America Not in Decline

[PanzerJaeger]

The question (for me) is can the US still flourish under a peacetime economy? Is it possible for the US economy to move ahead w/o the welfare system for corporations that is essentially the MIC?

Umm... the US economy moved ahead without significant military spending a long time ago. The MIC comprises just 3.6% of the US economy (as measured by GDP) without the foreign wars and just shy of 5% if that spending is included. Even after the relative boom in military spending that followed 9/11, these are historically low figures for the post-war era.

[HopAlongBunny]

Umm... the US economy moved ahead without significant military spending a long time ago. The MIC comprises just 3.6% of the US economy (as measured by GDP) without the foreign wars and just shy of 5% if that spending is included. Even after the relative boom in military spending that followed 9/11, these are historically low figures for the post-war era.

Like anything else: yes and no. Absolute spending is higher than at the height of the cold war, though it is lower as a % of GDP.

More interesting (to me) is the Government Accountability Office's statement that DoD expenditures are not able to be audited. Really? Is it a budget or a laundromat? If the same statement was made vis. Medicare or Old Age Security, Congress would be purple with rage.

Note too, that although spending as a % of GDP declined in the US, it still dwarfs any other player; or actually any other group of players worth naming. All this with essentially no oversight or accountability, despite being the largest beneficiary of the US budget process.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Like anything else: yes and no. Absolute spending is higher than at the height of the cold war, though it is lower as a % of GDP.

Absolute spending is pretty meaningless. Just looking that the number got bigger could just mean that it kept up with inflation. % of GDP is the only thing that matter when you are trying to make the point that we can't have a "peacetime economy", when clearly we have been getting closer to a peacetime economy in terms of the relative size of the MIC.

More interesting (to me) is the Government Accountability Office's statement that DoD expenditures are not able to be audited. Really? Is it a budget or a laundromat? If the same statement was made vis. Medicare or Old Age Security, Congress would be purple with rage.

Obviously, military spending is going to be on projects that really shouldn't be public knowledge for our enemies to know. This argument doesn't apply to Social Programs, thus we don't see any denials for auditing social programs.

Note too, that although spending as a % of GDP declined in the US, it still dwarfs any other player; or actually any other group of players worth naming. All this with essentially no oversight or accountability, despite being the largest beneficiary of the US budget process.

This is just factually wrong, Medicare/Medicaid was larger than military spending. Social Security by itself was larger than military spending.

If you don't mind me asking, where are you coming up with all this?

[HopAlongBunny]

It depends. Actually finding the answers to your queries has done much to educate me about the Byzantine world of "what counts".

The first bug bear is Social Security; does the author consider it "on budget" or "off budget"? Not a question I even thought to ask initially. The gov't has it "on budget" as of LBJ; critics of this accounting change seem to feel the rationale behind the change was to mask military spending behind a large social expenditure from a self funding program. A program still apparently in surplus, but not for long. So I guess one must ascertain a source's position on this point; as well as questioning whether or not different sources make different assumptions in this regard when calculating "x" as a % of budgetary expenditure.

The second question is: what counts as military spending? Again, different sources count different things. DoD budget alone; Homeland Security?; counter-terrorism expenditures by the FBI? contracting of services to civilian companies for security operations? The difference in "what counts" changes the figure from ~600 billion to over 1 trillion.

So yes, I will have to examine exactly what a source means in terms of "the budget" and "military expenditure"; and will expect no less from others:p

[a completely inoffensive name]

The first bug bear is Social Security; does the author consider it "on budget" or "off budget"? Not a question I even thought to ask initially. The gov't has it "on budget" as of LBJ; critics of this accounting change seem to feel the rationale behind the change was to mask military spending behind a large social expenditure from a self funding program. A program still apparently in surplus, but not for long. So I guess one must ascertain a source's position on this point; as well as questioning whether or not different sources make different assumptions in this regard when calculating "x" as a % of budgetary expenditure.

If you are paying for it, it is on your budget, whether you "write it down" or not. This is not a subject for debate, arguing otherwise would be silly.

The second question is: what counts as military spending? Again, different sources count different things. DoD budget alone; Homeland Security?; counter-terrorism expenditures by the FBI? contracting of services to civilian companies for security operations? The difference in "what counts" changes the figure from ~600 billion to over 1 trillion.

So yes, I will have to examine exactly what a source means in terms of "the budget" and "military expenditure"; and will expect no less from others:p

I don't understand what you are talking about. We know what counts as military spending, the CBO tells us what falls under military spending in the budget. Why don't we actually look up last years budget and give it a good read. It may prove enlightening to some of your questions.

[CountArach]

It has seemed to me for some time that rather than the old adage "All Empires fall", it would be far more apt to say "All Empires think they are falling."

Take for instance Rome; Even before the Republic fell, there are writers like Sallust who hammered on about moral decline and how the old days were better and, when the Republic and later the Empire fell, people nodded sagely and said "Ah yes, our morality has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." Let's face it, nostalgia for an earlier, simpler time is a pretty strong motivator for a great many people and this is just an extension of that. In reality, their morality was not slipping and any person who held that opinion today would be roundly ridiculed. But reality matters little to people who are observing the past looking for evidence of why their perceived present is so poor.

Those Americans who claim that America is 'falling' are just saying what seems obvious to them with their nostalgia-tinted glasses. They are just saying it differently (though people do still hammer on and on about moral decline). In this case they are just putting it within the modern discourse that makes sense to them - they are seeking out statistics and figures that seem to confirm their view, nodding sagely and saying "Ah yes, our economy has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." The statistics don't back them up, but that matters little because it isn't the statistics that are confirming their worldview - it is their view of a past where America was on top of the world.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It has seemed to me for some time that rather than the old adage "All Empires fall", it would be far more apt to say "All Empires think they are falling."

Take for instance Rome; Even before the Republic fell, there are writers like Sallust who hammered on about moral decline and how the old days were better and, when the Republic and later the Empire fell, people nodded sagely and said "Ah yes, our morality has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." Let's face it, nostalgia for an earlier, simpler time is a pretty strong motivator for a great many people and this is just an extension of that. In reality, their morality was not slipping and any person who held that opinion today would be roundly ridiculed. But reality matters little to people who are observing the past looking for evidence of why their perceived present is so poor.

Those Americans who claim that America is 'falling' are just saying what seems obvious to them with their nostalgia-tinted glasses. They are just saying it differently (though people do still hammer on and on about moral decline). In this case they are just putting it within the modern discourse that makes sense to them - they are seeking out statistics and figures that seem to confirm their view, nodding sagely and saying "Ah yes, our economy has slipped. Such is the way of Empire." The statistics don't back them up, but that matters little because it isn't the statistics that are confirming their worldview - it is their view of a past where America was on top of the world.

Fine, so it is all perspective and we actually do not have any insurmountable problems as a nation. I just hope that the pessimism lasts for a few more months, since the U.S. is in such great shape and all and will probably never be in decline, so no real risk. If we can win the narrative in an election year that the country is going to hell in a hand-basket, we win. The administration will be serving up alot of red meat for the voters, it is already almost palpable, so if we just deny him every opportunity at success and it works, we will do well. I personally believe that the Congress serves more of a purpose at this stage in our national development in opposing as many Federal initiatives as possible anyway, so why not hyper-target the ones that the President puts out there which are almost sure to be wrongheaded. If a problem really is big enough, absolute Federal failure to resolve it may cause individuals and States to give it a shot instead of just fawning over a (perceived only, of course) failed Presidency.

[Papewaio]

Emergency spending is not part of the POTUS budget...