much military spending is not a good use of resources, then that productive capacity should be directed to some less wasteful end.

I agree it should be redirected, but that's the short term answer. For how long should the federal gov. continue to borrow money to pay for the productive capacity necessary to keeping workers employed, regardless of what sector it is?

These answers aren't probably what you're looking for, but cutting spending isn't the only way to reduce the deficit. That's not to say that you can't cut spending at all, but you probably need to supplement the spending cuts with tax hikes......... specifically for the rich folks.

[Schlich]

Nothing makes the military budget special. But job destruction right now would mean just that. If we agree that too much military spending is not a good use of resources, then that productive capacity should be directed to some less wasteful end.

I agree it should be redirected, but that's the short term answer. For how long should the federal gov. continue to borrow money to pay for the productive capacity necessary to keeping workers employed, regardless of what sector it is?

These answers aren't probably what you're looking for, but cutting spending isn't the only way to reduce the deficit. That's not to say that you can't cut spending at all, but you probably need to supplement the spending cuts with tax hikes......... specifically for the rich folks.

I admittedly know nothing about the economics of the Fair Tax, but wouldn't that address this?

[Arthur Dent]

No. Johnson explicitly states he wants the Fair Tax to be revenue neutral.

[pioneer98]

Quad Cities is a perfect example of the dilemma of using defense cuts to balance the budget.

The Rock Island Arsenal is the biggest employer in the area, with something like 8,000 employees. It was at 9,000 at its peak a few years ago. Maybe the Arsenal doesn't have to close entirely to get to a more reasonable level. But laying off, say, 4,000 of those employees would be devastating to the local economy. I don't know what the solution is. I am in favor of cutting defense and ending the war(s). But some kind of safety net for all these employees may be needed, too.

I don't think you can just flip a switch and lay all these people off at one time. Unwinding it slowly over a longer period of time would be a lot better. Start with early retirements, and then go down the line, laying off a couple hundred a year or something over a period of several years. That would give these people a much better chance to retrain and find a new job.