The USA Budget

clark · 2004-07-29 10:41:29

That's assuming there is an '08. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 10:41:36

Besides Bush '04 means Hillary '08. Cool!

:sleep: Oh yeah, there's a winner...

But that's a fight for another time.

Let's look at funding those imaginary 40,000 troops. We have about 10,000 nuclear weapons, right? Let's cut that arsenal down to say...just enough to destroy the entire world once. What would that leave us with -- 1,000? That's still plenty of offensive power, but now we have saved some money to pay for those 40,000 GIs. And as a side benefit we got some of the more moderate Anti-nuke people to vote for us.

Decommissioning that many nukes is expensive. The tangible benifits won't be much. Unless we just stack 'em someplace and let 'em rot.

Or we could build an Orion.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 10:50:23

The road to global dominance must run through Moscow and Paris and Beijing. I do not believe America can win that conflict.

If you cannot win a race, don't enter.

Interesting link:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0430 … mondo6.php

clark · 2004-07-29 11:59:54

Musings...

So you're a bad guy, with bad intents, and you have access to a weapon that is hard to come by. What might you do with it to effect the maximum advantage?

Lots of possibilities, but perhaps you might use it to intimidate those who might be intimadated...

America? Well, we just get belligerent and invade more countries. We get attacked, we are now justified in our actions. We feel threatened, and we are willing to sacrifice ourselves because it's our choice.

But what if our choice involved sacrificing another who had no choice in the matter, but was threatened.

Take the case of an individual who threatens you with violence. Just you. Well, you evaluate the situation, and how you react is ultimetly your choice, your responsibility. The consquences fall upon you.

Now, say an individual threatens your neighbor. If you act, your neighbor suffers the consquences. What then?

How about an attack on a wavering ally, or the threat of continued attacks, if the wavering ally does not sever ties with the US? Any action taken by the US will result in a WMD of some sort on the ally. How does "go it alone" help here? If we act alone, then someone else suffers, and we make no friends (because we end up blamed for causing it). If we don't act, then we have been intimadated, and we lose.

So what if the terroists don't strike US soil prior to the election, but an ally? With a threat that more US allies will suffer if certain people are elected? Wouldn't that influence our elections, and influence how people around the world feel about the US in particular?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 13:03:01

The road to global dominance must run through Moscow and Paris and Beijing. I do not believe America can win that conflict.

Well, maybe Moscow and Beijing anyway.

If you cannot win a race, don't enter.

That's just it, there are different definitions of "win." I would argue that supplanting the culture of a significant part of the world with our own but losing direct military and political control is a win. In comparison with its enemies and in a sense deeper than political dominance, Rome won. The British Empire won. We can win too, if we choose to undertake that course. We think of these matters in terms of governments, but cultures are far more influential, and they can be changed with time and concerted effort.

How about an attack on a wavering ally, or the threat of continued attacks, if the wavering ally does not sever ties with the US? Any action taken by the US will result in a WMD of some sort on the ally. How does "go it alone" help here? If we act alone, then someone else suffers, and we make no friends (because we end up blamed for causing it). If we don't act, then we have been intimadated, and we lose.

And there we are. It's a shitty situation, but if we do nothing in the face of a threat we lose and encourage more of the same. As for going alone, it's not entirely our choice. If we ask for help and everyone else is too scared to stand up, they've made their choice. Force cannot be defeated through capitulation. Someone has to stand up and deal with it, even if some others would rather wait it out because they aren't the prime target.

I don't blame those who bolted. I don't blame Spain, or the Phillipines etc. But I don't feel obligated to them either. We can only decide what we do, everyone else has to make their own call and accept the consequences. If they're with us, we'll do what we can to help. If they'd rather not get involved, they can go their own way and hope for the best. Any carnage that ensues is solely the fault of the terrorists carrying it out.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 13:59:00

That's just it, there are different definitions of "win." I would argue that supplanting the culture of a significant part of the world with our own but losing direct military and political control is a win.

Our media is how we do this, not our soldiers.

In comparison with its enemies and in a sense deeper than political dominance, Rome won.

No, the Christian Church won by co-opting the Roman Empire.

The British Empire won. We can win too, if we choose to undertake that course.

We and Australia and Canada are the end-game of the British Empire. Whether we "win" determines whether the British Empire wins as you say.

Export English common law & the English language to Mars and I will agree with you.

We think of these matters in terms of governments, but cultures are far more influential, and they can be changed with time and concerted effort.

I agree with this sentence completely and its because I do that I am convinced GWB is screwing everything up to such an astonishing extent.

We want the world to imitate us, not fear us. Have them copy us but think it was all their idea all along.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 14:42:03

Quote
That's just it, there are different definitions of "win." I would argue that supplanting the culture of a significant part of the world with our own but losing direct military and political control is a win.

Our media is how we do this, not our soldiers.

It is part of the equation, but sometimes more is needed. Occasionally competing ideas, competing voices need to be removed.

That sounds a bit ominous, but there it is.

Quote
In comparison with its enemies and in a sense deeper than political dominance, Rome won.

No, the Christian Church won by co-opting the Roman Empire.

The Christian Church (as opposed to the Christian religion) is largely a product of the Roman Empire. Christianity was co-opted as much by the Empire as vice-versa. Christianity as we know it owes as much to Caesar as to Christ, though in less overt ways.

Quote
The British Empire won. We can win too, if we choose to undertake that course.

We and Australia and Canada are the end-game of the British Empire. Whether we "win" determines whether the British Empire wins as you say.
Export English common law & the English language to Mars and I will agree with you.

Then the British Empire has won thus far. The race never really ends, no transcendent being hands out gold stars for best civilization.

That said, on to Mars, expanding dominance and better odds.

Quote
We think of these matters in terms of governments, but cultures are far more influential, and they can be changed with time and concerted effort.

I agree with this sentence completely and its because I do that I am convinced GWB is screwing everything up to such an astonishing extent.
We want the world to imitate us, not fear us. Have them copy us but think it was all their idea all along.

In a better world, yes. Unfortunately, some skull-crackin' is required to get things moving. The harm that will come from storming into Iraq is being vastly overplayed by people that assume objections at the height of the storm will remain. In a few years Iraq will stabilize, most Iraqis will accept that they're better off and most of the world's animosity towards America over that action will evaporate.

clark · 2004-07-29 14:44:32

Christianity as we know it owes as much to Caesar as to Christ, though in less overt ways.

Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's... :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-07-29 14:47:27

Cobra, to do as you say may well destroy that we which to spread.

For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. Federalist #1

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-29 15:01:03

Cobra, to do as you say may well destroy that we which to spread.
Quote
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. Federalist #1

As stated previously, we as a people haven't the stomach for the sort of prolonged and largely unprovoked action it would require, so it's largely a moot point. But an interesting bit of philosophising if nothing else.

Easier just to take Mars for ourselves and jealously guard it from intruders.

Though as an aside, heresies die with the heretics if you get them all.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 15:12:15

Though as an aside, heresies die with the heretics if you get them all.

Not in the age of the internet and digital storage media.

Euler · 2004-07-29 19:26:29

It is part of the equation, but sometimes more is needed. Occasionally competing ideas, competing voices need to be removed.
That sounds a bit ominous, but there it is.

Isn't freedom of speach one of the values that we are trying to spread? If we go about this with a do as we say, not as we do approach, it won't work.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 21:38:27

You can't command respect unless you are willing to give respect. Being the baddest motha' in the valley will get you feared but not respected.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-29 21:51:31

To hide the strings?

Does it matter if it is republican or democrat as leader but the point is the leadership now isn't that great and economics are not great. Indeed there are some who say its the saudi royals who are holding the dollar to ransom and the mega corps within the US who pull the strings, before it was the USA that used to put great inventions out, lead the world economy, and launch satellites for other nations. But now the employment is getting shipped to other areas and China is launching stuff for the EU now, the ESA is very small but the euro zone has become stronger taking in an extra goups of nations which makes it 25 and creates a new economic super power with the euro now an alternative to the dollar for investors, the dollar has also been shakey and uncertain. Many electronics, manufacturing and techincal types of jobs are going over to China while the Chinese try to focus on education for their people. The president's plan for the budget year, which proposes spending $2.4 trillion for all government activities, up 3.5 percent from the current year. Revenues will total $2.04 trillion, a sizable 13.2 percent increase that the administration forecasts will occur from growing tax receipts The estimated population of the United States is 294,033,049 so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,281.66. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.58 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!
President Bush sent Congress a $2.4 trillion election-year budget on featuring big increases for defense and homeland security but also a record $521 billion deficit.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0128/csmi … g/p12b.gif
To battle the soaring deficits, Mr. Bush proposed squeezing scores of government programs and sought outright spending cuts in seven of 15 Cabinet-level agencies. The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions, and NASA got slahed recently. I think it was a terrible shame to see those cuts to NASA on the aniversary of the Apollo landings, I think it was a terrible insult. NASA has done some incredible things that the US should be proud of it is a shame to turn away from science and exploartion and it would be good if the economics were better.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-30 05:34:38

Isn't freedom of speach one of the values that we are trying to spread? If we go about this with a do as we say, not as we do approach, it won't work.

Absolutely. Unfortunately we are generally locked into thinking of it as a political or legal value and accepting that as enough. We cannot effectively graft such a concept into a society if its culture runs counter to it. That's what we're missing in our current efforts, focusing too much on changing political systems while giving only fleeting attention to cultural foundations. The two are separate but related factors, without a firm cultural base in which to grow a representative 'democracy' cannot endure. Cultural engineering takes more time than we seem willing to invest, dooming any attempt at long-term solutions.

Lots of little wars in an endless stream of futility.

So I'm not referring to individual dissident factions, but underlying cultural perceptions. Some have to be cultivated while others are removed, in some cases through the use of force though less overt methods are preferable.

We don't need to eradicate the 'heresy,' only reduce it to an insignificant minority.

You can't command respect unless you are willing to give respect. Being the baddest motha' in the valley will get you feared but not respected.

Respect is only part of the equation. Fear is important, the thing you fall back on when all else fails, the undercurrent that drives others to remain respectful and temper their actions.

To battle the soaring deficits, Mr. Bush proposed squeezing scores of government programs and sought outright spending cuts in seven of 15 Cabinet-level agencies. The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions, and NASA got slahed recently.

Spending cuts are exactly what we need. We have enough pork, fraud and waste in the Federal government to cut huge amounts of spending without any significant adverse effects.

Speaking from a fairly conservative standpoint, of course.

Dept. of Agriculture should be cut back, among others. There are even a few cabinet level agencies we could do away with altogether. Whenever deficits rise there's a reflex to blame the Pentagon, but there's alot of other mouths at the trough, many of whom have a much harder time justifying their take.

BWhite · 2004-07-30 08:11:02

Isn't freedom of speach one of the values that we are trying to spread? If we go about this with a do as we say, not as we do approach, it won't work.
Absolutely. Unfortunately we are generally locked into thinking of it as a political or legal value and accepting that as enough. We cannot effectively graft such a concept into a society if its culture runs counter to it. That's what we're missing in our current efforts, focusing too much on changing political systems while giving only fleeting attention to cultural foundations. The two are separate but related factors, without a firm cultural base in which to grow a representative 'democracy' cannot endure. Cultural engineering takes more time than we seem willing to invest, dooming any attempt at long-term solutions.

The abundant supply of suicide bombers seems to suggest many in the Islamic world do believe the West seeks to eradicate their culture.

In any event, for any Administration to undertake such a course of action without consensus within our own population is a profound corruption of American institutions.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-30 08:45:18

The abundant supply of suicide bombers seems to suggest many in the Islamic world do believe the West seeks to eradicate their culture.

In which case we have little to lose by actually attempting it. Smoothly, in a way that entices converts. Ways that don't directly smash the native culture but weave into the new and suppress its less desirable traits. A sort of "Japan option."

In any event, for any Administration to undertake such a course of action without consensus within our own population is a profound corruption of American institutions.

It most certainly would be, but now we're kinda worrying about smoke detectors when the house is already on fire. And both sides of the aisle are throwing their share of matches.

So on with the little isolated short-term goal wars. Ever on and on...

BWhite · 2004-07-30 09:05:05

The abundant supply of suicide bombers seems to suggest many in the Islamic world do believe the West seeks to eradicate their culture.
In which case we have little to lose by actually attempting it. Smoothly, in a way that entices converts. Ways that don't directly smash the native culture but weave into the new and suppress its less desirable traits. A sort of "Japan option."

Since I would oppose such an undertaking and since I believe the West vs Islam is exactly what bin Laden is seeking, for the Administration to pursue such a course behind our backs and while making public denials of what our "real" goals are, America itself becomes divided against itself.

[Edit to clarify: How can we engage in a subtle and nuanced campaign unless our "enemy" first believes we do not seek their destruction? We cannot humiliate any Arabs if we seek to wage the conflict as you propose. Edit#2 - - IMHO bin Laden feared the exact cultural campaign you describe and choose terrorist attacks like 9/11 to goad the US into open conflict with Islam, thereby enhancing his argument that the West is truly against Islam. Western "over-reaction" makes the type of campaign Cobra describes less feasible.]

And. we cannot win a global war and fight a civil war at the same time.

In 1943 how many Americans would answer a poll saying they opposed the war? Without a 1943 kind of unity we cannot win the type of war you propose.

If you cannot win a race, don't enter.

In any event, for any Administration to undertake such a course of action without consensus within our own population is a profound corruption of American institutions.
It most certainly would be, but now we're kinda worrying about smoke detectors when the house is already on fire. And both sides of the aisle are throwing their share of matches. So on with the little isolated short-term goal wars. Ever on and on...

Two front wars are a bad idea. GOP vs gays and America vs bin Laden and Saddam and France/UN is a few bridges too far.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 11:36:40

How can we engage in a subtle and nuanced campaign unless our "enemy" first believes we do not seek their destruction? We cannot humiliate any Arabs if we seek to wage the conflict as you propose.

First, by successfully distinguishing between fundamentalist Islam and the more common variety we can brutally crush the one while enticing followers of the other to move more in our direction. This is already being done to a degree, whether intentionally or not. As for humiliating Arabs, in a way that calls for greater, more direct action. If we take a mess of prisoners and put them through humiliating show trials we offend many more. If we just kill them in battle, they've died a dignified honorable death though in a hopeless fight they can never win.

To use bin Laden's own words, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse."

We can be the strong horse, not humiliate the Arabs, and kill the enemy all at once. We just need to make it look like we're coming to the aid of other Arabs more often than not, get Arab troops working with us prominently as is beginning to happen in Iraq.

Unfortunately there is a greater problem, and it is the reason we'll never be able to fully implement the type of program I mentioned. As you say Bill, we can't let the majority of Muslims believe that we seek to supplant their culture, so we can't be entirely open about it amongst ourselves. It requires a tacit acceptance of the people to abide by a lie, we all know what's at stake but simply don't speak of it. Unfortunately, many won't get it, and will believe the lie but not for the duration. That is why we can't do it, as a nation we have a short attention span and no "poker face."

So a string of little wars is still in the works, but without the results that could be achieved for roughly the same effort.

BWhite · 2004-08-02 12:28:27

Unfortunately there is a greater problem, and it is the reason we'll never be able to fully implement the type of program I mentioned. As you say Bill, we can't let the majority of Muslims believe that we seek to supplant their culture, so we can't be entirely open about it amongst ourselves. It requires a tacit acceptance of the people to abide by a lie, we all know what's at stake but simply don't speak of it. Unfortunately, many won't get it, and will believe the lie but not for the duration. That is why we can't do it, as a nation we have a short attention span and no "poker face."

This month's Atlantic Monthly has a great piece by a fellow who bought a used laptop in Kabul Afghanistan and discovered files belonging to a top al Qaeda aide. Reading the essay, it seemed that 9/11 was launched to help rally the radical Islamicists to fight against the very sort of culture war campaign you say America should wage.

Also, if we are the wage the sort of war you say, our public leaders need to downplay things like 9/11 - - retaliate hard and VERY HARD but in secret if possible - - and persuade America that fighting terrorism is crime prevention, not war.

If its a war, who is the enemy? If its a war, how do we persuade the mullah in the street that all Islam isn't the enemy?

Frankly, to win the kind of conflict you describe Cobra, we in the US need to be able to absorb blows like 9/11 without reacting in a way that plays into the terrorist hands.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 12:45:09

Frankly, to win the kind of conflict you describe Cobra, we in the US need to be able to absorb blows like 9/11 without reacting in a way that plays into the terrorist hands.

No we don't. We need a balance between swift and brutal action with clear provocation and enticement. We need to kill a few people and tempt the rest with the bounty of the West. Afghanistan fit perfectly with such an approach, Iraq was a bit of a stretch in that context but could have been spun.

I agree that bin Laden wanted us to respond, he wants us to play the Great Satan, he is a product of the Jihad against the Soviets, he's got nothing left. But he also counted on us being the same paper tiger that didn't finish the job in Iraq, pulled punches in Bosnia and ran in shame from Somalia. He gets what he wants if we second-guess ourselves and agonize over what the Muslim world will think of everything we do. It reeks of weakness and decay, a sure way to attract predators and vultures.

BWhite · 2004-08-02 13:15:24

Frankly, to win the kind of conflict you describe Cobra, we in the US need to be able to absorb blows like 9/11 without reacting in a way that plays into the terrorist hands.
No we don't. We need a balance between swift and brutal action with clear provocation and enticement. We need to kill a few people and tempt the rest with the bounty of the West. Afghanistan fit perfectly with such an approach, Iraq was a bit of a stretch in that context but could have been spun.

Reading this, I'd say we agree.

By absorb, I mean the ability to sustain casualties without running around like a chicken that lost its head. American hysteria is counter-productive.

By absorb, I mean respond powerfully against the real enemy yet not stampede domestic fear into public support for doing things like reading library loan lists and outlawing model rockets. And imprisoning citizens for years on end just because Ashcroft cannot bring himself to file charges or release the guy.

= = =

By absorb, I mean have a populace who understands the long term goals - - the Brits absorbed IRA bombings for years, decades. We are not the first country to be attacked by terror nor will we be the last.

To claim a unique global right to be secure, we actually weaken ourselves, IMHO, because we fuel resentment.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-02 13:39:29

Once again, lengthy debate reveals that we don't really disagree on all that much.

By absorb, I mean the ability to sustain casualties without running around like a chicken that lost its head. American hysteria is counter-productive.

Agreed. We must also be prepared to make difficult choices and take strong action to avoid taking casualties when called for.

Would anyone have been willing to crush the Taliban on September 10, even with credible information in hand? Taking the hit makes us more credible when we respond, but is an outcome to be avoided even if it involves some pre-emptive pummeling.

Not that I think you're advocating "taking the hit," of course. This entire conversation has become rather theoretical of late.

To claim a unique global right to be secure, we actually weaken ourselves, IMHO, because we fuel resentment.

No nation has a "right" to be secure. But all have to decide what steps to take to protect their citizens, and sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Other times one can turn the enemy into a friend, or at least a neutral bystander. Neither approach works in all cases, balance is needed. Carrots and sticks.

And sometimes the carrot has cyanide in it, and the stick is made of Nerf.

C M Edwards · 2004-08-02 15:38:58

Is it true that a veto of the proposed US national budget has been threatened over the NASA budget cuts?

*GASP!* My heart!

Euler · 2004-08-02 15:45:59

Is it true that a veto of the proposed US national budget has been threatened over the NASA budget cuts?
*GASP!* My heart!

Well, from what I heard that is a little bit of an exaggeration. Some administration officials threatened to recommend a veto of the VA-HUD portion of the budget over the NASA budget cuts. It is still surprising though.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-07-29 10:41:29

Re: The USA Budget

#27 2004-07-29 10:41:36

Re: The USA Budget

#28 2004-07-29 10:50:23

Re: The USA Budget

#29 2004-07-29 11:59:54

Re: The USA Budget

#30 2004-07-29 13:03:01

Re: The USA Budget

#31 2004-07-29 13:59:00

Re: The USA Budget

#32 2004-07-29 14:42:03

Re: The USA Budget

#33 2004-07-29 14:44:32

Re: The USA Budget

#34 2004-07-29 14:47:27

Re: The USA Budget

#35 2004-07-29 15:01:03

Re: The USA Budget

#36 2004-07-29 15:12:15

Re: The USA Budget

#37 2004-07-29 19:26:29

Re: The USA Budget

#38 2004-07-29 21:38:27

Re: The USA Budget

#39 2004-07-29 21:51:31

Re: The USA Budget

#40 2004-07-30 05:34:38

Re: The USA Budget

#41 2004-07-30 08:11:02

Re: The USA Budget

#42 2004-07-30 08:45:18

Re: The USA Budget

#43 2004-07-30 09:05:05

Re: The USA Budget

#44 2004-08-02 11:36:40

Re: The USA Budget

#45 2004-08-02 12:28:27

Re: The USA Budget

#46 2004-08-02 12:45:09

Re: The USA Budget

#47 2004-08-02 13:15:24

Re: The USA Budget

#48 2004-08-02 13:39:29

Re: The USA Budget

#49 2004-08-02 15:38:58

Re: The USA Budget

#50 2004-08-02 15:45:59

Re: The USA Budget

Board footer