News Is the National Debt Really Driven at 174 Miles Per Hour by Obama?

[turbo]

Seabrook 2 was canceled though.

A lot of the later (late 70's) sites where one unit exists were designed for 2 units, e.g. Seabrook, Wolf Creek, Callaway, etc. I believe the containment at Seabook 2 was mostly done. I was at the site several years ago, and I seem to remember looking at the rebar.

Many people complained about the lack of a viable evacuation procedure for that area, which is pretty silly. It wasn't a secret that evacuation would be a problem. Anybody who has tried to get in or out of the NH beach area on a hot day knows that you could easily be stuck in traffic on 101 or 1a for the better part of an hour, moving at slower than a walk.

 

[Insanity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

just more data...

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say that I would eliminate the military. We just don't need all the weapons systems (especially offensive capabilities) that we have currently. That's very different.

[separate post]Russ claimed that I wanted to scrap the military (a blatant misrepresentation)

It is very different and it doesn't at all match what you said:

What would happen if the money the US spends on its military was spent on infrastructure...

Perhaps you didn't mean it and meant to connect that better to your earlier statement about certain weapons systems, but that quote is general: it contains no qualifiers to make it more specific. "the money the US spends on its military" is all of it. I didn't misinterpret it, (on purpose or otherwise) - it was completely clear. If you misspoke, you should acknowledge it.

Anyway since you're clarifying, please clarify more: Tell us exactly how much money you think we should spend on the military. Someone posted earlier that we current spend 18% of our GDP on it. What do you think the number should be?

My point...was that not all debt is created the same.

This is true.

If we spend a billion dollars to get 5 5-22s at $200M each, that makes a lot of money for some defense contractors with little benefit to our economy.

It makes a lot of money for defense contractors and the employees of defense contractors and the investors for defense contractors. That is a direct contribution to the economy. And that's in addition to the primary benefit of spending that money - that national defense thing.

Spend an equivalent amount building wind-farms, and we would be financing some labor-intensive work, employing skilled trades-people who would then have more money to spend. They are both debts, but one has large short-term pay-back in both economic stimulation...

In that sense, it is exactly identical to spending money on F-22s. Building F-22s is labor (and technology) intensive and it employes skilled trades-people who then would have money to spend.

...and reduction of our over-dependence on foreign energy, which I consider to be a threat to our national security.

Agreed. So really, defense spending and spending on wind farms have exactly the same ultimate purpose and short term benefit.

 

[russ_watters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

just more data...

Bush turns out to be a very unique President on that list: the spending he did at the end of his term to push up the debt was spending that may all come back with interest. I would be interested to see if people update their graphs in a few years to reflect that or if they attach the profit from that to the numbers for future presidents (most of the benefit would go to Obama).

 

[turbo]

Russ, since I am from a poor rural state, you should expect that I have quite a few lifer-military friends and relatives. I do. You do not know me, and your claim that I want to scrap the military is ridiculous.

I was pointing out that when we re-task military spending to civilian projects, we get greater efficiencies, quicker pay-back, and a broader stimulation of our economy. If you think that buying 5 F-22s at $200M each (with a projected maintenance cost of $50K/per hour of operation) is somehow equivalent in economic impact to spending a billion dollars on renewable energy and the infrastructure needed to support it, then I suggest you shut off talk radio and study real economics.

To build a $1B wind farm, you need site studies, surveying, engineering, civil engineering, road-building, construction of on-site facilities, upgrade of electrical distribution systems, etc. You also need a resurgence in heavy industry, the ongoing loss of which is a serious deterioration of our national security. Somehow, you claim that spending that money on 5 fighter jets that we do not need to fight a threat that we do not face, is equivalent. I disagree and I think most real conservatives would, as well.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, since I am from a poor rural state, you should expect that I have quite a few lifer-military friends and relatives. I do. You do not know me, and your claim that I want to scrap the military is ridiculous.

All you need to do to rectify that is correct your earlier statement where you said precisely that. You misspoke: why can't you just acknowlege it?

I was pointing out that when we re-task military spending to civilian projects, we get greater efficiencies, quicker pay-back, and a broader stimulation of our economy. If you think that buying 5 F-22s at $200M each (with a projected maintenance cost of $50K/per hour of operation) is somehow equivalent in economic impact to spending a billion dollars on renewable energy and the infrastructure needed to support it, then I suggest you shut off talk radio and study real economics.

The only talk radio I listen to is sports talk. In any case, I used the logic of your argument and showed that it applied to both cases equally. All you are doing here is stating a claim without providing a logical argument to support it. And it is a claim that is quite clearly devoid of logic - or, rather, directly contradicts its own logic.

Regarding the maintenance costs: how are those different from the procurement cost except that they provide economic stimulus on a continuous basis?

To build a $1B wind farm, you need site studies, surveying, engineering, civil engineering, road-building, construction of on-site facilities, upgrade of electrical distribution systems, etc. You also need a resurgence in heavy industry, the ongoing loss of which is a serious deterioration of our national security.

Once again, you haven't explained how any of that is any different from defense spending. All of those components are contained in the engineering, design, and manufacturing of a fighter jet. Heck, turbo: as I'm sure you know, most wind turbines in the US are manufactured by a company that makes a decent fraction of its income via defense!

Somehow, you claim that spending that money on 5 fighter jets that we do not need to fight a threat that we do not face, is equivalent.

At face value, it obviously is. I've shown the parallels - you haven't shown any differences!

I disagree and I think most real conservatives would, as well.

I do not place a high value on your interpretation of what "conservative" means.

 

[Insanity]

Bush turns out to be a very unique President on that list: the spending he did at the end of his term to push up the debt was spending that may all come back with interest. I would be interested to see if people update their graphs in a few years to reflect that or if they attach the profit from that to the numbers for future presidents (most of the benefit would go to Obama).

It would be difficult to determine who is exactly responsible for what.

 

[russ_watters]

It would be difficult to determine who is exactly responsible for what.

Not really, no. TARP funds are very specifically tracked.

 

[russ_watters]

This doesn't go far enough:

Heck, turbo: as I'm sure you know, most wind turbines in the US are manufactured by a company that makes a decent fraction of its income via defense!

Many of the actual products that GE makes are sold to both commercial users and defense users. Ie, GE makes jet/gas turbine engines. One specific example: the DC-10 is propelled by GE turbofan engines and the DC-10 is used both for military and civilian purposes. So when Boeing buys jet engines from GE, the difference between military and civilian spending is a matter of paperwork only. Beyond that, derivatives of that engine (the LM2500) are used to power civilian and military ships and power plants. They powered the frigate I was on, for example. http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/aero_turbines/en/index.htm

The LM2500 is made by GE's energy division: the same division that makes the wind turbines. Realistically, funding for a new KC-10 tanker or a wind turbine puts money into the pocket of some of the same people!

Note: The F-22 is powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, which are also dual use, but I don't know of any specific examples off the top of my head like I did for GE.

 

[turbo]

All of those components are contained in the engineering, design, and manufacturing of a fighter jet. Heck, turbo: as I'm sure you know, most wind turbines in the US are manufactured by a company that makes a decent fraction of its income via defense!

Guess what? The wind-turbines being installed in Maine are coming in through deep-water ports in Canada, traveling Route 201 south to Skowhegan, Route 2 to Newport, and then north on I-95 to their installations. We have regular traffic advisories about them, including their planned impacts on local roads. Hadn't heard?

 

[jtc8470]

Obama was handed a failing economy and was forced to take drastic action in order to prevent either a complete meltdown, or a decade or more of stagflation - no growth - according to most economists and experts. Japan is often cited as an example of what can happen if the government responds too slowly or with too little stimulus, when responding to a crisis. Their economy went flat for more than a decade.

Up until the very end, much of Bush's spending, as in Iraq, was elective. He was handed a relatively thriving economy that nearly collapsed by the time he left.

IMO, one of the few things that Bush did right was to sign the bailout bill. Obama had no objections; in fact he worked to gain support for the bill. Consider the graph and compare that to the actual debt at any time, and the importance of sustained growth becomes clear. Growth is how we keep our debt from burying us. Note that the graph is essentially our national debt to income ratio, over time.

You make some good points Ivan. I think though one of the most frustrating factors in regrad to the Obama bailout though is the padding that came along with it. I am not sure that everyone is aware how many people were paid off in the process. It was a prime opportunity for the gov to do that and quite frankly it pisses me off. I am at the point where I feel the gov, which ever side, does not work for us but for those that paid to put them there.

 

[Marc1955]

This YouTube clip analogously talks about the rate at which US Presidents increase the national debt in terms of miles per hour when driving a car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P5yxFtTwDcc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P5yxFtTwDcc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Basically everyone was moving along slowly… then Bush speeds up to 64 miles per hour then Obama speeds up to 174 miles per hour.

How accurate is this? Is it a fair analogy?

Thanks,

You just proved the fact: that the only thing right winger are good at is lying!