State of the Union

Remove all ads!

Unfortunately, we rely on imports for ~75 percent of the raw materials we use. That really implies we are an island nation, much like Great Britain. We need to have a foreign presence to keep trade open. This means, at the very least, a dominant Navy.

Our defense spending is a bit high right now, but it can't drop by more than 25% without adversely affecting our treaties with other countries. For example, our treaty with South Korea requires a carrier battlegroup within a couple of days of the Korean coast. Without that presence do you really think the South would stand a chance? Many of our allies did not have the means to maintain a strong force after WWII -- the internal destruction was incredible and vast amounts of funds were diverted to rebuild. The US took on the role of the dominant military force for the NATO allies. Many treaties were drafted to ensure we would be able to provide the protection those allies needed. And to be honest, the US has had the attitude that we will not rely on anyone else for defense of our homes. The best deterrant is to be a hard target -- make it painful for someone to hurt you.

Those reasons may not be as strong now as they were during the cold war. But the presence is needed nonetheless. The biggests threats which the US must be able to respond are China and North Korea. We would not be able to respond with a significant reduction in our defense spending. Why other countries are not beefing up their defense spending is immaterial -- we promised we would do it.

The Department of Defense and it's budget is the biggest source of income to the American economy. Reduction in spending has an incredible effect on economies throughout America. Just look at the towns where bases have shut down -- some have 30% unemployment. Granted, a redirection of some of the funds would be extremely helpful, but the loss of jobs from a 50% reduction in defense spending would be catastrophic to the US economy.

 

Part of the problem is that you misinterpreted what I was saying. It is true that we had a national debt each and every year that Clinton was in office. The surplus I was referring to was that money in exceeded money out. So when I say surplus, I'm referring to an annual surplus, not the entire national debt that has been around since the Civil War. I just looked up the figures, and technically you're right - it wasn't a trillion dollars - it was only 890 billion dollars. That's about 110 billion dollars for each year he was in office. That more than covered the interest on the debt. In fact, if you look at the numbers of when Clinton entered office and when he left office, the national debt was reduced by approximately 12%. That may seem modest (paying off only 6% of the principal debt every 4 years), but if you kept at it, the debt would be completely gone in our lifetimes. You're paying off 1.5% per year, so that's about 66 years, and seeing as how it started in 1992, I would like to think that I'd still be alive in 2058. I'll be old granted, but hopefully not dead. Besides, once it starts going down, the compounding interest becomes much more bearable, meaning the 1.5% we were paying on the prinicple every year would be greatly increased as the debt was reduced.

[ February 03, 2006, 19:28: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Not to mention that, if payments weren't reduced as the debt reduced, the deficit would have been paid off much, much faster.

@T2 Bruno: I hate what my government does and am ashamed to be an american. But moving isn't an option. I have a job, a wife, and kids. Moving to another country is kind of out of most peoples price ranges, and is a pretty hollow argument at that. It's unreasonable and isn't grounded in reality. "If you don't like it, then move" is easy to say, but at some point the pendulum that is American foreign and domestic policy will swing back. When it gets to the point that you don't like the direction our country is headed (and maybe youfeel ashamed and embarrassed to be an american) are you going to want people like me to just tell you to move or are you going to want us to share a dialogue with you (and thus give you the chance to change things back to the way you think they should be)?

[ February 05, 2006, 12:30: Message edited by: Drew ]