Badmovies.org Forum

    Several of our discussions have edged around this issue, but I want to drag it out into the open. I'd love to see our members' perspectives on this.  I welcome any and all input, but let's try to keep it civil.  I want to learn by hearing different perspectives, not yell at each other till we're all mad.  The fact that we've moved to "Members Only" posting (Thank you, Andrew!) should keep the one-shot flamers at bay - or at least force them to join up and play by the rules!  Not that I'm looking for universal agreement, only common civility.

OK, first, let me throw down some facts.

Our national debt is currently edging towards $15 TRILLION.  That number is unimaginably huge!  I was once told the best way to visualize a trillion is as follows: take a $100 bill and lay it flat on the ground.  Stack more and more $100 bills on top of it, all flat and neatly pressed.  When that stack is 7 1/2 miles high, you have reached $1 Trillion dollars.  Do the math.  We OWE over 100 miles of stacked flat $100 bills!

More facts:  40% of every dollar we spend right now is borrowed.

In Fiscal Year 2007, our annual budget deficit stood at $167 Billion.  That's how much more we were spending than we took in for that calendar year.  Now, remember, that is five years into Afghanistan and four years into Iraq.  That was also, for what it's worth, the last year we operated on a budget drafted by a Republican controlled Congress.  The Democrats were sworn in that January, and have written the budget ever since.

Last month - February 2011 - our MONTHLY budget deficit stood at 227 billion dollars!  We overspent more in a single month than we did in the entire fiscal year 2007!  The annual budget deficit stands in excess of 1 TRILLION  - not just for 2010, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, we will be running annual trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, unless our spending habits drastically change. Congress' solution?  Raise our debt ceiling so we can borrow EVEN MORE.

First of all, how on EARTH can ANYONE in their right mind POSSIBLY believe this is good for America? No household could possibly maintain itself with those kind of spending habits!  Yet we somehow think our government can do it indefinitely?   We are mortgaging the future of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren . . . for WHAT?

    Now - who is to blame?  First of all, US.  Every American who votes, and even more so, all those who don't.  We keep buying into the promises of politicians who pledge to GIVE us this or that if we elect them.  Government can NEVER give anything to anyone without first taking it from someone else, and that's a fact, pure and simple.  Yet we keep voting for politicians who promise to give us this or that for FREE - and we buy it, again and again.  Plato wrote 2400 years ago that this was the greatest single weakness of democracy - politicians use public funds to buy votes, and eventually create a vicious cycle that ends in bankruptcy.

   Secondly, the Democratic Party.  There is not even a pretense of fiscal discipline on the left.  Every single Democratic policy seems to come down to more spending, more taxation, and more power being concentrated in the hands of the government.  More programs, more entitlements, more freedoms lost, and MUCH more money  spent.  Free child care, free health care, free pet care, free drug rehab, free housing, free medicines, free Viagra, free whatever the candidate thinks the audience would like to get for free!  Just as long as they can keep getting elected so they can raise taxes so they can spend more money so they can keep getting elected!  And if someone DARES propose to cut some program they created, why, HE HATES THE CHILDREN!!! HE HATES THE ELDERLY!!! HE HATES THE PLANET!!!!  And the masses say "Baaa-aa-aah!" and run the evil monster out of town.  Don't believe me?  Read the figures above again. There has been NO pretense of any kind of fiscal discipline since Jan. 2007.


   Next, the Republicans.  While they spend at a less accelerated rate than Democrats, as a rule, they still promise too much and spend too much.  Not just on wars, either.  I am a big fan of our military, and I am one of the few who actually believes that going into Afghanistan and then Iraq was the correct and logical step to take after 9/11.  But even allowing for military ventures, the Republicans still spent at ridiculous levels when they controlled Congress for most of the Bush years.  That has got to stop.
I do believe that there are distinct differences between the two parties, and frankly, I doubt I will EVER vote for a Democratic presidential candidate for many, many reasons.  But the Republican leadership needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and propose some serious and meaningful cuts in spending or they will be facing a major rebellion.  My only fear is that such a move next year will just split the party and put Obama in for another four years - and I honestly don't think American can EVER recover from another four years of spending at this level.  We will see a currency collapse and an economic catastrophe that will make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park if we keep borrowing and spending like we are now.

SOLUTIONS: That's gonna be the tough part.  They are out there, but none of them are pretty, and none of them are pleasant.  In fact, they are gonna be a lot like kicking a heroin, alcohol, and cigarette addiction simultaneously - COLD TURKEY!  First, a big mental adjustment - the entitlement mentality has to be shaken once and for all.  Period.  Government exists to protect our lives, liberty, and property.  "To secure these rights, governments are institued among men . . ." according to Jefferson.  Not to pay for your house, your car, your kids, or your medicines.  Those things are called the responsibilities of adulthood.  We need to stop looking at government as a great big warm tit that secretes sweet milk on demand and start seeing it as an armed guard, up on the ramparts, keeping the bad guys at bay.  We wouldn't want that guard to buy all our groceries and run our lives for us - that's not his job.  Neither is it the government's.

  Let's start with Social Security.  When it was created, the benefits kicked in at age 65 - but the average life span of the average American was only 58!  That guaranteed perpetual solvency, because half the contributors would die before receiving a dime in benefits, meaning the lucky survivors would always have fund to draw benefits from.  Our average life span has increased by nearly 20 years, but we have LOWERED the retirement age!  That, on top of the changing demographics which now guarantee that for the next 30 years there will be a larger retired population than there will be working population, have created a situation where bankruptcy is guaranteed.  So what's the fix?  Twofold - first, raise the age at which benefits kick in to 70.  Those who have planned well can still retire at 65, or 60, or 30 if they are able. The rest, who haven't saved as they should, will have to work a few years longer.  Second, start means testing the whole program.  Why should a retired investment banker with a multimillion dollar portfolio be getting a monthly check from the government?  At the very least, let the benefits be cut off once a person has gotten back everything they put into the system.

  Secondly, Medicare and Medicaid.  I am not against there being a safety net, but it should be exactly that - a safety net, not a hammock.  Use the FBI to crack down of fraudulent claims, which some say account for about a third of the program's expenditures.  Use Welfare programs to care for the truly poor and needy at a level that ensures survival, but not comfort.  If poverty is made unpleasant, people will work harder at not being poor!  I've been in the third world, where people sell their children into prostitution at age 7 just to feed themselves.  I'm not saying America doesn't have poverty - obviously we do - but we are the only country I know of where our poor have a significant problem with obesity.  Link all welfare programs to either work or education - if someone is collecting our tax money, they better be working at something to get off the dole, or getting an education so that they can improve themselves.

  Thirdly, give the President a line item veto.  Over 45 State governors have it, and it can be used to cut billions of dollars of pork out of the budget every year.  That means a constitutional amendment, of course, but let's do it.  Let's push for it.  And let Presidents of BOTH parties have it.  Then some of the more ridiculous things government spends our good money on can be taken out of the equation.

  Fourth - NO NEW ENTITLEMENTS! We cannot afford the ones we already have, and frankly, most entitlement spending is simply giving government money to one class of citizen or another to buy their votes.  Economists have been telling us for years that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will all go bankrupt in the first half of this century unless major reforms are adapted.  So how have the last two administrations dealt with that dilemma?  By creating more entitlements!  First the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit for seniors, now the Obama Health Care Act, or whatever its proper name is.  So far, all it's done for me is make my private insurance rates go up by nearly $250 a month.  Thanks, Mr. President.  Really appreciate it!  And what do we really get?  Is anyone really happy or better off now that the bill passed?  Yet there is another trillion, at least, and maybe more.  For the record, no entitlement has ever come in under budget, and none has kept its benefits stable.  That's the whole problem in making the government our provider.  Once that provision is started, it can never be stopped or diminished, because its recipients will hang any politician who tries.

Now,  what things are NOT the solution?  Number one, raising taxes.  Raising taxes on ANYONE.  As Margaret Thatcher famously said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.  Right now, the government takes 35% of the income from the richest Americans in income taxes ALONE.  Then most states take another 10% - 17% in State income taxes.  Not to mention sales taxes, property taxes, and so on ad infinitum.  In socialist countries in Europe, the wealthy pay up to 90% of their income in taxes!  First of all, I find it immoral and downright criminal for ANY government to take half of what someone makes.   I don't care how rich they are.  I don't care if they are Bill Gates.  Taking half of someone's earnings is theft, pure and simple.  And, if Democrats get their way and restore the estate tax, that means that whatever is left of family fortunes for the well-to-do will be taxed AGAIN, when they die, at a rate of 40 %!!!  How is that fair?  How is that right?
  Even if you hate the rich and think they should be ground up into free hamburger for the unemployed, there is another problem with raising taxes.  Government won't use it to pay debt.  They never do.  They use it to create more programs, more departments, more laws, and more giveaways so they can get re-elected.  Look at it this way: you cannot lose weight by eating more.  At some point, you HAVE to start cutting back on portions.  Our government needs to go on a starvation diet in order to get its priorities straightened out.   Dealing with massive government spending by raising taxes is like fighting a fire by spraying gasoline on it.   This country lasted for over 150 years and went through numerous economic recessions without the Government stepping in and intervening.  And you know what?  We didn't have universal starvation and deprivation.  People went through hard times, they adapted, they overcame, and good times came around again, without the government entering into the picture at all.  Bottom line is, it's time to starve the beast, folks.  Before it devours us all.

    Sorry for the long post.  It's your turn now.

Whose fault is it: Doggett
How do we fix it: We beat the crap out of him.

Problem Solved. .. .

(http://unclefunk.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/cornelius.jpg)

Not a solution in itself, but a possible explanation as to our military funding issue.

With the military aspect of this thing, it seems Iraq is the biggest money pit.  Our lack of manpower and equipment has a lot to do with it, as whatever we can spare w\o compromising our own Stateside security has to be divided with the Afghan theatre.

Now, as a historical look back, Clinton is responsible for part of it.  His decision to reduce our 2+million troops to what we have now (with equal reduction in weapons and equipment) is partially responsible for this overextension of our forces. That is why we are now spending more, because we've been there too long. Time IS money.

Had we had the proper numbers for Iraq (500,000+) we'd have trained the Iraqi security forces quicker, established border security, and had more men to deal with the internal insurgency, which would have died out sooner as a result of better border security.

The other part of the problem? Starting a war on two fronts. War costs. We planned for the blitz, but not the long term plans for stability and internal security. Going into
 battle w\o a plan truly costs.

Doggett is more powerful than you could ever imagine.  :teddyr:

(http://celluloidzombie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Cornelius.jpg)

You're my Zira.   :teddyr:

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsH/8414-14970.gif)

The two wars over seas, that the U.S. shouldn't have got involved in, certainly didn't help the debt.


As for a solution I honestly don't know how to fix it except to wait it out and hope for the best.

Quote from Bob: "The two wars over seas, that the U.S. shouldn't have got involved in, certainly didn't help the debt."

War came to us, Bob.

The Afghans sheltered bin Laden and his goons and let them train for their attacks on us in their country.  They were given a chance to give him up, and they refused.  That war was absolutely necessary and just.  Having run the Taliban out and scattered and destroyed much of Al Qaeda, we have no choice but to stabilize the place before we leave.  That's a very tough proposition, considering the country has zero infrastructure and more than half the population are barbaric religious fanatics.  What are the alternatives?  Leave and let the bad guys take the country back, and we'll have to do it all over again at some point.  Or just kill'em all - which would be immoral and unjust and make us no better than those we went in to bring to justice.

Iraq - I understand the arguments against going in, but I still think that it was something we had to do.  Saddam was a sworn enemy of the USA, he had violated every single term of the armistice that ended the first Gulf War, and he had made and used WMD's in the past and gave every evidence of still having them.  Even if he didn't have significant stockpiles, he still had the scientists and the programs to make them.  By misusing humanitarian relief and bribing the French and the Russians with oil, he would have had the UN inspectors permanently gone in another year or two.  True, he and bin Laden hated each other, but that wouldn't have kept him from using bin Laden to strike at the "Great Satan."  One five gallon bucket of anthrax in the New York Subway system could easily kill 100,000 Americans - and envelopes of anthrax were showing up all over the country!

In place of that nightmare scenario, we now have an Iraq that is a struggling young democracy.  It isn't all we wish it could be, but it is better than what it was, and improving daily.  You never hear about it in the media because no one wanted to give GWB credit for ANYTHING good, but the fact is the war in Iraq was won when Obama took office.  Now it's just a matter of drawing down and letting the Iraqis take the reins.  We have done the one thing  that Al Qaeda feared the most -- we have shown that an Arabic, Muslim country CAN become a working democracy.  And look at the results now!  Again, no one wants to give GWB credit, but much of what is going on in the Middle East right now is a result of his "democracy initiative."  We do not know what form it will finally take, and there are many ways in which it could go very horribly wrong, but for the moment, there is a real drive for democracy in the Middle East . . . and every American who served in Iraq can take some small credit for that.

Thank you very much for your response, and karma to all who posted.  Even AHD with his funny monkey pictures.

And I'm selling tickets to the Ghouck-Doggett showdown!

Only if we count body odor and chronic flatulence as superpowers. . .

So, as someone with strong Christian values, you say that poverty is pleasant right now and that there should be more child prostitutes in the U.S., thereby proving their parents' welfare worthiness?  More children suffering here would be a good thing, I guess... so the parents might have incentive to work harder at not being poor by choice, because I understand it's very lucrative.  It's particularly awesome wondering how you can acquire toiletries while on welfare, to be presentable for potential interviews and such.  In addition, not having dinner every night or breakfast every morning really builds character!

I just want to be sure I understand your angle here.

Should we ensure that people who meet your particular standards of poverty are given furniture with splinters and/or nails to make them less comfortable in whatever shelter they've been lucky enough to keep?  You know, so they're not "enjoying" their extended time of unemployment too much.  It'd be incentive not to sit around in the lap of luxury, watching soaps and eating bonbons.  That's why poor people are so fat, I'm sure, all the rich foods you can buy with an EBT card and just lay around eating all month.  Then, when welfare and unemployment run out, throw them on the street because they're clearly defective.  Hell, they probably just don't want to work at all, and therefore are not worthy of food or shelter.  Who needs people like that weighing the rest of us down?  Dead weight... screw 'em for not getting hired!  Maybe they just weren't suffering enough.

You misrepresent me altogether.  I don't hate the poor; I've been poor for a good part of my life.    My point is twofold:
First of all, if you subsidize something, you get more of it.  The government's war on poverty has spent about 2 trillion dollars since the 1960's without significantly reducing poverty in America.  So obviously something in the "government as benefactor" approach is deeply flawed.  What we have done is to create a permanent welfare class. The Welfare Reform Act of the 1990's did a great deal to ameliorate this by linking welfare to work and curbing some of the  worst abuses.  However, the current administration has undone nearly all the reforms that were enacted 15 years ago, and we're back to where we started - paying poor people to remain poor without equipping them to better themselves.
  My point in the section you quoted is not that we need more starvation and child prostitution in America, and I think you know that.  My point was that our poor are amazingly well off by world standards, enough so that many of them seem to have zero motivation to improve themselves.
  It's a broken system, and I don't know how to fix it. But I do know that what we are doing right now does not really work.

Thanks for your response, even if it was laced with sarcasm.

(http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif)




We HAD to? really?

It's very easy for me to imagine that we coul have said this guy isn't worth one american life and focused on homeland security. It's easy because it's exactly what we did after the gulf war.



are you saying Saddam hussein mailed those???





Does FOX news do alot of stories about Iraq??  Theres not alot going on there.




so why aren't al queda declaring jihad on tunisia and Egypt? 


Our military empire is the #1 source of our problems. It makes us vulnerable to terrorist attacks from peoples who don't want us there, it costs a ton and the money is spent in other countries and the obscene profts go to well connected american corporations or peoples in other countries.

and we aren't the world s police and hae no business trying act like we are.


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_N6Z5aoOxgS8/TR9U6z_trRI/AAAAAAABQIM/RrL3GGUHi50/s1600/US-Military-Bases-Worldwide.jpg)

Ape will not f**k up ape!  :thumbup:

 A BIG war-worked with WW2-got us outta the Great Depression!
Hmmm.....mebbe by not paying our worthless leaders (and I use that term loosely) so much cash. We pay them to milk us...WTF? The poor and middle class support this country-and the rich reap the benefits....ie-Gov.Dickhead Snyder. (he's Michigan's currant leech in charge.)

Lester - I don't believe in isolationism.  Period.  Either America acts as the global cop, or the globe doesn't have one.  We don't have to intervene everywhere, every time, but I do believe there are cases where intervention is called for and necessary.

You are willing to let evil win - if you'd lived in World War II, I imagine that you would have said that the Holocaust was Germany's internal problem and we had no business stepping in.  The Blitzkrieg would have merited a yawn, and a statement to the effect that it was Europe's problem.  Japan's rape of China?   Not our business.

War is hell.  I recognize that, as does any person with intelligence.  But a peace that lets evil rule the field unopposed is even worse.  You say China doesn't face the problems we do - that's true.  That's because China is an evil dictatorship that doesn't allow its own people any freedom, so why promote it for others?

In every age, it falls on some nation to carry the torch for liberty and freedom.  Yeah, that sounds corny as all get out, I know.  But I believe that America stands for something.  For all its flaws, it remains what Lincoln called it - "the last best hope of man on earth."  If all our leaders followed your philosophy, America would stand for nothing and mean nothing.

BTW, I wasn't saying that Saddam was behind the Anthrax attacks.  But it did make us aware of the dreadful danger that even a relatively small quantity of Anthrax posed - and Hussein did manufacture the stuff.  He was a potential supplier to every single enemy America had.

good. It doesn't need or want one.


I'm not sidestepping a debate on ww2 but the issue here is our debt. The trillions we spend on supporting guys like sadam hussein and Hosni Mubarak and having bases in countries like south korea, japan ,and Germany and so many others isn't stopping a meglomaniacal guy with a massive military from stomping across western civilization. It isn't serving the purpose our expenditures did in ww2. I really don't know what it's purpose is actually. It's mainly doing a good job of fomenting terrorism, draining our treasury and making us look like a***oles.



If they followed your philosophy we'd be broke. and we are!

 I like pie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYmA4QjHY_k
Fact is-we can p**s and moan all day long. Unless your a millionaire-nobody gives a f**k what you think.

But . . .  but . . . I care what you guys think! :teddyr:
Except maybe Lester.  His thoughts get on my nerves. :bluesad:
But then there is you.  You're OK! :cheers:

I often don't agree with Lester, but he does have some good points and an intelligent argument for his points. "his thoughts get on my nerves" really doesn't have a place in a civilized debate. If you're not able to completely squash his points, then one has to concede that at least some of his points are valid. I see good points in both of your arguments, and if what Lester says is grounds for getting on someone's nerves, then surely your points would also.

We all screwed up. we all must fix it by not being greedy. plain and simple through words, but hatching the plan- with all of this miasma and exaggeration and drawn lines, these are what killed us from the beginning. How to undo this- there isn't a way because we all strive on money and feed our fear to politicians who then say dirt on the other person so they can be elected once again. if we expose these corrupt guys for what they really are, then we might just be able to fix this.

If we expose all the corrupt people, that would leave you, me, and Trevor!
The problem with fearmongering is that the world is, in all actuality, a very scary place. One man's fearmongering is another man's valid concern.  I don't worry a lot about global warming, but I am scared to death of Islamic radicalism.  You might be totally flip-flopped of how I feel. Which one of us is right?  Or both?  Or neither?  That's what makes real reform rather difficult.

GHouck - Lester and I are old sparring partners who go back and forth a great deal.  I actually gave him positive karma for his last post in this thread.  But his ideaology does make my head hurt sometimes - he is thoughtful, obviously, and makes his points well - but his way of thinking is so alien to mine that I can't get my head around it.  But I do hope I get on some people's nerves.  We may see different solutions, but this is a problem we all need to do some thinking about, even if it's not particularly fun.

And Lester - the world doesn't NEED a policeman?  Really?  REALLY?  So, if dictators want to slaughter their own citizens, and bullies want to invade their weaker neighbors and impose genocide on them, then no one from outside has a right to stand up to them?  Ever?  That is the kind of statement from you that just stymies me.  Again, I have tons of respect for you hanging in the discussion and all, but your way of thinking is utterly alien to me at times.  Peace to you anyway.

We are flipped-flopped. and we are right. and wrong at the same time. :wink:

I hope you realize how arrogant that first line sounds. I also hope you are kidding, and if you're not, I have a few words for you.

But anyways, "Either America acts as the global cop, or the globe doesn't have one." is a way of thinking that many believe, including myself, is the root of many of the problems in the world. It's an example of American arrogance that is the root of much of the hatred others have for us.

"the last best hope of man on earth."? again, that sounds arrogant, especially since if was said before anyone alive today's grandparents were even born. I hope some of the guys on the board that aren't from the USA chime in and tell us what how they perceive those kind of sound bites.

Okay.
I can see the point there.
But I think its the UN's job. Not one country. We need rules to live by as a global community, we can't just have one person/country as a police man. Global democracy shouldn't allow this. How would you like if it all Laws were to be decided by one person?
Period.
You never had a say. One country as Judge, Jury and executioner
Justice can be slow, beauracratic and tedious but thats the price you pay for being the good guys. You have to try all avenues before you resort to more forcefull methods which the UN does. Also is it only becuase you're American that you want America to be the worlds Policeman ? Justoce isn't about force, it's requires a lot of thought and intelligence and you can't buy that with a defence budget.
What if it was Canada or Britian as the world police man ? Would you feel so comfortable about it then ?


Okay, it's been a while since I did history, but I'm pretty sure the US had to be brought into the war. I think the Brits announced war on the Nazis when they realised that Hitler wasn't going to stop.
It took a while for the message to reach US shores though, the US thought that it was Europes problem...


*Cough*

I didn't realise that my counrty was about to dissapear off the map.
I better get my passport. And head to Canada.

Well, Indy and Lester are both right about one thing...the debt of our nation *IS* killing it.

The House of Representatives just passed a bill to cut $6 billion from the budget, which is purely and utterly ridiculous...a ridiculously SMALL, and totally meaningless, cut.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-jumped-72-billion-same-day-house-vo

How about this for a partial small solution: immediately with draw U.S. forces from Iraq and Afganistan. I know that a massive chunk of the debt goes towards that.

Huh?


Debt doesn't go to keep the military anywhere...debt is what we owe other countries for past deficit spending.

Completely disbanding the military might help meet a budget now, but it would do nothing to paying down the debt.

    Doggett - may not know this, but I am a raving Anglophile.  England carried the torch of civilization and democracy for all of the nineteenth and twentieth century, and I am a huge believer in the "special relationship" that Churchill and Roosevelt created.  You are right that America had to be dragged into the war - because there were a great many isolationists (people who think a lot like our own Lester) who were dead set against our getting into it.  England - and more specifically, that great Englishman Winston Churchill - saved the world in the dark days of 1940, when the light of civilization came very close to being snuffed out altogether.   It broke my heart that one of Obama's first acts in office was to disgracefully snub our oldest, best ally by returning the magnificent bust of Churchill that was given to President Bush by Tony Blair.  That was a crude, cheap act.  So was the giving of such tawdry gifts to your PM after the meaningful and historic gifts that your government sent to him as a welcome to the White House. Shameful.

  However , I have to disagree with your comment about letting the UN lead.  The UN was a brilliant idea that has gone utterly bad.  It was envisioned as a format where everyone would have a voice while the Great Powers steered.  Now, countries like Saudi Arabia and the Sudan (where SLAVERY is still practiced, for crying out loud!) get seats on the Human Rights Commission.  The UN General Assembly is a forum for bashing America and Israel by nations who have no concept of human freedom or democracy, and nothing but contempt for those who honor such projects.
   I wasn't proposing America act unilaterally, except in cases of grave danger to our own safety.  But I do believe that those who are both strong and in the right sometimes have an obligation to lead when the world community would rather bury its head in the sand.  My fondest wish is that the U.S. and the U.K. will always stand shoulder to shoulder as guardians of the light in a darkening world.

GHouck - I was being silly in that comment, I should have put an eyerolling smiley or something to indicate that.  I didn't think anyone would take it seriously.

  And Bob - the whole philosophy of "bring'em home now and damn the consequences" is nothing more or less than defeatism.  We are drawing down in Iraq, as the situation there continues to stabilize, but the Iraqi government still needs some help.  As I said earlier, that war is pretty much won.  But, we didn't pull all our troops out of Germany in 1945 - or in 1950 or 1960.  The world is a dangerous place.

   As for the "last best hope" comment, Lincoln said it and I believe it.  America, for now, proudly carries the torch - with a lot of help and support from the Free Peoples of the Earth (and occasional criticisms, which we often deserve).  It is a torch that first shone in Greece and Jerusalem, then from Rome and Constantinople, then for a long time from London.  It is the light of Western Civilization, resting on the twin pillars of reason and faith - woven together, they have created the best and freest societies the world has ever known.  If America is as terrible as all our critics say, why are people from all over the world willing to risk death and imprisonment to get here?  I have said it before and will say it again, I love my country and am not ashamed of that love.  (But hey - England is next on my list! Then Australia, then France and Italy, then Russia, then . . .  you get the idea!)

Yay we're number three!


I have no idea how you'll get out of your debt, but it seems certain that your country will be bitterly split no matter what way you go.  Most of our politics is fairly left/right of center rather than the extremes, so it seems 'calmer' here; the politicians have made huge issues out of stupid events, like illegal immigration [say a few thousand a year] to try and whip up controversy [really? Only a few thousand?  Compare that to others and come back to me, sheesh!] It all pales in comparison to the seemingly crazy politics going on in the US at the moment. 

Our country seemed to avoid the bulk of the global financial crisis fairly well.  A resources boom [we have alot of raw minerals that need digging] plus a reasonably stable economy have helped us through the worst of it.  I'm not sure how or even if it applies to the US but one of the things that is sometimes credited for our success is a series of stimulus packages that was split into two parts.  A small part was a payout to a lot of our citizens so they go out and spend it on things, driving the economy at a time of uncertainty.  This was fairly successful as a short term fix and many countries also put in their own similar measures, but that can't be permanent of course, so now stimulus is being dialled back in many countries, including ours.

The second was a 'nation building' program where the government basically threw a lot of money at building/expanding schools/roads and other infrastructure.  This spike in building also drove things along by the sounds of it, and was a big help in keeping the money in the system.  I don't hear much about the US solutions, so I wonder if something like that is happening atm.

I'm no economist so I couldn't even start to come up with solutions for an incredibly hard situation but I think the clearest thing I can say/see is that no matter what course is taken, there needs to be some serious reforms in the US to make it work, and thats not going to happen with such passionately hateful politics that seem to be tearing your country apart at the moment.

I don't care who's right or wrong, ultimately it won't hugely effect me, but at least SOMETHING has to be done beyond the nothing/stalemate that seems to be coming out of your country.

Fix the politicians and the rest will follow really.

Interesting commentary, Dean, thanks!

I got to visit Australia for a few weeks back in 1983 and long to return someday - it is a truly beautiful place and the only locality outside the U.S. I've ever been to that I would enjoy actually living in.

Okay, bit of a difference between what Lester means and what I mean. The scales don't really compare. We're not talking about some small country that most people probably couldn't even find on a map and the fate of a whole continent what could effect global politics to come.
I doubt what happens in some small arab states will affect the world in any other way than changing oil prices.

And, being the hippy I am, I believe we need to find alternative sources to oil anyway.



Well, obviously thats not right.




There's a saying over here: if everyone you bump into takes a dislike to you, maybe they're not the one with the problem...

You can't sulk just because a few countires don't like you.
That would be like me not going to school becuase everyone hated me. Who cares abiout these countires anyway ? What does their opinions even matter ? It doesn't bother me in the slightest when I get bashed by people I don't like. Its only the people whos opinions I care about that I take notice of. Be they postive thoughts or otherwise.
If you truly believe in democracy then everyone should get a say. Even people who you find abhorrant. Thats how it works.


There's the thing.
Who says you're in the right ? The world very rarely gives an easy black and white choice.
And you're not leading anything if no one wants to follow.

When truly bad things happen in the world, it inspires people to do good. There's really no need for grandstanding.
Look at Libya.
A country that turned against its citizens now has a bunch of countries against it to protect the lives of innocent civilians.


Again, Indy.
I hate to burst your bubble. But thats not just an American thing. We have that too and with far more countries.
Geography, it's pretty much just Mexico and Cuban people that flee to America.

I think I'm in danger of seeming anti-American. I'm not.
I love you guys.

Things that you hold so dearly apply to most other countries around the world. Simply because you're the biggest, you assume you're the best.
America being big has nothing to do with American freedom or values.
Its simply a large land mass.
America has many noble traits and fine, fine people, but they are ideas shared amoungst the globe. They are not yours and yours alone.



Hope is something that lies within a person, not a country.
It doesn't matter where that person is or where that person is from. I'm sure people have hope all across this planet.
At least, I hope they do.
See what I did there ?  :wink:


Have I ever written this much in all the years I've been here ????

okay first of all: what about the topic??  all it takes is the mention of war and you are totally off the subject!  as if wars don't cost money or as if that money is somehow different money.

the issue is not these high falutin disagreements on foreign policy questions, it's our very survival. we could eventually be cut off. the dollar is slowly falling out of favor as the reserve currency.  we are slipping a little more each day.


and dictators ARE slaughtering their own citizens all over the world. robert mugabe, hosni mubarak until recently with our consent and billions, Kim jong il in north korea.  It's out of our hands. We don't live in the garden of eden, we don't have unlimited resources.

Makes me wonder how the airstrikes in Libya will be viewed.  The anti-war crowd now has more to b*tch about, and most likely most analysts will say we just went into our third war.  This however, will not play out as Clinton's airstrikes in Yugoslavia did years back, where the war was won with just a series of airstrikes.  Libya is a larger country,  has better Soviet-made weapons, and they know how to use them.  Ground war, anyone?


Maybe some people should see the unedited footage of the Imperial Japanese and their rape, mutilation and torture of innocent women, babies, and the elderly. And then ask if something shouldn't have been done.  If they had occupied the U.S. West Coast after Pearl Harbor, the same would have been the case. To say nothing of the Bataan Death March and the Tenko womens' camp in Sumatra.  It could have easily been America.



The day American college kids in Berkeley get run over by U.S. army tanks in the infamous "Berkely Square" incident, or a sentence of 25 years hard labor for owning a gun is imposed, then maybe people in America will have something to complain about. Until then, America is still the free-est country on the face of the Earth, and we bow to noone.   :thumbup:


Couldn't agree more with this last one, Indy.  As usual you post is well recieved.  :smile:

Thanks to all for the returns!

Doggett, I think you and I probably agree more than we disagree.  I wish we could sit down sometime over a nice dinner and solve all the world's problems.  As long as you didn't try to make any moves on me like you did on Newt and Jack.  That would be frightful!!  Seriously, though, if Reagan or Bush would have been in office, they would have led the charge to get the UN to intervene, and Ghadaffi's air force would have been so much twisted burning wreckage weeks ago, back when the rebellion was still going strong.  As it is, we've waited so long that we are more likely going to be protecting huddled survivors instead of empowering a popular rebellion to topple a truly evil man.  All because a President whose foreign policy is dithering, if not downright cowardly, refused to lead when the world looked to him for leadership.

Lester - we do spend a lot on our military, but if you look at it as a percent of our GDP, it's about a fourth of what we spend on entitlements.  I do diverge when it comes to the topic of our military, simply because you and I differ so much there that your posts always set me off. With regards to Mubarak, one reason that he did receive U.S. support for as long as he did is because he was NOT that heavy handed towards his own people - certainly not in a class with Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein - and because he was a major stabilizing influence.  But yes, it does come back to debt and profligate spending.  But I still believe that we should do the most good we can with what we have, within our means, rather than retreating into isolationism and allowing the world to go to Hades in a handbasket.

No promises.

You are a big hunk of man. I wouldn't mind a nibble.  :tongueout:

 :lookingup:

yeah he's only #20 http://www.parade.com/dictators/


20. Hosni Mubarak
Egypt
Age:  80
In power since: 1981
Last year's rank:  17  

The use of torture in Egypt has been widely documented. In response to international pressure, Mubarak allowed local elections in 2008, but in 80% of the contests, his party’s candidates ran unopposed. He made it so difficult to register or campaign that turnout was estimated at only 3%.


His people hated him and we did everythign we could to support him and solidify his reign. That's nothing like stopping Hitler in WW2. It's alot more like supporting Hitler.






and we are back to the ostensible topic: we are way BEYOND our means.




The world isn't going to hell in handbasket. Places like India , China and Brazil, which were largely destitute only a few decades or so ago, have massive thriving economies now. My friend a few years ago in the gambling industry was on some island near Hong Kong that was like Gilligans island 20 years ago and now is a massive metropolis. I haven't talked to him in a whil but I htink he is in thailand or somewhere therabouts. There is crazy growth going on in the world.  

None of this is the result of our making military contractors billionaires, supporting dictators like mubarak, the saudis, and others or any of that. It's the result of trade.



We're a republic , not an empire.  I don't find anything morally abhorrent about that.

(http://www.parsec-santa.com/celebrity/celebs4/PeterNoone.jpg)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  Carry on.   :tongueout:

(http://markmaynard.com/media/dr-zaius2a.jpg)

way way way Wait, wasn't it decided that Doggett was to blame?  :question:
(http://www.cinemaretro.com/uploads/PLANETAPES3.jpg)

(http://www.parsec-santa.com/celebrity/celebs4/PeterNoone.jpg)



Hey man, I'm honored. I'm young, good lookin' and some nice teeth.  Nice pic   :teddyr:

Just now weighing in on the topic as I don't normally log in on the weekends.

The reason is no mystery: we spend too much.

The reason it cannot be solved by the two-party systems is also no mystery, but few choose to acknowledge it: too much political power. The Democrats beat the Republicans to the punch creating this massive unwieldy central government we have. The Republicans had to compete some way just to retain the amount of political swagger they have enjoyed for decades, and so now they are no less guilty of helping to turn this nation into a nation of dependence and debt. We are far more dependent than most people realize. They only thing we have truly going for us on the international power scale is military might. Both the Democrats and the Republicans know this, which is why we've evolved into now fighting on four freaking fronts now. Didn't Obama promise to pull the nation out of war? Yeah, right.

Back to political power. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to give up power. Reduce debt and you reduce the size of the government, it's not rocket science. Reduce government and you reduce the power base of whatever part of the government you are reducing. Neither side of the corrupt two-party system wants to do that. So instead we get what we've got, finger pointing over who's to blame and what to cut. Neither party is concerned about fixing the country, they're concerned about how to hold on to their power.

If there's any hope, it's in an emerging third party, and if that third party can manage to retain it's values and not just get into office and become the new Democrat or the new Republican. I doubt this will happen. You're more likely to see a political coup and martial law imposed before you're likely to see something like that.

The more I see, the better anarcho-capitalism looks to me.

About the future...

(http://i56.tinypic.com/29g0v1f.jpg)

Everyone has their own flying car, entire meals come in pill form, and Earth is run by DAMN DIRTY APES!

Only four more years till we get these:


(http://skateandannoy.com/aa-sna-uploads/2009/05/hoverboards.jpg)

And they better be in retro 80's colours!  :teddyr:

Most of the Op was a lot of foxnews, which is the new term for BS.

The real truth about america's economic crisis is that it's mostly been caused by republican administrations helping corporate america and the richest of the rich loot and plunder america for their own gain.

Under president raygun, we had the damn of downsizing appear, and the term downsizing entered the american lexicon. The result of raygun's policies and the political climate they ushered in was that middle america's wages have flatlined or even dropped over the last 30 years while the wealth of the rich and corporations has skyrocketed. Since the rich and corporations pay little taxes and have good accountants and overseas tax shelters to avoid  most taxes, this has meant a huge shift in money from the middle class who spend it on things and pay taxes, to the rich who hoard their money and don't pay taxes.

Also raygun started this big drive to dismantle the safety regs that FDR, one of america's great presidents, put in place to prevent another depression and to porotect the public from the obscene greed and indifference of the rich.

So we had the S&L bailout thanks to raygunh, remember that? And we've had one financial crisis after another thanks to republican administrations dereguilating the rich and big business, essentially telling them the economy was theirs to rape and pillage as they pleased, and they did.

The vast majority of this countries financial crisis are laid at the feet of corporate america and their republican puppets.

 Also, the fools who are not rich and yet vote for the party of the rich,l the republicans, are to blame as well.

Please don't bother responding to barack clinton.  He's been banned.  Not for his views, but for abusing this forum's hospitality. 

If he's been banned, how is it he's able to post? 

Understood. I withdrew my post.

He has another alias that has been banned. Andrew turned off guest posting on the forums so he can no longer post under the guest name.  Now that he officially registered under the barack clinton moniker, it is now banned as well. 

So, on a completely different topic, but does that mean that people who read Reviews have to register? :question:

Only if they want to post a comment. 

Actually, if he had JOINED, I would have been willing to tolerate his nonsense.  It was his showing up as a guest and flaming everyone that ticked me off.  Darn . . . I actually gave him a karma point for being willing to sign on!

And I just took that point away by smiting him.  Nonetheless, when an ID has been "banned" I don't think they would be still receiving karma...  :question:

As far as democracy having had it's "torch carried" ...huh? ...You think by actions in Africa, the Indian sub-continent, China... Ireland??  :question:

No country is perfect.  But American democracy has its roots in England.  Every race and nationality on this planet has been oppressed, and has been the oppressor, at one time or another in their history.

But here's a question:  Would India be a democracy at all if they had NOT been a British colony for 200 years?

No country is perfect...?  Nor is your commentary.   Perfect my arse.  You suggest that modern India exists because of centuries of exploitation and oppression? 

Imperialism had an ugly side, to be sure.  But the British took that whole "white man's burden" concept pretty seriously, and did make an effort to improve the places they colonized.  Generally speaking, that meant taking the children of the upper classes and giving them an education and some training in the arts of government.  But, in India, they also banned some of the more barbaric customs of the locals - like cremating women still alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands -not to mention the caste system - and built roads, schools, and hospitals FOR THE NATIVES that are still in use today.  They also stole massive amounts of natural resources and cruelly exploited native workers.  But the native rulers were just as cruel to the underclasses, if not more so.  I guess my point was that, compared to some of the other colonizing powers, like Belgium and Spain, the British left both a positive and negative legacy in the lands they occupied.

isn't that what the Sphere of Influence does?

OK, I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what your reference is here . . .  :question:

I'm curious, how did this turn into a history discussion on Imperialism? I thought we were talking about the national debt.

It was during the Imperialism era, where China was going to have a new gov't and multiple world powers came to China to "Influence" their gov't.  That is what I can recall from US history this year.

Actually, America's "Open Door" policy helped keep China from being carved up into multiple colonies the way Africa was.  That being said, I doubt China would ever have fragmented the way Africa did as a result of imperialism - Chinese culture was too homogenous, and the Chinese have a wonderful gift for simply assimilating all foreign influences that invade them.  But, America and China have a past that isn't entirely negative . . . except for that mess in Korea.  The world would be a better place if China had stayed out of that one!

Well its all completely off topic, so doesn't really help this thread.  That and England's democracy has its roots in Ancient Greece and so on and so forth.  Quite alot of that democracy through history went hand in hand with violent take overs of other's territories.  But I do digress.

What I find more fascinating is the subject of India, which whilst it was effectively a British Colony it was essentially under control of the East India Trading Company for a long time [before the whole mutiny and the EITC getting assimilated into government.  Kind of like if Mcdonalds decided to run a country.   :thumbup:  No surprises there that it went downhill for the Brits.

Now to link that back to topic, India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world.  Again, I'm no economist but considering that India is a fairly newly industrialised country, I find it interesting to draw parralells to the US market. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that a large part of America's once proud manufacturing secotors are more and more being exported out to countries like China, Mexico and India.  We design it you build it type of deal.  That or just shutting up shop [the trouble with GM for example]

Now these economies are by no means going gangbusters, but in the case of India and China at least [I don't know enough about Mexico] they are certainly growing at a large rate, slightly in part due to their increased manufacturing sector, yet in the US it seems like your manufacturing sector is under increasing threat from offshore, and is in decline.

Like I said, I'm no economist and have no idea as to the impact of any of this, but just an interesting thought I had in drawing parralells between different countries.

A ancient Chinese saying-
"Tall trees beg to be cut down".
We are the tall tree.
We have interf**ked our own econemy for sooo long-it will come to roost. It's f**ked because we feel like we should be an international policeman.
Notice how  we have taken on the attributes of the old British Empire?
This isnt Capitalism-it's Imperialism.
We are hated. Rightly so. This aint 1942. ITS NOW.
We need to back off.

I'll drink to that.

 :cheers:

The military, overall, and foreign aid combined account for about 20% of Federal spending.  Whether you agree or disagree with our foreign policy, we could cut ALL of it and entitlements would still bankrupt us - just a little less slowly.

Entitlement spending is 70% of our government's spending.  And it is politically almost impossible to EVER cut entitlement spending, while politicians can keep on get elected every time by promising to INCREASE entitlements, either by raising the benefits or extending them to more people.  And, if we did ever cut that 20% significantly, do you think politicians would use that money to pay down our debt?  Doubtful.  They would promise more stuff to more voters so they could go on getting re-elected.

And before we blame big business for outsourcing, consider this: America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the WORLD.  And our labor force is among the world's most expensive.  The whole objective of business is to make a product and then sell it for profit.  Where would you locate your factory?  America, or China?  If profit is your guide, America is not a very good place to manufacture your stuff.

Not trying to flame anyone here, but our alleged imperialism is NOT the root of the problem.

It's a valid point, RC. I love America, but the damned flag-wavers who keep chanting "We're number one," while waving their flag made in Indonesia, refuse to acknowledge that we have little to offer but military muscle anymore. We are far more dependent than those same flag-wavers would like to believe. Being the military muscle of the UN is essentially our job in the world now.

I don't disagree with you on entitlement spending, Indy. However, assuming that your numbers are right, 20% is a pretty big chunk. That's a lot of dough. I'm with Ron Paul, it ALL needs to be scaled back, and in a big f**king way.

And I think it is fair to ask the question, "how long will THAT last?"  I mean, our military is becoming more and more technology based and more and more of that technology capability is moving overseas.

The first half of the 20th century saw our buildup of American manufacturing and it could be argued that that was strategic.  WW II solidified how weakness in that regard could be catastrophic, and the post war era was essentially about keeping all of that in place.  As we outsource manufacturing capability, we weaken the military.

It's only a matter of time, I think, before our job at the UN's strong arm will be to exercise our might against a nation that manufactures the technology that drives our military.  Um, well, either they were REALLY smart about it and built in their own failsafes and back doors or at least they dry up our supplies.

We are NOTHING without a strong manufacturing and industrial base.  The War of Northern Aggression (ha, Indy!), the Germans in WW II and a whole host of other historical examples should be screaming that at us.

Ross Perot showed before the 1992 Presidential Election that Government jobs, even back then, exceeded manufacturing jobs.  This is an example of an economic system that cannot sustain itself and MUST resort to huge deficits and ever growing debt.  The engine of economic growth is profit; without industry making stuff to buy or sell, where is the profit?

Trade deficits are part and parcel to this as well. Our profits are going overseas and fueling THEIR economic growth.  I rant about this all the time on the local level..."buy LOCAL, it keeps the money HERE; we all benefit in the long run."

Shopping at Walmart or any other 'chain' establishment, unless their corporate headquarters happen to be in town, siphons money out of the local economy.  My order of priority spending:  local, state, country, world.  I want to keep as much of the money in the town or county in which I live as I can.  That way, MY community prospers.

But, too many of my acquaintances cannot see past saving 30 cents or whatever, so they run to Walmart.

And it is the same for our country.  Buying American goods in general helps the American economy.  That said, though, I have serious doubts whether I will buy another American made automobile.  Also entering into the equation are thoughts of quality, longevity and other considerations of real (vs perceived) "value" that have nothing to do with price tag.

Not the root of the problem? When corporations-outsource in forgeign countries-when US citizens are losing jobs to Mexico-Tawin-India? Who calls you on the phone asking you to pay your bills? They're Indian (not American Indian)-"Hello-hello-hello-" they even are making there commericials propaganda for you to accept forgieners as an  alternative. I  am NOT racist. I Am against big corporaions taking jobs we need and USING less fortunate counties for their personal gain.
I aint mad  At Mexico,or China,or Japan.I'm mad at milkers who jump away from us and decide that personal gain is more important than the future of there country. Cocksuckers like the Govener of my state. We Should worry about us FIRST. The American people should take front stage-dam-we elected these f**kers to take care of us-not oil intrests. I dont remember us bombing Bosnia. No oil intrest there.
I feel for the Libyans.
But Im real dissalusioned by our bulls**t with Reagans covert wars,Iraq,our ignoring of Bosnia and Rawanda-(they needed our help-no oil there!!!)
I agree that the Libayns need help-but why do I feel if it was in Buttf**k No where we would ignore it? Its IMPERILISM. WE WANT IT.
t

Yeah-we help. Seems like we are very selective latley who we help. Mass murder has been going on in Rwanda for DECADES. Bosnia was getting f**ked long before we said anything.
But we had no finacial interest . We let them die.
A very selective world police.  :lookingup: This aint your grandpa's ww 2 america.
THIS IS NOW.

Thank you.

There is a basic premise nobody is talking about here. And if you want to get to the ROOT of the problem, this is it.

We are not a capitalist country. No country has every been truly capitalist, but the USA was very close once, and it wasn't during any of OUR lifetimes. We are a corporatist country. Look up corporatism and you will see a virtual mirror image of America. These are very far from the same thing.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, capitalism requires a separation of business and state, akin to a separation of church and state. The market controls itself, including interest rates, the value of money, etc. It is a very organic system that doesn't tolerate waste. The money goes where it is most productive. During economic downturns, in a capitalist economy, the interest rates naturally go up, encouraging saving and banks to be more selective in their lending, the money going to the investments most likely to return a gain, and avoiding shaky or risky investments. This is a good thing, as it strengthens the economy, and the quality of our production base. Only during economic booms should the interest rates be low. Capitalism cannot exist with a Federal Reserve producing fiat money and artificially manipulating the interest rates to do things they're not supposed to do in order to keep pumping up that bubble of credit expansion until it bursts. Why do they do this? To make their party or their administration look as if they are good for the economy.

Corporatism is nearly an opposite of capitalism. Central government and corporations are very much in bed together. One profits from the other. A corporatist country does not respond to the people, it does not serve the people, because it is not in the control of the people. Further, it creates a whole new set of accountabilities, or lack thereof, of the role of government. The government, instead of protecting the rights of it's citizens as it is in place to do, instead protects the interests of corporations, and in turn the corporations work for the government (can anybody say Halliburton?). In a corporatist economy, the government and government controlled corporations are the primary employer of the people.

I have a friend who got out of the Navy, a very talented IT guy, who went to work for a government contractor because he couldn't get the same kind of salary from the private sector. There's something fundamentally wrong with that. He doesn't work for the government because it's a so-called "private" company, but who does the company work for? Bingo. Computer forensics for the government. In a corporatist economy, most people are, in some form or another, working for the government and for the government's interventionist interests, simply because of that relationship between government and corporations. And where do the people's interests, and rights, play in this equation? I'll leave that up to you to determine.

Well, said, Flick.

I think the biggest danger we face right now, and perhaps a little bit of what Indy rankles against, is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There is a LOT wrong with the United States right.  I could give a few horror stories from my own experience over the last two weeks.  Things are not peachy by a long shot.

But we cannot lose sight of the fact that there still remains a lot RIGHT with the United States.  The polarization we find ourselves dealing with is it's own problem...we tend not to look at each "plank" but the whole platform of the two sides.

As has been said before, and better than I could, we are suffering under the two party system.  I think we need a bit more political fragmentation.  But that's tricky, too, because too much is not good, either.

What is interesting to me is that pretty much everyone agrees SPENDING in the fundamental problem with our current debt crises.  That's a start.  Rather than working with that, we lose the fight (against the debt, not against each other) nitpicking the value of the individual spending line items.

You won't find me disagreeing with that at all. Keep in mind I am a black hat thinker. I am most productive when pointing out what is wrong. I don't worry about pointing out the silver lining because I know Indy will be there to do that for me.

 :bouncegiggle:

 HEY, what have you got against Hammocks, buddy?  :teddyr:


  Thanks for the interesting post Indy. This is a subject that I'm sure is on many people's minds. Unfortunately I am not as optimistic about it as some people. I work at a conference call center. We provide the technology for, and execute conferences for our clients both over the phone and over the web. Many of our clients are companies involved in the economic meltdown which admittedly has been brewing for years. Before these conferences start, all the big wigs are placed into a sort if electrinic green room where they discuss how their conference is going to play out. If I'm executing this call then I am obliged to speak to these people and then standby, listening in, until it's time to start the call. While I'm listening in I am a fly on the wall. And in general i don't like what i've heard.
 
  To sum it all up as neatly as possible, companies only care about companies and the government only cares about the government and there is nobody really looking out for the little guy. So we had all better get alot better at looking out for our family and friends. And when I say companies and governments I'm talking about the people at the top, who use their organizations as a tool to acquire as much wealth and power as they can. I know this sounds like a rant, and maybe it is, but I've heard too much to have much faith in the Government or Big Business.

   During the height of the Meltdown I've heard big shots in huge investment firms talking in the green room about finding loop holes so they can convert most of their fortunes to yen or Euros. Then these same guys get on a conference and tell all the investors that all is well and they should be investing more rather than less.

  I've heard real estate firms sell land in places they know will be running out of water in a few years.

   I've heard corporate trainers for banks discuss the cosmetic changes to their policies so they can continue selling bad mortgages

I've heard pharmaceurtical companies discuss how its' not until they release a drug on the general public that they find out "the real intersting stuff".

  Schools? Forget them. We do work for various state school boards and thes people couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat. Most of the time a large portion of their conference revolves around power squabbles and what to have for lunch. The welfare of the kids takes up a small percentage of their call time.

  These are just a few examples of what I'm talking about.  I have worked as a bouncer and bartender and I've never had as dim a view of humanity as I have since I became a fly on the wall for all these corporate and government clients.

  I guess my point then is that the old adage about the Golden Rule being "He who has the gold sets the rules" is plenty valid.  The idea of voting is great, but does it really mean much when there is no one worth voting for?
 
   I don't think there is any great conspiracy going on. I think what happened is that we are caught in a "Perfect Storm" of greed and apathy that has led to present day conditions. I could go on and on about this to no good end so I'll finish by repeating that we should all get better at taking care of our family and friends because  no one else is really interested in helping you.

  Sorry if that was too grim. Herre's a little random levity to lighten the mood.

HULK HAPPY NOW

(http://adultironmancostume.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/wpid-Baby-Hulk-Infant-and-Toddler-Costume.jpg)

Thanks for that, Hammock.

It may be grim, but too many Americans still hold onto this rosy delusion of America. I'm the first to admit that it is better to accompany pointint out the negative with potential solutions, but that doesn't mean that it's not perfectly okay to point out what's wrong without providing a solution. We're not all capable of solving our country's woes, but we're all perfectly capable of pointing out what's wrong, and hell, we're supposed to be the people, right? Well, then, bring it on.

In any case, I AM proposing a solution, but one that will probably never happen: a return to capitalism.

No, It's not about America's "Open Door" policy- It's when there was multiple world powers in Peking during America's Imperialism Era. there was Russia, Japan, Great Britain, France, and I believe Germany that wanted their gov't system to rule peking, hence the Sphere of Influence.



Also, We need to get off of America's deadliest addiction- foreign oil. what we need to do is NOT drive some low mileage, big ass car/truck/SUV/van EVERY DAY. Hey, I'm up for having a boat trip with family and friends every now and then, but not every single friggen day! what we need to do is start driving 30+ MPG cars to help slow down the addiction and try to harness our own oil.

We did that once a few decades ago.  It helped NOTHING.  Lowered speed limits to save fuel, most people moved to more efficient cars, etc.  It did not take long for the prices to come down so low that people went right back to where they were.

And what is the big deal about 30 MPG?  When I was in high school, I had a truck that was built in 1973 that got 35 MPG.  I traded it in for a car that was built in 1983, and it got 32-35 MPG (if I could stay off it and not try to drive it like it was a sports car).

Small cars should routinely boast 50 MPG by now given 40 years of engineering, eh?

Nice sound bite, though.  The "what other people drive police" likely consume as much, if not more, total resources than people who drive SUVs.  This whole bit is a straw man barking up the wrong tree with no bite.

I could go out on my boat every single day, or even cross the Atlantic Ocean, and not use one single drop of petroleum fuel.  In fact, I've purchased 3 gallons of gasoline for one of my boats in April and still had about 2.5 gallons in October...using the boat 1-3 times per week during that period.

My family of four lives in an area of about 150 sq ft if I'm being OVERLY generous as to our 'space.'  We can live indefinitely by consuming no purchased electricity.  Over the course of a year, this laptop is probably the single largest consumer of electricity we operate.  We probably are in the smallest percentage of so-called "carbon footprints" of any family of four in Western Civilization.

And I drive an SUV.  It's the vehicle that meets MY needs and I am willing to pay for the fuel to operate it.  If gasoline gets too expensive, in my mind, to do that, then I will stop driving it.  Until then, well, the market demands fuel and the suppliers supply it.

 I'd like to hear your thoughts on how lowering foreign oil dependence would solve, or help with, our national debt problem.

BTW guys, have any of you ever seen the movie, The World Without Us?  It's an interesting documentary about what would happen if America decided to withdrawal all it's military forces from around the world.  The filmmakers interview dozens of people from several parts of the world and it presents a lot of views on the subject pro and con.  Although, sadly it doesn't give many areas the depth it deserves (but then, I think you'd need a fifty hour film for that), it still rather interesting, and you can get it on Netflix.

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_World_Without_Us/70104222?trkid=2361637#height36 (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_World_Without_Us/70104222?trkid=2361637#height36)

Well, the problem is the UN isn't a very reliable group.  I mean, they do good charity work, but that's about it.  In fact, it was what twenty or so conditions of a UN TREATY that Saddam Hussein kept repeatedly violating, and yet the UN just didn't seem to want to do a damn thing about it, except to "Oh, let's give the Inspectors more time!"  I think Team America summed it up best when had the Wolf Blitzer expy threaten Kim Jon by saying he would, "...send him a letter saying how angry they were." 

And speaking of the UN, guess who FUNDS about twenty-five percent of the bills for that little group and sends MORE TROOPS to it than any other country?  Yep, the US.  Frankly, I think THAT'S a pretty big waste of money there, but that's another debate.


If either of them had the military power to do that, I'd tell them, "Have at it, big shots."  But they don't. 


Considering how low the birthrate of native born Europeans has been, that's probably far from the truth, but again, that's another subject...

Except everything there is trying to kill you...

http://www.cracked.com/funny-163-australia/ (http://www.cracked.com/funny-163-australia/)
http://www.cracked.com/funny-5997-the-animals-that-make-australia-deathtrap-it-is/ (http://www.cracked.com/funny-5997-the-animals-that-make-australia-deathtrap-it-is/)

Okay, let's say I'm one of those 400 people.

Do you think I'm going to keep my money "taxable" if you tried to do that?

Less than 20% of the people in this country already pay over 80% of the federal taxes, and that bottom 50% you mention pays less than 3% of taxes.  I suppose you don't fully understand the consequences of that, or of your statement above.  You seem to have no idea what increasing taxation on the richest actually does to revenues, so I guess your only purpose then is to punish...to punish success.

Progressive taxes are stupid and wrong.  The only reason people like them is because it gives the warm fuzzy of feeling like the big guy is getting his. 

So . . . you want to punish financial success . . . so there will be less of it?
In the end, what you subsidize, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.
Say the government confiscates 100% of all personal income over  . . . I dunno . . . how about $10 million?  They'd have HUGE tax revenues the first couple of years, and then . . . nothing.  Because the wealthy would either flee the country, taking their wealth with them, or, they would just not be wealthy anymore.  Where's the motivation to succeed when the fruits of your success are going to be stolen from you by a predatory superstate and redistributed to people who did NOTHING to earn that wealth?

Still, the basic problem is not that we tax too little.  It's that we spend too much.  In a give year our government takes in about 3 - 4 TRILLION in tax revenues.  But then it goes and spends 5 trillion!  Trying to deal with a government addicted to spending by giving them more money to spend is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, or trying to cure a heroin addict by giving him another hit . . . and another, and another!


IT JUST WON'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hatred:

Okay this'll definitely be off topic so I apologize, but I have a non-environmental reason to try to get an alternative fuel source or at the very least cut down on our foreign oil. In my mind the danger of having to import oil is that we seem to end up mired in foreign politics. This is why we end up having to deal with the cluster#!@! of middle east politics (Iraq and Afghanistan aside), if it wasn't for our dependace of importing oil for the region we'd have a lot less to worry about in the region, but since the middle east is our main supplier of oil we end up dealing with things like the Iranian revolution and the whole Palestian/Israel issue. Of course this is all supposition, but having to import our oil is still a major security risk either way you look at it...Anybody remember the oil embargo?

I agree we need an alternative fuel source.  But until someone comes up with one, oil is what we are stuck with.  Like it or not, the world runs on the stuff.  That's why I think we need to use as much of our domestic sources as we can . . .  ANWAR, anyone?

Nissan, Chevy, Fisker, and Tesla has started making pure electric vehicles. Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, Tesla Model S, Fisker, though, will use gas, but only to recharge the batteries. As an alternative fuel source, the US has over 100 nuclear power plants, and, even though the dangers are high, we should pursue to use more of it. The main concerns are what happens if there's a melt down and where to put the waste. I'm not sure about the second one, but instead of using Uranium, we should use Thorium, a more stable element than Uranium. Not entirely sure how this will work out, I only heard this from my enviro. science class, as one fellow student said that India is starting to use Thorium and the results are great.

I hope my post above does not imply that I disagree with anything you've said.  Alternate energy (when it's viable economically) is good, and until then, domestic sources of petroleum are better than importation.

What I was arguing against was the pat, simplistic notion that {insert_problem} is caused by the vehicle people drive.  Try as I might, I have not been able to lay my hand on statistics that show more gasoline is consumed by SUV's than other passenger cars.

The best I can do is to find the break-down in terms of Light Duty Vehicles (passenger cars and commercial trucking up to 8500 lbs GVW) vs Heavy Duty Vehicles.  The Transportation Sector is the largest sector of petroleum use, and Light Duty Vehicles the largest within that sector.  However, there is no data that I could find that shows the breakdown, specifically, SUV's, within the category Light Duty Vehicles.

I did find one assertion that motor vehicle gasoline consumption as a percentage of total petroleum use has NOT increased since 1981, which predates the rise of SUV popularity.  Thus the conclusion was that SUV's have not caused an increase in gasoline use.

To get at the SUV use numbers, we need the percentage of SUV's on the road and the percentage of miles driven as well as miles/gallon numbers.  We don't have the percentage of miles driven...or at least I cannot find it.

The manipulative press on the SUV debate use the lower miles/gallon numbers for SUV's, but completely ignore actual fuel consumed.  The argument goes that if those miles were non-SUV miles, fuel would be saved.

But the flaw is that miles driven is NOT a zero sum problem.  There is no Law of Conservation of Miles Driven in nature.  If a person trades their SUV for a higher mileage car, they might well drive the same miles...or, they might drive more (or less).  The point is, no extrapolation can be made, and any assertion that simple substitution of one vehicle for another is asinine on its face.

Finally, consider that when sitting still, all vehicles are getting 0 mpg:

(http://blog.lib.umn.edu/ulric085/architecture/images/traffic%20jam.jpg)


All of this is relevant to the general debt discussion because there are too many arguments made that are pat little cutesy catch-phrases that have no basis in the real world, and they often get more press than any actual analysis.

Good point, I was not trying to disagree with you. As you said,it's not just a simple cut and dry issue, I just find everytime people  trying to make an arguement to cut down on oil use they always seem to leave the whole national security problem and go for the enviormental point instead.

I don't see the opint of developing alternative fuels. our government intervenes in the middle east in large part to secure Israel and to a lesser extent countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and whichever dictatorships we are paying off this week. Might as well get somethign out of it and that something is cheap energy.

  The Debt Crisis, the Financial Meltdown, is a result of criminal activity. The people who engineered it should be prosecuted like the criminals that they are. But Too Big to Fail also means Too Big to Go to Jail, so we'll never see that happen.  I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind if they don't agree with me. I'm just stating my point of view.

    Some very unscrupulous people found a way to maneuver the financial system to there advatage and didn't care that millions of lives would be ruined in the process. There are a lot of people making huge fortunes from foreclosing on residences as well as businesses. I'm listening to a conference call regarding this right now. The people involved are rolling in clover.

  I'm not talking about hard working people who have earned their money. I'm talking about swindlers and criminals who have bent they system to their own needs and in the process destroyed millions of individuals lives as well as national economies. Those people should be punished.

What you're talking about is crony capitalism. It's a bastardization of capitalism that this country has found itself increasingly embracing. It's also sometimes referred to as corporatism. The two may not hold the same exact definition, but they are close enough to be equated to what our economic system has become. Laissez-faire capitalism prohibits the federal government from creating fiscal policy to influence the economy. That is, a complete separation of business and state. Pure laissez-faire means there is no Federal Reserve, meaning that the free market sets it's own interest rates organically based on market conditions. The Fed cannot artificially manipulate interest rates to prevent economic downturns. This is usually employed by administrations to create illusory economic booms to make their party look good. Ultimately it is destructive and just encourages more fiat money and credit expansion. Further, laissez-faire capitalism does not allow government to subsidize corporations. Laissez-faire is not a perfect system, but what it does do is make government accountable for government and business accountable for business. It also eliminates the type of corruption between corporations and government that runs rampant in our system now.

Unfortunately, crony capitalism, or corporatism, gets confused with true capitalism by the left, who use this confusion to their advantage to point out how evil capitalism is. Equally as unfortunate, the right have all but forgotten what capitalism really is and have fully embraced and defend corporatism. If you were to ask your average Republican or Democrat to define capitalism, they will not be able to. The average advocate of capitalism that I talk to is actually advocating corporatism, and many of them have never even heard of Ayn Rand or Austrian School economics, let alone have any familiarization with these foundational concepts that actually define how capitalism is supposed to work.

Bottom line: Laissez-fair capitalism, like it or not, would never have allowed such a debt crisis. It would have been impossible.

So . . . even though the top 1% of wage earners in America pay 40% of the government's total tax revenues, that's not enough?


Hey, I've got an idea!  Let's just kill all the rich people and take EVERYTHING and give it away to folks who have done NOTHING to earn it!

Yeah, that's the ticket!!!!!

Your economics, quite frankly, reek of Marxism, sir.  So you might as well open up the gulags to go with it.

On one hand, Indy, you have a point about Strangelove's advocacy of forceable confiscation of wealth. The comparison to Marxism is not outrageous.

On the other hand, there is a reason that the top 1% pay 40% of the tax revenues. They have most of the income. You're certainly not going to pay off the debt from the middle class.

dr stranglelove- I think you would have a point if our govenment was more honest and also open about the spending they do but I think the perception, very correct, is that DC is a money pit and the problem isn't that they are doing eveything they can and don't have enough revenue but that they are not ahh....good at budgeting. We haven't had a balanced budget since 1975!

So, to say that rich people should pay taxes I think kind of passively makes the point that the PROBLEM is that there isn't enugh revenue. I don't think that is a good argument and it doesn't ring true for alot of people. The rich might not pay as much as you like, but trillions of dollars DO go into DC and it doesn't go where it's needed but to all these beaurocracies and deals.

If they balanced their budgets and then were like "okay we had to axe this or that" and we could be like "okay we will make up that shortfall" it would be one thing. That's not happening.

I DEFINITELY agree 100% on military spending, though. I don't know why there hasn't been a concrete propsal to eliminate all our ridiculous bases around the world and jsut all that stuff. Why do we have bases in Germany and Japan? it's 2011

Also, maybe not exactly related to the budget but related to the cold war being way over: why is it illegal to go to Cuba??  You can go to Iran or the Sudan but you can't go like a few miles away from Miami???

I watched most of Obama's address last night regarding his debt reduction plan. I'm not an Obama supporter, but there was some good and bad I took from the speech.

The good: initially I had heard radio news blurbs stating that his reduction plan was heavy on defense cuts, but if I were to base the agenda on his speech alone, I would say that was fairly unfounded. I was surprised that he seems fairly even-handed in where he wants to cut spending. Whether it will happen or not, I don't know, but I am an advocate of cutting a great deal of spending in just about every area of the government, in areas dear to both Republicans and Democrats. That at least gave me a small jolt of hope in an mind that is otherwise generally cynical of what any politican says. Cut that spending.

The bad: I'm never a fan of tax increases. Tax increases are just like all the entitlement programs that have slowly crept into the American system over the last 80 years or so, once they're there, it becomes extremely difficult to get rid of them. What may be seen initially as temporary quickly becomes permanent. Once the government has that source of revenue, they don't want to give it up. Also, I find Obama to be increasingly arrogant. His comments about the Republicans having "nothing serious" in their reduction plan came across as a mean-spirited stab to me. Paul Ryan is, of course, showing party loyalty when he said that Obama was "poisoning wells" in regard to that statement, but it's not without merit.

In regard to the overal spirit of the thread, we live in a mixed economy. Elements of capitalism and elements of socialism, locked together in a big, bureaucratic, inefficient mess. This kind of mixed economy is far more debt-inducing than either pure capitalism or pure socialism can ever be, hence why we are buried under a debt that other countries aren't. Between capitalism and socialism, I will always choose the former, but I'm not stupid enough to ignore that a purely socialist system is more efficent than what we have in place now. We have the dangerous combination of the size of government and spending that a socialist country has with the resistance to taxing that a capitalist country has to pay for it. Until the country swings one way or the other, we will continue to be buried in debt. I am opposed to socialism, and always will be, but I also recognize that this mixed economy we have is even worse, at least in terms of debt. We have become the equivalent of a family that maxes themselves out on credit cards but continues to splurge with their income instead of paying their bills.

True.  But at some point, at some tax rate, it does become confiscatory.

Upon reflection, I do have to modify my earlier comment a little bit, or at least clarify it.

I stated the opinion that progressive taxation is wrong (indeed, evil in my book).  I am specifically applying this to progressive tax RATES, not to be confused with what could be termed progressive tax revenues.

Clearly, even at a flat rate (and I won't argue in favor of a regressive tax rate...just as evil), the higher income levels will pay more into revenues.  So, by arguing against progressive rates, I am NOT saying that the rich actually putting more money into the coffer is wrong.

I wanted to clarify this because I am vocal proponent of systems like The Fair Tax.  First, I think income taxation itself is punitive, no matter what the rates or rate structure is.  On it's face, the premise of taxing what people earn tells people earning is "bad."

The Fair Tax is a consumption tax...each individual is 'free' to 'control' the amount of tax they pay based on what they choose to spend.  A super wealthy person is going to spend more, so he pays more (but the same rate) as anyone else.  *IF* he chooses not to spend his money, he keeps it...the ownership, or indeed generation, of wealth is not taxed (punished).

Advocates of The Fair Tax do not suppose for an instant that everyone will pay the same dollar amount into the system.  So, the 1% pays 40% stat will still hold (or something close to it).

Finally, I think the ONLY way to get to any kind of positive tax reform is to do away with withholding.  People have to know what they are actually paying to want to get a handle on where the money is going.

The system we have in place is genius....governmentally sanctioned theft with the threat of the use of force (and imprisonment), as Peter Sellers points out above, and people don't fight it because they fail to realize that the few percent they get BACK at the end of the year is but a fraction of what they paid in...but they got a refund, so "the government gave me money."

(To the spirit of the real Peter Sellers I apologize...the allusion was uncalled for...)

ulthar,

I like your post. The other half of my post, by the way, covers the confiscatory part.

 :cheers:

Here's what I propose.

Abolish the health care bill passed last year. By doing so several trillion dollars going towards it would go away and back into the treasury.

Lower salaries for all those who work in government, if and only if their salary is taken out of the treasury where the debt is cut from.

Getting the troops out of Iraq and Afganistan. Several trillion dollars have been spent trying to impose the American political system over there. What works well for one country does not always work well for another.

Get the servicemen out of Libya. The last thing we need is another stupid war that this country has no business being in.

Substanically lower the retirement packages for all those who work in goverment and again if and only if their retirement packages are taken out of the treasury where the debt is cut from.

Higher taxes for the wealthy, they can afford it. I mean the top 10 percent.

I believe in starting what we finish.  Withdrawal from Iraq is underway now, because that country is slowly stabilizing.  Withdrawal from Afghanistan will turn the country right back over to the Taliban, and we WILL be hit again.  We weren't in Afghanistan OR Iraq when the first 9/11 happened.  Libya - we came in too late with too little to help the revolutionaries.  Pull out for now, and when Gadaffi gives his public victory address, park a Hellfire Missile upside his head.   Then the rebels can have a legitimate chance.

It all comes back, though, to Congress flat out refusing to exercise ANY form of fiscal self-control, and the main culprits there are the Democrats.  The Republicans spent too much those last few years, but the Democrats have made them look like pikers!

As far as the President's speech goes - he sounded good.  He ALWAYS sounds good; that's how he got elected.  But his policies and actions always give the lie to his pretty speeches.  The only thing I really expect him to cut is the military, since he shares the institutional liberal loathing of it.  But I doubt a penny of those savings will go to cut down the debt.  He will find another way to promise the voters money in exchange for their votes, so he can be re-elected, and we will pile on ANOTHER trillion or two in debt.

In the end, entitlements must be cut.  Period.  It is the ONLY path to fiscal salvation.

You had me til here.  All your points have merit (whether I agree with specific ones or not, they are good points) except this one.

"they can afford it" is kind of a dangerous game to play with other people's possessions.  If the top 10 percent of the population is ALREADY paying Lion's Share of the tax burden, at what point does it become enough in your analysis?  At what point do you say, "ok, the 'rich' are taxed enough now."

And has been said time and time in this thread...revenues are NOT the problem; spending is.  From the essence of most of your post, you agree.  But why then the fall back to the revenue side of the equation again...because higher taxes WILL NOT WORK.

You cannot tax the rich enough to make up for the current budget deficits, much less the planned growth in government spending over the next decade.  Run the numbers yourself.  Say you want to tax the top 10% at 90%, or even 95%...and assume the number of folks in that bracket stays the same (which it won't) and see if you can meet the current budget.

Because if you don't, you are STILL increasing the national debt even though you are punishing the wealth producers in the economy, which will in turn hurt ALL segments below it that depend on that wealth for THEIR growth.

I really would like to see the numbers on this...we are talking deficits of TRILLIONS of dollars, and I just don't think increasing the tax revenues of a handful of "they are too rich and therefore I don't like them" people is going to touch that.

I can attest to this. He gave a town hall meeting in my neck of the woods last year. I was there. He's charasmatic as all hell and is an excellent public speaker.

I found some numbers to answer my own question; I'll go at this from a couple of different angles.

First, let's look at a 'wealth tax,' which, if we are going make taxes punitive, why not go for broke?

"Wealth" is best defined by net worth, not income.  Net worth equals total assets minus total liabilities.  

In 2004, the average net worth of the top 10% (http://www.kkrasnowwaterman.com/Blog/tabid/2962/Default.aspx?Tag=net%20worth%20in%20US) in the United States was $831,600.  Let's overestimate the number of people that represents and say it's 10% of the population (not earners)...or, about 3,000,000 people.  So, 3,000,000 people earning and average of $831,600 would be 2.49 trillion dollars.

Now, let's say we want to really stick it to them and tax the at 90% of their net worth...just take it away from them.  They CAN afford it, right?

90% of 2.49 trillion is 2.24 trillion dollars.  The current national debt (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) is 14 trillion dollars.  So, if you wipe out essentially the entire wealth of the top 10% (those that HAVE the wealth, remember), you have only dented the national debt by about 15%, from 14 trillion down to about 12 trillion.

And....that wealth is gone.  This hypothetical tax system hits ONLY the "evil rich," so unless our government spending programs funnel it right back to the top 10%, there is NO MORE LEFT to finance the government.

Trying to finance the current debt by taxing the wealth of the wealthy is a perpetual motion machine - a fantasy, in other words.

Okay let's shift to income..it's ongoing, right?  We should be able to pinch the rich, the top 10% wage earners, and pay down the debt...at least according to the Marx and Engels based progressive taxation system.

In 2008, the top 10% of households earned on average just under $200,000, and we'll use the same 3,000,000 earners figure, giving about 600 billion in taxable income.  Hitting them for 95% in our punitive, progressive system, we get a revenue of 570 billion per year in revenues from our top 10%.

If the ONLY thing we used that money for was paying down the debt, that is, we financed the CURRENT year government with the rest of the 90% of the working population, it would take 24.5 years to eliminate the debt (that's 14 trillion divided by 570 billion).

The problem is that the remaining 90% cannot pay for the operation of the government at current budget levels.  So, even if the top 10% did put 95% of their earnings into debt reduction ... the debt would still GROW by some significant percentage of the annual budget.

So...we can soak the rich all we want...sure does feel good to stick to the "haves," doesn't it?  But without reining in spending AND insuring the growth of wealth, there is no practical hope of eliminating the national debt.

Finally, ALL of this assumes 'zero sum' economics...that tax rates and tax burdens have no effect on incomes, wealth and net worth of individuals.  Since this is not born out in practice, the situation is even more "dire."  You simply cannot generate the kind of revenue needed by increasing taxes.

You boys need to look closer at Western Europe where there've been 90% tax bracket, which I expect you're aware of.  So, we wander off into how much "betterer" we are (or is that "gooder"?) I tease you, and I know your worth, but philosophies have been proven, as you might both insist, look to history.  It's about money overall, not what one individual makes.  How much does one person's family need to live on, and, exceedingly well? 
Fair is fair, afterall, or, "Share, share, that's fair!"   :drink:  How much cash was generated? 
One man may be happy to have loved his childhood sweetheart.  Another may be happy to live humbly on a boat and find pleasure and satisfaction in sacrifice.  Not too many people are that happy.

You're a good man, AHD!

??? we had a no fly zone we were enforcing and SANCTIONS on Iraq. We weren't in Afghanistan because there was nothing there.

We were in the middle east on the Saudi soil and giving billions to dsespised dictators. This was the impetus for 9/11 and in fat the formation ofAl Queda itself.

They were over here because we were over there. It's called blowback.

New ideas based on old ones:

Here's what I propose.

Abolish the health care bill passed last year. By doing so several trillion dollars going towards it would go away and back into the treasury.

Getting the troops out of Iraq and Afganistan. Several trillion dollars have been spent trying to impose the American political system over there. What works well for one country does not always work well for another.

Get the servicemen out of Libya. The last thing we need is another expensive war that this country has no business being in.

Lower the retirement packages for all those who work in goverment and again if and only if their retirement packages are taken out of the treasury where the debt is cut from.

Make goverment employees pay a higher percentage of their own benefits, if and only if the money used to cover their benefits is taken out of the treasury where the debt is coming from.

Lower salaries for all those who work in government, if and only if their salary is taken out of the treasury where the debt is cut from.

If I am reading the following link correctly they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#Pay_and_benefits

Cut funding for NASA by 10%.

Cut funding for the War on Drugs by 10%.

Since we're talking taxes and stuff, I found this article that related to the subject.

Now, I don't know if all the contents of it are true (haven't had a chance to research all of it yet), but I would really like to hear everyone's input on it.

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html (http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html)

I agree that the thing about the top 1% paying whatever amount of federal income tax is misleading. I think the author kind of missing the point too though.

We pay LOTS of other taxes that aren't federal income tax. You pay a gas tax, which ostensibly goes to upkeep on roads but look at the state of the roads. You also pay sales tax. I'm not saying tickets and speeding shouldn't be enforced but the state makes alot of money off that. They took in like 20 billion or something last year just from taxes on bullets, tobacco, and booze (why are those all in one dept?)

Also, the key measure alot of these guys miss is INFLATION. gas prices have rocketed up since 2000 because of the federal reserves monetary policy. SOME of it is due to speculators and we saw that in 08 but they were speculating on the sinking dollar.

That is going to be the big story going forward, people are just starting to realize that inflation is a tax. It makes the money you have worth less. It also benefits the rich and the state, who get the money first, and punishes thriftiness and the poor.

That's a valid thing to point out. It always gets me that America is so proud that our income tax is so much lower than other nations. This true, but doesn't really say much. We have this massive government of spending that has to be funded somehow. And we have a nation that still holds onto a rudimentary reaction to income tax that is highly negative. So instead, the government nickel-and-dimes us to death. Our income gets sucked away in so many ways. And to expand on lester's point, it encourages dependency by consumers on credit and discourages people who generally want to become more self-reliant.

And fees. Don't get me started on them. If I want to add a bathroom to my house, a staggering amount of money will have to be paid over and above the cost of the addition itself, in permits and inspections that I have to pay for.

It would probably be difficult to pull off, but I would love if somebody did and exhaustive study of how much the average citizen pays to live when you combine income tax and all the other little taxes and fees we pay and compare it to what many other nations pay in income tax. I don't know what the result would be, but I suspect there wouldn't be a significant difference. Anybody who knows me knows I would never advocate socialism, but at least the socialist nations collect their money in a little more efficient of a fashion, all in one go. This nickel-and-dime bulls**t is not only annoying and misleading, but also more inefficient because of the number of bureucratic agencies that have to do all the collecting.