Is the US fucked?

[Stormbringer]

I don't know, maybe it's my inner cynic getting loose but does anyone else think the US is slowly screwing it self into the crapper?

1) I mean the deficit and the Social Security Crap Out are looming large and neither side wants to deal with it.

2) We've got massive social problems; ghettos, unemployment, and generally a nasty divide between haves and have nots.

3) Our leadership is uniformally composed of carreerist creeps.

4) For a democracy we've got shitty involvement in the actual process and even less informed voters.

5) We're screwing our military badly, both short term and long. With the war on terror that strikes me as a bad idea.

6) Our economy is too dependant on cheap oil. Enviro weenie or not that crude's going to run out some day.


Any one else think the US (among others) is setting up to be really screwed?

[Sokar]

Were not fucked.

1. Social Security is a major, major issue that we do need to confront. Its going to be a bitter pill to swallow but the only answer to it is to restructure the system to function as it was designed given current demographis trends. SS's biggest problem is that far to many people will live past the age required to collect benefits, the simple answer is to move benefits age up to a more realistic level. 65 is to low a bar anymore, most of us will live to be 65 barring accident or illness.

2. Deficit spending is always bad, mainly because it makes investment markets shaky due to inflation fears. But it is far from the terminal problem the newsmongers make it out to be, if it was the deficits run up during the Reagan years should have crushed the life out of us a decade ago. When you are both the bank and browwer(SP?) the rules change for how money gets spent and recouped. Its all just numbers on a page of balance sheets in the end anyway and with a little wink-wink nudge-nudge and it all gets forgotten about.

3. Social Problems - Will Never Go Away, even in the year 10,191 there will still be ghettos, unemployment(by the way 5.5% unemployment is as low as it can get, and dont start with having to count thoes not looking for work, if your no longer looking I don't give a rats ass about you) crime , homelessness and a "nasty divide between the haves and have nots" what ever the hell that means...I've always felt that as an American your goal should be to make yourself into one of the 'haves', you have the opportunity you just have to take it.

Damn this is turning into a rant.....

As to politicians and electoral uninvolvment, again thats the way its almost always been, Republican Democracy as practiced in the United States means career politicos and that the number of actual voters will always be a small socially or economically motivated block. This was true in 1789, its true in 2004 and will be true in 2104.

Cheap oil.....that one is a conundrum, I believe that as long as its available crude oil will be a primary power source, once it becomes prohibitivly expensive other fuel sources will be found or currently existing ones will be further refined. Its a question of profitability of the fuel source for energy producers. Currently oil is king, but when it becomes financially advantageus for Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum to fund and build fuelcell technology(or any other fuel source) they will , but not a single moment before.

[Darth Wong]

Were not fucked.

1. Social Security is a major, major issue that we do need to confront. Its going to be a bitter pill to swallow but the only answer to it is to restructure the system to function as it was designed given current demographis trends. SS's biggest problem is that far to many people will live past the age required to collect benefits, the simple answer is to move benefits age up to a more realistic level. 65 is to low a bar anymore, most of us will live to be 65 barring accident or illness.

Yes, the notion that Social Security is unfixable seems silly when a few rule changes would solve the problem.

2. Deficit spending is always bad, mainly because it makes investment markets shaky due to inflation fears. But it is far from the terminal problem the newsmongers make it out to be, if it was the deficits run up during the Reagan years should have crushed the life out of us a decade ago. When you are both the bank and browwer(SP?) the rules change for how money gets spent and recouped. Its all just numbers on a page of balance sheets in the end anyway and with a little wink-wink nudge-nudge and it all gets forgotten about.

Ahem ... there was a major recession a decade ago. I knew people whose life savings were literally destroyed in that recession.

3. Social Problems - Will Never Go Away, even in the year 10,191 there will still be ghettos, unemployment(by the way 5.5% unemployment is as low as it can get, and dont start with having to count thoes not looking for work, if your no longer looking I don't give a rats ass about you) crime , homelessness and a "nasty divide between the haves and have nots" what ever the hell that means...I've always felt that as an American your goal should be to make yourself into one of the 'haves', you have the opportunity you just have to take it.

The question is not whether the gap exists, but whether it's been getting worse.

From the CIA factbook on America:

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

That's thirty fucking years of the top 20% of households getting virtually all of the economic growth; you can't just ignore something like that.

While the US economy is currently quite strong, the CIA summarizes the long-term problems quite succinctly with this statement:

Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

While the CIA's intel-gathering in Muslim fundamentalist countries has been shown to be rather inadequate, it seems reasonable to assume they have access to fairly good intel on the United States.

[Imperial Overlord]

Unlike the Middle East, they have lots of agents who speak the language.

[Stormbringer]

1. Social Security is a major, major issue that we do need to confront. Its going to be a bitter pill to swallow but the only answer to it is to restructure the system to function as it was designed given current demographis trends. SS's biggest problem is that far to many people will live past the age required to collect benefits, the simple answer is to move benefits age up to a more realistic level. 65 is to low a bar anymore, most of us will live to be 65 barring accident or illness.

I agree it's a solvable problem, provided we're willing to accept the consequences. The problem is people don't seem to be willing to.

2. Deficit spending is always bad, mainly because it makes investment markets shaky due to inflation fears. But it is far from the terminal problem the newsmongers make it out to be, if it was the deficits run up during the Reagan years should have crushed the life out of us a decade ago. When you are both the bank and browwer(SP?) the rules change for how money gets spent and recouped. Its all just numbers on a page of balance sheets in the end anyway and with a little wink-wink nudge-nudge and it all gets forgotten about.

Yeah, the chances of the debt being called in are non-existant. The problem is having tens of trillions in wracked up IOUs is going to make a lot of people nervous. Like it or not we're in a global economy and those sort debts can put a real stigma over the US. At the very least that inflation is going to play hell with the value of the US dollar, at home and abroad.

Not good, and it'll hurt our economy badly if it comes to pass.

3. Social Problems - Will Never Go Away, even in the year 10,191 there will still be ghettos, unemployment(by the way 5.5% unemployment is as low as it can get, and dont start with having to count thoes not looking for work, if your no longer looking I don't give a rats ass about you) crime , homelessness and a "nasty divide between the haves and have nots" what ever the hell that means...I've always felt that as an American your goal should be to make yourself into one of the 'haves', you have the opportunity you just have to take it.

Of course social problems won't go away. But that doesn't mean they're good. Wars and Revolutions have started over them. And quite frankly despite all the talk the ghettos and the the chronically undereducated are going to be a problem. High education, which is a must, isn't availiable or realistic for a lot. That leaves a permanent underclass unless it's corrected and that is a problem.

This isn't class warfare bullshit, it's a very real problem.

As to politicians and electoral uninvolvment, again thats the way its almost always been, Republican Democracy as practiced in the United States means career politicos and that the number of actual voters will always be a small socially or economically motivated block. This was true in 1789, its true in 2004 and will be true in 2104.

True, but the percentages of voters has gone steadily down. That's not a good thing; at the very least it engenders a distrust of government and at worse out right hatred of it. That's not a good situation, especially with those motivated groups consisting of some of the less friendly elements of American society.

Currently oil is king, but when it becomes financially advantageus for Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum to fund and build fuelcell technology(or any other fuel source) they will , but not a single moment before.

The question is will it be in time or will the economy take a beating?

[Stofsk]

5) We're screwing our military badly, both short term and long. With the war on terror that strikes me as a bad idea.

Can you elaborate on this? How is the military getting screwed up? Are you talking about pay cuts for soldiers (I remember hearing about that recently, I think it was on F9/11)? The deployment in Iraq taking it's toll on men and equipment? Or something else? Or all of the above?

[Darth Wong]

He's probably talking about underfunding it.

I have observed that the military is the only government program in America where conservatives believe that throwing more money at it is always the best way to improve it (and that failure to throw more money at it means you're "against" the entire program).

[Stormbringer]

He's probably talking about underfunding it.

Underfunding it, well yes in a way. The problem is that in general the money isn't being spent on worthwhile things. Too many billion dollar boondoggles and too few little pay for the men and funding for ships, tanks, planes, and guns.

And I'm talking about the political fuck overs. The endless peacekeeping, the nation building, and in general the poor way in which the military has been treated. They deserve a lot more respect than they have been given.

I have observed that the military is the only government program in America where conservatives believe that throwing more money at it is always the best way to improve it (and that failure to throw more money at it means you're "against" the entire program).

I don't believe in blindly throwing money at it. We've done too much of that. But the fact is that we're trying to do more with less and less. More capable less in most cases but that's not a substitute for badly needed numbers.

[Lonestar]

I think Stormbringer is refering to my "The Navy has no fucking clue" thread in the HAB....Ender can coroborate most of what I said there.



An entire Carrier Strike Group finding out they're going on deployment 4 months early, from the local news? The Navy is cutting 60,000 sailors, and end result is that we're going to be even more officer heavy? (right now we got more officers than Chiefs on the Hizzile). If there current fleet building plan goes forward, and continues for the next ten years, we're only going to have 120 vessels in the Navy?

Something is seriously wrong. I can't imagine it's money issues, not with the navy making out like bandits last budget.

[Darth Wong]

Those kind of issues are simple managerial incompetence, and not what I would consider to be long-term structural issues with American society at large.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If people would listen to me... *chuckle because you all know i am a crackpot yes?*

1) I mean the deficit and the Social Security Crap Out are looming large and neither side wants to deal with it.

Simple, raise the minimum age and give the AARP the finger. Either that, or scrap the system and have people pay into their own personal accounts(slowly weening people off the original system so you dont get horrible backlash)

It would be vulnerable to the stock market, but that is why one should invest in things that are ALWAYS in demand(Food Staples: Maruchan, Nissin, General Mills etc) and have a diverse porfolio.

A combination of both may also work

2) We've got massive social problems; ghettos, unemployment, and generally a nasty divide between haves and have nots.

Privatize the ghettos(seriously, it has worked wonders on the eat coast from what I have read) with a profit motive involved, a private company will keep the low income housing projects safeand in good repair.

Unemployment... ours is actually rather low compared to some other western countries. it is rather unavoidable.

A divide between rich and poor is also unavoidable. ANd it is that motive become a "have" which drives our economy

3) Our leadership is uniformally composed of carreerist creeps.

That is why you should vote for me. I am perfectly content to charge half of congress with purjury/treason(violating their oaths of office) or veto budget proposals that are to high, until the nation gridlocks

4) For a democracy we've got shitty involvement in the actual process and even less informed voters.

No argument there. What someone really needs to do is shock them into paying attention. A War of the WOrlds type scenario. I dont know... some kind of contrived plot to have the media says that the president just disolved the congress in accordance to <insert section of constitution that does not actually exist> and declared himself emperor. People would get involved then. Then after a few weeks of Martial law, the "emperor" would do a press conference, and essentially say "How do you like that? It wasnt real this time, but think for a second if it actually was"

5) We're screwing our military badly, both short term and long. With the war on terror that strikes me as a bad idea.

Agreed, I much prefer concrete targets. ne cannot kill an idea, or an action. One can however bomb an offending country to the point that it stops existing. We would waste so many fewer lives if we actually had satellites that could accelerate tngsten spears at a target from orbit.. But I digress.

We are however fighting a war which we cannot concievably win, which will be nothing more than a black hole pulling our money into its gaping event horizon.

6) Our economy is too dependant on cheap oil. Enviro weenie or not that crude's going to run out some day.

WHich is why we ought to move to Nuclear power and electric cars... but noone ever listens to me...

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't know, maybe it's my inner cynic getting loose but does anyone else think the US is slowly screwing it self into the crapper?

Nothing is unsolvable. What you need is a David Lange, Roger Douglas and lets not forget Richard 'Mad Dog' Prebble. Rip your government, inefficiant sections of your economy, apart and put it back together. This will never happen because of your political system.

[frigidmagi]

No argument there. What someone really needs to do is shock them into paying attention. A War of the WOrlds type scenario. I dont know... some kind of contrived plot to have the media says that the president just disolved the congress in accordance to <insert section of constitution that does not actually exist> and declared himself emperor. People would get involved then. Then after a few weeks of Martial law, the "emperor" would do a press conference, and essentially say "How do you like that? It wasnt real this time, but think for a second if it actually was"

Aly forgive me but I don't thing something this big and contrived will work.[/code]

[Darth Wong]

If people would listen to me... *chuckle because you all know i am a crackpot yes?*

1) I mean the deficit and the Social Security Crap Out are looming large and neither side wants to deal with it.

Simple, raise the minimum age and give the AARP the finger. Either that, or scrap the system and have people pay into their own personal accounts(slowly weening people off the original system so you dont get horrible backlash)

It would be vulnerable to the stock market, but that is why one should invest in things that are ALWAYS in demand(Food Staples: Maruchan, Nissin, General Mills etc) and have a diverse porfolio.

It obviously doesn't occur to you that the people who will need social security the most are the ones who lack money management skills.

Privatize the ghettos(seriously, it has worked wonders on the eat coast from what I have read) with a profit motive involved, a private company will keep the low income housing projects safeand in good repair.

What the hell is the profit motive in spending more money on security and building maintenance, especially for low-income apartments where the rent is going to be regulated, occupancy is going to be 100% regardless, and the clients are on the dole?

Unemployment... ours is actually rather low compared to some other western countries. it is rather unavoidable.

The unemployment rate is quite low, which looks good, but the unemployment which exists tends to be concentrated into geographical "pockets", which breeds all sorts of social problems. Also, the employment which exists has increasingly been weighted toward the lower end of the salary scale, which is a burgeoning problem.

A divide between rich and poor is also unavoidable. ANd it is that motive become a "have" which drives our economy

I see you completely missed the point made earlier about how the gap between rich and poor is not an on/off scenario, but one of degrees, and it's not a good thing when it gets too large. Once again, virtually all economic growth since 1975 has gone to the top 20% of households; this is not a healthy trend.

[Mr Bean]

I think Stormbringer is refering to my "The Navy has no fucking clue" thread in the HAB....Ender can coroborate most of what I said there.



An entire Carrier Strike Group finding out they're going on deployment 4 months early, from the local news? The Navy is cutting 60,000 sailors, and end result is that we're going to be even more officer heavy? (right now we got more officers than Chiefs on the Hizzile). If there current fleet building plan goes forward, and continues for the next ten years, we're only going to have 120 vessels in the Navy?

Something is seriously wrong. I can't imagine it's money issues, not with the navy making out like bandits last budget.

No to mention combing traditional rates into new super-rates thus somehow reduce adminstrative costs

Put it to you this way, if you have three groups of people, each doing something somewhat similiar and combine them all into one new job, each of which while doing sort of the same job requires a complete new skillset


Sort of like the diffrence between a tank mechanice, an airplane mechanice
Similiar sounding job with a lot of diffrences once you acutal look

Though the Navy has decided to start saving money by doing things just like that

[Alyrium Denryle]

It obviously doesn't occur to you that the people who will need social security the most are the ones who lack money management skills.

Which is why you give them a little guide to investments... or you point them to a low risk mutual fund which will do that stuff for them.

What the hell is the profit motive in spending more money on security and building maintenance, especially for low-income apartments where the rent is going to be regulated, occupancy is going to be 100% regardless, and the clients are on the dole?

It hnestly doesnt take much to keep shit together in one of those places. They run for example, under a government contact to oversee and maintain the building. They are given certain parameters, and get to work. First, you scrub the graffiti of the walls. Then you fence the place in, then hire a few guards to watch the place and put up emergency call phones at trategic points.

A corporation is rewarded with money for efficiency in said tasks.

The unemployment rate is quite low, which looks good, but the unemployment which exists tends to be concentrated into geographical "pockets", which breeds all sorts of social problems. Also, the employment which exists has increasingly been weighted toward the lower end of the salary scale, which is a burgeoning problem.

It is because we are experiencing a shift in our economy. GOing from industrial to a information/services based economy. That is... also unavoidable. It is a change in the market and there really isnt a way to fix it, save for weathering the storm and adapting to the new market.(hmmm evolution.. with social science)

I see you completely missed the point made earlier about how the gap between rich and poor is not an on/off scenario, but one of degrees, and it's not a good thing when it gets too large. Once again, virtually all economic growth since 1975 has gone to the top 20% of households; this is not a healthy trend.

I dont see it so much a matter of the gap between what we call rich and poor, as I see it as the standard of living of those involved. For example, someone in the lower iddle class can till expect to own at least 19often 2) cars in good working order, have cable TV and a decent coputer, with a reasonably comfortable house etc etc.

The gap between rich and poor, doesnt matter nearly as much as the living conditions of those we designate as poor.

IMHO

[Patrick Degan]

It obviously doesn't occur to you that the people who will need social security the most are the ones who lack money management skills.

Which is why you give them a little guide to investments... or you point them to a low risk mutual fund which will do that stuff for them.

This is of course assuming that the logic behind the "low risk mutual fund" remains in force for periods of 20-30 years, there are no market shifts which would undermind said fund, and that the advisers are actually reporting honestly and not following the Enron philosophy of "advising" investors.

What the hell is the profit motive in spending more money on security and building maintenance, especially for low-income apartments where the rent is going to be regulated, occupancy is going to be 100% regardless, and the clients are on the dole?

It hnestly doesnt take much to keep shit together in one of those places. They run for example, under a government contact to oversee and maintain the building. They are given certain parameters, and get to work. First, you scrub the graffiti of the walls. Then you fence the place in, then hire a few guards to watch the place and put up emergency call phones at trategic points.

A corporation is rewarded with money for efficiency in said tasks.

I hate to have to remind you of this, but corporations have decreed efficency as cutting costs to the bone to maximise profit, and service be damned. See the present HMO mess as example.

The unemployment rate is quite low, which looks good, but the unemployment which exists tends to be concentrated into geographical "pockets", which breeds all sorts of social problems. Also, the employment which exists has increasingly been weighted toward the lower end of the salary scale, which is a burgeoning problem.

It is because we are experiencing a shift in our economy. GOing from industrial to a information/services based economy. That is... also unavoidable. It is a change in the market and there really isnt a way to fix it, save for weathering the storm and adapting to the new market.(hmmm evolution.. with social science)

Nice theory but it ignores the realities of those being "evolved" out of the marketplace and the overall negative effect it has on society in general, or are you advocating a new form of Social Darwinism here?

I see you completely missed the point made earlier about how the gap between rich and poor is not an on/off scenario, but one of degrees, and it's not a good thing when it gets too large. Once again, virtually all economic growth since 1975 has gone to the top 20% of households; this is not a healthy trend.

I dont see it so much a matter of the gap between what we call rich and poor, as I see it as the standard of living of those involved. For example, someone in the lower middle class can till expect to own at least 1 often 2) cars in good working order, have cable TV and a decent computer, with a reasonably comfortable house etc etc.

I'd really love to see you explain this wonderful theory to any two-income family which is making just enough to remain in crushing debt these days.

The gap between rich and poor, doesnt matter nearly as much as the living conditions of those we designate as poor.

It has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history that the more entrenched wealth becomes and within an ever more shrinking circle of persons, the more unequal, unfree, and impoverished the society as a whole becomes —from the Roman Republic/Empire to the Phiippines under Marcos to modern-day Chile. Entrenched wealth exerts a hugely disproportionate influence upon government and acts solely to expand and protect its privileges, which grows more disproportionate as the wealth and power of the entrenched plutocracy grows. This is why the gap between rich and poor does matter, even when it is relatively small compared to other societies where the ratio has reached 25:75 or worse and with little to no middle class between the two extremes.

[HemlockGrey]

For example, someone in the lower iddle class can till expect to own at least 19often 2) cars in good working order, have cable TV and a decent coputer, with a reasonably comfortable house etc etc.

Are you on crack? What statistics do you have that can possibly justify this claim?

[Patrick Degan]

BTW, it looks like I will be unable to have any further input on this thread due to the hurricane alert in my area for Ivan, so I'm dropping out of the discussion now.

[Stormbringer]

BTW, it looks like I will be unable to have any further input on this thread due to the hurricane alert in my area for Ivan, so I'm dropping out of the discussion now.

Take care man.

[MKSheppard]

I have observed that the military is the only government program in America where conservatives believe that throwing more money at it is always the best way to improve it (and that failure to throw more money at it means you're "against" the entire program).

And as a result, America has 36 Arleigh Burkes which can sink the navy
of most everyone, and shoot down pretty much any air force, with a further
26on the way.

Now contrast this to the Royal Navy's current fuckitude with a new CV, with
the size of it being slashed downwards, and the Canadian Navy operating
40 year old Helicopters off 30 year old DDGs, and has a small fleet of
incredibly lightly armed FFHs.

Once again, it's proven that only the US of Ay has the political will to pay for
and fund a powerful military; which leads to paranoiac talk about a US
"hyperpower" from countries which don't even fucking bother to maintain
a military, but instead starve them as much as possible.

[Darth Wong]

<snip military wanking>

Obviously, you misunderstood the whole point about how conservatives always think every government program should be slashed and burned in the name of "efficiency" except for one, thus indicating a massive inconsistency in their logic.

[Joe]

Social Security is indeed fixable, but doing so would involve taking away benefits from old people. If anyone wants to get elected on that platform, they're free to try.

[Bugsby]

<snip military wanking>

Obviously, you misunderstood the whole point about how conservatives always think every government program should be slashed and burned in the name of "efficiency" except for one, thus indicating a massive inconsistency in their logic.

Don't you see? Privatize the military! Im sure that if we gave Microsoft and Enron tanks and nukes, all our problems would go away!

[LadyTevar]

5) We're screwing our military badly, both short term and long. With the war on terror that strikes me as a bad idea.

Can you elaborate on this? How is the military getting screwed up? Are you talking about pay cuts for soldiers (I remember hearing about that recently, I think it was on F9/11)? The deployment in Iraq taking it's toll on men and equipment? Or something else? Or all of the above?

HOw about the families of servicemen on welfare because they don't make enough to support themselves?