WITP-AE 20??

[MakeeLearn]

The USMC Commandant’s China Bet: Reactions and Key Questions

https://defense.info/re-thinking-strate ... questions/




"The idea is that in a war with China, America’s hulking aircraft carriers might be pushed far out to sea by the threat of missiles.

But small groups of 50 to 150 Marines, wielding armed drones, rockets and anti-ship missiles, could get up close, fanning out on islands along and inside the chain from Japan to the Philippines.

Like a high-tech echo of the insurgents they once fought, they would jump from one makeshift base to another every couple of days to avoid being spotted and targeted, says General Berger.

They could feed targeting information back to more distant ships and warplanes, or pepper the Chinese fleet with fire themselves—a form of dispersed, island-hopping warfare designed to stop a Chinese attack in its tracks."

[MakeeLearn]

No House Rules!

[MakeeLearn]

I see they like to play Fantasy General.

It will be a "Container-based weapons" war. {sans nukes}

And that is not cheap.

"... that the declining budgets projected for 2022 and 2023 are just the beginning of long-term decreases in defense spending. Even before the huge increase in debt caused by COVID-19 spending, interest payments on the debt were going to exceed the entire defense budget by 2023. The $2 trillion pandemic response spending bill moves that timetable up even as increased health care costs and a major recession put additional pressure on the budget."

To defeat US, the last thing China wants to do is fight US.

[Bodei]

The biggest problem the Chinese face in a war with the US is their economy would go to hell in a hurry. We have their credit card that we've run up trillions on, we'll just tear it up. Other than Walmart being out of stock of cheap Chinese crap, China's economy will crash.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bodei

The biggest problem the Chinese face in a war with the US is their economy would go to hell in a hurry. We have their credit card that we've run up trillions on, we'll just tear it up. Other than Walmart being out of stock of cheap Chinese crap, China's economy will crash.

Not so fast.

1. The Chinese economy can survive the total loss of its US T-note holdings. The returns on its existing holdings is not that high and it has no impact on Chinese trade flows.

2. The real damage to the Chinese economy results from a total cessation of trade with all Western countries. It has to be total because Chinese trading with other countries would still proceed. Some of that third party trading would ultimately see Chinese product still reaching the West.

3. Not all Western countries would support the USA. NATO is a defensive alliance so unless China were to be stupid enough to launch the first attack, thereby triggering article 5 of the NATO treaty, you can rest assured that most of the European countries would not establish a meaningful trade cessation with China.

4. The entire Belt and Road initiative is to make Chinese trade flows impervious to interdiction.

5. In any confrontation, even if not a full blown military one, the CCP will play the nationalist card and the population will accept economic deprivation. You would need a lengthy economic deprivation, in the vicinity of at least 2 years, before the nationalist appeal might start to wear thin. Do you think the American public would readily put up with 2 years of pain without "victory" being in sight?



The Chinese economy does have vulnerabilities but it would take a lot for them to be fully exploited. The pain would not be one-way.

Alfred

[NigelKentarus]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

I see they like to play Fantasy General.

It will be a "Container-based weapons" war. {sans nukes}

And that is not cheap.

"... that the declining budgets projected for 2022 and 2023 are just the beginning of long-term decreases in defense spending. Even before the huge increase in debt caused by COVID-19 spending, interest payments on the debt were going to exceed the entire defense budget by 2023. The $2 trillion pandemic response spending bill moves that timetable up even as increased health care costs and a major recession put additional pressure on the budget."

To defeat US, the last thing China wants to do is fight US.

Then where's my dragons & orcs?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: NigelKentarus

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

I see they like to play Fantasy General.

It will be a "Container-based weapons" war. {sans nukes}

And that is not cheap.

"... that the declining budgets projected for 2022 and 2023 are just the beginning of long-term decreases in defense spending. Even before the huge increase in debt caused by COVID-19 spending, interest payments on the debt were going to exceed the entire defense budget by 2023. The $2 trillion pandemic response spending bill moves that timetable up even as increased health care costs and a major recession put additional pressure on the budget."

To defeat US, the last thing China wants to do is fight US.

Then where's my dragons & orcs?

They retired the dragons.

[moore4807]

lol... All I remember is the dragons were hell on the supply convoys. [:D] [:D] [:D]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Bodei

The biggest problem the Chinese face in a war with the US is their economy would go to hell in a hurry. We have their credit card that we've run up trillions on, we'll just tear it up. Other than Walmart being out of stock of cheap Chinese crap, China's economy will crash.

Last I checked we were in debt to China for 1 trillion plus two other countries (forget which [could be Japan and Britain, might have been Germany, S. Korea or the Dutch]) for 1 trillion each. The biggest debt holder is the Social Security Trust Fund and the second was the Federal Reserve. Counting other US bond holders about 15 trillion was accounted for, so only 5 trillion was foreign. This was when our debt was 20 trillion total.

I should add that golden boy owes the Russians more money than we do.

[RangerJoe]

There is no Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security taxes go into the general revenue fund. It has always been that way.

[geofflambert]

Call it something else then, the greatest single item is what is owed to Social Security. Call it "I don't trust Social Security fund" or whatever. The Social Security Administration is the trustee for those bonds, and the bonds do exist. Also, FICA funds are not part of the general "revenue". They aren't revenue at all. It goes into the budget as debt.

[geofflambert]

Some will disagree with you:


The Debt Is in Two Categories
The U.S. Treasury manages the U.S. debt through its Bureau of the Public Debt.2 The debt falls into two categories: intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public.




"Intragovernmental Debt
The Treasury owes this part of the debt to other federal agencies. In April 2020, intragovernmental holdings totaled $6 trillion, or 24.9% of the debt.1 Why would the government owe money to itself? Some agencies, like the Social Security Trust Fund, take in more revenue from taxes than they need. Rather than stick this cash under a giant mattress, these agencies invest in U.S. Treasurys.

This transfers their excess revenue to the general fund, where it is spent. They redeem their Treasury notes for funds as needed. The federal government then either raises taxes or issues more debt to raise the cash.

Which agencies own the most Treasurys? Social Security, by a long shot."

from: https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the ... bt-3306124

[RangerJoe]

Helvering v. Davis (No. 910)
Argued: May 5, 1937
Decided: May 24, 1937

[p635] the levy of the taxes imposed by Title VIII. The plan of the two titles will now be summarized more fully.

Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees" and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. § 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ," and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. § 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. § 811(b). The two taxes are at the same rate. §§ 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one percent. Thereafter the rate increases 1/2 of 1 percent every three years, until, after December 31, 1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 percent. Ibid. In the computation of wages, all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. § 811(a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid." § 80a(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. § 807(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. § 807(c).

Title II has the caption "Federal Old-Age Benefits." The benefits are of two types, first, monthly pensions, and second, lump sum payments, the payments of the second class being relatively few and unimportant.

The first section of this title creates an account in the United States Treasury to be known as the "Old-Age [p636] Reserve Account." § 201. No present appropriation, however, is made to that account. All that the statute does is to authorize appropriations annually thereafter, beginning with the fiscal year which ends June 30, 1937. How large they shall be is not known in advance. The "amount sufficient as an annual premium" to provide for the required payments is

to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 percentum per annum compounded annually.

§ 201(a). Not a dollar goes into the Account by force of the challenged act alone, unaided by acts to follow.

Section 202 and later sections prescribe the form of benefits. The principal type is a monthly pension payable to a person after he has attained the age of 65. . . .

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/301/619

[geofflambert]

Here is the Federal government on it's own site saying that ain't so.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

[RangerJoe]

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)

Opinion of the Court

The Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.

Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_ ... _the_Court

This essentially states that Social Security payments are a tip from a grateful country. Like you would tip someone serving you . . .

[geofflambert]

I don't know where these old chestnuts come from or why they won't go away. For the Treasury to get it's hands on the FICA funds, it must issue Treasury notes and buy them. Until that point the money belongs to the SSA and after that point the SSA holds those Treasury notes, which must be paid.

I've also heard over and over and over again that China holds our national debt. One twentieth of it, that's all.

Someone recently said here that Covid testing was widely available. At no time was it or is it "widely available". Much of the tests that are out there are unreliable.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)

Opinion of the Court

The Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.

Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_ ... _the_Court

This essentially states that Social Security payments are a tip from a grateful country. Like you would tip someone serving you . . .

So what is your point? The Social Security Trust Fund is real and it does exist. So you don't automatically get payments no matter what. That is irrelevant to the question. The American people, through the US Treasury, own that money, irrevocably.

[RangerJoe]

Those things come from case law from the US Supreme court. Look up the cases and read the arguments.

[geofflambert]

Not even the Supreme Court can void a US Treasury note. China holds about 1 trillion in US Treasuries. The Social Security Administration holds about 7 trillion dollars in US Treasuries. There is nothing on Earth better than a US Treasury. It's not monopoly money.

[geofflambert]

I really don't understand why you even brought that up. Whether any particular person can collect one thin dime from SS has nothing to do with it. The Social Security Trust Fund (that's one of its official titles) holds around $7,000,000,000,000 in real money. Honest Injun.