The Biggest Threat Facing....

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:16 am

The Biggest Threat Facing America is the national debt.

And yet it gets no attention or "plan" to address or lower it.

It almost feels as if a collapse is being orchestrated. Doesn't it?

"We need more low income families to get home loans"? Wait, this is what we did in the 90's????

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:02 pm

The biggest cause of your national debt is military spending. It seems a taboo subject to suggest cutting it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:11 pm

"We need more low income families to get home loans"? Wait, this is what we did in the 90's????"

I will admit, halfway, that remark made my skin crawl. Of course, I must be assuming that these loans would be handled in the same way as before. If so, yes, it's a losing proposition for all. If not, then it can work.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:30 pm

gmc;1420138 wrote: The biggest cause of your national debt is military spending. It seems a taboo subject to suggest cutting it.

Uh, no.

Defense is the number one reason for any government. It may be large, but it isn't the reason for trillion dollar debts.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:25 pm

"Defence" is just a word. What we in fact do is project power, at horrendous expense. Not only to our national stability but to our very country in more ways than I'm going to bother to put down here.

Build some bridges, not f**king bombs.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:23 am

Scrat;1420196 wrote: "Defence" is just a word. What we in fact do is project power, at horrendous expense. Not only to our national stability but to our very country in more ways than I'm going to bother to put down here.

Build some bridges, not f**king bombs.

Since when there been a shortage of bridges?

The biggest problem is the emerging welfare state with fewer of us workers and more lazies.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:01 am

tude dog;1420228 wrote: Since when there been a shortage of bridges?

The biggest problem is the emerging welfare state with fewer of us workers and more lazies.
Our biggest problem is that there are no full time permanent jobs for folks that want to work. We are reduced to hiring temp workers so we can avoid paying benefits.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:19 pm

The biggest problem is the emerging welfare state with fewer of us workers and more lazies.

Maybe the government can take some of the money from the military and build some bridges we need and replace some of our old ones. Maybe the states won't have to come to the people to help pay for what's needed. Maybe America could build a DECENT TRAIN SYSTEM FOR F**KS SAKE!!! How about public transportation so people could actually get out of their cars? If we had half the foresight the the Soviets had in this arena we just might have something that wasn't the laughing stock of the western world.

Projects like this would create good jobs for decades to come, probably millions of them. It's about priorities, it's about keeping money where WE THE PEOPLE benefit not Israel, not Georgia, not the other welfare states run by dictators and nutjobs we support.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:35 pm

Scrat;1420303 wrote: Maybe the government can take some of the money from the military and build some bridges we need and replace some of our old ones. Maybe the states won't have to come to the people to help pay for what's needed. Maybe America could build a DECENT TRAIN SYSTEM FOR F**KS SAKE!!! How about public transportation so people could actually get out of their cars? If we had half the foresight the the Soviets had in this arena we just might have something that wasn't the laughing stock of the western world.

Projects like this would create good jobs for decades to come, probably millions of them. It's about priorities, it's about keeping money where WE THE PEOPLE benefit not Israel, not Georgia, not the other welfare states run by dictators and nutjobs we support.

Much of that is all nice and fine, and I am all for it.

Problem is you don't present specifics we all can discuss.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:32 pm

Scrat;1420196 wrote: "Defence" is just a word. What we in fact do is project power, at horrendous expense. Not only to our national stability but to our very country in more ways than I'm going to bother to put down here.
Agreed!

Scrat;1420303 wrote: Maybe the government can take some of the money from the military and build some bridges we need and replace some of our old ones. Maybe the states won't have to come to the people to help pay for what's needed.Since it's a state issue and not a federal one, maybe the federal gov't can stop taxing us to fund state programs. We could cut our federal tax bill in half or less. Yes, the state tax bill would go up, but the states are supposed to be responsible for US domestic issues, not Washington.

Scrat;1420196 wrote: Maybe America could build a DECENT TRAIN SYSTEM FOR F**KS SAKE!!! How about public transportation so people could actually get out of their cars? If we had half the foresight the the Soviets had in this arena we just might have something that wasn't the laughing stock of the western world. What are you talking about?? Maybe the northeast can use a passenger train system, but I can't imagine it would be a money maker out here. Doesn't AMTrack already lose money by the millions?

Scrat;1420196 wrote: Projects like this would create good jobs for decades to come, probably millions of them. It's about priorities, it's about keeping money where WE THE PEOPLE benefit not Israel, not Georgia, not the other welfare states run by dictators and nutjobs we support.I agree about not sending our money overseas, but we should keep it in our own pockets. WE THE PEOPLE should be keeping the money we make.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:37 pm

gmc;1420138 wrote: The biggest cause of your national debt is military spending. It seems a taboo subject to suggest cutting it.
It is. We could cut our military expenditures by half and still be in the top two or three in military spending.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:39 pm

flopstock;1420236 wrote: Our biggest problem is that there are no full time permanent jobs for folks that want to work. We are reduced to hiring temp workers so we can avoid paying benefits.
I'm betting most people would rather be employed long-term with less/no benefits than to be unemployed or temp.

Eris · Post by **Eris** » Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:15 pm

Accountable;1420375 wrote: It is. We could cut our military expenditures by half and still be in the top two or three in military spending.
If we cut our military expenditures in half, we'd still be number one, and still outspend the rest of the top five combined.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:28 am

Scrat;1420303 wrote: Maybe America could build a DECENT TRAIN SYSTEM FOR F**KS SAKE!!!
I think they heard you.

Administration Will Spend $1.8B to Build 20-Mile Railroad on 30-Mile-Wide Island | CNS News

Administration Will Spend $1.8B to Build 20-Mile Railroad on 30-Mile-Wide Island

February 13, 2013

(CNSNews.com) -- The Department of Transportation (DOT) announced that $1.55 billion in new federal

tax dollars will be allocated for the first-ever Hawaiian Transit Rail system on the island of Oahu, which will

serve downtown Honolulu, at a total federal and state cost of $5.1 billion.

The train circuit will be 20 miles long, with 21 stops on an island that is 30 miles wide.

The transit system will span from the lesser populated island area of Kapolei, and will end at Ala Moana

Center Station, approximately 1-3 miles from the University of Hawaii and Punahou School, the high school

once attended by President Obama.

The most recent DOT announcement brings the total amount of federal funds going to the Rail project to just under $1.8 billion. Funding will not been [sic] given in a single appropriation, but will instead be doled out in increments over the coming fiscal years.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:36 am

Eris;1420382 wrote: If we cut our military expenditures in half, we'd still be number one, and still outspend the rest of the top five combined.
Not quite, but so close that you get points anyway. It was doubtless true until very recently.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:28 am

Accountable;1420376 wrote: I'm betting most people would rather be employed long-term with less/no benefits than to be unemployed or temp.
The next step will be requiring temp agencies to offer benefits.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:10 am

flopstock;1420392 wrote: The next step will be requiring temp agencies to offer benefits.

... which will price them right out of the market.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:20 am

Since it's a state issue and not a federal one, maybe the federal gov't can stop taxing us to fund state programs. We could cut our federal tax bill in half or less. Yes, the state tax bill would go up, but the states are supposed to be responsible for US domestic issues, not Washington.

I can't fully agree but you are correct for the most part. I think the states and the fed need to work together more efficiently and with a more focused agenda. If the fed is going to continue to do things as they are we will never get out of the situation we are in. The point is when the fed "provides for the common defense" and "protect US interests throughout the world" it gets real complicated and opportunity for abuse inefficiency and sheer stupidity becomes pervasive. Really, of that military budget how much is spent wisely? How much is just disappearing like a fart in the wind? No one can tell you. Our forefathers warned us of entangling alliances, dipsh**ts like Ronnie Raygun couldn't care less.

Get the money home, spend it here wisely. Prosecute corrupt white collar criminals severely. The key it to get the money going into the country, not out of it.

What are you talking about?? Maybe the northeast can use a passenger train system, but I can't imagine it would be a money maker out here. Doesn't AMTrack already lose money by the millions?

Why does it have to be a money maker? How about self sustaining? What we have now is a joke, trains are a nightmare here. We'd have to start all over and it would take decades but still that's not a reason to not do it. Create jobs, invest in infrastructure that's what this is about isn't it? Russia has one hell of a train system, if they can do it why can;t we?

I agree about not sending our money overseas, but we should keep it in our own pockets. WE THE PEOPLE should be keeping the money we make.

Agreed and if not a better return for what we invest. I have nothing against paying taxes IF I know that they are not squandered.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:23 am

The next step will be requiring temp agencies to offer benefits.

Or do something about our medical care system, it's ridiculous.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:07 am

Scrat;1420398 wrote: I can't fully agree but you are correct for the most part. I think the states and the fed need to work together more efficiently and with a more focused agenda. If the fed is going to continue to do things as they are we will never get out of the situation we are in. The point is when the fed "provides for the common defense" and "protect US interests throughout the world" it gets real complicated and opportunity for abuse inefficiency and sheer stupidity becomes pervasive. Really, of that military budget how much is spent wisely? How much is just disappearing like a fart in the wind? No one can tell you. Our forefathers warned us of entangling alliances, dipsh**ts like Ronnie Raygun couldn't care less. Odd that you single out Ronnie and ignore all the others before and since.

Scrat;1420398 wrote: Why does it have to be a money maker? How about self sustaining? What we have now is a joke, trains are a nightmare here. We'd have to start all over and it would take decades but still that's not a reason to not do it. Create jobs, invest in infrastructure that's what this is about isn't it? Russia has one hell of a train system, if they can do it why can;t we? Why do we need it? If it's only to create jobs, why not hire a couple million people and give them each a pair of scissors so that they can mow lawns and prune trees?

Scrat;1420398 wrote: Agreed and if not a better return for what we invest. I have nothing against paying taxes IF I know that they are not squandered.
AMEN! :yh_clap

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:01 pm

tude dog;1420181 wrote: Uh, no.

Defense is the number one reason for any government. It may be large, but it isn't the reason for trillion dollar debts.

So the multi-trillion dollar cost of the recent wars has nothing to do with the multi-trillion dollar debts that your country has?

Interesting concept :wah:

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:29 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420642 wrote: So the multi-trillion dollar cost of the recent wars has nothing to do with the multi-trillion dollar debts that your country has?

Interesting concept :wah:

Our debt skyrockets every year as our military spending declines. I admit to be at a loss to explain.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:53 pm

tude dog;1420758 wrote: Our debt skyrockets every year as our military spending declines. I admit to be at a loss to explain.

Care to show me where it declines?

Attached files

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:00 pm

tude dog;1420758 wrote: Our debt skyrockets every year as our military spending declines. I admit to be at a loss to explain.

As a comparison, here's the equivalent chart for the debt :-

Attached files

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:18 pm

Bryn Mawr;1420759 wrote: Care to show me where it declines?
It's that Orwellian definition of decline our politicians like to use. See how the increase seems to taper off a bit when it hits red? They call that steep cuts in spending.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:45 pm

Accountable;1420764 wrote: It's that Orwellian definition of decline our politicians like to use. See how the increase seems to taper off a bit when it hits red? They call that steep cuts in spending.

Plus, our politicians have become more adept at hiding military spending elsewhere. Some of the mercenaries they hire go in the State Dept budget. They even hid repairs to military bases in the hurricane Sandy relief bill.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:31 pm

halfway;1420078 wrote: The Biggest Threat Facing America is the national debt.

I agree with you, I think most Americans do. (Of course, two decade-long unfunded wars will do that.)

And yet it gets no attention or "plan" to address or lower it.

Actually, I saw a very good one today. A nice balance of spending cuts and new taxes. I think it's called "Pitney Bowles II" or something like that.

It almost feels as if a collapse is being orchestrated. Doesn't it?

Let's not get paranoid. We survived WWII, we have the biggest economy on the planet, and Americans have proved extremely adaptable in the face of adversity in the past.

"We need more low income families to get home loans"? Wait, this is what we did in the 90's????

Actually, as long as the loan is fixed rate, the family has a stable (if low) income and they can afford a decent down payment, why not give them loans for affordable housing? I understand that you meant don't loan money to people who are poor risks and show no sign of wanting to better themselves.

But the only way for the poor to become middle class should be to be able to work hard and get ahead. If no one gives them a chance, how will we grow our middle class? My parents were dirt poor in the Great Depression, but they educated themselves, worked hard, and some banks gave them break. With the home loan they were able to raise their children to be educated and healthy.

Now everyone in the entire family is a tax payer! That's what we need to strive for. It shouldn't be "once poor...forever poor."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:36 pm

Saint_;1420771 wrote: My parents were dirt poor in the Great Depression, but they educated themselves, worked hard, and some banks gave them break. With the home loan they were able to raise their children to be educated and healthy.

Now everyone in the entire family is a tax payer! That's what we need to strive for. It shouldn't be "once poor...forever poor."
That's an advantage of having local banks. The primary decision-makers live in the community; they are more likely to know the applicant, making him a person instead of just a number or faceless customer. I don't know for certain if excessive regulations make it too difficult to operate local banks or if a lack of regulation permit giant banks to gobble up the business (I suspect the former), but our society is definitely better with local banks around.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:01 pm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... ted_r8.pdf

David Brooks, Obama Plan Birther [Updated] -- Daily Intelligencer

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:39 pm

Why do we need it? If it's only to create jobs, why not hire a couple million people and give them each a pair of scissors so that they can mow lawns and prune trees?

Efficiency when it comes to moving large groups of people and maintaining infrastructure. Why we need it is evident to me but if you are willing to say that at this point in time it is impractical we will be in agreement. I kind of use European Russia and Europe as an example, the rules are not the same though. We went another way, that of the automobile. We'd almost have to start all over but it's something we should start none the less.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:10 pm

Accountable;1420776 wrote: That's an advantage of having local banks. The primary decision-makers live in the community; they are more likely to know the applicant, making him a person instead of just a number or faceless customer. I don't know for certain if excessive regulations make it too difficult to operate local banks or if a lack of regulation permit giant banks to gobble up the business (I suspect the former), but our society is definitely better with local banks around.

Problem is that the local banks still have to operate under the regs. If the manager, knowing the applicant personally and knowing he'd chew his arm off rather than default on a loan, gives the load even though the computer system marks it down then the bank is not applying due dilligence and can be fined for doing what it knows is safe.

Even worse if they do not run the computer system at all - then they're failing ALM and SOXS legislation and will be closed down as potentially aiding terrorists.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:07 pm

Bryn Mawr;1421059 wrote: Problem is that the local banks still have to operate under the regs. If the manager, knowing the applicant personally and knowing he'd chew his arm off rather than default on a loan, gives the load even though the computer system marks it down then the bank is not applying due dilligence and can be fined for doing what it knows is safe.

Even worse if they do not run the computer system at all - then they're failing ALM and SOXS legislation and will be closed down as potentially aiding terrorists.You have regs like that??? That's horrible.

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:16 am

Problem is that the local banks still have to operate under the regs. If the manager, knowing the applicant personally and knowing he'd chew his arm off rather than default on a loan, gives the load even though the computer system marks it down then the bank is not applying due dilligence and can be fined for doing what it knows is safe.

Regs are a pain but the human potential for corruption is always there. There are individuals who would sooner chew their arm off than be dishonest, I have met very few of them in my life. These good and honest people often have to work with people not of the same stripe and the consequences can be disastrous for all concerned.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:03 pm

Accountable;1421100 wrote: You have regs like that??? That's horrible.

Sad to say but most of them are enforces by the US - both the Anti-Money Laundering and Sarbaines Oxley legislation are American and severely restrict who loans can be made to and what Know Your Customer checks have to be made before you can make them.

Although the US have no jurisdiction over here they apply their legislation to any firm with a US subsidiary and any firm employing US personnel. All of the big banks have some form of operation in the US and therefore have to comply or get out.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 24, 2013 4:30 pm

This is what I mean when I say that every law takes away liberty, and yet we glibly pile ever more legislation on every year.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:46 am

Accountable;1421482 wrote: This is what I mean when I say that every law takes away liberty, and yet we glibly pile ever more legislation on every year.

So the laws protecting you from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment by your government take away your liberty? Most laws are to protect the weak from the strong or curb the power of those in authority or with power - usually economic - from abusing it.

I would put it to you that it's the quality of the law rather than the principle you object to

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:42 am

gmc;1421501 wrote: So the laws protecting you from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment by your government take away your liberty? Most laws are to protect the weak from the strong or curb the power of those in authority or with power - usually economic - from abusing it.

I would put it to you that it's the quality of the law rather than the principle you object toI know you know how to read. I didn't write that all laws take away MY liberty. Every law takes away liberty. Does that mean that I am 4-square against every single law? How would that idiocy fit with all the ranting I do about our federal gov't not following our Constitution? Wouldn't I instead be calling for abolishment of the Constitution? :-5 THINK!