Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on April 06, 2011, 11:05:18 am
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/republicans-embrace-rep-ryans-government-budget-plan-for-2012/2011/04/05/AFla6ulC_story.html
Ryan’s budget, titled “The Path to Prosperity,” would spend about $40 trillion over the next decade — $6.2 trillion less than the budget President Obama proposed in February. The bulk of the savings would come from federal health-care programs, starting with a repeal of Obama’s ambitious new initiative to expand coverage for the uninsured.
Starting in 2022, Ryan also would end Medicare as an open-ended entitlement for new retirees and begin slowly raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. Instead of getting government-paid benefits, new retirees could choose a private policy on a newly established Medicare exchange. The government would pay “premium support” worth about $8,000 directly to the selected insurance provider, with the wealthiest retirees receiving about a third of that amount.
In an analysis of the budget plan issued Tuesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that “most beneficiaries who receive premium support payments would pay more for their health care than if they participated in traditional Medicare,” with 65-year-olds covering an average of twice as much of their total health-care costs.
Medicaid would come in for even sharper cuts, exceeding $700 billion over the next decade. The GOP plan would end the financing partnership between the federal government and the states, replacing it with block grants that give states less money but free them to manage the program as they wish. Federal distributions would be reduced by more than a third by the end of the decade.
Ryan would not touch Social Security, the single largest federal program, which provides income support to nearly 60 million seniors and disabled workers. But his plan praises a proposal by Obama’s fiscal commission to raise the retirement age to reflect longer life spans and slow the growth in benefits for higher-income workers.
And the kicker:
Ryan also proposes to overhaul the tax code, lowering the top rate for individuals and corporations from 35 percent to 25 percent [emphasis added], while eliminating an array of loopholes and deductions that his budget does not identify. GOP aides said they would leave the details to the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, which is crafting a tax reform plan. But that effort is not intended to help reduce the deficit.
In a country where 20% of the population controls ~84% of the wealth (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf), the Republicans want to cut taxes for the top earners and slash social programs that a far larger proportion of the population is reliant upon...
...and the middle-class votes for these idiots. Unbelievable.
-
Because the Democrats are socialists who want to destroy America.
Republicans had Ronald Reagan who destroyed the evil communists. We can't let the evil communists who we defeated take power in the United States.
And I promise, it has nothing to do with the fact that the President's skin is...uhm...darker.
-
torture-murder the rich!
and to be fair torture-murder the poor too
and the middle class
-
The fear of taxation and government programs is something that is so deeply ingrained into the American consciousness now that things like this have become unavoidable.
Also America is built upon the idea of "work hard get rich" so the poor won't vote for a tax increase on the rich often times, because they one day want to be rich, and want to keep as much of the money as possible once they get there.
-
Also America is built upon the idea of "work hard get rich" so the poor won't vote for a tax increase on the rich often times, because they one day want to be rich, and want to keep as much of the money as possible once they get there.
... keep the profit and let as little as possible trickle down while the economy is good... and socialize the losses when the economy turns bad...
Yet a huge amount of people are perfectly happy being exploited because they firmly believe in their eventual rise to riches and power and still want to be able to screw everyone else over when they get there.
The American Dream is quickly becoming the American Delusion.
-
In a country where 20% of the population controls ~84% of the wealth (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf), the Republicans want to cut taxes for the top earners and slash social programs that a far larger proportion of the population is reliant upon...
...and the middle-class votes for these idiots. Unbelievable.
*1% controls 95% of the wealth IIRC.
EDIT: I didn't recall correctly. See below.
-
In a country where 20% of the population controls ~84% of the wealth (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf), the Republicans want to cut taxes for the top earners and slash social programs that a far larger proportion of the population is reliant upon...
...and the middle-class votes for these idiots. Unbelievable.
*1% controls 95% of the wealth IIRC.
The very first sentence of the document he linked in the block of text you quoted says:
"Most scholars agree that wealth inequality in the United States is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting that the top 1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth."
Given that you've made a history of agitating for citations you might make use of them!
-
In a country where 20% of the population controls ~84% of the wealth (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf), the Republicans want to cut taxes for the top earners and slash social programs that a far larger proportion of the population is reliant upon...
...and the middle-class votes for these idiots. Unbelievable.
*1% controls 95% of the wealth IIRC.
The very first sentence of the document he linked in the block of text you quoted says:
"Most scholars agree that wealth inequality in the United States is at historic highs, with some estimates suggesting that the top 1% of Americans hold nearly 50% of the wealth."
Given that you've made a history of agitating for citations you might make use of them!
Post edited. <3
http://washingtonindependent.com/107493/americas-super-rich-continue-to-make-mind-boggling-sums
"that top one-hundredth of one percent of Americans whose median household income exceeds $27 million a year, nearly 1,000 times what the bottom 90 percent of Americans make".
Got my numbers mixed up.
-
What a wonderful world
-
...and the middle-class votes for these idiots. Unbelievable.
American masochism at its finest. And so damned demotivating too :banghead:
But, what are you going to do? Its not like we can disenfranchise everyone making between 50k and 100k/yr by law. (actually, could we?)
-
I like that they're about to be getting taxed less than I did working at Dairy Queen at 18.
-
But, what are you going to do? Its not like we can disenfranchise everyone making between 50k and 100k/yr by law. (actually, could we?)
I'm fairly sure that would break an amendment somewhere.
-
This is what happens when you give the monkeys the keys to the Banana warehouse...
-
If the government even keeps functioning...you guys watching the possible shutdown talks? I doubt it'll shut down, we'll probably get another stopgap spending bill...but even then, that's the second one in a row now. That's not any way to run a government, much less one with as much riding on it as the US federal govt.
-
What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?
-
What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?
I doubt it is going to collapse, but just because it hasn't devolved into anarchy doesn't mean it'll be a good place to live. Planning to run for the hills myself. Of Paris, or possibly Scandinavia, though Persona terrifies the hell out of me.
-
What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?
Doubtful.
-
Never underestimate the propensity of a system to perpetuate itself.
That being said, I'm looking for "safe" places. My current plan should anything super terrible happen is ideally to stay here at my uni.
-
Also America is built upon the idea of "work hard get rich" so the poor won't vote for a tax increase on the rich often times, because they one day want to be rich, and want to keep as much of the money as possible once they get there.
... keep the profit and let as little as possible trickle down while the economy is good... and socialize the losses when the economy turns bad...
Yet a huge amount of people are perfectly happy being exploited because they firmly believe in their eventual rise to riches and power and still want to be able to screw everyone else over when they get there.
The American Dream is quickly becoming the American Delusion.
My point exactly
-
What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?
US's own government has stated that unless radical change takes place soon, the american economy will be unable to sustain itself by 2037.
Hopelessly polarized politics, failing education structure, crumbling infrastructure, 14 trillion dollar debt and climbing (their gonna have to raise the debt ceiling on may 16th or the country goes bankrupt), destroyed economy, personal credit card debt at over 60% of GDP.
Make your own decision, but I certainly won't be moving there
-
It seems like the Republicans are trying to destroy things they don't like under the guise of deficit concerns. For example: Defund NPR, slashing the deficit 0.000004%, then go on to cannibalize the sloppy patchwork they call "Medicare". I think this article here is one of the best at clarifying what the Tea Party is about: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928
By the way: I bring up the Tea Party here because the Tea Party and the Republicans are one and the same. Criticize one, and it boomerangs onto the other.
-
It seems like the Republicans are trying to destroy things they don't like under the guise of deficit concerns. For example: Defund NPR, slashing the deficit 0.000004%, then go on to cannibalize the sloppy patchwork they call "Medicare". I think this article here is one of the best at clarifying what the Tea Party is about: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928
By the way: I bring up the Tea Party here because the Tea Party and the Republicans are one and the same. Criticize one, and it boomerangs onto the other.
Thats the problem. The republicans have been hijacked by a xenophobic and ultra conservative fringe movement.
When media neutrality was allowed to expire it set the ground work for this.
Fox News has become the professional media attack dog and propaganda mouthpiece for the radical right wing, MSNBC has become the same thing for the radical left. Theres no room for moderates to speak and that needs to change NOW. America's government cannot be paralyzed by partisan hatred and hackery when facing the largest financial crisis the world has ever seen. There is no civil discourse anymore, and its sickening to watch. The right screams at the left and the left screams back. The few voices that try to mediate are silenced because they don't make for good headlines.
The news media must be more impartial then it is, lunatics like Keith Oberman and Glenn Beck just make the situation worse.
There is no more time for dithering, republicans and democrats have to work together, they have to reach a compromise and fix the crisis America is facing, because time's running out, and the rest of us can't afford to wait.
-
We're all getting to caught up in our attempts to troll one another. The parties do not disagree over real issues anymore (if they ever really did), it's all about the drama of interpersonal relationships and making sure your team wins. It's becoming reality TV!
-
Speaking of which... American politics would actually lend themselves well to a WWF-wrestling format quite easily:
YEAH I GOT A MESSAGE FOR YOU, OBAMUNATOR! GOD IS GONNA HELP ME KICK YOUR SOCIALIST ASS ON MONDAY. TEACH THE CONTROVERSY, BABY!
On an only slightly more serious note: Why do conservatives exalt Reagan? Palin calls the GOP "the party of Reagan", but Reagan is the one who began running up the deficit. Why the double standard?
-
WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO BROTHER WHEN NO ONE WILL VOTE FOR YOU?!
(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/hulk-hogan-02.jpg)
-
liek leegalize marijuana already
-
On an only slightly more serious note: Why do conservatives exalt Reagan? Palin calls the GOP "the party of Reagan", but Reagan is the one who began running up the deficit. Why the double standard?
Because, you see, first, he's Reagan and second... Oh ****! Did you see that? I like dropped my gum and it bounced across the floor! Hold on a minute, I gotta pick it up.
-
What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?
I doubt it is going to collapse, but just because it hasn't devolved into anarchy doesn't mean it'll be a good place to live. Planning to run for the hills myself. Of Paris, or possibly Scandinavia, though Persona terrifies the hell out of me.
Go to belgium. Quite familiar, but a much cozier athmossphere.
-
I would like to pass new legislation that forbids anyone who has been affiliated with a political party in the last 15 years from running for office. That and/or apply and extend the old Clarke maxim that "No one who wants to be made president should be allowed the job" to the state and federal legislature as well as the executive office. [/pipe dream littered with unintended consequences]
-
What do people see as the most likely scenario for the US in the next twenty years? Should I be, like, trying to move?
For the next 20 years I intend to stay far far away from the US to the greatest extent possible. We've spent the last 30 years getting a free ride from the rest of the world with massive borrowing fueled by ultra loose credit and monetary policies. But, party time is over. Unless radical change happens, our current stagflation, runaway deficits and debts arn't going away. Unfortunately both parties are either too hopelessly ineffective and/or trapped by ideology to remember that this is a serious crisis, so said radical change isn't likely to happen.
-
I would like to pass new legislation that forbids anyone who has been affiliated with a political party in the last 15 years from running for office. That and/or apply and extend the old Clarke maxim that "No one who wants to be made president should be allowed the job" to the state and federal legislature as well as the executive office. [/pipe dream littered with unintended consequences]
One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
--Douglas Adams
-
I feel like Battuta desperately needs to do one of his patented drive-by sanity injections in here.
-
BATTUTA FOR PRESIDENT
-
A lot of the obsession with Reagan is Nostlagia, I think. I grew up during the Thatcher/Reagan years, I remember them well, though from a young teenager perspective, so I was shielded from the worst effects of it because I had no financial responsibilities. I can understand the pining for those times, but unless that person is 50 or over, I'd suspect rose-tinted glasses to be involved in their perspective of it.
I personally suspect it wasn't that we were better people back then, just that without the Internet and with a much less invasive News service with regards to the Government and its politics (Thatcher kept a close eye on the BBC, which was historically left-leaning), we were simply less aware of what was really going on until some time afterwards. As a teenager back then, if Reagan launched a cruise missile at an Arab country, it was because he was shooting at the 'bad guys', no questions asked. It got complicated after that, and many people have a genetic revulsion to stuff that is complicated, especially if it also involves Change.
-
Speaking of which... American politics would actually lend themselves well to a WWF-wrestling format quite easily:
YEAH I GOT A MESSAGE FOR YOU, OBAMUNATOR! GOD IS GONNA HELP ME KICK YOUR SOCIALIST ASS ON MONDAY. TEACH THE CONTROVERSY, BABY!
On an only slightly more serious note: Why do conservatives exalt Reagan? Palin calls the GOP "the party of Reagan", but Reagan is the one who began running up the deficit. Why the double standard?
Here's why:
(http://i.imgur.com/Bi7jm.jpg)
-
On a more serious note, Reagan was the leader of the "Republican Revolution" that swept the party into majority rule after the 70s. He was also, to many Republicans, the hero that "won the Cold War". That's why they idolize him so much.
-
On a more serious note, Reagan was the leader of the "Republican Revolution" that swept the party into majority rule after the 70s. He was also, to many Republicans, the hero that "won the Cold War". That's why they idolize him so much.
>Implying American Politics can be taken seriously. Har Har.
Okay, I'm kidding, but to the eyes of those of us outside the country who pay more than passing attention to the American Political situation, it's becoming increasingly like watching two kids bickering in the school yard.
I think your nation needs to shake it's bipartisan political system and introduce some diversity/new blood, the political gene pool is stagnating. And enforce Media impartiality.
N.B. I'm not saying that political systems such as the one in my own country are better, just pointing out what I see as the most obvious flaw in the American system.
-
I will admit that I have often been confused by the American use of the word 'Liberal', it seems to encompass anybody who doesn't share the political viewpoint of the person speaking at the time. Being liberal is pretty difficult to be honest, because what most liberals are, is left-wing in some views and right-wing on other, so they might believe in the UK that the NHS is worth fighting for, but that Local Government is top-heavy both in personel and salary structure. It's quite common for people who consider themselves to be 'Liberal' in political position in the UK to disagree over the minutae of what they actually think Liberal is.
I'll admit, in our case it's partly because the 'Liberal Democrats' our, for want of a better description, representitives in the Commons have turned out to be nothing whatsoever like us. I'd even go so far as to suggest that something similar is happening in the US with the major parties there.
-
I will admit that I have often been confused by the American use of the word 'Liberal', it seems to encompass anybody who doesn't share the political viewpoint of the person speaking at the time. Being liberal is pretty difficult to be honest, because what most liberals are, is left-wing in some views and right-wing on other, so they might believe in the UK that the NHS is worth fighting for, but that Local Government is top-heavy both in personel and salary structure. It's quite common for people who consider themselves to be 'Liberal' in political position in the UK to disagree over the minutae of what they actually think Liberal is.
I'll admit, in our case it's partly because the 'Liberal Democrats' our, for want of a better description, representitives in the Commons have turned out to be nothing whatsoever like us. I'd even go so far as to suggest that something similar is happening in the US with the major parties there.
I find it somewhat amusing that the Americans see their Democrats as "Leftist", whereas the majority of the world see them as Centre-Right, with the Republicans being Far-Right (but not Extreme)
Oh, and I utterly agree with you Flipside. It's the only reason I don't vote Lib Dem - there seems to be a disconnect between what we believe the term means and what the party should do, and what the politicians actually believe in. As witnessed in the bizarre choice to side with the Conservatives, something that should've been the last thing the Lib Dems would have considered.
But enough of the UK politik digression.
-
>Implying American Politics can be taken seriously. Har Har.
Okay, I'm kidding, but to the eyes of those of us outside the country who pay more than passing attention to the American Political situation, it's becoming increasingly like watching two kids bickering in the school yard.
I think your nation needs to shake it's bipartisan political system and introduce some diversity/new blood, the political gene pool is stagnating. And enforce Media impartiality.
N.B. I'm not saying that political systems such as the one in my own country are better, just pointing out what I see as the most obvious flaw in the American system.
There should have been no kidding! American politics is exactly like two kids bickering in the school yard.
-
>Implying American Politics can be taken seriously. Har Har.
Okay, I'm kidding, but to the eyes of those of us outside the country who pay more than passing attention to the American Political situation, it's becoming increasingly like watching two kids bickering in the school yard.
I think your nation needs to shake it's bipartisan political system and introduce some diversity/new blood, the political gene pool is stagnating. And enforce Media impartiality.
N.B. I'm not saying that political systems such as the one in my own country are better, just pointing out what I see as the most obvious flaw in the American system.
There should have been no kidding! American politics is exactly like two kids bickering in the school yard.
Well, yes, but people might be offended by a non-american making that sort of statement.
-
TBH I and a lot of other people would love to get rid of those two bickering kids. The issue is not that people don't want to, it's that in many ways we can't, short of some widespread social revolution or unrest. They pretty much hold all the keys to power.
-
TBH I and a lot of other people would love to get rid of those two bickering kids. The issue is not that people don't want to, it's that in many ways we can't, short of some widespread social revolution or unrest. They pretty much hold all the keys to power.
I imagine that you might be something of a minority though, as your state (in terms of sovereign state, not the individual States), despite the immaturity of the politicians running it, does a great job of teaching you from birth that your political system (backed up by the constitution and the founding fathers) is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that no other political system compares.
And that's the kind of thing your 'average' person laps up and doesn't question, hence some of the rabid divisions inspired by your political system
"Ignorance is the greatest weapon of tyranny..." (Not a fully accurate quote for the situation, but topical of the forum)
And, inspired by far too much Crysis over the past week: MAXIMUM Respect to you Unknown Target.
-
Wait, no, nevermind
-
I imagine that you might be something of a minority though, as your state (in terms of sovereign state, not the individual States), despite the immaturity of the politicians running it, does a great job of teaching you from birth that your political system (backed up by the constitution and the founding fathers) is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that no other political system compares.
A lot of Americans treat the founders like they were prophetic, infallible wise men whose opinions on 18th-century, slave-owning, isolationist, and fairly heterogeneous 13 states America should all still be rigidly applied to 50 state, 300+ million, multicultural, 21st century world superpower America. I mean, the guys were smart, and certainly knew their history, but times change.
The government does like to ingrain that idea of 'American Exceptionalism' though...
-
I imagine that you might be something of a minority though, as your state (in terms of sovereign state, not the individual States), despite the immaturity of the politicians running it, does a great job of teaching you from birth that your political system (backed up by the constitution and the founding fathers) is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that no other political system compares.
A lot of Americans treat the founders like they were prophetic, infallible wise men whose opinions on 18th-century, slave-owning, isolationist, and fairly heterogeneous 13 states America should all still be rigidly applied to 50 state, 300+ million, multicultural, 21st century world superpower America. I mean, the guys were smart, and certainly knew their history, but times change.
The government does like to ingrain that idea of 'American Exceptionalism' though...
What's more ironic is while people rant about this, we've broken from the couple things the founders actually *did* want us to do : Legislative Supremacy, Senate elected by legislature, etc. Now, not all of these breaks are bad, but why doesn't anyone bring them up when we're ranting about what the founders would have wanted?
-
leegalize whorehouses!
-
The founders had a lot of good ideas. . . a wall of separation between church and state for one. . ..
That America has made a lot of headway in dismantling.
-
The founders had a lot of good ideas. . . a wall of separation between church and state for one. . ..
That America has made a lot of headway in dismantling.
Double standards are awesome though. Tell a religious conservative about that wall and they'll tell you that quote's being taken out of the context of colonial society, but if you mention repealing the Second Amendment, they'll scream bloody murder without considering the same context.
-
The founders had a lot of good ideas. . . a wall of separation between church and state for one. . ..
That America has made a lot of headway in dismantling.
Double standards are awesome though. Tell a religious conservative about that wall and they'll tell you that quote's being taken out of the context of colonial society, but if you mention repealing the Second Amendment, they'll scream bloody murder without considering the same context.
That's really the failing of the interpreter, not the interpretee, IMO.
-
That's really the failing of the interpreter, not the interpretee, IMO.
Or how the interpretee views the interpreter. Someone proposes repealing the Second Amendment or supporting the wall of separation, the conservative will usually look at them as a godless, anti-American liberal who hates their freedoms and will shut them out purely for that reason.
-
2037?
Now that's a ****ing model you got there pal!
No government predicted 2008's crash within months, and now we get the idea that we are able to predict the point where american economy stops sustaining itself to that precision?
ROFLMAO
-
What's more ironic is while people rant about this, we've broken from the couple things the founders actually *did* want us to do : Legislative Supremacy, Senate elected by legislature, etc. Now, not all of these breaks are bad, but why doesn't anyone bring them up when we're ranting about what the founders would have wanted?
Not to mention that George Washington warned specifically against a two party system, which in itself could be viewed as 'breaking' as well.
-
I just thought I'd point something out.
Planned cuts for Planned Parenthood - $300 million
Cost of two F-22 Raptors - $300 million
Republicans now have my full and unfiltered rage.
-
I just thought I'd point something out.
Planned cuts for Planned Parenthood - $300 million
Cost of two F-22 Raptors - $300 million
Quoted on my page (http://invertedvantage.tumblr.com/)
-
What's more ironic is while people rant about this, we've broken from the couple things the founders actually *did* want us to do : Legislative Supremacy, Senate elected by legislature, etc. Now, not all of these breaks are bad, but why doesn't anyone bring them up when we're ranting about what the founders would have wanted?
Not to mention that George Washington warned specifically against a two party system, which in itself could be viewed as 'breaking' as well.
(1) George Washington's farewell address warning was against "political parties", not a two-party system.
(2) At the time, Washington's concern was that political parties would be based on geography, rather than political issues. As much as we like to break the nation down into "red states" and "blue states," the truth is that in Presidential elections, candidates rarely capture more than 70% of the popular vote in any given state, meaning that even in the "safe red" and "safe blue" states, there is a spectrum of political ideologies. No one party represents every New Englander or every Southerner, so the nation is very unlikely to actually fracture along party lines.
(3) Technically, we don't have a two-party system, but very rarely are enough people convinced of the viability of third-party candidates to vote for them. I will point out, though, that the Senate has an independent member from Connecticut and a Democratic Socialist from Vermont, both of whom are lumped in with the Democratic caucus.
Planned cuts for Planned Parenthood - $300 million
Cost of two F-22 Raptors - $300 million
While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment: Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood. Cut two Raptors to save NPR. Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies. Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska. Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.
I'll agree that defense spending is completely bonkers in the United States, but the Raptor is a scapegoat, and using it as the sole scapegoat is dangerous.
I'll also point out that V-22 Ospreys are $110 million a piece, and they're just glorified helicopters that Marines jump out of, as if we didn't have a dozen different varieties of those already anyway. ;)
-
While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment: Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood. Cut two Raptors to save NPR. Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies. Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska. Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.
I'd be more worried about this (and I know you're playing devil's advocate) if I didn't suspect our local USAF member would think it was not a huge concern.
-
While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment: Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood. Cut two Raptors to save NPR. Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies. Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska. Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.
I'll agree that defense spending is completely bonkers in the United States, but the Raptor is a scapegoat, and using it as the sole scapegoat is dangerous.
I'll also point out that V-22 Ospreys are $110 million a piece, and they're just glorified helicopters that Marines jump out of, as if we didn't have a dozen different varieties of those already anyway. ;)
Not specifically picking on the raptor, air superiority fighters are very nice to have, I just wanted to find something expensive to use as an example. V-22/F-35 substitutes just as easily. Sadly, a good portion of those price tags are just pork anyway.
-
Not specifically picking on the raptor...
Ah. I just remembered it coming up in the NPR thread a few weeks back as well, so I wanted to point out that cutting Raptors isn't a viable solution to every budget problem.
-
How about we stop spending like we're in a World War? Make peace with China, mothball or discount our excessive assets to friendly nations in Europe; maybe mind our own business for a little. Hell, we could even replace our current assets with ones that would be useful in the wars we're fighting - A10s instead of F22s, keep doing research in artillery countermeasures, and still have a tiny military budget.
While we're doing that, why not completely overhaul our hemorrhaging healthcare and social security systems . . . get them to stop being so inefficient. Also, improving technique in education instead of throwing money at it.
Oh yeah, because for some reason, in America, nothing ever gets done.
-
While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment: Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood. Cut two Raptors to save NPR. Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies. Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska. Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.
Oh no, another nation could obtain an advantage over a very obviously finite resource that is rapidly dwindling. How about cut two Raptors to build 24 5-turbine wind farms?
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601145614AA40uNa (best I could find regarding the price of wind turbines on short notice)
-
Ah. I just remembered it coming up in the NPR thread a few weeks back as well, so I wanted to point out that cutting Raptors isn't a viable solution to every budget problem.
The far more pressing problem is that cutting Raptors is never considered at all for any budget problems.
-
I personally think there should be a decision made between the F-22 or the F-35. Either fund the F-35 through to the end of it's program and manufacturing of all three variants, or mothball it and use the funds to build more F-22s/make them more useful for multirole duties.
And once again, I'd like to say that the argument that the US will be at a disadvantage for "holding oil producing territories" is near sighted. Oil will run out, planning for some sort of global end game where you use oil fighting for the little oil that's left is stupid. The money is better spent on internal improvements that negate the need for oil.
-
how about 5% national sales tax, and cut no raptors?
that, if Congress's u-try-to-balance-the-budget thing is to believed, will do A LOT MORE than this, and with minor increases for 6-figure incomes, would actually balance the budget.
-
Each state already has a sales tax. Adding a 5% national tax when many states are already facing major budget shortfalls would probably not help very much, if it didn't end up making things worse. In addition it would only add to growing federal power at a time when it's possible to make an argument that excessive federal power is the problem.
I say keep Congress the way it is and change it's purpose to doing the only thing it's useful for at this point; acting as a national mosh pit for fundamentalists and people without fundamentals to manufacture and debate contentious moral issues.
-
And once again, I'd like to say that the argument that the US will be at a disadvantage for "holding oil producing territories" is near sighted. Oil will run out, planning for some sort of global end game where you use oil fighting for the little oil that's left is stupid. The money is better spent on internal improvements that negate the need for oil.
Where did this come from in the first place? The only mention of oil that I made was to say that that's how Russia is making a fat pile of cash right now. Said fat pile of cash, for the last few years has been getting invested in upgrading their military, including updating their ballistic missile fleet, rebuilding their command structure, and pertinent to this conversation, developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
My overall point was that, while we are overspending on defense, you can't cut two fighters here and two fighters there forever. Cut back? Yes, but do so with the prudence and foresight to not leave the nation open to attack.
The far more pressing problem is that cutting Raptors is never considered at all for any budget problems.
Actually, in the bill that funded the military for fiscal 2010, there was no funding for Raptor production. Once the last of the 187 already paid-for are finished, that's it for Raptor production, barring a major air war with a competitive air force. The Pentagon lost its immunity to spending cuts in 2009, and they know it. It's why Secretary Gates has been proposing cuts to the Defense budget. Unfortunately, he's the only one who will propose them, and being that it's his department, he's not cutting tremendously deeply, but it's something at least.
-
Where did this come from in the first place? The only mention of oil that I made was to say that that's how Russia is making a fat pile of cash right now. Said fat pile of cash, for the last few years has been getting invested in upgrading their military, including updating their ballistic missile fleet, rebuilding their command structure, and pertinent to this conversation, developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
I originally read your post as "oil fields" not "oil revenues to field". Apologies. That being said, so what? What goal would Russia hope to attain by attacking us? The only reasonable reason they would want to assault the United States is to obtain food or water, as we have relatively little oil compared to a much more politically pariahed country such as Venezuela, and we are not yet in a food or water crisis - which at that point we'll probably not be using oil anymore in developed nations, either because we've moved off it or collapsed because we didn't move off it fast enough.
Anything else would be foolish - the US is a major advanced manufacturing hub. In a war those are the sorts of things you'd destroy. So what would be gained from conquering? Not only that, but any conquering forces would be faced with 300 million angry, armed Americans. An attacker would be faced with 50 different Iraqs.
My overall point was that, while we are overspending on defense, you can't cut two fighters here and two fighters their forever. Cut back? Yes, but do so with the prudence and foresight to not leave the nation open to attack.
Yes, you can cut two fighters here and two fighters there forever - until you reach the end of the fighters. Why not just skip the middle man and cut them all? Or cut the JSF program - a money sink. I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas, while the Navy makes do with it's perfectly serviceable F/A-18F models, which are relatively recent and very much upgraded and "modern" by current air war standards.
-
While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment: Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood. Cut two Raptors to save NPR. Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies. Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska. Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.
Oh no, another nation could obtain an advantage over a very obviously finite resource that is rapidly dwindling. How about cut two Raptors to build 24 5-turbine wind farms?
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601145614AA40uNa (best I could find regarding the price of wind turbines on short notice)
Because wind turbines are hugely subsized and overrated.
I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas,
The problem is there are fundemental design constraints that really prevents it from being an effective multirole fighter, whereas the JSF was designed from the ground up for this purpose. Besides, the JSF program isn't nearly the money sink the F-22 is.
You know I wonder if aircraft production was automated in an assembly line fashion the costs for building airplanes of all kinds would go down.
-
Oh no, another nation could obtain an advantage over a very obviously finite resource that is rapidly dwindling. How about cut two Raptors to build 24 5-turbine wind farms?
Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080601145614AA40uNa (best I could find regarding the price of wind turbines on short notice)
Because wind turbines are hugely subsized and overrated.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make.
I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas,
The problem is there are fundemental design constraints that really prevents it from being an effective multirole fighter, whereas the JSF was designed from the ground up for this purpose. Besides, the JSF program isn't nearly the money sink the F-22 is.
The F-22 is a world class, successful fighter program. The JSF has blown past all of it's operating budgets and continues to rise with no end in sight. Either limit the program so as to actually get something useful out of it, or shut it down and redirect it. I would say that the real reason it's being kept alive is because it keeps jobs and money flowing into the districts that are involved with it. It's yet another runaway weapons program that's been called out again and again yet it still keeps getting money. If you want to keep both, then cancel other projects - but for sanity's sake at least make it possible to actually pay for at least some of the programs running right now. If we can't afford it I doubt we actually need it - a stance that's backed up by the numerous debates on these very issues.
You know I wonder if aircraft production was automated in an assembly line fashion the costs for building airplanes of all kinds would go down.
You know, I've actually done a lot of thought towards this. One of my goals is to decrease aviation costs to help make it more accessible; one of the ideas I came up with was a factory that produced standard welded-tube box truss frames that could accommodate a range of layout configurations. The builder or design houses would purchase these frames and design around them, either choosing to use foam cut to shape and covered in fiberglass or to use wooden framers attached to the structure (or something else), with the goal of changing the aircraft's actual look and attributes. In this way you could achieve mass-production benefits for what would still most likely be a relatively small market.
-
EDIT: [REDACTED] because it contributed nothing to discussion.
-
The fundamental problem is education. People make logical errors because they have not been taught to avoid them, and then you get the tea-party. Fix education, and you fix the system, simply because said people who are now properly educated will figure out a way to fix the system in a way you never thought of. Proper education results in a generation that is smarter then the previous one. That's how progress happens.
-
Where did this come from in the first place? The only mention of oil that I made was to say that that's how Russia is making a fat pile of cash right now. Said fat pile of cash, for the last few years has been getting invested in upgrading their military, including updating their ballistic missile fleet, rebuilding their command structure, and pertinent to this conversation, developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
I originally read your post as "oil fields" not "oil revenues to field". Apologies. That being said, so what? What goal would Russia hope to attain by attacking us? The only reasonable reason they would want to assault the United States is to obtain food or water, as we have relatively little oil compared to a much more politically pariahed country such as Venezuela, and we are not yet in a food or water crisis - which at that point we'll probably not be using oil anymore in developed nations, either because we've moved off it or collapsed because we didn't move off it fast enough.
Anything else would be foolish - the US is a major advanced manufacturing hub. In a war those are the sorts of things you'd destroy. So what would be gained from conquering? Not only that, but any conquering forces would be faced with 300 million angry, armed Americans. An attacker would be faced with 50 different Iraqs.
My overall point was that, while we are overspending on defense, you can't cut two fighters here and two fighters their forever. Cut back? Yes, but do so with the prudence and foresight to not leave the nation open to attack.
Yes, you can cut two fighters here and two fighters there forever - until you reach the end of the fighters. Why not just skip the middle man and cut them all? Or cut the JSF program - a money sink. I bet you you could fund an F-22 conversion into a multirole aircraft and a naval variant, with the resources saved from the JSF program. And in the meantime you can ramp up F-22 production, bringing the overall cost down, so you can deploy it in more areas, especially overseas, while the Navy makes do with it's perfectly serviceable F/A-18F models, which are relatively recent and very much upgraded and "modern" by current air war standards.
Not to mention that any nation that has the ability to maintain a sizable and up to date air force is also on semi-friendly terms with the US. The Opponents fought in today's wars either lack an airforce or have an vastly outdated and outnumbered airforce.
-
Not to mention that any nation that has the ability to maintain a sizable and up to date air force is also on semi-friendly terms with the US. The Opponents fought in today's wars either lack an airforce or have an vastly outdated and outnumbered airforce.
That may not always be true, though, especially if Russia or China gets more hostile towards us.
-
Why on Earth would Russia or China start a war with the United States in the foreseeable future? Russia may be on the up-and-coming, but they are still a decent way from being a challenge, and even further away from having a realistic reason for a war. China is perfectly satisfied with their economic position, they are more interested in money, and militarily, Taiwan.
-
Starting a war with the US is so costly that it is not worth any benefits. You also end up with a lot of geurillia's...
-
Starting a giant, WW2-style landgrab isn't profitable, period.
-
The fundamental problem is education. People make logical errors because they have not been taught to avoid them, and then you get the tea-party. Fix education, and you fix the system, simply because said people who are now properly educated will figure out a way to fix the system in a way you never thought of. Proper education results in a generation that is smarter then the previous one. That's how progress happens.
Yeah but, those in power don't want progress, they want money.
-
Why on Earth would Russia or China start a war with the United States in the foreseeable future? Russia may be on the up-and-coming, but they are still a decent way from being a challenge, and even further away from having a realistic reason for a war. China is perfectly satisfied with their economic position, they are more interested in money, and militarily, Taiwan.
Just a reminder of recent history: South Ossetia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war).
There's good reason to believe that Russia wants to reclaim a few of the former Soviet republics and stop its direct neighbors from joining NATO. NATO is willing to lock horns with Russia over such issues, so its not entirely beyond the realm of reality to see Russian and US forces fighting over territory in Europe. Then you get into the tangle of allegiances in the Middle East, which is to say that every nation in the Middle East that Russia maintains positive relations with is one that nobody in the United States would be too sad to see topple.
Additionally, China has quite a wide variety of border disputes with nations that the United States recognizes as sovereign and independent of China. I doubt very highly that the US Pacific Fleet would be allowed to stand idly by, should China get it in its head to stomp all over Taiwan. Then there's the hornet's nest that is Korea that could indirectly draw the United States and China into direct confrontation.
It's kind of funny how the ideological component of the Cold War more or less ended, but the material and territorial disputes remain. To say that there's no chance of a conflict between the United States and one of the regional powers of the eastern hemisphere is naive.
The trick with defense spending, therefore, is to reduce it to a reasonable level, without sacrificing the conventional deterrent effect of the United States' armed forces. Completely wiping out our top-of-the-line fighters isn't the way to do that. With the F-22 in the sky, Russia and/or China would have to enter into a conflict with the United States knowing that they are technologically incapable of gaining air superiority. When the F-35 comes online, they would have to engage in conflict knowing that their ground assets will be vulnerable to attacks against which they would be unable to retaliate.
My suggestion would be to have a small cadre of these aircraft in reserve, ready to deploy as soon as a conflict erupts, while keeping on standby the ability to produce more, quickly, as necessary. Is 187 F-22's a small cadre? No, 187 is too much for a peacetime force or even a force engaged in the conflicts in which we're currently engaged. We overdid it, but they're already paid for. We spent the $300 million-a-piece to build those 187, so we either pay to maintain and use them, or we pay even more to mothball and decommission them. It's pricey to keep technology out of the hands of others.
It's worth looking at what it takes to decommission an F-14, at this juncture. Iran has a stable of F-14's, all rendered inoperable by the removal of or lack of maintanence to key components that Iran lacks the technology to replicate or replace. In light of this, when an F-14 is in need of decommissioning, it needs to be kept secure from its last flight until the time it's scrapped. Every electronic component needs to be accounted for, prior to scrapping. Those components then need to be catalogued and their destruction confirmed or securely stored as spares for the remaining F-14's still in service.
All that, because we don't want one country that we don't particularly like getting their hands on F-14 parts. With the F-22 and F-35, it's another story entirely, because we don't want any countries getting their hands on the technology used in those planes. There's an export ban on these aircraft, so that our allies cannot yet buy them, nevermind our enemies. Up and scrapping them is not as cheap a proposition as you may believe.
Incidentally, how the hell did I wind up on the right wing of this discussion? I don't think I've ever found myself saying that someone wants to cut defense spending too much....
-
The fundamental problem is education. People make logical errors because they have not been taught to avoid them, and then you get the tea-party. Fix education, and you fix the system, simply because said people who are now properly educated will figure out a way to fix the system in a way you never thought of. Proper education results in a generation that is smarter then the previous one. That's how progress happens.
Yeah but, those in power don't want progress, they want money.
They'd probably also want a good pension... And good healthcare once they are there. Doesn't work without educated people.
There's an export ban on these aircraft, so that our allies cannot yet buy them
Not that we want to :P.
Oh wait. :banghead: (Look at how much the Dutch Goverment spends on the F-35...)
-
There's an export ban on these aircraft, so that our allies cannot yet buy them
Not that we want to :P.
Oh wait. :banghead: (Look at how much the Dutch Goverment spends on the F-35...)
Yeah that export ban is a load of bull, Canadian government is buying quite a few. Way more then we need for that matter. Stupid amount of wasted money IMHO
-
Yeah, the export ban is on the F22, but the F35 is the "Joint" Strike Fighter - it's being funded by multiple countries, specifically for export.
-
Why on Earth would Russia or China start a war with the United States in the foreseeable future? Russia may be on the up-and-coming, but they are still a decent way from being a challenge, and even further away from having a realistic reason for a war. China is perfectly satisfied with their economic position, they are more interested in money, and militarily, Taiwan.
Just a reminder of recent history: South Ossetia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war).
There's good reason to believe that Russia wants to reclaim a few of the former Soviet republics and stop its direct neighbors from joining NATO. NATO is willing to lock horns with Russia over such issues, so its not entirely beyond the realm of reality to see Russian and US forces fighting over territory in Europe. Then you get into the tangle of allegiances in the Middle East, which is to say that every nation in the Middle East that Russia maintains positive relations with is one that nobody in the United States would be too sad to see topple.
Additionally, China has quite a wide variety of border disputes with nations that the United States recognizes as sovereign and independent of China. I doubt very highly that the US Pacific Fleet would be allowed to stand idly by, should China get it in its head to stomp all over Taiwan. Then there's the hornet's nest that is Korea that could indirectly draw the United States and China into direct confrontation.
It's kind of funny how the ideological component of the Cold War more or less ended, but the material and territorial disputes remain. To say that there's no chance of a conflict between the United States and one of the regional powers of the eastern hemisphere is naive.
The trick with defense spending, therefore, is to reduce it to a reasonable level, without sacrificing the conventional deterrent effect of the United States' armed forces. Completely wiping out our top-of-the-line fighters isn't the way to do that. With the F-22 in the sky, Russia and/or China would have to enter into a conflict with the United States knowing that they are technologically incapable of gaining air superiority. When the F-35 comes online, they would have to engage in conflict knowing that their ground assets will be vulnerable to attacks against which they would be unable to retaliate.
My suggestion would be to have a small cadre of these aircraft in reserve, ready to deploy as soon as a conflict erupts, while keeping on standby the ability to produce more, quickly, as necessary. Is 187 F-22's a small cadre? No, 187 is too much for a peacetime force or even a force engaged in the conflicts in which we're currently engaged. We overdid it, but they're already paid for. We spent the $300 million-a-piece to build those 187, so we either pay to maintain and use them, or we pay even more to mothball and decommission them. It's pricey to keep technology out of the hands of others.
It's worth looking at what it takes to decommission an F-14, at this juncture. Iran has a stable of F-14's, all rendered inoperable by the removal of or lack of maintanence to key components that Iran lacks the technology to replicate or replace. In light of this, when an F-14 is in need of decommissioning, it needs to be kept secure from its last flight until the time it's scrapped. Every electronic component needs to be accounted for, prior to scrapping. Those components then need to be catalogued and their destruction confirmed or securely stored as spares for the remaining F-14's still in service.
All that, because we don't want one country that we don't particularly like getting their hands on F-14 parts. With the F-22 and F-35, it's another story entirely, because we don't want any countries getting their hands on the technology used in those planes. There's an export ban on these aircraft, so that our allies cannot yet buy them, nevermind our enemies. Up and scrapping them is not as cheap a proposition as you may believe.
Incidentally, how the hell did I wind up on the right wing of this discussion? I don't think I've ever found myself saying that someone wants to cut defense spending too much....
Yeah, wiping out defense spending is far from what I suggest. It's just clear, even using your F-22 production number as an example, that the defense budget is less about what is needed, and more about which districts politicians want "free" money sent to. We did not need that many, but it was really nice keeping those employed in the production process from being laid-off. Gotta buy up those votes y'know!
Wait, they also wanted to keep the lines running for F-35 production, didn't they? Sounds like an excuse to spend more money.
-
I don't care who spends what, I just want the chance to actually see an F-22 in person. And since the local naval base is shutting down, there's not even an air show in the immediate vicinity where I might get that chance. :(
-
Careful, it might blow up on you . . .
-
I'd actually love to see a F-14 in action. Those wings...
-
There's good reason to believe that Russia wants to reclaim a few of the former Soviet republics and stop its direct neighbors from joining NATO. NATO is willing to lock horns with Russia over such issues, so its not entirely beyond the realm of reality to see Russian and US forces fighting over territory in Europe. Then you get into the tangle of allegiances in the Middle East, which is to say that every nation in the Middle East that Russia maintains positive relations with is one that nobody in the United States would be too sad to see topple.
The Russian military is a mess, fell apart after the fall of the USSR and never came close to recovery. And to be fair there's a number of unsavory regimes in the mideast, the House of Saud being a prime example, that the US has positive relations with that no one in the world would be too sad to see go away.
Additionally, China has quite a wide variety of border disputes with nations that the United States recognizes as sovereign and independent of China. I doubt very highly that the US Pacific Fleet would be allowed to stand idly by, should China get it in its head to stomp all over Taiwan. Then there's the hornet's nest that is Korea that could indirectly draw the United States and China into direct confrontation.
Given the hopeless obsolescence of the majority of their military, the institutionalized incompetencies and the massive corruption it is highly unlikely they can win, or even force a stalemate if there was a direct confrontation.
With the F-22 in the sky, Russia and/or China would have to enter into a conflict with the United States knowing that they are technologically incapable of gaining air superiority.
Even with what we have today they are still incapable of gaining air superiority. Most of China's air force are Soviet designs from the 60's and most of Russia's air force was allowed to degrade so seriously that most of the fulcrums and flankers aren't even in working order anymore.
-
Indeed. I seem to recall reading estimates that stated Russia could only project not much more than a regiment, perhaps a small division, beyond their own borders with any expectation of effectiveness or even proper cohesion. Their military is in shambles when viewed as a modern force. Although I think Putin recently started moving towards widespread military investment to both create jobs and stop the deterioration of their armed forces as a whole.
-
Additionally, China has quite a wide variety of border disputes with nations that the United States recognizes as sovereign and independent of China. I doubt very highly that the US Pacific Fleet would be allowed to stand idly by, should China get it in its head to stomp all over Taiwan. Then there's the hornet's nest that is Korea that could indirectly draw the United States and China into direct confrontation.
Given the hopeless obsolescence of the majority of their military, the institutionalized incompetencies and the massive corruption it is highly unlikely they can win, or even force a stalemate if there was a direct confrontation.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Chinese military. In terms of attacking corruption their government is doing better (http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/20110211.aspx) than India. Reducing corruption is very much a matter of economic development and authoritarian states like Singapore have managed to run a very efficient government since they began pulling the tax revenue to fund it. And although the PLA has done a poor job of producing skilled soldiers, China has enormous economic and manpower resources at its disposal if it ever needs them. Chinese steel production is over five times that of the United States. The PRC may have a small defense budget now, but it's industrial output is already sufficient to support a very powerful force when the time comes.
The main thing in the way of the reconquest of Taiwan is China's lack of naval power; the USN is about as powerful as the rest of the world's navies combined while the PRC lacks a fleet commensurate with the country's industry. The ROC is an island, and control of the nearby Pacific would be the decisive factor in a China/Taiwan conflict. It will be a long time before the People's Republic has the world's most powerful navy- but it will probably get there in the not too distant future.
With the F-22 in the sky, Russia and/or China would have to enter into a conflict with the United States knowing that they are technologically incapable of gaining air superiority.
Even with what we have today they are still incapable of gaining air superiority. Most of China's air force are Soviet designs from the 60's and most of Russia's air force was allowed to degrade so seriously that most of the fulcrums and flankers aren't even in working order anymore.
This is a valid point since China does not yet have a fifth generation fighter. By 2019 though they will likely have something. The J-20 will be a serious competitor to the JSF and PAK FA, but in terms of stealth and thrust-to-weight it is still no match for the Raptor. China is catching up- if nothing else, it's getting better at stealing- and judging from the development of similar Asian countries it will some day have a technological infrastructure comparable if not superior to that of the United States.
Of course China is too dependent on foreign trade to start a war now. But I could certainly see it acting more aggressively in a few decades.
-
I rather expect them to learn the lessons that the USA had to be taught the hard way (And still they don't get it...): Using force to chane, or even meddling, with the affairs with another country will either lead to the opposite of what you are trying to achieve (Iran) , or a lot of people dead without you having achieved anything (Vietnam). Most of the times, both.
They seem to have got it, with them stealthily taking over Africa by offering them business contracts without all the ethics Europeans usually attach to them.
-
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Chinese military. In terms of attacking corruption their government is doing better than India. Reducing corruption is very much a matter of economic development and authoritarian states like Singapore have managed to run a very efficient government since they began pulling the tax revenue to fund it. And although the PLA has done a poor job of producing skilled soldiers, China has enormous economic and manpower resources at its disposal if it ever needs them. Chinese steel production is over five times that of the United States. The PRC may have a small defense budget now, but it's industrial output is already sufficient to support a very powerful force when the time comes.
Except that this isn't 1914, throwing masses of poorly trained grunts at a targret isn't nearly as effective as it used to be. Like most other things about China it looks big and scary on the outside but when you look more closely the reality isn't quite what it appears.
One of the main factors driving corruption in the PLA is that it actually does have a variety of investments and business interests. The Louis Vitton bags speak for themselves. (http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/pictures/female-chinese-soldiers-traveling-with-louis-vuitton-bags.html)
This is a valid point since China does not yet have a fifth generation fighter. By 2019 though they will likely have something. The J-20 will be a serious competitor to the JSF and PAK FA, but in terms of stealth and thrust-to-weight it is still no match for the Raptor. China is catching up- if nothing else, it's getting better at stealing- and judging from the development of similar Asian countries it will some day have a technological infrastructure comparable if not superior to that of the United States.
Except that China does not have the innovative capability to produce a real technological infrastructure to support that. I seriously doubt the J-20 is going to be all that it is cracked up to be. As it stands the Pak-Fa is a much better F22 alternative.
-
Except that this isn't 1914 the Era of Napoleon, throwing masses of poorly trained grunts at a targret isn't nearly as effective as it used to be.
In 1914, that tactic did not work at all.
-
Except that this isn't 1914 the Era of Napoleon, throwing masses of poorly trained grunts at a targret isn't nearly as effective as it used to be.
In 1914, that tactic did not work at all.
Didn't stop them from trying. :P The real lesson from Iraq was that when it comes to smashing up enemy militaries, numbers isn't usually what matters most. That being said where numbers does matter most is with an actual occupation.
-
What I'm saying is that China has the potential to raise a powerful military if it chose to, and it will only get stronger as time goes on. It has a gross national income 2/3rds of America's for a tax base, much stronger industry and immense manpower reserves. The main problems the PRC has is that, although its top-of-the-line equipment is comparable to America's, it spends much less in both absolute and relative terms on training and replacement of old equipment. Bring training, watchdogging and procurement and expenditures up to western levels and China would have a powerful military.
Except that China does not have the innovative capability to produce a real technological infrastructure to support that. I seriously doubt the J-20 is going to be all that it is cracked up to be. As it stands the Pak-Fa is a much better F22 alternative.
The PAK FA is not as stealthy as the F-22. It would be more accurate to say that the PAK FA and J-20 are in the same class; in any case the PRC could purchase PAK FA's once they become operational as well. The Russian fighter has somewhat better maneuverability compared to the J-20 but sensors and missile armament are comparable. Indeed the Russian R-73M Archer (which China uses) is superior to even the latest American dogfight missiles like the AIM-9X.
Except that this isn't 1914 the Era of Napoleon, throwing masses of poorly trained grunts at a targret isn't nearly as effective as it used to be.
In 1914, that tactic did not work at all.
Didn't stop them from trying. :P The real lesson from Iraq was that when it comes to smashing up enemy militaries, numbers isn't usually what matters most. That being said where numbers does matter most is with an actual occupation.
That isn't the best comparison. China has almost 400 modern fighter aircraft while Iraq had only about 30 MiG-29s. Russia has about 700 fourth generation fighters while Japan has around 300. This gives China the third or fourth most powerful air force in the world. Of course the USAF would beat any of them in a war but it wouldn't be a cake walk as all of these countries have a respectable stock of modern equipment.
-
What I'm saying is that China has the potential to raise a powerful military if it chose to, and it will only get stronger as time goes on. It has a gross national income 2/3rds of America's for a tax base, much stronger industry and immense manpower reserves. The main problems the PRC has is that, although its top-of-the-line equipment is comparable to America's, it spends much less in both absolute and relative terms on training and replacement of old equipment. Bring training, watchdogging and procurement and expenditures up to western levels and China would have a powerful military.
Except that even if expenditures reach American levels in absolute terms a lot of it would be enitrely wasted. Watchdogging in China is a total nonstarter, mainly because Chinese institutions try extremely hard to be opaque (this isn't unique to government, in industry it is common practice to have multiple sets of ledgers with the real one for the bosses eyes only). Training is also less effective than it otherwise would be because of the rigid heirarchical model of their military reinforced by the rigid heiarchical model of their culture. Combined together this makes them extremely vulnerable to modern manuever warfare, but these are things that are likely never going to change because of a combination of arrogance and vested interests in the status quo (Louis Vitton anyone? :P).
The PAK FA is not as stealthy as the F-22. It would be more accurate to say that the PAK FA and J-20 are in the same class; in any case the PRC could purchase PAK FA's once they become operational as well. The Russian fighter has somewhat better maneuverability compared to the J-20 but sensors and missile armament are comparable. Indeed the Russian R-73M Archer (which China uses) is superior to even the latest American dogfight missiles like the AIM-9X.
In fairness we don't really know exactly what the J20 is going to be capable of since it hasn't been tested in a meaningful manner (that we know of). Though I suspect most of its more advanced systems are going to be either imported or simply stolen. That China still wasn't able to build a competitive jet engine for their own J10 says a lot about their technology level.
That isn't the best comparison. China has almost 400 modern fighter aircraft while Iraq had only about 30 MiG-29s. Russia has about 700 fourth generation fighters while Japan has around 300. This gives China the third or fourth most powerful air force in the world. Of course the USAF would beat any of them in a war but it wouldn't be a cake walk as all of these countries have a respectable stock of modern equipment.
One thing I've been trying to find is a professional review of the J10 and how it measures up to Russian and USAF 4th generation.
-
Except that even if expenditures reach American levels in absolute terms a lot of it would be enitrely wasted. Watchdogging in China is a total nonstarter, mainly because Chinese institutions try extremely hard to be opaque (this isn't unique to government, in industry it is common practice to have multiple sets of ledgers with the real one for the bosses eyes only). Training is also less effective than it otherwise would be because of the rigid heirarchical model of their military reinforced by the rigid hierarchical model of their culture. Combined together this makes them extremely vulnerable to modern manuever warfare, but these are things that are likely never going to change because of a combination of arrogance and vested interests in the status quo (Louis Vitton anyone? :P).
Corruption does hurt the Chinese military but the main problem is lack of training. Chinese jet pilots fly only 130 hours a year while Western pilots have 160-180 hours as an annual minimum and typically fly 500-1000 in a year. The PLAAF could have decent pilots if it had the funding. And hierarchical culture by no means degrades organizational effectiveness; all the Asian Tigers eventually developed effective governments and professional militaries.
In fairness we don't really know exactly what the J20 is going to be capable of since it hasn't been tested in a meaningful manner (that we know of). Though I suspect most of its more advanced systems are going to be either imported or simply stolen. That China still wasn't able to build a competitive jet engine for their own J10 says a lot about their technology level.
One thing I've been trying to find is a professional review of the J10 and how it measures up to Russian and USAF 4th generation.
I wouldn't focus so much on the engine as on the fact that they pretty much copied the entire design from the Israeli Lavi. I don't think there are any good sources on the J-10's relative capabilities on the internet, but it has a 90s era track while scan radar and can carry AA-11 and AA-12 equivalent missiles. I would say it's comparable to the other 4th generation fighters China has on hand like the Su-27. Nothing is known about it's ECM other than that it can carry external jamming pods of indigenous design.
Remember that the US has been pouring money into military R&D for the past 60 years; China is still believed to spend a mere few billion a year on military R&D. Nonetheless their military budget is increasing rapidly. They will catch up eventually and espionage just speeds this along.
-
But... will it be a threat? A weapon is only dangerous when someone decides to wield it.
China rather enjoys just taking over businesses all over the world and getting a grip on world politicis illuminati style.
-
But... will it be a threat? A weapon is only dangerous when someone decides to wield it.
China might not use them, but they're more than happy to take orders for their planes from any number of tinpot regimes. I don't have quite the same faith in Iran or Syria not coming to blows with the US or Israeli aircraft as with China.
-
But... will it be a threat? A weapon is only dangerous when someone decides to wield it.
China rather enjoys just taking over businesses all over the world and getting a grip on world politicis illuminati style.
Great power conflicts have been moot since the invention of nuclear weapons. But if someone ever invents some decent Star Wars tech the rules will be much different.
China's most immediate military goal is retaking Taiwan and I don't think rigging elections or buying up apartments has ever worked as a way to take over a country.
-
But... will it be a threat? A weapon is only dangerous when someone decides to wield it.
China rather enjoys just taking over businesses all over the world and getting a grip on world politicis illuminati style.
Great power conflicts have been moot since the invention of nuclear weapons. But if someone ever invents some decent Star Wars tech the rules will be much different.
China's most immediate military goal is retaking Taiwan and I don't think rigging elections or buying up apartments has ever worked as a way to take over a country.
Really? The corperations in the USA have way more power then the goverment. They don't need to control the elections, they just buy up all the parliament members and get their tax cuts.
-
It's hard to justify making tribute payments to China, though. Implementing pro-corporate policies is much more politically acceptable. By the way, the Chinese have tried to influence American politics in the past; they funded Clinton's legal defense fund in 1996. Wikipedia it.
-
What about loan payments? Like, for example, all the money owed due to the economic crisis?
-
Good point. It certainly is in China's interest to make the US accumulate foreign held debt.
:nervous:
-
It's hard to justify making tribute payments to China, though. Implementing pro-corporate policies is much more politically acceptable. By the way, the Chinese have tried to influence American politics in the past; they funded Clinton's legal defense fund in 1996. Wikipedia it.
I am not talking about tribute payments to China. I am talking about China buying up corperations, so they can use those pro-corperate lobbies for their own purposes.
-
"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-
It's hard to justify making tribute payments to China, though. Implementing pro-corporate policies is much more politically acceptable. By the way, the Chinese have tried to influence American politics in the past; they funded Clinton's legal defense fund in 1996. Wikipedia it.
I am not talking about tribute payments to China. I am talking about China buying up corperations, so they can use those pro-corperate lobbies for their own purposes.
They dont have to. According to the supreme court gang rape of democracy a few years ago even foreign corporations can make campaign contributions.
-
It's hard to justify making tribute payments to China, though. Implementing pro-corporate policies is much more politically acceptable. By the way, the Chinese have tried to influence American politics in the past; they funded Clinton's legal defense fund in 1996. Wikipedia it.
It's not as if the DNC needed the money to win in 1996 anyway.
As long as we're on the subject, why isn't the US Chamber of Commerce being investigated for funneling overseas money into the 2010 elections for the Republicans? Races where the additional money may have turned a few critical races in Republican favor.
-
It's hard to justify making tribute payments to China, though. Implementing pro-corporate policies is much more politically acceptable. By the way, the Chinese have tried to influence American politics in the past; they funded Clinton's legal defense fund in 1996. Wikipedia it.
It's not as if the DNC needed the money to win in 1996 anyway.
As long as we're on the subject, why isn't the US Chamber of Commerce being investigated for funneling overseas money into the 2010 elections for the Republicans? Races where the additional money may have turned a few critical races in Republican favor.
Because didn't you know? Its only ok when Republicans do that type of thing....... :P
-
Read this, which might be an interesting comparison (http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/13/to-understand-the-us.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)