Stoker

When I was at Columbus a few years back as a Reserve hire, I was able to live in the dorms for free and receive BAH for my apartment back home. That was due to being a geo bachelor, though - wife stayed behind.

Debt and deficit are two different things. Closing the gap on the deficit will eliminate the debt in the long run. You can eliminate the deficit by taxing the entire US population roughly 5% of their income. Honestly, it might be a great compromise agreement - pass a constitutional amendment that if the budget is in deficit, we hit everyone with a 5% surtax. That would rile the hell out of huge chunks of the population (as I clearly have done here), which means Congress would have real incentives to reduce spending to avoid it. Just sitting around angry at spending and hoping government will magically reduce itself in size isn't productive thinking, though.

Yes, that's been my whole argument. The only path forward is to do both. Saying "no raising taxes until we balance the budget" is functionally equivalent to saying "let it burn, I don't care." You need to meet the other side halfway ("I'll take a 5% tax increase if you agree to raise social security and medicare ages by five years", etc.). A couple folks in this thread seem to think it's as simple as cutting the budget. Well, it is, but the most simple things are very hard. I'd rather make a compromise that achieves the goal of righting our ship, than dig my heels in and watch the water wash further and further up the deck.

To pay double my total tax rate (not marginal rate, that's different), you'd need to be clearing north of $800,000 household income filing jointly. At that rate, yes, you can afford to pay more to help avert fiscal doom. I'm totally with you that I'd love for Congress to magically all agree that the spending is crazy and we should revert to a limited government - but I've grown up enough to know that it isn't going to happen. If your only solution is "my team gets its way, 100%, for five or six election cycles, until we remake America to our vision," well... keep dreaming. The whole "they'll be happy to take what you want to donate" is an asinine argument that stupid people think sounds smart, but what it isn't is a solution to a problem that will see your children remarkably worse off than you are. I guess we don't quite crack the top 10% of US incomes, but we're both darned close. Bingo.

The money we're spending in Ukraine is some of the most cost-effective spending we've had in decades... We've spent trillions over the past eighty years with the goal of denying Russian domination of Europe - it has been at the core of US strategy since May 1945. If that hundred billion is a waste, then the overwhelming majority of our defense spending is a waste (I'll be the first to agree that a lot of it is, but probably not 90% of it). It's like being worried about burglars, so you hire 24/7 armed guards and build a moat, but you don't buy a door lock from Home Depot. As for raising taxes, we need to get the brackets up. We've got too many people for whom government is just a thing other people pay for that gives them money. It's corrosive to democracy. Even where I sit, with two high income earners in the household, only paid 17% of my net income in federal taxes. Do I want to fork over more? No. But I want to let our Republic careen drunkenly into the abyss even less.

Two things can be true at the same time. We waste a lot of money because, thanks to deficit spending, we don't need to prioritize one program over another. Very different than balanced budgeting. I spent five years with a front row seat to a state budgeting process, programs get racked and stacked brutally because you just can't fund everything. And yes, we need to tax more as well. We're about to be strangled by entitlement spending in the next 20 years and if you think the solution is as simple as cutting those programs, you don't really have a very good view of how the US electoral and political process works. We need a grand bargain that raises taxes across all income levels, cuts wasteful spending, raises retirement and benefit ages to realistically track the growth of life expectancy in the last fifty years, and drives us in the general direction of a balanced budget in a decade or two. You gotta give a little to get a little. Or you can dig in your heels, say "taxes too high, no new taxes," and await the inevitable collapse of the US financial and political system. If you're lucky, it won't happen while you're alive, but your children won't thank you.

1.5% of the Federal budget, annually, and likely the most cost effective spending out of Washington in decades. What's your point? We waste a shit ton of money and don't tax enough, so when we have an opportunity to actually do something with the money, we shouldn't, but still, don't do anything about the deficit? $100 billion is also 12% of the annual US military budget, which for the last EIGHTY years has been entirely constructed around defeating Russia, with a side of "kill terrorists." If Raytheon sold a magic button for $100 billion dollars that, if pressed, crippled the armed forces of a near peer power, it would be foolish not to buy one. Because we believe in national self-determination, democracy, liberal world order based on free trade. Central and South America, and Europe, and most of Asia, are in the US orbit, because it benefits them, and everyone else, to be in our orbit, not because we invaded them, conscripted every man to go clear minefields with their feet, and raped any women we felt like. I mean, seriously, why SHOULDNT Poland be in the Third Reichs orbit? Why SHOULDNT the Philippines be in Imperial Japan's orbit? Who are we to say to the Confederacy, "hey, stop owning people?"

Looking at our efforts, such as they are, to support a free and independent Ukraine outside of the Russian orbit, and saying that they're a strategic disaster because it provoked Russia into invading, is like someone in 1942 saying that cutting off oil exports to Japan in 1940 was a strategic disaster because it provoked their attack on Pearl Harbor. We just don't know how it's going to turn out... however, thus far it has taken Ukraine from a shaky potential partner to the most anti-Russian country on the planet, and roused Finland and Sweden out of decades/centuries of neutrality in favor of NATO membership. Not a bad gain for the first round of cards and hundred billion dollars.

The idea that Reagan doing a bunch of deficit spending somehow won the Cold War implies that the Communist model was sound but for the US issuing a ton of bonds. That gives far too much credit to their economic model - the Cold War was always going to be lost by Russia, the only question was whether it would be lost due to internal collapse or lost due to nuclear annihilation.

For the Reserves, at least, I was able to keep my BAH at home and live in the dorms at CBM for free.

According to at least one right-wing think tank, a 25 year old high school dropout immigrant will produce a positive $216k in government receipts over their 30 year working life (https://www.cato.org/blog/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states). Turns out there's a benefit to having people's least productive years happen somewhere else. Ratner threw out a back-of-the-napkin model for increasing immigration, but when presented with the actual number of immigrants it would imply, decided that there would be additional restrictions. Sorry, there aren't six million brain surgeons looking to move here - frankly we've screwed up the US enough that people given the option would prefer Canada or Ireland. Six million construction workers might start to put a dent in the ludicrous housing shortage we've dug for ourselves, though, and that's an unskilled (rather, uncredentialed) job that we could certainly fill. At what point did something break in the US where we became unable to assimilate immigrants? Your arguments are the same arguments people used to exclude Chinese and Japanese from California a hundred years ago - and sure enough, there are masses of legacy Asian immigrants who don't integrate with society or contribute anything... err, wait, it's the opposite.

Democrats absolutely own their share of the blame for not articulating a plan to increase legal immigration, instead being content with consigning millions to be a permanent underclass. It's not right or productive. Democrats don't understand why undermining the rule of law is bad, Republicans believe the absurd idea that America is somehow full despite being one of the less dense developed countries with large swathes of the country experiencing depopulation and labor shortages. The natural population growth rate was 0.13% last year, so that'd be, what, 6 million green cards issued per year? That's six times what we issued in 2023, for what it's worth. Yes, I'd take that deal and strongly support punitive measures against anyone who circumvents the system. Landmines, shoot-on-sight, indefinite internment, light them on fire, whatever makes you happy and deters others. If you provide a reasonably attainable path for the tired, the poor, the huddled masses to come to the US and work legally, we can be draconian against those who choose not to take it. Heck, make new arrivals pay an extra 20% income tax to cover the risk of them collecting food stamps. We have never imposed a language requirement for new arrivals, and somehow managed to assimilate just fine (or are those scary Italians who came over in the 1910s still speaking the language of the old country?). It's a good job skill, though, and it would make a lot of economic and political sense to require new arrivals to take English classes for a designated period of time.

A lot of people say this, but then you ask them about their knowledge of the legal immigration system and it's quite poor. Effectively the only way a not-exceptionally-skilled immigrant can legally migrate to the US outside of the asylum system is to either be related to an American citizen, or to win the Green Card lottery. That's 50,000 a year. You can come here on an H1B if you're theoretically impossible to find domestically, but depending on the country you're from you'll face a decades-long or lifetime wait to ever convert to permanent status, and until then you're an indentured servant for whatever corporation sponsored you. People in this thread are strawmanning me because they can't comprehend that I want immigration in an orderly manner. Do we need to reform the asylum system? Absolutely. Pass a bill. Appropriate funds such that we have immigration rocket dockets and hear cases in a week, not eight months, and everyone is interned until then. I'm totally fine with that! But I also want to have avenues for would-be Americans to come here legally. It's unjust for someone to think that open immigration was a swell idea for the first couple hundred years of our nation, ending sometime exactly when their last ancestor made it over. If I said I'd support an antipersonnel minefield 500 yards deep at the border, with troops every hundred yards armed with rifles and shoot-on-sight orders, would you in turn agree that our legal immigration needs to be massively revamped to actually provide avenues to come here in an orderly fashion? I'd strongly support an option for would-be immigrants to declaim any attempt at welfare - that was something my family had to do when they came here, and in theory it still applies via the public charge rule (although that's more about denying admission than deporting people here already). It's a strange world we live in where we desperately need people to work crappy jobs, provide a welfare state for people with crappy jobs, and then don't let people come here to take the crappy jobs because they might utilize the welfare state. That's not even taking into account that the only reason the US is relatively well positioned, economically and demographically speaking, compared to our competitors on the world stage, is because we have relatively high immigration. 1.6 births per woman is not going to cut it - that isn't China but it's not far off.

They got here in the 50s. Can you elaborate on what social programs you think we offer that people are calculating is worth the risk of being raped and murdered by organized crime on the way up? That said, we used to sell land to immigrant farmers at rock-bottom prices, cleared of Indians by the Federal government, with subsidized railroads to bring your crops to market - is that not a social program? https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/immigrant-native-consumption-means-tested-welfare-entitlement-benefits-2020 Immigrants use less welfare than the average American, for what it's worth. I agree that the current system is bad. The solution is not to build a taller wall, because the demand still exists. If you're worried about immigrants taking your welfare checks or changing your culture, you should support making the border more porous - pre 1980s immigration crackdown we largely had men coming here to work and then go home, now that's too risky so they bring their families and stay.

I'm one of those weirdos who thinks our laws should usually be respected, but also thinks that generally free migration is a core tenet of this nation's collective soul, and denying any realistic avenue to come to America for billions of people who will literally risk life and limb to come here is downright unAmerican. I strongly believe in the rule of law, but in the end, an unjust law is no law at all. The "political stunt" I'm referring to is something along the lines of, why is it only the moralizing politicians who constantly tell us we need more Christianity in government, who are doing the most un-Christlike things to their fellow human beings. In the end, our immigration system is much like our Covid response - if we were actively trying to make it more destructive and less effective, what would we do differently? My ancestors wouldn't have been allowed into the US under the current system - I hope they'd have had the courage and American spirit to come here anyways.

I don't usually agree with the concept of Red State governors bussing/flying migrants to Blue States as a political gotcha moment (would be more fine if it was part of an organized program with actual goals, but it usually seems to be a pure political stunt). However it was pretty funny when DeSantis flew 70 illegals to Martha's Vinyard, and within 24 hours the (presumably extremely limousine liberal) locals called out the National Guard, declared a state of emergency, and had the migrants shipped off the island.

Yep, the F-35s aren't there to blow up a drone, they're there to blow up the drone factory, the drone depot, the drone unit's barracks, etc., etc. Just because we've been unwilling to take those steps against Iran for fear of escalation doesn't mean it won't work.

That's a very important insight. Very, very few of our Congressmen are any good at the job of legislator. The ones you are familiar with are probably decent politicians, but they have little to no idea how to move legislation through a deliberative body - and they mostly don't care, because they're all running for the next office. As a society we have definitely moved towards governor or president being the end goal for a politician instead of "served 30 years in the House," and people only know how to make things happen if they can dictate by fiat.

Post Revolution we more or less exiled any Loyalists, the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts criminalized being critical of the government, Lincoln threw critics of the Federal government into military jails without trial and/or banished them to the Confederacy and Canada, Woodrow Wilson jailed political opponents, McCarthy era, etc., etc. We are not at any new peak in terms of political persecution.

I don't really understand how a program that could effectively be "take a commercial helicopter and strap guns, bombs, and sensors to it" could cost $2 billion in development.

We conscripted people to fight in the American Revolution. The idea that your community could go to war and you had a right to shirk your duty to defend it is alien to our country and most others (certainly any successful ones). We've decided to spend the money to create a military machine that doesn't need conscripts, and that's a good thing, but not every country has that luxury.

The good news for those of you worried about the (tiny fraction of the) debt imposed on your children due to Ukraine spending is that, if we just let the Russians roll over Ukraine and a few other countries, your kids won't need to worry about the debt, because they'll be too worried about dying in a conflict with Putin's successor when he invades the Baltics or Poland. Deterrence is always much cheaper than the inevitable fight after appeasement.

Ah, gotcha, you want the lobbyists and interest groups to run things even more than they already do. Because I'm telling you, there are very few people who know how to write a serious piece of legislation and then get it passed, and almost all of them are employed on K Street. Mr. Smith does not go to Washington and actually get anything done. Ever. Part time Joe the Plumber politicians do about as well in Washington as a Pop Warner all star would do in the NFL. And for what it's worth, the 1st United States Congress was in session for 18 months out of the two year term. Not exactly part time, especially considering weeks of travel to and from the districts. And that was managing a government that was far smaller and less complex.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approximately 50,000 nominations to review and confirm each year. If the Senate works six days a week, year round, twelve hour days, they will have approximately 4.6 minutes per nominee to review and vote. Given that a lone holdout can still force a roll call vote that will take far longer than 5 minutes, you will effectively accomplish nothing. The system is designed so that most people get blanket approved, but there is ample opportunity for serious discussion if there is any Senator who feels there's a need for it. It's a super common misconception that Congress is only working when it's in session - there's a lot more going on behind the scenes.

We already effectively have a two-state solution in historical terms, given that Jordan was carved out of Mandatory Palestine with the intent of being Palestine for the Arabs. Jordan also ruled the West Bank until they made the catastrophic decision to invade Israel a second time. Make no mistake, any solution that gives up more territory to Palestinians will eventually be followed by demands to make Israel solely consist of land a Jew is actively standing on.