Help me develop this argument inspired by Paul Krugman

[EFerrari]

Krugman was on Democracy Now! today, debunking the Social Security "crisis". If anyone hasn't read him or heard him speak, do it!

He said this about the so called immanent Social Security disaster: "No one talks about the Pentagon deficit."

And the whole room just burst out into laughter. As if, everyone recognized that the Pentagon eats our money, is not accountable for its expenditures. Will not be any time soon. So, by definition (or by popular acceptance of government practice), the Pentagon is exempted from *having* deficits. (See "black hole" and "the money pit".)

It struck me that just now might be a good time to try to call attention to Pentagon spending. After all, democracy is rampant in the Middle East. The pResident has the War on Terra locked down. So, I'd ask, what the hell does the Pentagon need more money for?

It's timing, all in the timing.

peace,
Beth

/typo

[EVDebs]

1. Chapter 8 of "Perfectly Legal" will help immensely along with

CBS News article awhile back "War on Waste" showing the DoD 'lost' $2.3 TRILLION
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/ 01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

""According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.""

And BTW, Chuck Spinney has retired from watchdogging the Pentagon:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript245_full.html

Heaven help us all !

Oh, Chapter 8...it's titled "How Social Security Taxes Subsidize the Rich". David Cay Johnston and Elizabeth Warren, "Two Income Trap", should be honorary hell-raisers on DU.

[ulTRAX]

2. we can't fund the defense dept without......

Given the true Bush deficit is something like the reported $427 billion plus some, is it $190 billion?, borrowed from the various federal trust funds... (about 620 billion total)... we can't fund our own defense department without borrowing money from places like China and Japan... not to mention future taxpayers.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. I watched the segment earlier, and this is the part I remember.....

(comparing the 2042 future SS shortfall vs the current total federal budget)

On the scale of things, let's just remember that if we believe the Social Security Administration's rather downbeat forecast, in 2042, the Social Security -- the payroll tax will be taking in only 73 cents for every dollar of promised benefits. Right now, the Federal Government, actually, fiscal 2004, the Federal Government outside of Social Security, was taking in 68 cents of revenue for every dollar of spending. So I don't think we can get really upset about the notion that -- yes, you get the point. I guess I don't need to finish that sentence.

The whole dealie: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/29/153250&mode=thread&tid=25#transcript

[EFerrari]

5. LOL! Right! Social Security is actually making its own way better

than the whole budget combined!

Krugman is brilliant. If he can make math disabled me get it, he should get a medal.

My thought was, if even I get it -- comparing SS to the Defense budget -- anyone can.

[NAO]

4. The 10 Zillion Dollar Unfunded Defense Liability Crisis

I read this argument somewhere before.

If you took the projected defense budgets for the next 50 years, and added them all up, you could call the sum an "unfunded defense liability". It would be an astronomical number. You could say that the Defense system of the United States was bankrupt, broken, doomed to crash and become insolvent.

Of course the US will keep building attack aircraft and tanks and nuclear submarines. "But HOW will we pay for it? We can't possibly afford it...."

The answer to the "unfunded defense liability crisis" (and what SHOULD be the answer to the "social security crisis") is that we will either raise the money by tax revenues, or we will engage in deficit spending. But the Pentagon will not be "shut down" due to lack of funds. We can afford the Pentagon, and similarly, we can afford Social Security, NO MATTER WHAT, because they are both absolutely necessary.

Without the Pentagon, we would be helpless and defenseless against aggressor nations. Without Social Security, our elderly people would be helpless and defenseless against abject poverty and utter ruination. Neither is acceptable, neither is necessary.

[EFerrari]

6. The problem I have with this comparison is that

Social Security pays its own way and the Defense Department does not, and doesn't even try.

Worse, it's a huge pit of corrupt transactions that we are always shooed away from. How much are we spending? National Security, you commie pinko!

Between not having a Defense Department and having one that gorges itself on the tax base, what about getting a plan? Some accountability? Heaven forbid, a budget. Let's not even talk about a realistic NIE. :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. During his campiagn, Kucinich mentioned how much of the Pentagon

budget is just plain missing, unaccounted for, no one will say where it went. It was some appalling figure like $2 trillion over the past twenty years.

[EFerrari]

8. Exactly. And now that * has stepped into doodoo

is a great time to bring up the unaccounted for gazillions of dollars.

* has made us safe; Iraq is Shangrila.

So, what's the problem with a little bookkeeping?

Where is our SS money going?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. It's frustrating that the Dems aren't shouting this from the rooftops

There are only three possible explanations for this:

1) Massive incompetence

2) Massive corruption

3) "Black ops" on a massive scale that are two horrible to reveal even to those who usually hear about them

[w4rma]

11. "Black ops" = corruption and they are easy to steal from since noone

is or CAN pay attention to them.

[UT troll]

9. revealed preference?

Seems that if members of congress were truly worried about this being <i>missing</i>, then they would open an investigation. I think the existence of a 'so what' attitude implies a lot of things about this money. There wouldn't seem to be a way for powerful members of congress not to know where this money went. Kucinich doesn't appear to be powerful enough to know though.

[demwing]

12. SHHHHHUSH!!! Next thing, Bush will want to privatize the US Defense!

Oh wait.

Too late, already happened, kinda-sorta...

[EFerrari]

13. Don't you hear? National Security! lol n/t