4.9% GDP Growth

[Tommy Callahan]

7 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

 

Come on man the Democrats have balanced the budget every time they have been in the White House and the Reps spend to oblivion...

Welp.  Current team blue doesn't even care.  And if they did, it would be by raising taxes not spending cuts 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Welp.  Current team blue doesn't even care.  And if they did, it would be by raising taxes not spending cuts 

 

 

Administration economists are adherents to MMT, modern monetary theory or what others call the magic money tree.   

[BillStime]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Administration economists are adherents to MMT, modern monetary theory or what others call the magic money tree.   

And your keepers promote trickle-down economics - a concept that aims to enrich the wealthy and corporations, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

 

Ie. Trump’s tax cut for the rich and corp

[Tommy Callahan]

Trickle down is a talking point for people that don't grasp macro or microeconomics.

 

But since you brought it up. wouldn't that be what all the left stimulus was?

 

 

The tax cuts hit every bracket and the corporate rate helped more than anything.

 

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

37 minutes ago, BillStime said:

And your keepers promote trickle-down economics - a concept that aims to enrich the wealthy and corporations, at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

 

Ie. Trump’s tax cut for the rich and corp

I'm no fan of the spending habits of either party or their roster of administrations that have contributed to the debt mess we're in today.  Its also hard sell to claim our federal income tax system that exempts the lower 50% of earners from paying any federal income tax hurts the poor.  The direct impact of most of these tax reduction acts is to substitute borrowing for tax receipts.

The biggest threat to our society isn't so much the debt and spending but rather events that are unfolding more quickly to challenge the the dollar standard system that allows extravagant borrowing and spending which enables the government and citizens to live a lifestyle well-beyond what is justified by our productivity. 

 

Can you imagine how much different the tone of the current debate in Congress would be if those pushing $100's of billions of aid for war efforts in Israel and Ukraine and financial assistance to migrants would be if they had to sell it to the taxpayers by telling the it will cost each of them several $1,000 out of their pockets in a special tax assessment to be executed immediately rather than borrowing the money in some out of sight treasury auction and added to our national tab?  

[BillStime]

27 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

$100's of billions of aid for war efforts i

So what’s the answer?

[Tommy Callahan]

59 minutes ago, BillStime said:

So what’s the answer?

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

 

 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

 

 

That’s cute but that’s not the reason why we call Conald a racist.

 

So you think letting Putin cakewalk thru Ukraine will stop him from moving further West; thus bringing US troops into a war? 

 

 

 

[Ted Striker]

On 12/29/2023 at 9:04 AM, Thurmal34 said:

Own a home in Essex county, Ma, work for a hospital based in Boston.

 

A hospital! What is it?

[BillStime]

On 12/29/2023 at 10:04 AM, Thurmal34 said:

Essex county, Ma

North Shore!

 

Rt 1 into the city?

 

 

[Capco]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:07 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

The US reaps far more in benefits from being the world hegemon than it costs to maintain it. 

As mentioned earlier, the position of the dollar as the world's reserve currency gives us an enormous advantage when it comes to borrowing money.  It's highly unlikely that this status would remain as such if we retreated from the world stage and our obligation as the primary pillar that supports the current post-WWII world order.  

That factor alone is probably enough to justify our role as world policeman.  

PS - I actually liked it when Trump called out our allies for not meeting their military spending requirements in accordance with our treaties.  Even if we are the primary beneficiaries, we aren't the only beneficiaries and we shouldn't be the only ones supporting the status quo.  

Edited December 30, 2023 by Capco

[BillStime]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:08 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Trickle down is a talking point for people that don't grasp macro or microeconomics.

You’re so cute. 
 

lmao

[Doc Brown]

On 12/29/2023 at 2:07 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Not being the world police and paying for others defense would be a start. but you know, you all called the orange dude racist and anti American for that.

Defense spending decreased under Obama and then increased under Trump.  He talked a good game but did nothing about it.  I agree with Capco that the cost required to maintain being able to be the world's policeman post WWII is well worth it.  The isolationists like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are just plain wrong imo.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

Defense spending decreased under Obama and then increased under Trump.  He talked a good game but did nothing about it.  I agree with Capco that the cost required to maintain being able to be the world's policeman post WWII is well worth it.  The isolationists like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are just plain wrong imo.

Probably so, but the reality likely is there are very powerful people getting very, very wealthy along the way.  

[BillStime]

27 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Probably so, but the reality likely is there are very powerful people getting very, very wealthy along the way.  

Besides to stay out of jail - why do you think Conald wants back in?

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:08 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Trickle down is a talking point for people that don't grasp macro or microeconomics.

 

But since you brought it up. wouldn't that be what all the left stimulus was?

 

 

The tax cuts hit every bracket and the corporate rate helped more than anything.

 

Trickle-down economics destroys the working class and shrinks the middle class. We have over four decades now of macroeconomics evidence that strongly suggests this to be true. All that tax money loosened from the government’s hands mostly gets diverted into other endeavors like stock buybacks and overseas investments, NOT domestic job creation.

 

5 hours ago, Capco said:

The US reaps far more in benefits from being the world hegemon than it costs to maintain it. 

As mentioned earlier, the position of the dollar as the world's reserve currency gives us an enormous advantage when it comes to borrowing money.  It's highly unlikely that this status would remain as such if we retreated from the world stage and our obligation as the primary pillar that supports the current post-WWII world order.  

That factor alone is probably enough to justify our role as world policeman.  

PS - I actually liked it when Trump called out our allies for not meeting their military spending requirements in accordance with our treaties.  Even if we are the primary beneficiaries, we aren't the only beneficiaries and we shouldn't be the only ones supporting the status quo.  

 

Respectfully, Capco, I don’t think this is true at all. You can still wield power (military, economic, political) on the international stage without also having to subsidize the military operations of other countries. You can still maintain a strong reserve currency without having to exploit labor and resources and governments abroad. You can do all this through diplomacy, by building a healthy domestic economy, and by maintaining a technologically superior military within one’s own borders.

 

There’s the ethical component of this conversation, of course, that should be self-evident. As just one example among SO MANY, I’ll raise the issue of current ethnic cleansing in Gaza that the United States essentially funds for the primacy of Middle East hegemony (via an Israeli client state).

 

But then there’s the matter of economic opportunity cost. International military subsidies would be better served in the broader hands of taxpayers than in those specifically of the military-industrial complex. Example: in the United States, medical debt is easily the number one cause of personal/family financial ruin. If we could actually use all that money to instead fund our own universal health care system (like the rest of the modern industrialized world does), we could free up so many Americans to become healthier participants in the economy…i.e. have much better GDP growth, which equates to greater economic power.

 

4 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Defense spending decreased under Obama and then increased under Trump.  He talked a good game but did nothing about it.  I agree with Capco that the cost required to maintain being able to be the world's policeman post WWII is well worth it.  The isolationists like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are just plain wrong imo.

 

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two distinct philosophies.

 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

Isolationism and non-interventionism are two distinct philosophies.

True for the most part although there is some overlap.  However, I never said they weren't.

[Capco]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

Respectfully, Capco, I don’t think this is true at all. You can still wield power (military, economic, political) on the international stage without also having to subsidize the military operations of other countries. You can still maintain a strong reserve currency without having to exploit labor and resources and governments abroad. You can do all this through diplomacy, by building a healthy domestic economy, and by maintaining a technologically superior military within one’s own borders.

There’s the ethical component of this conversation, of course, that should be self-evident. As just one example among SO MANY, I’ll raise the issue of current ethnic cleansing in Gaza that the United States essentially funds for the primacy of Middle East hegemony (via an Israeli client state).

 

But then there’s the matter of economic opportunity cost. International military subsidies would be better served in the broader hands of taxpayers than in those specifically of the military-industrial complex. Example: in the United States, medical debt is easily the number one cause of personal/family financial ruin. If we could actually use all that money to instead fund our own universal health care system (like the rest of the modern industrialized world does), we could free up so many Americans to become healthier participants in the economy…i.e. have much better GDP growth, which equates to greater economic power.

Tbh, I already had some of these exact things in mind when I wrote my other post.  But I was speaking in very broad terms on a global/macro scale.  

My belief that US hegemony is not only best for Americans but also best for the stability of the world does not mean I have no criticisms to levy against our foreign and domestic policy blunders. 

I'm all for reducing graft in the defense budget, and not starting unnecessary wars that hurt our standing and image abroad.  But I'm still all for maintaining the strongest military in the world by several orders of magnitude.  Both can be done and are not mutually exclusive.  I am a strong believer in what JFK once said, despite my belief that the Vietnam War was a mistake:  

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

Even with a corruption free military-industrial complex (lol), maintaining this kind of might is an expensive endeavor.  But in the long run it is far cheaper and more beneficial to be the biggest kid on the block for as long as we can do so while also lending a helping hand to our allies and not squandering our diplomatic capital on blunders like Iraq. 

It's also far cheaper in the long run to have universal healthcare than the sh!tshow we have now, which is why I support it.  There's more than enough money and human capital in this country to do all of this and more if we started correcting ourselves in the areas where we are off-course.  

The alternative to US hegemony is a power vacuum that is likely filled by our adversaries, or a situation where the balance of power becomes so unstable that regional wars become the norm again.  Our unquestioned primacy on the world stage requires the projection of power outside our borders, and is simply not something we should ever walk away from. 

I strongly, strongly believe it is cheaper and better for everyone in the long run.  Like you said, we have multiple forms of power we can project, both hard and soft, and I agree that we need to be more ethical and mindful of how we wield that power.

[Tommy Callahan]

13 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

Trickle-down economics destroys the working class and shrinks the middle class. We have over four decades now of macroeconomics evidence that strongly suggests this to be true. All that tax money loosened from the government’s hands mostly gets diverted into other endeavors like stock buybacks and overseas investments, NOT domestic job creation

No argument.  That's what state supply side does. Think trillion dollar stimulus directly to the top quintiles.  Nothing but artificial bubbles. But when people actually have disposable money to spend (true supply side) then at least the economy is natural.  

Edited December 31, 2023 by Tommy Callahan

[Capco]

8 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

No argument.  That's what state supply side does. Think trillion dollar stimulus directly to the top quintiles.  Nothing but artificial bubbles. But when people actually have disposable money to spend (true supply side) then at least the economy is natural.  

Exactly!

[Thurmal34]

On 12/30/2023 at 4:24 PM, BillStime said:

North Shore!

 

Rt 1 into the city?

 

 

Hell yeah! Kowloon?

17 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

No argument.  That's what state supply side does. Think trillion dollar stimulus directly to the top quintiles.  Nothing but artificial bubbles. But when people actually have disposable money to spend (true supply side) then at least the economy is natural.  

Can you imagine yelling about capitalism and communism and then demanding the government make the economy better?

 

sorry bro

[Tommy Callahan]

3 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

Hell yeah! Kowloon?

Can you imagine yelling about capitalism and communism and then demanding the government make the economy better?

 

sorry bro

Compression is key.  I just articulated where people get to keep the money they worked for is not artificial vs state spending 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Lol

 

[BillStime]

5 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

Kowloon

I have never been… lol

 

One of these days.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 12/30/2023 at 11:56 PM, Doc Brown said:

True for the most part although there is some overlap.  However, I never said they weren't.

 

Fair enough. I just get defensive with any insinuation that progressives are isolationists. I’ll skip all the vague philosophical definitions or analyses of individual politicians and jump right to two contemporary case studies:

 

1. Ukraine: Standard progressive policy is that Ukraine should be supported with military aid, but only with explicit diplomatic conditions that help steer the region toward actual long-term peace. The “conditional” aid requirement is an acknowledgment that Ukraine was a clear victim of an aggressor (Russia), but at the same time a sensitivity to the various NATO provocations over the years which contributed to the aggression.

 

2. Palestine: Similarly, standard progressive policy here is that any aid given to Israel that rightfully helps the country defend itself from Hamas terrorism should be conditional. In this instance, the conditions are that Israel immediately halt its war crimes against Gazans and work honestly toward a one-state or two-state solution with the Palestinians.

 

Do you still visit BillsFans.com, Doc Brown? They have an open politics subforum now, though at the moment it seems to only be populated with a small handful of far-righties.

 

On 12/31/2023 at 12:05 AM, Capco said:

Tbh, I already had some of these exact things in mind when I wrote my other post.  But I was speaking in very broad terms on a global/macro scale.  

My belief that US hegemony is not only best for Americans but also best for the stability of the world does not mean I have no criticisms to levy against our foreign and domestic policy blunders. 

I'm all for reducing graft in the defense budget, and not starting unnecessary wars that hurt our standing and image abroad.  But I'm still all for maintaining the strongest military in the world by several orders of magnitude.  Both can be done and are not mutually exclusive.  I am a strong believer in what JFK once said, despite my belief that the Vietnam War was a mistake:  

Only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

Even with a corruption free military-industrial complex (lol), maintaining this kind of might is an expensive endeavor.  But in the long run it is far cheaper and more beneficial to be the biggest kid on the block for as long as we can do so while also lending a helping hand to our allies and not squandering our diplomatic capital on blunders like Iraq. 

It's also far cheaper in the long run to have universal healthcare than the sh!tshow we have now, which is why I support it.  There's more than enough money and human capital in this country to do all of this and more if we started correcting ourselves in the areas where we are off-course.  

The alternative to US hegemony is a power vacuum that is likely filled by our adversaries, or a situation where the balance of power becomes so unstable that regional wars become the norm again.  Our unquestioned primacy on the world stage requires the projection of power outside our borders, and is simply not something we should ever walk away from. 

I strongly, strongly believe it is cheaper and better for everyone in the long run.  Like you said, we have multiple forms of power we can project, both hard and soft, and I agree that we need to be more ethical and mindful of how we wield that power.

 

We agree on a lot here, Capco, but Mademoiselle Adams is not long for anodyne conversation when it comes to American foreign policy…

 

First, we need to recognize that the United States functions as a corporate oligarchy and not as a vibrant republic responsive to the interests of its citizens. It follows that our country’s foreign policy reflects the economic interests of an elite few and has very little to do with any greater good. Moreover, the American citizenry has slowly become conditioned to adopt a “might makes right” sense of international ethics for mostly selfish reasons, while ignoring any Golden Rule violations. More than anything, I blame the Fourth Estate…and that includes BOTH sides…Fox News or MSNBC…all the same propaganda wing of the neoliberal corporate oligarchy.

 

I agree that the United States should strive for having the unquestionably strongest military in the world. But what defense budget size is enough to meet this objective? I’ve seen legitimate arguments in favor of an annual budget reduction of FIFTY PERCENT. As taxpayers, we need to ask ourselves whether the focus still remains on national defense or whether it is now on lining the coffers for the corporate oligarchs of the military-industrial complex.

 

I also agree with you that the world is better off with the United States as the dominant superpower…compared to a Russia, a China, a former Soviet Union, any autocracy, or any fundamentalist theocracy. However, I would argue that a number of Western democracies of relative equal strength would have been the much preferred power dynamic since the end of World War 2. There have been way too many regime-change wars, organized coups, and draconian sanctions on America’s lone eight-decade watch to the point that very few international people (especially in Latin America and the Middle East) still see the United States as any sort of shining beacon of moral integrity. We casually override the will of sovereign nations and invade, kill, interfere, and manipulate for the economic gain of the corporate oligarchy.

 

23 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

No argument.  That's what state supply side does. Think trillion dollar stimulus directly to the top quintiles.  Nothing but artificial bubbles. But when people actually have disposable money to spend (true supply side) then at least the economy is natural.  

 

Yup, and a key reason why Americans don’t have enough disposable money is because they are bogged down in debt: specifically educational debt, housing debt, and medical debt. The prices of these three critical goods/services have wildly outpaced wage growth since the Stagflation Era of the 1970’s. Too much money saved by Americans is funneled right to these very specific economic markets and not to the rest of the economy, which is highly suboptimal in terms of macroeconomic growth.

 

So the question is: how do we jumpstart the economy and move it toward a way more optimal state? Some economic situations call for supply-side solutions and some call for demand-side ones. Macroeconomics is super complex, so much so that optimization solutions are best determined by data trends instead of by theory. I think the macroeconomics literature shows pretty firmly that government-initiated demand-side solutions would be far more preferable to our current economic malaise.

 

And to be clear: I am NOT opposed to cutting taxes, streamlining government expenditures, eliminating frivolous regulations, expanding free trade policies, and the like. It’s just a matter of which government expenses/interventions are considered important and which are counterproductive to macroeconomic growth. The devil is in the details, as they say!

 

[sherpa]

35 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

2. Palestine: Similarly, standard progressive policy here is that any aid given to Israel that rightfully helps the country defend itself from Hamas terrorism should be conditional. In this instance, the conditions are that Israel immediately halt its war crimes against Gazans and work honestly toward a one-state or two-state solution with the Palestinians.

 

I agree that the United States should strive for having the unquestionably strongest military in the world. But what defense budget size is enough to meet this objective? I’ve seen legitimate arguments in favor of an annual budget reduction of FIFTY PERCENT. 

 

However, I would argue that a number of Western democracies of relative equal strength would have been the much preferred power dynamic since the end of World War 2. 

 

So the question is: how do we jumpstart the economy and move it toward a way more optimal state? 

 

 

A few comments on where I think this is unrealistic.

 

First, the discussion of a two state solution is currently without reality.

If one state is Israel, who is the other?

Simply stated there is nobody on that side for Israel to negotiate such an agreement.

There is Hamas, who is beyond barbarism and intent on not only destroying Israel but every Jew on earth, and the Palestinian Authority which is, yet another, Iranian puppet with no desire for coexistence.

Ergo.....There is nobody to negotiate with.

 

Second....The defense budget.

A 50% reduction is absurd.

Beyond that, if there is a desire to reduce the defense budget, it has to start with the mission and goals the US imposes on its military, which is currently to be able to fight and win a two front war on either side of the world at the same time.

Want to cut the budget? Change the requirements.

 

Late edit. Regarding the desire of including a number of "relatively equal strength wester democracies" isn't realistic. There were none with the military capability or desire at the end of WWII, and there absolutely isn't any now. The UK is probably the closest, and they aren't close and about to get un-closer.  Canada, France, Germany and a host of others are not in good enough shape to shoulder any of that burden at this time.

 

As well, the more one understands how the defense budget is as much a jobs program and technology accelerator, the more one understands Congressional desire to keep it so.

Dividing it up to their liking with funds to their jurisdictions is what Congress does. 

 

About "jumpstarting the economy," it doesn't need to be jumpstarted.

Passing legislation that anchors it is one of the big problems, as well as constantly changing policy and tax law after every election is a gross waste of potential.

An alliance with US businesses, which are the strength of this country, (certainly not our politicians), is the way to go.

Edited January 1 by sherpa

[Capco]

5 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

First, we need to recognize that the United States functions as a corporate oligarchy and not as a vibrant republic responsive to the interests of its citizens. It follows that our country’s foreign policy reflects the economic interests of an elite few and has very little to do with any greater good.

The analogy that comes to mind is a simple one.

Consider cleaning one's home.  The very moment we are "finished" with the cleaning, the place immediately starts getting dirty again.  The fact is one is never truly "finished" cleaning because it is a never-ending task.

When it comes to our country and our democracy, the same idea holds true. 

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

While I am progressive in most areas, I also realize that perfection is unattainable.  You can clean up all of the graft and bloat and corruption in the military-industrial complex, but the very mechanisms that initially created it will immediately start working in the opposite direction.  

Does that mean we should just throw up our hands and give up?  Of course not.  We should constantly be working towards a more perfect union.  

But unfortunately there are tradeoffs with everything, including striving for progressive ideals.  Here's another analogy from my chemical engineering days that will help explain what I mean by that; it is somewhat similar to the law of diminishing returns.  

Distillation is the separation of two compounds based on differences in boiling points.  In the distillation of ethanol (alcohol), ethanol is boiled off from an ethanol-water solution by keeping the boiling point of the system above ethanol's BP but below water's BP.  However, mixtures of ethanol and water form an azeotrope at just under 90% purity.  You can distill that 90% solution again and hit just under 99% purity, and again to hit 99.9%.  But you can never get 100% purity. 

Each distillation costs roughly the same to perform, but the effect of the cost diminishes by 90% each time.  At some point, it becomes silly to go for 99.999999999%, especially since you will never, ever get to 100% no matter how many times you do it.

I'm cool with a "90% democracy", if that makes sense, because I realize the tradeoffs of going further than that.  

[Doc Brown]

12 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Fair enough. I just get defensive with any insinuation that progressives are isolationists. I’ll skip all the vague philosophical definitions or analyses of individual politicians and jump right to two contemporary case studies:

 

Do you still visit BillsFans.com, Doc Brown? They have an open politics subforum now, though at the moment it seems to only be populated with a small handful of far-righties.

 

No.  They're a little too out there for my taste and there all like minded anyways.  It's my opinion that progressives are well meaning but naive when it comes to domestic and foreign policy in general.  I appreciate your take on Ukraine and Palestine.  As far as Palestine/Israel goes, I think as long as Hamas is in power you just can't negotiate with them as they don't want a one or two-state solution.

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 1/1/2024 at 11:27 AM, sherpa said:

A few comments on where I think this is unrealistic.

 

First, the discussion of a two state solution is currently without reality.

If one state is Israel, who is the other?

Simply stated there is nobody on that side for Israel to negotiate such an agreement.

There is Hamas, who is beyond barbarism and intent on not only destroying Israel but every Jew on earth, and the Palestinian Authority which is, yet another, Iranian puppet with no desire for coexistence.

Ergo.....There is nobody to negotiate with.

 

Second....The defense budget.

A 50% reduction is absurd.

Beyond that, if there is a desire to reduce the defense budget, it has to start with the mission and goals the US imposes on its military, which is currently to be able to fight and win a two front war on either side of the world at the same time.

Want to cut the budget? Change the requirements.

 

Late edit. Regarding the desire of including a number of "relatively equal strength wester democracies" isn't realistic. There were none with the military capability or desire at the end of WWII, and there absolutely isn't any now. The UK is probably the closest, and they aren't close and about to get un-closer.  Canada, France, Germany and a host of others are not in good enough shape to shoulder any of that burden at this time.

 

As well, the more one understands how the defense budget is as much a jobs program and technology accelerator, the more one understands Congressional desire to keep it so.

Dividing it up to their liking with funds to their jurisdictions is what Congress does. 

 

About "jumpstarting the economy," it doesn't need to be jumpstarted.

Passing legislation that anchors it is one of the big problems, as well as constantly changing policy and tax law after every election is a gross waste of potential.

An alliance with US businesses, which are the strength of this country, (certainly not our politicians), is the way to go.

 

1. Israel: Well…a two-state solution has been rendered impractical because of the continuous encroachments of Jewish Israeli settlers onto Palestinian lands. Let’s also not pretend as if Israel itself has been an honest, faithful negotiator during this entire time, dating back to 1967…and especially since the Second Intifada and its citizens’ swing toward far-right government leaders thereafter. Let’s also not forget Israel’s own culpability for barbarism, dating back to the 1948 Nakba.

 

2. Defense budget: The 50% reduction arguments are what I’ve seen others propose. I’m personally more in favor of 25-33% reductions, which would still leave the United States spending annually about twice as much as China. Warfare in the post-Cold War era is predominantly driven by advanced technology and not by manpower. The U.S. can still meet a mission objective of fighting a two-front war on opposite sides of the globe while closing down a bunch of extraneous military based abroad, putting most of the manpower on reserve/standby, and allocating much of the military expenditures as wartime/emergency deficit spending.

 

3. Post-WW2 power structures: I was merely describing what would be and what would have been preferable to having the United States as the lone democratic superpower. I don’t disagree with your historical explanation, though I do think there are ways today in which the U.S. can get other countries to shoulder more of the global military responsibilities.

 

4. Jumpstarting economies: You appear to be acknowledging that defense budget expenditures create jobs and accelerate technological growth. A classic precept of Keynesian economics is that government has the ability to redirect taxpayer investments and spending in ways that can grow the economy better than what the individual taxpayers might do under a laissez-faire system (especially during recessions).

 

On 1/2/2024 at 12:00 AM, Doc Brown said:

No.  They're a little too out there for my taste and there all like minded anyways.  It's my opinion that progressives are well meaning but naive when it comes to domestic and foreign policy in general.  I appreciate your take on Ukraine and Palestine.  As far as Palestine/Israel goes, I think as long as Hamas is in power you just can't negotiate with them as they don't want a one or two-state solution.

 

Regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict:

 

I don’t see how pushing hard for a one-state solution is any more naive than thinking Israel can somehow defeat Hamas long-term with three months (and counting) of incredibly disproportionate bombing…bombing that has led to 30 thousand (and counting) murders, a 65-90% civilian casualty percentage (low-end reported from IDF…high-end reported from Euro-Med HRM), over 10 thousand (and counting) Gazan children who weren’t even alive during the last time Hamas was elected, 60 thousand (and counting) documented injuries of significance, and over 2 million displaced Gazans.

 

Without a doubt, the ethnic cleansing of Gaza is going to foment greater regional hatred toward Israel and inspire new legions of Hamas-like terrorists…multiple times over. It has already done significant damage to Israel’s economy and international reputation. Their response to 10/7 is looking uncomfortably analogous to our own country’s stupid response to 9/11. Everyone labeled progressives as naive and unpatriotic during the early days of the tragically misguided “War on Terror,” just like they’re calling progressives naive and anti-Semitic now.

 

I’m a professional engineer, so I like practical solutions. In the absence of any semblance of pragmatism, however, the correct choice WITHOUT HESITATION should be the most ethical one.

[Tommy Callahan]

Can't eat gdp.  It's like all the bubbles are crumbling at once. Once the tipping point.  Look out 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Like clockwork 

[Precision]

Link to today's BLS report.

Bureau of Labor Statistics - December 2023

 

Another month where the largest gains were in government employment followed by leisure and hospitality.

 

Government employment increased by 52,000 in December. Employment continued to trend up in local government (+37,000) and federal government (+7,000). Government added an average of 56,000 jobs per month in 2023, more than double the average monthly gain of 23,000 in 2022.

 

In December, health care added 38,000 jobs. Employment continued to trend up in ambulatory health care services (+19,000) and hospitals (+15,000). Job growth in health care averaged 55,000 per month in 2023, compared with the 2022 average monthly gain of 46,000.

 

Employment in social assistance rose by 21,000 in December, mostly in individual and family services (+17,000). Social assistance employment rose by an average of 22,000 per month in 2023, little different than the average increase of 19,000 per month in 2022.

 

In December, construction employment continued to trend up (+17,000). Employment in nonresidential building construction increased by 8,000. Construction added an average of 16,000 jobs per month in 2023, little different than the 2022 average monthly gain of 22,000.

 

Employment in transportation and warehousing declined by 23,000 in December. Couriers and messengers lost 32,000 jobs, while air transportation added 4,000 jobs. Since reaching a peak in October 2022, employment in transportation and warehousing has decreased by 100,000.

 

Employment in leisure and hospitality changed little in December (+40,000). The industry added an average of 39,000 jobs per month in 2023, less than half the average gain of 88,000 jobs per month in 2022. Employment in the industry is below its pre-pandemic February 2020 level by 163,000, or 1.0 percent.

 

Retail trade employment changed little in December (+17,000). Over the month, employment increased in warehouse clubs, supercenters, and other general merchandise retailers (+14,000); building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers (+8,000); and automotive parts, accessories, and tire retailers (+4,000). These job gains were partially offset by a job loss in department stores (-13,000).  Retail trade employment has shown little change, on net, since recovering in early 2022 from pandemic-related losses.

 

In December, employment in professional and business services changed little (+13,000).

 

Employment in professional, scientific, and technical services continued to trend up (+25,000); this industry added an average of 22,000 jobs per month in 2023, about half the average monthly gain of 41,000 in 2022.

 

In December, employment in temporary help services continued its downward trend (-33,000) and has fallen by 346,000 since reaching a peak in March 2022.

 

Overall, employment in professional and business services changed little in 2023. Employment showed little change over the month in other major industries, including mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; information; financial activities; and other services.

 

 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Precision said:

Link to today's BLS report.

Bureau of Labor Statistics - December 2023

 

Another month where the largest gains were in government employment followed by leisure and hospitality.

 

Government employment increased by 52,000 in December. Employment continued to trend up in local government (+37,000) and federal government (+7,000). Government added an average of 56,000 jobs per month in 2023, more than double the average monthly gain of 23,000 in 2022.

 

In December, health care added 38,000 jobs. Employment continued to trend up in ambulatory health care services (+19,000) and hospitals (+15,000). Job growth in health care averaged 55,000 per month in 2023, compared with the 2022 average monthly gain of 46,000.

 

Employment in social assistance rose by 21,000 in December, mostly in individual and family services (+17,000). Social assistance employment rose by an average of 22,000 per month in 2023, little different than the average increase of 19,000 per month in 2022.

 

In December, construction employment continued to trend up (+17,000). Employment in nonresidential building construction increased by 8,000. Construction added an average of 16,000 jobs per month in 2023, little different than the 2022 average monthly gain of 22,000.

 

Employment in transportation and warehousing declined by 23,000 in December. Couriers and messengers lost 32,000 jobs, while air transportation added 4,000 jobs. Since reaching a peak in October 2022, employment in transportation and warehousing has decreased by 100,000.

 

Employment in leisure and hospitality changed little in December (+40,000). The industry added an average of 39,000 jobs per month in 2023, less than half the average gain of 88,000 jobs per month in 2022. Employment in the industry is below its pre-pandemic February 2020 level by 163,000, or 1.0 percent.

 

Retail trade employment changed little in December (+17,000). Over the month, employment increased in warehouse clubs, supercenters, and other general merchandise retailers (+14,000); building material and garden equipment and supplies dealers (+8,000); and automotive parts, accessories, and tire retailers (+4,000). These job gains were partially offset by a job loss in department stores (-13,000).  Retail trade employment has shown little change, on net, since recovering in early 2022 from pandemic-related losses.

 

In December, employment in professional and business services changed little (+13,000).

 

Employment in professional, scientific, and technical services continued to trend up (+25,000); this industry added an average of 22,000 jobs per month in 2023, about half the average monthly gain of 41,000 in 2022.

 

In December, employment in temporary help services continued its downward trend (-33,000) and has fallen by 346,000 since reaching a peak in March 2022.

 

Overall, employment in professional and business services changed little in 2023. Employment showed little change over the month in other major industries, including mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; information; financial activities; and other services.

 

 

When the economy is healthy, state and local governments can hire more. 

[Precision]

25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

When the economy is healthy, state and local governments can hire more. 

The economy is not healthy as much of the growth has been fueled by unsustainable deficit spending.  The hiring of government workers is increasing yearly deficits and the record national debt. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Precision said:

The economy is not healthy as much of the growth has been fueled by unsustainable deficit spending.  The hiring of government workers is increasing yearly deficits and the record national debt. 

 

 

Blah blah blah, cry baby 

[Tommy Callahan]

Amazing 

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Will this help gdp?

 

 

[sherpa]

7 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

1. Israel: Well…a two-state solution has been rendered impractical because of the continuous encroachments of Jewish Israeli settlers onto Palestinian lands. Let’s also not pretend as if Israel itself has been an honest, faithful negotiator during this entire time, dating back to 1967…and especially since the Second Intifada and its citizens’ swing toward far-right government leaders thereafter. Let’s also not forget Israel’s own culpability for barbarism, dating back to the 1948 Nakba.

 

2. Defense budget: The 50% reduction arguments are what I’ve seen others propose. I’m personally more in favor of 25-33% reductions, which would still leave the United States spending annually about twice as much as China. Warfare in the post-Cold War era is predominantly driven by advanced technology and not by manpower. The U.S. can still meet a mission objective of fighting a two-front war on opposite sides of the globe while closing down a bunch of extraneous military based abroad, putting most of the manpower on reserve/standby, and allocating much of the military expenditures as wartime/emergency deficit spending.

 

3. Post-WW2 power structures: I was merely describing what would be and what would have been preferable to having the United States as the lone democratic superpower. I don’t disagree with your historical explanation, though I do think there are ways today in which the U.S. can get other countries to shoulder more of the global military responsibilities.

 

4. Jumpstarting economies: You appear to be acknowledging that defense budget expenditures create jobs and accelerate technological growth. A classic precept of Keynesian economics is that government has the ability to redirect taxpayer investments and spending in ways that can grow the economy better than what the individual taxpayers might do under a laissez-faire system (especially during recessions).

 

 

I don't agree, which is fine.

My views are in my original post, and have not changed.

 

One thing worth mentioning though.

I think your expressed views on the military budget are grossly unrealistic.

One of the things I've noticed about this forum is that there seems to very few people who actually understand what the US military is tasked with, and what that costs.

Those items relate to ability to early detect, respond quickly, minimize loss of life, ultimately win and provide superior search and rescue in hostile areas, along with massive transport capability, air to air refueling capability, and a host of other things that are rarely considered by folks who aren't familiar with this stuff.

 

If the desire is to decrease the defense budget, those capabilities must be diminished, or in some cases, disregarded.

That is the reality.

 

[Tommy Callahan]