Debt (economic, social, generational, etc.)

[Taosman]

I propose changes in American philosophy.
Start with energy independence.
We become energy independent or even near independent, it changes our foreign policies.
No more oil wars. We act and are looked at differently.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

China is far, far away from being able to be spoken in the same sentence as the United States in terms of being the most powerful nation on earth. Militarily speaking, they are 20 years behind. Economically speaking, their financial, social, health, education sectors are very underdeveloped. As bad as the social problems that we are facing today, you can multiply that by 100 with China.

By the virtue of being located East Asia, China will never be a world class power. If you look at the map, there's Russia to the north, India to the Southwest, Vietnam to the south, South Korea and North Korea, Japan and the US Pacific fleet to the east. And not to mention Taiwan. lol Who are they going to dominate? They have the potential to become a great economic power, but that's about it.

 

[Beenthere77]

I propose changes in American philosophy.
Start with energy independence.
We become energy independent or even near independent, it changes our foreign policies.
No more oil wars. We act and are looked at differently.

I think oil is just the tip of the iceburg. There are tons of other corporate interests out there that shape our foreign policies.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

To adopt in the 21st century environment, the US has to take steps such as embracing supply-side economics, such as creating tax-incentives for investments and higher education for the workforce, and always exercise soft power. Despite differences, we have a great alliance with all of Europe. Just got to play our cards right, because we don't have to worry about losing them to Russia or China, they'll always be there for us.

 

[Clarity]

When China, Japan and all the others stop buying US Treasuries (aka loaning us money). Unfortunately, that is what it will take for the gov't to wake up and change their ways.

I read over the weekend that China has over 1.2 trillion in reserves, (the largest in the world) most of which they just park in US Treasuries. The time will come that it is no longer financially adventageous for them to invest that money solely in US debt. When that happens the interest rates we pay on our debt will rise dramatically (because there will be less demand for US debt, rates will have to rise to encourage more demand) forcing the US govt to figure out a way to borrow less. In effect they will be forced to reign in their spending. Free market at work.

Almost missed this in the wash of draft. Nice to be back on track. Let's take your statement at face value for the sake of posing a related question -- how comfortable can we be with China playing so intimate a role in our own stability? More to the point, what would "reign(ing) in" our spending mean in terms of our ability to assert globally, and domestic quality of life?

Going back to the original points Taos made, I think most everyone wants answers in matters of health, energy, economy, etc. Where can we find those on the path that we're on, or any reasonable offshoot of this current direction?

When you say the loss of those 'loans' could force us to approach a restructuring of our democracy (what I've been calling America v2.0), do you mean to the extreme of a reinvention of the Constitution?

So the next step in this process is this question. Is it even possible to start again new? What would it look like? We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel. Indeed, we'd just be crafting a new starting point based on the heavily patched and contorted one we stand upon now. If we did that, aren't we just changing words on paper? If that's the true, to undermine my earlier question, what's the value to starting again fresh versus patching?

 

[Clarity]

By the virtue of being located East Asia, China will never be a world class power. If you look at the map, there's Russia to the north, India to the Southwest, Vietnam to the south, South Korea and North Korea, Japan and the US Pacific fleet to the east. And not to mention Taiwan. lol Who are they going to dominate? They have the potential to become a great economic power, but that's about it.

Geography is far less a consideration than it once was, and global power isn't nearly as dependent upon military capacity as it was even 20 years ago. Money and information/perception -- rather, information/perception and money. By our own rules, how are those not the twin keys to being a world class power, if the military might is there to back them?

I'd be genuinely surprised if China had any geographic aspirations outside of their own borders. That doesn't, however, mean I don't imagine they are in the process of staking a direct claim to global power and ability to apply and defend their own interests. Which, by natural order, might regularly run contrary to our own. What of that though? Has little bearing on what we need to do to make ourselves and our own "house and yard" better.

The days of different types of government creating fundamentally different types of citizenry are pretty much gone. They're not all that different, as a people, even if their system of government and some of the circumstances of the average quality of life are quite different.

 

[Clarity]

To adopt in the 21st century environment, the US has to take steps such as embracing supply-side economics, such as creating tax-incentives for investments and higher education for the workforce, and always exercise soft power. Despite differences, we have a great alliance with all of Europe. Just got to play our cards right, because we don't have to worry about losing them to Russia or China, they'll always be there for us.

That's a great sound byte, and entirely worthwhile mouthful of points. How does it apply to the specific crises we face?

Not a jab, just a question.

 

[Beenthere77]

- America, we might argue, is in danger of losing its economic high ground.

Been here in the 80s and what happened? We went mean and lean and those that couldn't were eliminated. Made major investments in our infrastructure which carried us into this century.

- Many would argue we've already lost our moral high ground.

How do you win this battle when it is so subjective. Some of our born agains can give the Moslem's a serious run for their money when it comes to morality. Personally I'd much rather we be more liberal.

- Our military high ground is there, even if it is indeed 'broken.'

Our military may be hurting for our standards but even then there's no other country that is even close at this point.

- Our technological high ground is gone. Related to that, is education.

This is not even close to reality. We still lead the world with new technology. Yes, our present school system for the masses is no longer leaps and bounds ahead of the other countries but there is a reason the top brains in the world come to the US to study.

- Quality of life/human rights/equality high ground is gone.

There might be a widening between the top and bottom but the reality is the people at our bottom live far better than they did in any time in our history. As for human rights, it wasn't all that long ago we were still lynching blacks. Abuses still go on but no where near as blatant as it use to be. When in our history would a woman or a black guy have a serious shot at being our next president.

Don't get me wrong, IMO, we have some serious problems but I don't think these are them. My biggest concerns are that we are becoming too much of a government controlled society. Everybody is falling in love with entitlement living without realizing the costs. Too many people thinking the government has all the answers.

 

[Clarity]

Don't get me wrong, IMO, we have some serious problems but I don't think these are them. My biggest concerns are that we are becoming too much of a government controlled society. Everybody is falling in love with entitlement living without realizing the costs. Too many people thinking the government has all the answers.

Which runs directly contrary to Taos's assertion that the government needs to lead the way.

What is "entitlement living" exactly, as you define it?

Finally, don't read too much into any of this. As I've indicated, there have been plenty of places in this conversation where I've used over-simplifications, and even fiction, to further explore a point made.

Where you've hooked on to the direct comparison of the US to China, that's never been the point, even if they were used as an example. Has been an interesting diversion, and serves a parallel forensic purpose to the reason behind my core here, but it's still not the point.

The point is, there are things here (as there always have been, as there always will be) which are broken. At the root of everything that defines us, are some fundamentally flawed foundations and assumptions. Can we fix what's broken, without rethinking the very basics?

Can we continue to patch, or do we have to, at some point, start anew?

 

[Beenthere77]

What is "entitlement living" exactly, as you define it?

Corporate subsidies-why does the government have anything to do with choosing which businesses succeed. When they give a benefit to one American, it should be available for all Americans

Farmer subsidies- none of the way the government distributes money to the farmers makes sense to me.

Government job benefits- how can they justify having better benefits then the majority of people in the private sector. I'm so tired of that argument if they didn't pay so well then they wouldn't get qualified people when in fact they don't get qualified people and they still over pay. Government unions have become so powerful, few are willing to stand up to them.

If our politicians do not try to get every dime they can for their constituents then they will be voted out for someone who will.



The older I get the more I believe in our original constitution and that government is a necessary evil and should be treated as such.

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

Geography is far less a consideration than it once was, and global power isn't nearly as dependent upon military capacity as it was even 20 years ago. Money and information/perception -- rather, information/perception and money. By our own rules, how are those not the twin keys to being a world class power, if the military might is there to back them?

Geography is actually still pretty relevant due to the following factors:
1). competition for limited resources. With the developing world becoming more and more reliant on oil, they better have a way to ensure that supply doesn't easily get cut off.
2). the surge in post-cold war ethnocentricism has already broke up several nations, including Yogoslavia, the USSR, Indonesia, and is playing a big factor in parts such as Taiwan, Iraq, to name a couple.
3). and that geography was never really about land-grabbing as it is about spreading one's ideals in far away lands. In this area the US has no peers. You never hear anyone talk about realizing the Chinese dream. And in a tough neighborhood such as East Asia, no one is going to budge when China does something.

So China may continue its economic success, and maybe achieve success on par with Japan. Doesn't mean it's going to be a world class power though.

 

[Clarity]

So China may continue its economic success, and maybe achieve success on par with Japan. Doesn't mean it's going to be a world class power though.

I don't disagree with much of that, although I think you might underestimate the geopolitical change the "information age" has created. I do, however, wonder if you think we're still a world class power, the way you define it?

Sadly, we're so far off track now though, that we'll never really get back on it. Which in of itself is sort of the fruit of the conversation. I wanted to know if we, as a people, could sustain the same sort of philosophical debate that was carried on out in the open leading to the ratification of the Constitution. I don't assume I have an answer from that based on this thread, but it is interesting how the genesis of most responsive behavior can be both predicted, and the process to predict defined. But I digress within a digression. :)

Could we, today, sustain the type of the back and forth about the Bill of Rights, the limitations on government, the internal and external threats that they did? Would we get lost in the relatively meaningless ancillary considerations that have monumental importance to minority factions, but should be sort of "gimmes" to the greater society (such as, and here's a good seed, same sex unions)? If we had to rebuild the Constitution and our society new, based on everything we've learned, would we discovery contemporary versions of Publius, Brutus, and Cato? Or would it all be lost in the din of blogs, rhetoric, and spin? Would people who have devoted their lives, studies and thoughts to the issue (I'll use Unger as an example, just because he's convenient and alive, not because his perspective holds more value than any others) carry any greater significance than Ann Coulter, or, I don't know, a different type of crazy in a Susan Sarandon. Names, rather than minds. Could we rationally and constructively weigh relevant issues, or would it all be derailed and spun off in countless different unproductive directions?

If such a task (a new convention, a new interpretation of American-style Democracy) were set before us, what might we do with it in the age of the internet, sound bytes, talking points, and the all-importance of quick first impression? Have we reached an age of reason, philosophically, where the "great thinkers" are washed out of the process because they don't have media skills, and can't break things down into small enough bites that they're easy and convenient?

I don't care about China. I don't care where we're better or worse than anyone else. I'm far more interested in the realities of life as it is in America from top to bottom. I don't necessarily think a new convention would accomplish much. I do think we're on a certain path, and that path has a circadian-type rhythm to it, and with that comes exchanges of power across party lines, evolution in rhetoric, prosperity, hardship, whatever. At the same time, I think that rhythm is one working along a process of decay. Everything has a life cycle, everything. I'm not calling out that we're in the end of ours, I'm just saying there are a lot of things we could be doing to prolong that life, and increase its quality.

Just don't know that we will, or even really care to. All makes for good conversation though.

Corporate subsidies-why does the government have anything to do with choosing which businesses succeed. When they give a benefit to one American, it should be available for all Americans

Farmer subsidies- none of the way the government distributes money to the farmers makes sense to me.

Government job benefits- how can they justify having better benefits then the majority of people in the private sector. I'm so tired of that argument if they didn't pay so well then they wouldn't get qualified people when in fact they don't get qualified people and they still over pay. Government unions have become so powerful, few are willing to stand up to them.

If our politicians do not try to get every dime they can for their constituents then they will be voted out for someone who will.

The older I get the more I believe in our original constitution and that government is a necessary evil and should be treated as such.

Right there with you on all of that. We're both still off the intended track, but good stuff nonetheless.

 

[sandgk]

Sadly, we're so far off track now though, that we'll never really get back on it.

I am not convinced that is entirely true - at least when it comes to government spending. Lest we forget, that spending beyond our governmental means is a cause of China buying treasury notes, and of course, the fundamental cause of a substantial chunk of red ink each year.

However, I do not agree that this part of our nation's spending habits need remain out of control.

We now are coming to the end of a third 8-year cycle of government spending. The philosophy underscoring budget making has shifted back and forth during those three cycles. The first cycle presaged the current one, it too saw budgets presented and signed that incorporated significant deficits. The second cycle saw a move back toward budget surpluses, actual paying down of the debt could have continued had that government spending philosophy continued in this third cycle.

As we know these last eight years have seen our elected officials put pen to paper on budgets that shows a deficit, and a larger deficit than ever before.

Some might argue that the deficit issues are exacerbated by the demands on the public purse of the war. It is true, war is a costly business. Some might argue that the benefits of the tax cuts, that feed into this country's obsession with short-term solutions to economic vitality, have not run their course. That, if you will, the fruits of that policy will be borne out in future years. Given the enormous debt incurred in this current 8-year cycle that would demand an economic miracle to come to fruition.

The simple truth is that we did before, and can again, constrain government spending so that there is a modest surplus. All it demands is for politicians of every stripe to be held to one simple standard. Spend not that which you do not have.

The other part of the USA Today story that is striking is the manner in which the piss-poor state of the nation's pocket-book was presented to the general public. Instead of using simple accounting the magnitude of budget deficit was hidden from untrained view by the use of corporate accounting methods. That is a sleight of hand which is not needed in the context of the Federal Budget.

The only reasonable method to present the state of the Federal Budget is by using simple accounting. Separate the FICA and Social Security moneys from general revenues. The only discretionary spending which should be permitted is within the constraints of that now transparent general revenue pool of funds.

There are many other thoughts which arise in response to that article and Clarity's fine first post about the same. Given the tack of the thread I will make may last about our children and their children's children.

History is a brutal teacher in the examples it offers of societies that spend above their means. To name just two examples, Rome in their final years and Britain as it moved out of Victorian society and into the first half of the twentieth century are apropos and chilling in what they teach us today.

Rome fell in part because of a critical economic flaw. It took in more than it produced. This made them prey to the increasing strength of those countries that had acted as the bread basket or raw material supplier for the Roman Empire. Eventually the price, in fiscal, political or military terms, of sustaining those lifelines became untenable.

The parallel with the path on which seem firmly placed as a nation is chilling.

In the early part of the twentieth century Great Britain shifted from being a generator of surpluses to being a generator of debt. The lack of real monies to underpin their Empire is only one of the reasons why they faltered - other reasons fall closer to the example of Rome. The interesting thing is that Britain's fall as an economic power happened despite a history of significant private saving and investment. Which history of private individual saving is not something that characterizes the individual or collective guardianship of our pocket-books.

The presence of significant private savings in Britain delayed their fall from Empire on purely economic grounds. It provided them with some time to transition (which, I might add, they did not use wisely - though that is entirely different history). The point is, that safety net, that reserve is not available to us, quite the contrary. We can rail at the Government and it's fiscal irresponsibility, but we too are stewards of the nation's fate. We too are falling down on the job. Absent that safety net, without fundamental changes in all of our habits, a fall like Rome and Britain suffered may come swifter rather than later.

 

[buckeyegrad]

But back to the core point of the discussion. At what point, if ever, do we take everything we've learned, as well as the founding values and virtues, to construct a newer, better, faster, shinier base from which to build?

The day we do this is the day the United States ceases to exist in it current state politically--which is theoretically not a bad thing unless you fall into the camp that we are the last hope for Western civilization and that historical culture is worth preserving.

What I mean by this is that consumption and the myth of the "American dream" are the only principles I really see uniting us 300 million individuals called America. I can't think of another value or principle we all share. One could argue freedom or democracy are other shared values, but I would disagree. There are too many radically different understandings of what freedom actually means to say it is a uniting principle--for example I conceive of freedom being limited to political concerns, but I am sure many would say this definition is too narrow. As for democracy, I don't see how a form of government can unite people in itself. Democracy is only a means, it is not an end. No one will support democracy over other forms of government unless they believe it helps secure other benefits/principles better than all other alternatives.

If we decide to scrap our one uniting principle for something else, unity ends and we will end up with war and several nations filling the void. Too much divides us now to remain united if our current myths (and by myth I mean stories that shape our identity, which do contain some truth to them) are thrown to the scrap heap of history.

It may be that we have reached the point in history where our founding principles will no longer be a benefit, but a hindrance to our national sovereignty. I am not convinced we have reached this point yet, but I acknowledge that it happens eventually with every nation and empire. If we have reached that point, history teaches us that there are only two possibilities: tyranny or dissolvement. I cannot see there ever being an America 2.0.

 

[stxbuck]

America has morphed, philosophically, from a frontier nation, as in Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis where opportunity was available to all, but material goods and benefits were not guaranteed by the state. This is the ideal that America was founded upon.
Now, we have a growing percentage of the population that has rejected that fundamental principle and instead sees the federal gov't-and it's ability to tax-as a giant candy store-for both corporations on the "right" and welfare state types on the left.
If we have an "America 2.0", it would, sadly, resemble more of a European socialist state than anything Madison would recognize.
For a lot of political thinkers, the Constitution has morphed into a guaranteed grab-bag of government goodies, instead of a document protecting both one's fundamental liberties as well as the divergent interests of different states in this nation