Trump Admin is now dealing with US debt...

[Into the Night]

Too simplistic.

There are big infrastructure programs that might require debt.

None.

There are lots of mandatory spending programs countries require to run efficiently so that won't work either.

Mandatory spending programs are not efficiency, Kewpie.

 

[QP!]

Balanced budgets don't mean no debt. It means you are paying off the debt on a schedule and it will eventually end. What you can't do is deficit spend.

The problem is subsequent govts might not commit to a focus of paying down the debt incurred by the prior government.

Like?

Military pensions for one.

 

[Into the Night]

Balanced budgets don't mean no debt. It means you are paying off the debt on a schedule and it will eventually end. What you can't do is deficit spend.

Like?

Apparently Congress thinks you can.
They cover it by creating money out of thin air.

So the end result is a cash crash, not a debt crash. People will simply choose another currency and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Such a government, still stuck on the near worthless currency, can no longer find the means to keep the party going. The result is inevitable...uncontrolled contraction of government.

It has already happened to several other nations. Nothing about the United States makes it immune.

 

[Into the Night]

The problem is subsequent govts might not commit to a focus of paying down the debt incurred by the prior government.

The federal government has NEVER paid down the debt since FDR instituted fiat currency.

 

[Into the Night]

That is "old thinking." It turns out we were completely wrong about what the Constitution says. It actually says that god king trump is allowed to appoint a South African trillionaire to set the budget, and anyone who says differently is a communist.

When did this happen, Wally?

 

[Into the Night]

If you include the interest, which is required by the Constitution to be paid, it is closer to four fifths. It was in similar place when Clinton balanced the budget, and when Obama and Biden drastically reduced the deficit. That means there is a way to balance the budget even with a requirement to spend most of the money. I am sure if you really think about it, you will see the solution.

And it does not involve having a South African trillionaire shitting on the Constitution. It is right there, very easy for us to get to, but Team Epstein does not want you to think of it.

Clinton never balanced the budget, Wally.
Obama never reduced the debt either.
Biden was never President.

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem is subsequent govts might not commit to a focus of paying down the debt incurred by the prior government.

States manage this, why couldn't the federal government?

Military pensions for one.

If you fund it and know what the expected outlays in the future will be, it could be efficiently run as any other pension fund. Social Security should be the same way. Each pays in and the money accumulates interest. When someone retires, there are funds available to pay them.

The problem is these funds become money pots and slush funds that politicians raid to pay for stuff they want now not worrying about having to pay people from them down the road. That's as true at the state level as it is at the federal.

The problem is corrupt and greedy politicians, not the system.

 

[QP!]

States manage this, why couldn't the federal government?

If you fund it and know what the expected outlays in the future will be, it could be efficiently run as any other pension fund. Social Security should be the same way. Each pays in and the money accumulates interest. When someone retires, there are funds available to pay them.

The problem is these funds become money pots and slush funds that politicians raid to pay for stuff they want now not worrying about having to pay people from them down the road. That's as true at the state level as it is at the federal.

The problem is corrupt and greedy politicians, not the system.

Ok but screed aside are you saying you agree ultimately that the mandatory spending entitlement of military pensions and military disability payments are good?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ok but screed aside are you saying you agree ultimately that the mandatory spending entitlement of military pensions and military disability payments are good?

I'm saying they are things chosen as incentives to get people to volunteer for service, the same as any other job. Why should military pay and compensation packages be treated as any different from those any employer offers to get employees?

 

[QP!]

I'm saying they are things chosen as incentives to get people to volunteer for service, the same as any other job. Why should military pay and compensation packages be treated as any different from those any employer offers to get employees?

So you are fine then with those entitlements and mandatory spending, right?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Ok but screed aside are you saying you agree ultimately that the mandatory spending entitlement of military pensions and military disability payments are good?

Special pleading fallacy. If the government offers a pension or disability pay as part of compensation for employment, that's no different than any other entity offering those things to entice prospective employees.

On the other hand, those benefits don't have to be continued indefinitely and could be withdrawn to future hires. Those already guaranteed them would continue to receive them. An example of that was the switch by the federal government from CSRS to FERS as the offered retirement plan. Those under CSRS could continue with that plan or switch. New hires were offered FERS.

 

[QP!]

Special pleading fallacy. If the government offers a pension or disability pay as part of compensation for employment, that's no different than any other entity offering those things to entice prospective employees.

On the other hand, those benefits don't have to be continued indefinitely and could be withdrawn to future hires. Those already guaranteed them would continue to receive them. An example of that was the switch by the federal government from CSRS to FERS as the offered retirement plan. Those under CSRS could continue with that plan or switch. New hires were offered FERS.

Again you use a fallacy wrongly that you do not understand.

No where, NOT ONCE, do I say or suggest they are "any different ". You have made up a fiction and are arguing against it.

The only thing I have said is they are entitlement programs that commit the government to mandatory spending.

That is 100% accurate and nothing you say changes that.

So I will accept you are fine with those mandatory spending entitlements even as you spin garbage not trying to admit it.

 

[Walt]

Why should military pay and compensation packages be treated as any different from those any employer offers to get employees?

Why should a job where people lose their lives be treated differently? The losing of lives does not give you a hint?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why should a job where people lose their lives be treated differently? The losing of lives does not give you a hint?

Police? Firemen? Persons in jobs that entail risk? Since Vietnam, the number of US military killed in combat has plummeted to nearly zero. Today, it's riskier to be a gangster in S. Chicago than in the military. Memphis Tennessee is listed as the 8th most dangerous city in the WORLD to live in right now.

The Most Dangerous Cities In The World

The article ranks the world’s most dangerous cities, emphasizing socio-economic issues, crime indices, and the need for informed vigilance.

www.worldatlas.com

Being a resident of that city is more likely to get you injured or killed than being in the US military.

On this list, St. Louis is placed 7th in the WORLD for murders.

The 25 Most Dangerous Cities In The World (2026)

Traveling globally can be one of the most rewarding experiences. When you leave your home and head to a new country or city, you have the opportunity to enjoy new cultures, interesting sites, and unique foods. However, not all places

waytostay.com

Baltimore, Detroit, Albuquerque, and Memphis also make that list.

 

[Walt]

Police? Firemen?

Neither field has an entire other country trying to figure out a way to kill you. When an entire other country is trying to kill you, then extreme risks to health start making sense. People come out of the peacetime military broken, because they were preparing for an entire other country trying to kill them.

If you fund it and know what the expected outlays in the future will be

So if we are in the middle of a war, a major war on the level of WWII or the Civil War, you want us to put aside even more money to pay for the future costs of the war?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Neither field has an entire other country trying to figure out a way to kill you. When an entire other country is trying to kill you, then extreme risks to health start making sense. People come out of the peacetime military broken, because they were preparing for an entire other country trying to kill them.

Today, roughly 90% of those in the military are not going into direct combat with an enemy. The vast majority of people in the military are technicians and support staff.

People come out of the peacetime military with issues because they happen to be in some area that is simply physically and / or mentally brutal. As we've seen lately with the carrier situation, being on a US Navy ship at sea is hard duty and for many it comes with baggage.

So if we are in the middle of a war, a major war on the level of WWII or the Civil War, you want us to put aside even more money to pay for the future costs of the war?

WTF are you babbling about?

 

[Walt]

Today, roughly 90% of those in the military are not going into direct combat with an enemy. The vast majority of people in the military are technicians and support staff.

90% of the military will not be frontline troops, but depending on the type of war, far more will see direct combat. For instance, in Iraq, truck drivers were not frontline troops, but saw a lot of combat.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

90% of the military will not be frontline troops, but depending on the type of war, far more will see direct combat. For instance, in Iraq, truck drivers were not frontline troops, but saw a lot of combat.

No, they didn't. There were a few isolated incidents where something like that happened.

 

[Walt]

No, they didn't. There were a few isolated incidents where something like that happened.

Insurgents had little to no interest in taking on frontline troops, and instead targeted support troops.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Insurgents had little to no interest in taking on frontline troops, and instead targeted support troops.

The biggest threat was IED's, often set off by remote control using a cell phone. In fact, less than a week after I retired, a Captain at the Pentagon called me at home and wanted to know if I'd go to Iraq for a year to supervise putting jammers in military vehicles. She said I was recommended as 'the guy' to do that. Unfortunately, there was no way to easily return me to active duty so I didn't get to go.

The IED issue targeted any target of opportunity, but that's far from actual combat.