Will our national debt ever be controlled again?

[rigney]

Look at the content of the jobs available and ask yourself if you would want to do them. I think economic culture needs to be re-worked so that there won't be a sizable amount of jobs/work that some people just get stuck with because they need money and there's no other way to get it. This creates the means of economic exploitation

 

Lemur, as you stated: Look at the content of the jobs available and ask yourself if you would want to do them. I like your concept and it makes sense unless you are the buyer. I had ice damage to a tree in my yard this spring and wanted it removed. "Ain't that easy". The phone directory is filled with "potential" Arborist. Problem is, getting one committed to doing the job. I had eight estimates before getting one that gave me a date for its removal. Man, God isn't that busy!. Today, after three weeks and adding only a hundred bucks to sweeten the pot, I hired a certified and bonded arborist. Paper works complete and next Friday the tree will be down and gone. (The first seven guys were recommended by "AHEM", friends; and all had day jobs). Imagine that? Fifteen or twenty years back, I would have saved a bunch of $ and did it myself.

Edited April 14, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

Lemur, as you stated: Look at the content of the jobs available and ask yourself if you would want to do them. I like your concept and it makes sense unless you are the buyer. I had ice damage to a tree in my yard this spring and wanted it removed. "Ain't that easy". The phone directory is filled with "potential" Arborist. Problem is, getting one committed to doing the job. I had eight estimates before getting one that gave me a date for its removal. Man, God isn't that busy!. Today, after three weeks and adding only a hundred bucks to sweeten the pot, I hired a certified and bonded arborist. Paper works complete and next Friday the tree will be down and gone. (The first seven guys were recommended by "AHEM", friends; and all had day jobs). Imagine that? Fifteen or twenty years back, I would have saved a bunch of $ and did it myself.

Ok, so what you're saying is that as you get older you need people to help you with things that you could do yourself at a younger age. That makes sense. Then what you're saying is that people with day jobs aren't reliable to help you because they're already covered in terms of having their income needs met. So what you want to see is people who are unemployed and thus in need of helping people like you because they need the income? There is some legitimacy in that idea, I think, but it would also open up the possibility for a lot of people to get exploited for money. On the other hand, what I was talking about is the fact that people who are unemployed are needed for worse jobs than tree-removal, such as food service, cleaning, etc. These are jobs that few people want to do but many people want to consume (more). So, for example, when so many people are complaining about the economy being bad, it's not that they're not getting by but that they want to enjoy life more by taking vacations and staying in hotels/motels. That basically equals eating more meals in restaurants and sleeping more in hotels; both of which require more food service and cleaning service jobs. So when people want the economy to grow so they have more money to do things that require people to go to work doing unwanted jobs, that is exploitative.

 

Tree removal is not such a big deal. It would just take you a few hours with the right equipment. Maybe the fact that you're having such a hard time finding people to help is a sign that the tree isn't as sick as you think. You'll be sorry you lost the shade when it's gone.

 

 

[rigney]

Tree removal is not such a big deal. It would just take you a few hours with the right equipment. Maybe the fact that you're having such a hard time finding people to help is a sign that the tree isn't as sick as you think. You'll be sorry you lost the shade when it's gone.

 

If you don't mind my asking, do you live in the USA? Somehow our mindsets and logic of a situation seems a dichotomy and miles apart. I'm somewhat familiar with european culture, but what I'm hearing from you leaves me at a disadvantage in our discussion. So, do you live among us here in the states or Canada?

As an electrician most of my life, I have also taken on many side jobs to keep food on the table, a roof over my family and some clean clothes. Dishwasher, busboy, sweeper and just about everything in between, including tree trimming and removal. These jobs were done not because of added revenue, but necessity. Do you have any idea what is involved in tree trimming or removal, even with todays equipment? I'm talking about trees, not bushes and shrubs.

Edited April 15, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

If you don't mind my asking, do you live in the USA? Somehow our mindsets and logic of a situation seems a dichotomy and miles apart. I'm somewhat familiar with european culture, but what I'm hearing from you leaves me at a disadvantage in our discussion. So, do you live among us here in the states or Canada?

First, I've lived in various places but I don't appreciate the view that you can undermine what someone has to say on the basis of where they have or haven't lived. It's a cheap substitute for specifically describing whatever cultural assumption you think someone is lacking in their misunderstanding of your view. Don't automatically blame it on ethnicity, location, or anything else about the person. This is a form of ad hom reasoning, imo, though I often get criticized for using that term too broadly.

 

As an electrician most of my life, I have also taken on many side jobs to keep food on the table, a roof over my family and some clean clothes. Dishwasher, busboy, sweeper and just about everything in between, including tree trimming and removal. These jobs were done not because of added revenue, but necessity. Do you have any idea what is involved in tree trimming or removal, even with todays equipment? I'm talking about trees, not bushes and shrubs.

You seem to be referring to the idea that has been popularized in US and other culture that people should take whatever job they can get to make money. Personally, I think this deviates from the ideals of the republic, which were/are that work is supposed to be freely chosen on the basis of reasoning about its direct value. So when you cut a tree, wire a building, or anything else you do it because you value the economic results of your labor. When people go to a fast food drive through because they can't find any other way to avoid being homeless, that's not a free choice rooted in reason and the will to create something economically valuable. It's just serving other people's desires. That's servitude, not republican freedom.

 

Tree removal is hard and requires heavy machinery unless you're prepared to climb around and drop branches one by one. Depending on the diameter of the branches and the trunk, a good chainsaw may not be enough. If there's no risk of damage if it falls, you might want to just leave it to its own fate. If it could fall on your house or something, and you can't get help, you could trim the branches as much as possible and keep looking for someone to cut the trunk and grind the stump. The other thing I believe people used to do was to make a fire in the trunk and burn it down that way, but you would obviously have to let it dry some to do that - or use a lot of fuel maybe.

 

 

[rigney]

First, I've lived in various places but I don't appreciate the view that you can undermine what someone has to say on the basis of where they have or haven't lived. It's a cheap substitute for specifically describing whatever cultural assumption you think someone is lacking in their misunderstanding of your view. Don't automatically blame it on ethnicity, location, or anything else about the person. This is a form of ad hom reasoning, imo, though I often get criticized for using that term too broadly.

 

 

You seem to be referring to the idea that has been popularized in US and other culture that people should take whatever job they can get to make money. Personally, I think this deviates from the ideals of the republic, which were/are that work is supposed to be freely chosen on the basis of reasoning about its direct value. So when you cut a tree, wire a building, or anything else you do it because you value the economic results of your labor. When people go to a fast food drive through because they can't find any other way to avoid being homeless, that's not a free choice rooted in reason and the will to create something economically valuable. It's just serving other people's desires. That's servitude, not republican freedom.

 

Tree removal is hard and requires heavy machinery unless you're prepared to climb around and drop branches one by one. Depending on the diameter of the branches and the trunk, a good chainsaw may not be enough. If there's no risk of damage if it falls, you might want to just leave it to its own fate. If it could fall on your house or something, and you can't get help, you could trim the branches as much as possible and keep looking for someone to cut the trunk and grind the stump. The other thing I believe people used to do was to make a fire in the trunk and burn it down that way, but you would obviously have to let it dry some to do that - or use a lot of fuel maybe.

 

Let's leave it go at this point. You are obviously looking for more than just an argument and afraid to show your true colors. "Good bye."

[Athena]

US citizens wake up! Your are working to support the New World Order and you are giving up everything to do so, including the security and happiness of those around 40 who will never see the Social Security benefits for which they are paying, unless the citizens unite and take back their government. What is happening is the worst kind of slavery any tyrant to imagine.

 

The US demobilized after every war, except the Koran War. At that time Eisenhower embedded the Military, Industrial Complex in the US. This is what Hitler called the New World Order, and this is the greatest cause of our national debt.

 

 

 

http://business.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978325767

 

 

 

 

For the next fiscal year, official estimates put defense spending at about $650 billion, plus an additional $200 billion or so for Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a total of $850 billion, yet not all defense spending is officially reported or budgeted.

 

Money for the Energy Department to work on the nation’s nuclear arsenal, the Selective Service, Homeland Security, and other defense-related spending pushes the number even higher.

 

According to an analysis of the 2011 Federal Budget by the War Resister's League (an annual project), when the cost of two concurrent wars, veterans benefits and the interest on the debt created by military spending are added to the current military budget, overall defense spending equals 48 percent of the total Federal Budget.

 

That's truly stunning.

 

Trimming the Federal Budget to get spending under control has to begin with the military. Consider this: more than 60 years after the end of WWII -- the US still has more than 50,000 troops in Germany and 30,000 in Japan.

 

In fact, the US has over 1.4 million active duty military personnel, 500,000 of whom are deployed on over 700 bases in more than 150 countries and territories -- including 37 European nations.

 

The stunning reality is that US military spending exceeds the combined total of every other country in the world. To put it another way, the spending amounts to $1.2 million per minute, or $1.7 billion per day.

 

[Marat]

Hey, don't blame Hitler, he began dismantling the German military-industrial complex as soon as France was conquered in 1940 (so much for the 'world conquest' theory). Albert Speer attributes the resulting loss of war production momentum to Germany's defeat in World War II.

 

But the greatest tragedy of American military spending is that it doesn't buy as much real security as people think. Instead, the surplus capacity of power for foreign military interventions means that the U.S. in inappropriately tempted to get involved unnecessarily and counter-productively in overseas adventures which bring no advantages, cost enormous amounts of money, worsen the deficit, and make enemies. What was actually gained in terms of military security or economic prosperity for the U.S. by the hundreds of billions spent on interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya?

 

In contrast, how much more secure would America's population be from the dangers that people really worry about as genuine threats to their personal security -- such as health crises, inability to pay college tuition for their children, the threat of unemployment, etc. -- if America were to invest large portions of the military budget in strong social welfare programs such as protect people from these real threats in most Western European countries? Of course the validity of this point is obvious even to the elite which governs America, so the real reason why military funding persists at its unrealistically high level is not rational, but just for the economic advantage of the capitalists who own or invest heavily in the military-industrial complex. In this sense spending so much money on the military makes about as much sense for the good of America as investing tons of silver from the New World colonies in buying masses for the dead did in 17th century Spain.

[zapatos]

US citizens wake up!

I always hate it when someone starts out by telling me I should quit being a dumbass and start being smart like them.

 

Your are working to support the New World Order and you are giving up everything to do so, including the security and happiness of those around 40 who will never see the Social Security benefits for which they are paying,...

So there is no chance we will just borrow more money? Or that we will increase taxes? Or that the economy will have a good run? Or that there will be modifications to the Social Security system? Or any of many other possibilities? And really, we are giving up everything?

 

...unless the citizens unite and take back their government.

Can you expand on this please? Take it back from whom? From the people we put in office? Take it back from us?

 

What is happening is the worst kind of slavery any tyrant to imagine.

Again, the worst? You cannot imagine any other slavery that was or could be worse?

[rigney]

I always hate it when someone starts out by telling me I should quit being a dumbass and start being smart like them.

 

 

So there is no chance we will just borrow more money? Or that we will increase taxes? Or that the economy will have a good run? Or that there will be modifications to the Social Security system? Or any of many other possibilities? And really, we are giving up everything?

 

 

Can you expand on this please? Take it back from whom? From the people we put in office? Take it back from us?

 

 

Again, the worst? You cannot imagine any other slavery that was or could be worse?

 

Zapatos, it really doesn't matter who is in power or in the white house, yada yada. Politicians, other than a rare breed; do as they are "instructed'. It's a pity we can't throw their sorry asses out and start all over again. But then, we would call that "Anarchy", which I also don't agree with. Basically, what can be done to correct the situation? We need good answers, not more problems. Edited April 20, 2011 by rigney

[zapatos]

Zapatos, it really doesn't matter who is in power or in the white house, yada yada. Politicians, other than a rare breed; do as they are "instructed'. It's a pity we can't throw their sorry asses out and start all over again. But then, we would call that "Anarchy", which I also don't agree with. Basically, what can be done to correct the situation? We need good answers, not more problems.

Who is it that instructs the President, Senators, and Congressmen on what they should do? Who is it that we cannot throw out in the next election? I don't know who this group of people is that you are talking about.

[Athena]

I always hate it when someone starts out by telling me I should quit being a dumbass and start being smart like them.

 

 

So there is no chance we will just borrow more money? Or that we will increase taxes? Or that the economy will have a good run? Or that there will be modifications to the Social Security system? Or any of many other possibilities? And really, we are giving up everything?

 

 

Can you expand on this please? Take it back from whom? From the people we put in office? Take it back from us?

 

 

Again, the worst? You cannot imagine any other slavery that was or could be worse?

 

Okay, you are not asleep. Why did the colonies of the north America rebel against the taxes imposed by the English government? Why did England keep taxing the colonist in spite of all the protest? Why did the US demobilize after every war, except the Korean war?

 

What are US citizens paying for their military force? Like how much of the national debt is about military expenses?

 

If you can answer these questions, then perhaps I am not justified in saying what is happening today is the worst kind of slavery. I say it is the worst kind of slavery, because we are supporting the Military Industrial Complex and know very little about it and what it is costing us. A slave who knows he is a slave can accept his fate or rebel against it. A slave who is a slave, but doesn't know it, can not choose freedom.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Athena

[keelanz]

Will government ever take its foot off the gas pedal of spending? We're up to our necks people and the engine is revving even faster than ever. So, can this "insane" attitude of borrowing to spend more be curbed before we destroy America? Is there a ceiling to it? The link below may be absolute truth, or a fantasy of one party kicking at the other. Let's face it, there is no innocence of either party. Both are at fault. Whatever, the whole sad mess must come to an end soon or we will all say goodbye to our freedoms. The wolf, (us) is at our own door. "HELP"!

 

http://www.youtube.c...bed/VtVbUmcQSuk

 

this is some zeitgeist stuff

 

essentially the borrowing only increases which causes inflation which on its own isnt that bad(its relative), when interest gets added a few problems start arising and then when the whole monetary system is rules by a few private companies then shit really hits the fan.

 

there isnt much anybody can do without destroying the whole monetary system and with what? who knows thats why its a problem.

 

capitalism is a very easy system to work in but a very hard system to change but i suppose it starts with a post like this

 

there is a ceiling to it approximately every 20 or so year.

 

the most realistic thing to do is to spend your money wisely, dont invest in corrupt companies & use things like building societies instead of private banks, decide what aspects of commercialization you want to improve and spend your money in them area's (I.E. invest in green technology rather than buying power from the grid)

 

thats not much we can do really without getting rid of central banks and creating some other system. sorry i couldnt be of more help.

[lemur]

What are US citizens paying for their military force? Like how much of the national debt is about military expenses?

 

If you can answer these questions, then perhaps I am not justified in saying what is happening today is the worst kind of slavery. I say it is the worst kind of slavery, because we are supporting the Military Industrial Complex and know very little about it and what it is costing us. A slave who knows he is a slave can accept his fate or rebel against it. A slave who is a slave, but doesn't know it, can not choose freedom.

Are you saying US tax payers are enslaved to the military? But isn't the military enslaved to protecting the interests of US tax payers? Maybe they are enslaved to each other. Maybe the political-economic goal should be to liberate them from each other by making each (more) self-sufficient. Hasn't that always been the goal of US independence movements though?

[keelanz]

A slave who knows he is a slave can accept his fate or rebel against it. A slave who is a slave, but doesn't know it, can not choose freedom.

 

dont kid yourself, you can rebel but your not choosing freedom your choosing death. The best you can hope for is some stockholm syndrome whereby we just hope they are doing what is in our interest and not their own and appreciate that fact (then fall in love with capturers and help the captives)

[JohnB]

Are you saying US tax payers are enslaved to the military? But isn't the military enslaved to protecting the interests of US tax payers? Maybe they are enslaved to each other. Maybe the political-economic goal should be to liberate them from each other by making each (more) self-sufficient. Hasn't that always been the goal of US independence movements though?

 

Sorry, but I have to ask. How do you make the military more "self sufficient"? I mean aside from piracy and the odd bit of "rape and pillage", there is no way you are going to get them to pay for themselves.

 

As an international point concerning the problem. It is increasingly obvious that America will have to cut spending and that part of cuts will be in the military. This has implications for those of us who have relied on the "Pax Americana" in the Pacific region. Cuts in US military spending will result in a decreased presence in the Pacific theatre thereby leaving a power vacuum. In another thread I mentioned that many nations including mine have taken you yanks for a ride. While your mega fleets wandered about the oceans, we didn't need to have them. So we down in Oz could build schools and hospitals and infrastructure and survive with our military only getting some 1.8% of the budget because "Uncle Sam" was there to help us fight if the need arose. Seriously, our "National Defence" strategy is based on "Holding out until America arrives.....about 3 days."

 

It would appear that all sides of Oz politics (except for the loony left) realise that this situation cannot continue. We'll have to start spending what we need to and pull our weight.

 

Interesting times indeed.

[lemur]

Sorry, but I have to ask. How do you make the military more "self sufficient"? I mean aside from piracy and the odd bit of "rape and pillage", there is no way you are going to get them to pay for themselves.

 

Are you kidding? I haven't worked in the military personally but whenever I talk to people about what they did in the military, it involves things like constructing makeshift housing out shipping containers or anything they can get their hands on, living in harsh climate conditions with nothing but special clothing and simple equipment to mitigate discomfort and problems, etc. The military has to come up with the most efficient ways to do things because it needs to maximize the resources available for achieving mission objectives. You can't create an army of gourmet cooks devoting excessive resource to preparing the most delightful possible meals for each individual because those resources (including labor) could be used more effectively. Survivalism is probably the ultimate form of self-sufficiency. Think Rambo with a knife constructing makeshift bows and arrows to hunt wild game.

 

This relative self-sufficiency is one of the reasons I think military spending is the most effective when the goal is to slow spending in an economy to cool inflationary pressures. A war effort causes people to save for the future when they are no longer deployed. So the more money you divert to military incomes of people deployed, the less money gets spent (assuming they're not sending it home to family members who are burning through it with every possible expenditure. As much as I dislike the fact that families get separated by deployment, I have to admit that it stimulates both the deployed person and the person/people staying at home to develop greater self-sufficiency in order to save resources for when the family is re-united.

[keelanz]

the simple answer is no, it wont ever be controlled unless you want nazi's again =D

 

beer is bad

Edited April 21, 2011 by keelanz

[Athena]

Are you kidding? I haven't worked in the military personally but whenever I talk to people about what they did in the military, it involves things like constructing makeshift housing out shipping containers or anything they can get their hands on, living in harsh climate conditions with nothing but special clothing and simple equipment to mitigate discomfort and problems, etc. The military has to come up with the most efficient ways to do things because it needs to maximize the resources available for achieving mission objectives. You can't create an army of gourmet cooks devoting excessive resource to preparing the most delightful possible meals for each individual because those resources (including labor) could be used more effectively. Survivalism is probably the ultimate form of self-sufficiency. Think Rambo with a knife constructing makeshift bows and arrows to hunt wild game.

 

This relative self-sufficiency is one of the reasons I think military spending is the most effective when the goal is to slow spending in an economy to cool inflationary pressures. A war effort causes people to save for the future when they are no longer deployed. So the more money you divert to military incomes of people deployed, the less money gets spent (assuming they're not sending it home to family members who are burning through it with every possible expenditure. As much as I dislike the fact that families get separated by deployment, I have to admit that it stimulates both the deployed person and the person/people staying at home to develop greater self-sufficiency in order to save resources for when the family is re-united.

 

Wow, which nation is attacking us? I was not aware that we had enemies mobilized to attack us. other than a few Muslim fanatics. What is the military capability of this nation that is attacking us?

 

Does this justify having troops stationed around Europe?

[jackson33]

(1)Why did the colonies of the north America rebel against the taxes imposed by the English government? (2)Why did England keep taxing the colonist in spite of all the protest? (3)Why did the US demobilize after every war, except the Korean war?

 

(4)What are US citizens paying for their military force? (5)Like how much of the national debt is about military expenses? [/Quote]

 

 

(1)&(2) Athena; Visualize the "American Colonies", thirteen in 1776, as individual Countries with common interest in a very few social, religious or governance styles. Each then having different grievances toward England and in those times against the King of England. Then read the Declaration of Independence, noting only one grievance of 27 was directed at Taxes "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent", which "consent" was defined as without being represented.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

 

 

(3) Until the Militia Act of 1903, States were charged with maintaining the "stand by" military, which was seen as a failed system, after there response during the "Spanish America War" of 1898. Then after WW I and a general demobilization, which caught the US ill prepared for WW II, the advent of Nuclear Weapons and the threat of War with in hours, demobilization was no longer an option.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

 

(4) The US, it's 311 million people pay about 4.7 of GDP for ALL those actions (2009), not much more than any others and far less than some. Since "Providing For The Common Defense" is in the Constitutions preamble (purpose for document), I'd suggest that's reasonable and until recently had been the only major US expense.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

Preamble

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/Quote]

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

 

(5) Of the 3.52T$, spent in 2009 about 800B$ was spent on the Military, including past obligations to those that served. This is about what was spent on SS and Health Care, with Welfare costing 415B$, not including what States spent. Remember all these cost except Defense, were non existent, well into the 20th Century.

 

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/budget_pie_gs.php?span=usgs302&year=2009&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy11&local=undefined&state=US#usgs302

 

Are you kidding? I haven't worked in the military personally but whenever I talk to people about what they did in the military, it involves things like constructing makeshift housing out shipping containers or anything they can get their hands on, living in harsh climate conditions with nothing but special clothing and simple equipment to mitigate discomfort and problems, etc.[/Quote]

 

leumur; Maybe I've just been around too long, but I seem to recall tens of thousands of Americans coming back from Europe, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and other places, IN CASKETS, including some of my relation/friends and I don't think it was from working on "make shift housing". You might want to re-evaluate the freedoms you have and what all it took for you to still have some of them, IMO.

[lemur]

Wow, which nation is attacking us? I was not aware that we had enemies mobilized to attack us. other than a few Muslim fanatics. What is the military capability of this nation that is attacking us?

 

Does this justify having troops stationed around Europe?

The question is what justifies any government evicting people, troops or otherwise? You are assuming that national territorialism is natural, and that it is naturally illegitimate for military activity to be conducted globally. You are free to have that perspective, by why would you insist that others share it and suggest that "foreign presence," military or otherwise is grounds for war or other political-economic retaliation? Doesn't that view seem somewhat belligerent to you, or do you see national territorializing as one of a select few legitimate reasons to bully, exclude, and discriminate against people?

[Athena]

Jackson 33, I love your argument and wish I had the energy to give a full reply. I spent my evening listening to college lectures and those grievances written up in the Declaration of the Independence. The subject is worth its own thread.

 

(4) The US, it's 311 million people pay about 4.7 of GDP for ALL those actions (2009), not much more than any others and far less than some. Since "Providing For The Common Defense" is in the Constitutions preamble (purpose for document), I'd suggest that's reasonable and until recently had been the only major US expense. [/Quote]

 

I do not understand what you are saying here. When I google military expenses and national debt, I get a different explanation of that debt. I do not believe we would not have a national debt if it were not for what we are paying for military expenses, and I also don't consider our military activity in the mid east as legitimate defense of the US.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2011 by Athena

[swansont]

Why did the US demobilize after every war, except the Korean war?

 

Because a large standing army is not in the Constitution. Article I section 8 empowers Congress to maintaining an Navy, but it speaks of raising an Army, and limits the appropriations for one to two years. Even then, to say that we didn't demobilize after Korea isn't really accurate. After WWII the fraction of the population in the military didn't drop to historical lows (it went to 1% rather than perhaps 1/10 of that) but you can see it did drop off after Korea was ended.

 

 

In addition to what jackson33 said about having more troops ready to react, from the aftermath of WWII/Korea and the rise of the cold war there was also deemed a need for a significant foreign presence of our military.

[Athena]

I am looking for information, in response to what others have posted. I will concede my understanding of the Boston Tea Party was overly simplistic, and that the conflict was more a matter of who had authority and who did not. I should not have referred to it in this discussion.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...cnd-budget.html

 

On the other hand, here is Bush's promise of reducing the deficit. The plan is to increase military spending, while cutting spending on education and the health of our nation, especially the health and security of our elderly and those who hope to live longer to qualify for Social Security. I do not understand the willingness to work for supporting the Military Industrial Complex instead of working to taking care of ourselves when we can no longer compete with the young on the job market, and also the willingness to support questionable military activity instead of education. The education of our children and their future is worth giving up why? How does this work for us? By the way, that No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to give military recruiters the names and addresses of students, while creating a reason to not fund schools. Whatever, Bush's plan to reduce our deficit didn't work very well, and nothing threatens us more than our national deficit and decreasing the benefits of our hard work.

 

 

http://www.infopleas...a/A0904490.html

 

Please notice the figures for military spending at the link, does not cover the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not? It also does not mention Reagan took money our of Social Security to hide what was being spend, while we also slashed domestic spending. Let me be very blunt. I believe the Military Industrial Complex is out of control, and that there is a deliberate effort to cover this up with lies and manipulations such as not including the expense of wars in military budgets.

 

Our military spending more that doubled once Eisenhower established the Military Industrial Complex. We are now blowing up million dollar bombs. The cost of our military is not so much paying those who serve in our armed forces, but for the military industry and development of military technology. Another price is what replacing our liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, has done to our culture.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3036

 

This link says if it were not for the Bush tax cuts and military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not have the deficit problem we have. So I ask again, why doesn't the cost of the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan show up in the static for military spending? How are we to make sense of things, when cost are hidden and the attempt to deceive the public is glaring?

 

(5) Of the 3.52T$, spent in 2009 about 800B$ was spent on the Military, including past obligations to those that served. This is about what was spent on SS and Health Care, with Welfare costing 415B$, not including what States spent. Remember all these cost except Defense, were non existent, well into the 20th Century.

 

When Social Security was enacted, few people were expected to live long enough to collect it. Of course if we reduce our life expectancy to what it was then, we would not have a problem funding Social Security. Medicare would also be much more affordable if people dropped dead before retiring. Yeah, the big problem is people live too long.

 

Actually our standard of living was not that high before WWII, and many people didn't worry about taxes, because they were not taxed, and did not expect to earn enough to be taxed. Perhaps going back to the conditions of the 20th Century would solve our problems? Oh, women would not be working to support the Military Industrial Complex, but would be at home caring for the children and the elderly without pay. They would be full time homemakers and community volunteers and this could mean a huge savings.

 

The question is what justifies any government evicting people, troops or otherwise? You are assuming that national territorialism is natural, and that it is naturally illegitimate for military activity to be conducted globally. You are free to have that perspective, by why would you insist that others share it and suggest that "foreign presence," military or otherwise is grounds for war or other political-economic retaliation? Doesn't that view seem somewhat belligerent to you, or do you see national territorializing as one of a select few legitimate reasons to bully, exclude, and discriminate against people?

 

And which countries should have bases in the US?

Edited April 23, 2011 by Athena

[mississippichem]

Because a large standing army is not in the Constitution. Article I section 8 empowers Congress to maintaining an Navy, but it speaks of raising an Army, and limits the appropriations for one to two years.

 

Yeah, Navy to the Top! What else do we need besides aircraft carriers, submarines full of nukes, and tomahawk cruise missiles? Real men fight smart not hard.

 

A Nimitz or Enterprise Class class aircraft carrier will be rolling up in a gulf near you much quicker than the army can deploy if you make us angry.

[jackson33]

Jackson 33, I love your argument and wish I had the energy to give a full reply. I spent my evening listening to college lectures and those grievances written up in the Declaration of the Independence. The subject is worth its own thread.[/Quote]

 

Athena; There is nothing I like hearing/reading more, then when a person makes an effort to understand their heritage, where ever they are from, but in particular those living in the US. Although my education was years ago, what was then taught has been pretty much laid out by author "David McCullough" in two 21st Century books "1776" & "John Adams" and documented by HBO in a Special 2008, six part series titled "John Adams". Your college no doubt has these books (both now in paperback) and the HBO Documentary....Yes, the writing of the DoI, would make an interesting thread, but since this is a Science Forum, with limited access to Politics and no History sub-forum, it would likely draw little attention.

 

I do not understand what you are saying here. When I google military expenses and national debt, I get a different explanation of that debt. I do not believe we would not have a national debt if it were not for what we are paying for military expenses, and I also don't consider our military activity in the mid east as legitimate defense of the US. [/Quote]

 

Well the main point was by GDP, the pool of money to draw from, the US spends little compared to others and their GDP. Yes the figures look high but all that is figured into defense since 2001, it's really not that bad. The 'Wiki' link shows those figures, and repeating if you missed that;

 

http://en.wikipedia....ry_expenditures

 

On the National Debt; What's been determined a viable limit has been 65% of GDP, including both National and State debt, which was surpassed by Bush 43, ignored by Obama and growing dramatically. Another thing is what portions are held in the Country, opposed to borrowed from overseas, which is influenced by trade deficits.

 

What constitutes legitimate Defense, IMO falls under procedure more so than reason, which is important. Although the President is the "Commander in Chief", directs military action, Congress must both agree and finance all actions. Another way of saying this, is you have 535 State representatives and the Elected P/VP involved in making the decision. This policy has not been followed since WWII, at least to Congress declaring a war action, but for other reason been accepted by Congress as an Executive duty. Once precedence has been set, it's difficult to later overturn or deny the power.

 

Out of curiosity, would you consider a disruption in the flow of oil to the US or their allies, possibly causing an international economical collapse, as an action of defense?

 

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”[/Quote] From your link...

 

On the other hand, here is Bush's promise of reducing the deficit. The plan is to increase military spending, while cutting spending on education and the health of our nation, especially the health and security of our elderly and those who hope to live longer to qualify for Social Security. I do not understand the willingness to work for supporting the Military Industrial Complex instead of working to taking care of ourselves when we can no longer compete with the young on the job market, and also the willingness to support questionable military activity instead of education. [/Quote]

 

For starters, Bush's 2009 Budget was address and by the 2009 Congress and passed according to Obama's wishes, including who knows how many amendments. Bush was looking at 3.1T$ and 3.5T$ was spent, including 724B$ on defense. (Budget Fiscal Years start Oct 1st, of the year before and end Sept 30th the year of the budget).

 

Another question, remember you are one person of 311M, in one State of 50; How can a Federal Government, take care of you or all those people? For the record, the Federal Government spends 98B$ on Education, which would not cover one day of the Educational System expenses, States do and with taxes collected in the States. In NJ the average cost per student (K-12) is 14K$ per year, Nationally 10K$ per year. If your really looking for a cause for the deficit, please use this link to determine when and where the cost have come from. It's got every budget from 1792 to proposed budgets to 2015 and you won't find the Federal caring for any individual's needs until the 1960's.

 

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/budget_pie_gs.php?span=usgs302&year=1960&view=1&expand=&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy08&local=undefined&state=US#usgs302