Presidents: leaders or beggars?

I am starting to get fed up with all the public debt.
I spend most of my life in Greece and of course there was always a public dept. Never a surplus so the debt is never paid. Then I move to the US. My naive thought was that the rich countries borrow to the poor countries, so the US obviously wouldn't have a debt. Then I see that there is a 14 trillion debt here as well. It simply didn't make sense to me.
Of course, starting reading and thinking you get how the system works. And it is simply disappointing.

The point I want to raise is do you think that borrowing money is a good solution compared to getting the money from the people?

For example, you want to make something big. A war or some stadiums for the Olympic games you are hosting. Something costly. You have a lot of solutions as a government if you don't have money saved. I ll focus on two:
-Have a temporarily high tax.
-Borrow money.

For me the second solution is just irresponsible. I wouldn't accept it as an individual, I don't want my government and the country as a whole to do it. If I want to buy something I will first try to work harder, cut my expenses, sacrifice something. And not just buy it with my credit card and worry about it later. But I guess that is just me.

But, do I really sacrifice? Do I really suffer? No. I feel pride that I have to work for something, do something extra and somehow earn it. Pride I believe is my drive in this situation. If I can find pride, my neighbor can find pride. And my neighbor's neighbor. Thus, the country as a whole.

So, allow me to label these kind of presidents "Beggars". Now, I know blaming just the president is naive in a sense, but for simplicity we can do so as a representative of the government.

To view the other side, long time ago in ancient Athens the "president" there, Periklis, wanted to build the Acropolis. Due to previous costly constructions, the people had already paid a lot of taxes. They weren't willingly to agree to anymore government spending. And they had direct democracy, the majority vote had to be followed. So Periklis to convince the people just responded "fine, I will pay from my personal money. But every piece of marble will have the name Periklis carved on it". The people agreed to make the Acropolis. I called that being a "Leader".

A more recent example comes from Hungary half a century ago. In Budapest after all the wars, national monuments all around the historic city were in bad shape. The government ask for people to give 20% of their income to rebuilt them. And once the government had rebuilt them and in the future made a surplus, they would pay back.The people agreed. The government did pay back. Again, I call that being a Leader and the people being responsible. If they had borrowed a few millions the people today would still being owning that money.

The other point is, why pay taxes to somebody that goes bankrupt and has to borrow money? Would you buy stocks from a company that is going bankrupt? If you really want to save that company (you need a government obviously) just buy "good" stocks, make money and donate them. Yes, I would happily pay more taxes to a government that does its job. A feel like an idiot, literally, paying to a government that doesn't do what it has to.

Quote:

---

Yes, I would happily pay more taxes to a government that does its job.

---

O_o

To be honest, I think you are probably not telling the entire truth as part of the governments job in the United States is paying lazy people to remain lazy. (I've heard "If you go out and get a temporary job you will lose your unemployment benefits." strait from the horse.) Virtually everyone I've met who has been on unemployment has intentionally remained as long as possible.

The problem with the citizens of the United States is that secretly they all pretty much want "big government", (In this case, a government that pays for public works maintenance, provides healthcare for those who can't afford it, and boasts a large standing military.) don't want to pay for it, (Let's be honest, you may be willing to pay an extra %7 of your pay to provide healthcare for those in need, but you are going to want to stop paying for it the instant you find out how much your local representatives, every single one, earn every year.) and are often to lazy or proud to get a job to pay for it even if they wanted to pay. (There are a lot of jobs in the United States that people in position would love to hire a United States citizen to fill, but the arrogance of "Joe I-Do-Not-Even-Have-A-University-Degree Average" prevents him from seeking employment unless they are dramatically overpaid for their services in comparison to what payment others are willing to work.) It doesn't help that a crazy huge number of laws exist solely to prevent bad employees from being fired, healthcare from being reasonable, and the diminished from getting back "on their feet".

*shrug*

Are you also willing to pay a lot more for your produce to be grown in the United States even though a potato is just a potato? (Bad example, I know, but the particulars are hardly relevant.) More for pretty much everything else, in fact? Until we became closer to self-sufficient, that is what it would take.

How much better would the United States be if we as a nation stopped trying to solve everyone else problems and solve our own.

Soma

Required watching: YouTube - ‪Lesson 1 National Debt & Budget Deficit Explained‬‏

Quote:

---

The point I want to raise is do you think that borrowing money is a good solution compared to getting the money from the people?
For example, you want to make something big. A war or some stadiums for the

Olympic games you are hosting. Something costly. You have a lot of solutions as a government if you don't have money saved. I ll focus on two:
-Have a temporarily high tax.
-Borrow money.

---

War is not really something that provides the government with money. Since only governments will start a war, you could consider it a social program because the government has to pay for it. This is one thing where national debt, found everywhere, can come from.

To pay for government and social programs, you can also:
- cut program spending
- grow the economy (as you learn in the video)

And if you have an existing national debt, you probably do all of these things with varying success.

Quote:

---

So, allow me to label these kind of presidents "Beggars". Now, I know blaming just the president is naive in a sense, but for simplicity we can do so as a representative of the government.

---

It doesn't make anything simpler to blame the head of state, it only perpetuates the myth that somehow the head has direct control. In the case of the United States, the Congress and the Federal Reserve control the nations purse strings. The president signs laws or issues executive orders. An idea might come from the president in the form of an Order, but he's really just goading the baboons.

It isn't necessarily bad to borrow money. The only thing the government really does is release bonds, which are paid when they reach maturity. Often, the Federal Reserve will buy these, but there are percentages of debt that are owed to foreign governments, foreign companies, (which is what most people worry about) and domestic companies. Those bonds are assets to the payee. Since everyone has liabilities, owning one is money on paper: good for any investor.

In a perfect world the income part of the congressional budget would meet the expenses perfectly every year without having to borrow, but we still have to pay for interest on things like WWII. A lot of reforms if not all of them, make up part of the principle of our debt. The national debt has its own troubled history.

I don't look at the national debt as something that is going to be paid anymore. That's not how money works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomotap

Let's be honest, you may be willing to pay an extra %7 of your pay to provide healthcare for those in need, but you are going to want to stop paying for it the instant you find out how much your local representatives, every single one, earn every year.

---

How much do they earn? Mine earn about 145K USD a year, in addition to whatever other jobs they do. I hear my country's ministers earn far more than their foreign counterparts, but I've never thought about comparing the earnings of the backbencher members of parliament.

Base pay in the US is $174K.

O_o

Let me rephrase that and elaborate, after all some are impeached, retire early, or fail to move well within the system.

Allow me to change that then to "almost every single one". My point wasn't that any individual earns a lot on a yearly basis during their service. (That said, the average annual for any "big ticket" seat is between $50,000 and $450,000.) My point was that an average politician making it to that level, because of the "stairs", will have lifelong benefits. It isn't the approximately $100,000,000 spent on the actual wages of the current congressional representatives but the $4,000,000,000 spent on yearly maintenance of those benefits.

[Edit]
I mistyped a few bits in my haste. I was/am about to go practice violin.
[/Edit]

Soma

Quote:

---

Base pay in the US is $174K.

---

This is only the base for the "House of Representatives" and "Senate" proper. It doesn't include all the other local representatives all of whom fall under similar federal minimums for benefits.

Soma

Quote:

---

(There are a lot of jobs in the United States that people in position would love to hire a United States citizen to fill, but the arrogance of "Joe I-Do-Not-Even-Have-A-University-Degree Average" prevents him from seeking employment unless they are dramatically overpaid for their services in comparison to what payment others are willing to work.)

---

Talk of arrogance?

This seems like another conservative talking point about how the average Joe makes too much dang money. Joe has the awesome ability to get a minimum wage job that will not take him off the public coffers, but will empower corporate America to expand their war on the working class whilst padding the pockets of our lawmakers.

The United States was built on the backs of the "Average Joe without formal education" and only now that we have reaped the benefit of their hard work do we discard them as though they are useless leaches on society. The only people that I feel pity for are the social elites that actually believe the working class are the pawns on their morally corrupt game of chess.

EDIT: If you are talking about manufacturing being outsourced then I really have no reply for that... kinda hard to compete against slave labor or should we start condoning slavery in the US for stupid average americans?

Quote:

---

Talk of arrogance?

---

If you would reward the lazy, arrogant, and uneducated individuals of any country the same as you would reward the motivated, willing, and trained individuals of any country for a dissimilar measure of work you are among the worst of parasites.

The drunkard fool who grew lazy after dropping out of high school to chase skirts is unfit for digging, too entitled for trenches, and too stupid for the supervision of the crew.

Would I reward that lazy drunken fool the same as I would reward those willing to do the hard labor of the guys pulling shovel of shovel of dirt from the earth? Never.

Would I reward that lazy drunken fool the same as I would reward those willing to crawl into the filthy sewers to sift the sand? Absolutely not.

Would I reward that lazy drunken fool the same as I would reward those willing to devote decades of their life to managing the lives and safety of a hundred others? Hell. ........ing. No.

If that makes me a "conservative", I'll wear the badge with pride; it apparently means that I have a brain.

Soma

Regarding the initial question, maybe not beggars. But definitely not leaders. There's here a false dichotomy, in my opinion. But that's for another discussion. Instead Democracy has been slowing eroding the possibility of coming up with truly remarkable individuals. Good intentions and a strong urge to serve may be the catalyst of a good number of men and women when they come into the political scene. But a system of favors and lobbies, and the requirements today for a young politician to build public awareness strongly based on marketing strategies that don't reflect his persona, but project an image (false) that can gather more consensus among the population, rob any politician of their personality while tying their hands and subtly changing their priorities.

There's a crisis of values in our societies that gets projected into the political scene by the power of the electorate. After all, in any democratic society we are who governs us. When a politician campaigning for a seat (any seat) is told to make liberal use of fallacies as a means to gather votes, he's not only consciously adopting a strategy based on deceit, but is also caving in to the fact the society where he lives on is permeable to fallacies, little lies, subtle arrangement of numbers and other cheap tricks. The same techniques we use every day when debating with friends, talking to a social security representative, getting a new job, applying for a grant or loan, or asking for insurance money.

National Debts

That said, there's responsibility nonetheless. And the executive and legislative branches of our political scene have a great deal of responsibility about our public debt. But also the population, who instead of gathering money over the months to go on vacations like good and responsible citizens, prefers to make a loan and go on vacations today. We have simply been changing our lifestyles from a sustainable and secure savings model, into an unpredictable and dangerous path of debt. All of course, backed by the banks. But the downside is that banks need to go somewhere to loan us money, and so you have national debt.

Meanwhile governments (national, federal, or local) keep wanting to grow fat in many countries. This is the biggest problem in Europe and what may prove to be our downfall. Greece and Portugal are too excellent examples of countries who have for decades lived (and apparently want to keep doing it) on the backs of the state. Where the private sector survives mostly from governmental support (in the form of funds) and the government itself establishes competing business with up to 100% capital presence. On some sectors -- transports, health, energies (note the plural), education and culture -- our governments in fact dominate the market as veritable monopolies. At the same time many companies in the private sector exist exclusively to serve this governmental machine (auditing, legal counseling, and other services). And because all this requires money, banks are forced into he whole machine by granting loans to the government public sector and private sector serving the government.

The very wrong thing with this picture is that there is simply NO WAY that a public company will be managed with the very same principles of a privately owned company. In every "experiment", everywhere in the world, the public sector is the largest responsible for a country's corruption levels and, through governmental money injection, is the type of sector that can keep surviving for years on end, where a similar privately owned company under a similar financial situation would have filled for bankruptcy already. And here you have your public debt.

In countries like Greece and Portugal, this is at the core of our national debt. What's more embarrassing is that despite the shameful events that lead our two countries to ask for external help, there's every sign we will keep doing this once the crisis passes. On the case of Portugal specifically this is the 3rd bloody time we ask for IMF money in the last 30 years! No kidding. It's just insane. This socialist (and you Americans don't confuse European socialism with your socialism. Your socialism is called communism here) approach has to end. We have to thin our our governments. I don't want a government that owes businesses in my country for pete's sake. What kind of madness is this where the largest customer of good and services in my country is my government!? What forced the government here to finally ask IMF intervention was a joint declaration from the national banks saying they wouldn't lend any more money to the state, after their ratings having fallen to dramatic levels exactly because they were subsidizing the state debt for the past couple of years. In a country where the state owes all, everyone becomes a victim of the state. Even those whose task is to help sustain it.

This simply cannot be. We need to bring our governments back to what they should be; executive and legislative branches of our societies. The economy belongs to the private sector. For anyone coming up with "oh, but how I will survive without government funding", go get a bloody job you lazy scoundrel! Can't manage a business? Don't be in business.

I would say that to achieve this you need some laws, some rules governing the way the government can operate. One of those should be that they don't take a loan. That would result of the government being forced to sustain predictable financially entities only. Thus no business at all. Problem solved.

For example I put the Greek national telephone company. It has one problem, its public. So it started moving to the private sector. In two ways. One was leasing lines to other new telephone companies and the other selling its stock to another big foreign telecom company.
The first was excellent. Antagonism was boosted and DSL prices halved within a year for the consumer.
The second is a crime. They just reduced the overall wealth of the country.
Now they are selling more to gain quick money. If they had some laws though what could have happen is that they would lease all there lines and the national telephone company would stay as a line provider. The private companies would take the risks. The public company would keep the safe business.

You need to be careful with the rules you set, because a small government in this case would mean no telephone lines in the first place when in Greece only the government had the capital to do so.

Not even Marx liked Socialism, it was just a temporary bad but necessary state to achieve Communism. A temporary state means that it is not stable, it will fail eventually as happening. Thus I would think it will be reduced, if not already, to mandated capitalism. Where the risk is having the government as both the entity that mandates and invests. Which is by definition wrong. So I would like the government to keep the role it should in the economy, regardless how big the size of it is.

Trouble with that is I don't think anyone in America wants to dissolve any of the public companies:
- PBS
- busses
- the postal service

Greece is not America. If you want to trim America's budget there is a multi-billion dollar line item that eclipses every other around the world in spending. Laws or the lack thereof may help positively, but I'm not seriously considering Constitutional amendments necessary.

Quote:

---

If you would reward the lazy, arrogant, and uneducated individuals of any country the same as you would reward the motivated, willing, and trained individuals of any country for a dissimilar measure of work you are among the worst of parasites.

The drunkard fool who grew lazy after dropping out of high school to chase skirts is unfit for digging, too entitled for trenches, and too stupid for the supervision of the crew.

Would I reward that lazy drunken fool the same as I would reward those willing to do the hard labor of the guys pulling shovel of shovel of dirt from the earth? Never.

Would I reward that lazy drunken fool the same as I would reward those willing to crawl into the filthy sewers to sift the sand? Absolutely not.

Would I reward that lazy drunken fool the same as I would reward those willing to devote decades of their life to managing the lives and safety of a hundred others? Hell. ........ing. No.

If that makes me a "conservative", I'll wear the badge with pride; it apparently means that I have a brain.

---

Seems as though you think the "educated" people of a society are entitled to wealth, and that the uneducated masses are simply there to do their bidding. I fortunately had the chance to attend college, but some of the best/brightest people I have worked with had no formal education.

The US was not built on the backs of the lazy social elite, but the sweat and blood of the working class.

I see your point though. Those uneducated lazy oafs should just submit to the son of a social aristocrat who cheated/coasted his way through college while chasing skirts and drinking himself in a stupor. So I will agree that all uneducated Americans are lazy and drunk, but you will have to agree that all college grads are simply lazy drunks who's parents had more money.

Stereotypes are bad mm'kay?

Quote:

---

The US was not built on the backs of the lazy social elite, but the sweat and blood of the working class.

---

O_o

So, even though you say "sweat and blood" payed for the United States, you are willing to reward the "lazy social elite", "lazy, unwilling jerk", and "uneducated layabout" exactly the same as those who gave "sweat and blood" for a dissimilar measure of work?

Like I said, worst kind of parasite.

Soma

Absolutely not.

What I am saying is that it is not white and black, and we cannot assume because someone is unemployed or uneducated that they are "lazy drunks".

You have two women... GirlA and GirlB.

GirlA comes from a wealthy family. GirlB comes from a family well below the poverty line.

GirlA/GirlB have aspirations of being a biologist.

GirlA/GirlB do average in High School and get average scores on college entrance exams. Neither do well enough to get a scholarship.

GirlA/GirlB meet the man of their dreams. They both end up pregnant and said man of dreams disappears.

GirlA/GirlB now have tough decisions to make.

GirlA now has options. Abortion would be quick and easy for her, but she decides it is against her moral convictions and decides to carry the child to term.

GirlB might have options. She might be able to get an abortion, but due to the current political climate may be restricted. It doesn't matter though as she decides it is against her moral convictions and carries the child to term.

GirlA now lives with her parents, and attends college while a nanny watches the child for her.

GirlB now lives with her parents, but poses a burden to the family with the newborn. She is forced to work two jobs to pay for all the necessities of life, and to attend her local college. Childcare is difficult since she must rely on family/friends.

GirlA obtains a degree with an average GPA.

GirlB drops out after the first year when working two jobs and taking care of her child become overwhelming.

GirlA finds a nice job making a very nice wage. Buys a nice two story house in suburbia and lives care free.

GirlB loses one of her jobs, and is living day to day just hoping she can afford food until she can find a replacement for her lost job. She applies for government programs to avoid losing everything.

Both girls made the same decisions, and both worked hard to obtain their desires. The difference was that GirlA had the financial backing to allow her success in spite of her mistakes. GirlB had no such backing, and had to rely on the government when things went south.

I would contend that GirlB worked MUCH harder at trying to realize her dreams, and GirlA simply coasted through life lazy and unaware.

It's not always black and white like the politicians want you to think. It's those darn shades of gray that test a moral society.

Quote:

---

What I am saying is that it is not white and black, and we cannot assume because someone is unemployed or uneducated that they are "lazy drunks".

---

I agree; unfortunately for whatever point you have been trying to make, I never said anything of the sort.

What I did say is that the United States has a large population of people who are lazy, uneducated, and arrogant. There is even a lot of individuals who are all three.

There are jobs out there that require a strong back and stronger will, but a lot of the populace are too lazy for that kind of "back breaking" work.

There are jobs out there that require an advanced education, but a lot of the populace just doesn't have sufficient skill to manage that job.

There are jobs out there that require rummaging around in the muck or reveling in the danger, but a lot of the populace are to arrogant too want that job.

You can't pretend that it isn't the case, or rather, if you do pretend that such isn't the case for a lot of the population, you are guaranteed to perpetuate the problem.

It isn't just a stereotype perpetuated by other countries to make us look bad. It is a real problem. This is a problem that we need to fix.

Your example doesn't apply to this problem, nor does it apply to anything I've said. Both girls have problems, both have support, and both are likely to fail. Neither of them, according to your example, dropped out of school, are too lazy to rely solely on the public for support, or unwilling to work for it. Sure, one of them is better off than the other, but you example is lacking a sufficient case of scum. I'm talking about the individuals that are far worse than these two girls. I'm talking about "GirlC" who didn't want to graduate because "she isn't worried about that sort of thing", doesn't apply for jobs because "the government takes care of her", and is unwilling to work because she is "entitled to support".

There is a great difference between the lazy, arrogant, and uneducated individuals who are a plague upon society and simply those whom are down on their luck.

Soma

Quote:

---

The problem with the citizens of the United States is that secretly they all pretty much want "big government",

---

I assure you I do not want big government or the government involved in any of my daily affairs. However this is unavoidable since in The United States...keyword States...the states should govern the day to day lives of its citizens. Federal government is for international affairs and those powers not specifically granted to the states. Most in our current day have this backwards and have given the federal government powers that were expressly granted to the states. States are beginning to fight back but it is a lost cause b/c once power is given to the federal side it almost never is given back. The federal government in America is far too large and far too involved in day to day affairs of the citizens of the U.S. to be efficient at what it is they are supposed to be doing via the Constitution.

Another problem is that all the world sees of the United States is what our horrid mass media sends their way or the what the absolute idiots that populate Hollywood spew out of their mouth. In truth everyday America is actually quite simplistic and although most if not all love their country they cannot stand their federal government for the same reasons the rest of the world cannot stand it. State government is something altogether different though and very rarely, if ever, do you hear of any American complain about government at the state level. When we mention 'big government' in America we are talking about the federal government. I think it is high time the States tell the Feds to shove off and get out of the affairs of its citizens and then maybe the Feds can get back to what it is they are supposed to be doing.

Quote:

---

I fortunately had the chance to attend college, but some of the best/brightest people I have worked with had no formal education.

---

I, too, fall into this category. I have not found a direct correlation between education and the intelligence of a person. Intelligence is not based on your formal education b/c we have all met some pretty ignorant college graduates. We have all also met some pretty ignorant people who never attended college. College, in and of itself, does not make one intelligent or smart nor does it guarantee one's earning potential increases as some would have you believe. There are plenty of degrees available that cannot come close to the earning potential of jobs that do not require a degree such as construction, maintenance, manufacturing, etc. I certainly condone attending college but I do not judge another person nor their earning potential or possible benefit to society simply on college alone. If you had the chance to attend college that is great but do not think yourselves above another simply because you did. As well all people who did not attend college are not drunken lazy people who depend on the government. There are plenty of recent examples of highly educated workers being lazy and wanting the government to coddle them as much as the next person. A lack of college does not mean you are going to end up in a trailer court in Arkansas, beat your wife and kids, drink all day and all night, and contribute nothing to society...not that all people who live in trailers in Arkansas fit into this mold either b/c they don't but you get the idea.

Quote:

---

I assure you I do not want big government or the government involved in any of my daily affairs.

---

I don't want a big government either. I want a "medium government".

But most people do, probably without realizing it.

As the examples from earlier, increasing social security, subsidizing healthcare, and a large standing military are all aspects of big government.

Soma

Quote:

---

As the examples from earlier, increasing social security, subsidizing healthcare, and a large standing military are all aspects of big government.

---

A large military is exactly what the federal government is for. One of its main duties is the protection of the United States and her assets domestic and foreign. Of course assets here meaning non-State assets. A large military is not big government nor is it referred to as this.

Healthcare is an example of a large federal government b/c healthcare is NOT one of the federal government's responsibilities. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with this and throw away the plan that is going to bankrupt America.

Social security is definitely a big government issue and it is one we have allowed for so long that it is no longer considered as such but in truth it is. It is the States who are supposed to be concerned about the welfare of its citizens. The federal government is supposed to maintain the welfare of its citizens by allowing the States to maintain the welfare of them. What we have seen is the Feds gaining power and far too much of it to be healthy. If you remember from history the main reason people were afraid of the new government was a fear of an extremely powerful federal government. The only reason the Unites States exists today is because the role of the federal government was diminished and most of the power stayed with the states - hence the name of the country - The United States of America.

Well, I wrote a much larger post, but it was consumed. I'll just settle for saying this and only this.

Quote:

---

A large military is not big government nor is it referred to as this.

---

When the military is centralized without balances at the local level, when it is a reason for largely unchecked taxation, and when it results in authoritative conflict it is big government by definition. (That is what the United States has.)

Seriously, those phrases are literally used in the definition of big government in text books and dictionaries.

If you are willing to accept this as is instead of demanding some measure of the many fiscally sound alternatives for a locally sourced federal military presence capable of protecting our people claiming even so much that it isn't big government then all of the people who claim that social securities and subsidized healthcare are not big government is right for exactly the same reason. You've only closed your eyes to the alternatives and potential of a smaller government.

Soma

I guess the point I am trying to make is that people blame the social programs instituted in the US for all of our problems. They always use the small percentage of lazy non-motivated leaches on social programs to prove that they are not worth having, but they do not mention the people who work their .......... off and rely on those programs to make ends meet.

This country does not promote an aristocracy which is exactly what we would have if we didn't institute various social programs that allow the poor to attend college and have the basics to survive. The capitalistic aristocracy is of course the will of the wealthy, and those who wish to hold on to power while keeping the poor/working class in their place as virtual slaves.

Quote:

---

I guess the point I am trying to make is that people blame the social programs instituted in the US for all of our problems.

---

I'm not doing that.

Quote:

---

They always use the small percentage of lazy non-motivated leaches on social programs to prove that they are not worth having

---

It is a small percentage of the populace, but not actually a small percentage of the people in those programs.

In any event, you've greatly misunderstood everything I said.

I was blaming those "lazy non-motivated leaches" for the problems with those "social programs".

So... pretty much the opposite of what you thought.

Soma

Point taken.

I still think that instead of targeting these people we should aim a bit higher.

* We should review our tax strategy on the wealthiest Americans. I can already hear the gnashing of teeth as they try to explain trickle down craponomics and how it is the savior of the free world, but I think we all know how that fairy tale ends.

* Bring our wars to an end, and stop propagating fear to control our citizenry.

* Admit that the free market was not the economic utopia that it was promised to be, and have open discussion with the people about alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Trouble with that is I don't think anyone in America wants to dissolve any of the public companies:
- PBS
- busses
- the postal service

Greece is not America. If you want to trim America's budget there is a multi-billion dollar line item that eclipses every other around the world in spending. Laws or the lack thereof may help positively, but I'm not seriously considering Constitutional amendments necessary.

---

The military is kind of an exception. Private postal office, yes. Private army, I wouldn't agree.

But, you are right that the US spends a lot in their army. To prove your point, though, you need also to compare the result. Are they paying too much because soldiers and higher ranks are paid too much? Equipment are too expensive? Do they pay too much because of the recent wars they had to maintain, thus this is temporary? Just questions, I don't have the answers, but the picture is not very clear.
In Greece there is a big spending on army as well and there was always the same debate. The soldiers don't have the benefits they have here nor they have the expensive equipment. The army there is just for defense, so the cost is much less. When you have to send army on the other side of the world then you can imagine the budget skyrocketing. So cutting budget significantly would also mean a complete change on the US military operations.
So again the question should be "does the US spend too much for what they achieve?" rather just comparing the final budget.

I would certainly agree totally with you on the last point, that a lot of money was spent for recent wars. That is why I prefer if people were asked "do you want to pay more taxes and make the war or not" rather than resulting in borrowing money from China. It is just a matter of doing things right. Otherwise you give the misconception to the people that "we are making a war and nothing really changes in your life".

There is no need to add an amendment on the Constitution just add some laws or even just guidelines on how you want the government to operate financially. I am generally in favor of the government holding resources, but the private sector actually making profit with them, paying to use them of course. This I find that works the best. It ensures stability, it defines better the role of the government in business, it ensures that resources are not abused by greedy people and you get away with public employees.

Corporate Fascism

I could go on and on, but this sums it up nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xentaka

Corporate Fascism

I could go on and on, but this sums it up nicely.

---

Yes, I could also go on and on about your views. But the links you have given summarize it up nicely too. I have one interesting question for you though:

Since you don't like that a few lazy people answer for everyone when evaluating health care and social benefits, why are you so quick evaluating an entire economical system that has given you your country, your internet and your lifestyle, based on the greed of a few non-representative number of individuals?

You act as though the US was built upon the ideas of the free market, but we can really thank Mr. Ronald Reagan and to a much greater extent Mr. Milton Friedman.

Calling free market capitalism into question is not a crime against the US, but it is our duty to do such.

Someone did call the idea of laissez-faire economic policy into question and was summarily muzzled and shut down. Brooksley Born warned them about the OTC Derivatives market, but her keynsian thinking had no place in a free market.

Not like the current crash was the only warning. They knew the risks and proceeded anyway.

I would also contest the idea that it was the greed of a few individuals. Our economic system was brought to its knees, and even now is on course to crash again since we have done nothing to bring the situation under control.

EDIT: Elizabeth Warren ... not going to say anything but look her up and read what this rather talented woman has to say.

So xentaka I'm interested to know how you would personally fix the issue at hand. You appear to have all the answers.

Tax the rich, end all wars and stop with the free market. Those were the three things I heard him saying...

It almost brought a tear to my eyes and made me feel like singing Kumbaya around a fireplace, wearing green sleeves while under a shower of flowers being throw by people called Francisco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xentaka

Forget it. I wrote a rather long reply, but the fact is people would rather denigrate someones integrity rather than try to discuss it reasonably.

I disagreed with what phantomotap said, and then posted why I disagreed with it. Turns out I misunderstood what he was saying.

I cannot discuss what you disagree on if you don't post WHY you disagree with it.

---

I do not live in the US nor I know much about its economy, but since the topic became more generalised I will say a word too.

Reading your posts I hear from you something pretty much similar to what Mario F. has said.
To be honest, it sounds to me like a piece of socialistic you know what.

Let me get back to your previous example of two girls, A being richer and B being poorer. From my point of view these are two separate individuals. There are no relationships between them. They live on their own, work on their own, and do not know each other.

You can state that B worked much harder that A and still does not have as much as A has from her parents. This can be true indeed, but you are a bit injust, since you miss one important part, the origin of the money:

If person A is rich, he must have some source of income, which allowed him to get this amount of money. What if he does not have such an income? Then probably, he got it from his parens. Wait, what if his parents do not have such an income too? Then we can get yet deeper to his grandparents, great-grandparents and so forth. Money has not appeared from nowhere. Someone worked HARD to accomplish this. Whether this was the girl or not, someone is the owner of the whole money and it is HIS decision who he will give HIS property. So, it does not matter whether the girl A earned this money on her own or not. Someone has done it before and noone has right to take any part of it (oh god, the inheritance taxes!).

So, since we have the owner of the money, why are we talking about justice at all? The owner can be just or not and this is his choice and his moral decision. He could have given it as well to a welfare organization, noone has any right to make decisions for him.

Another important fact is that such public services will be more expensive. In your model of education, this poor GirlB also pays for school, but probably much less that the GirlA. The problem is more visible when we look at them as a whole. The money has to travel from both girls A and B to the budget and then, from the budget, back to the schools. Everyone can notice that there is a loss, since these operations also cost.

It is not that I see it black and white. I know that this is a problem, but why should we enhance somebody's life on someone's else expense?

EDIT:
I'm sorry, I started writing this before xentaka removed his post.

I take his removed post as extreme back-pedaling. Fact is if you do not have a better solution you are more a part of the problem than those using the current system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirtualAce

I take his removed post as extreme back-pedaling. Fact is if you do not have a better solution you are more a part of the problem than those using the current system.

---

It was not back pedaling.

You people did not want to discuss anything I said, but rather you just wanted to denigrate my integrity without even bothering to say why you disagreed.
I would gladly answer respectful questions, but I will not respond to flippant posts.

Economic Theory - Keynesian

Capitalism - Social market economy ( rather than an unfettered free market ).

Quote:

---

Tax the rich, end all wars and stop with the free market.

---

I thought this was funny since it was an insult.

* Yes I would review taxation on the rich since they pay much lower percentage than the middle class.
* I would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as they are a drain on our economy. Also American troops are dying which I do not find funny in the least.
* Revert to a Keynesian model, or something closely related to it. They discarded it due to enormous stagflation, but our current system has shown that it is much weaker in a shorter amount of time.

I will gladly discuss any of this, but you must get over your fears and try to be civil. I look forward to it actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmdv

I do not live in the US nor I know much about its economy, but since the topic became more generalised I will say a word too.

Reading your posts I hear from you something pretty much similar to what Mario F. has said.
To be honest, it sounds to me like a piece of socialistic you know what.

Let me get back to your previous example of two girls, A being richer and B being poorer. From my point of view these are two separate individuals. There are no relationships between them. They live on their own, work on their own, and do not know each other.

You can state that B worked much harder that A and still does not have as much as A has from her parents. This can be true indeed, but you are a bit injust, since you miss one important part, the origin of the money:

If person A is rich, he must have some source of income, which allowed him to get this amount of money. What if he does not have such an income? Then probably, he got it from his parens. Wait, what if his parents do not have such an income too? Then we can get yet deeper to his grandparents, great-grandparents and so forth. Money has not appeared from nowhere. Someone worked HARD to accomplish this. Whether this was the girl or not, someone is the owner of the whole money and it is HIS decision who he will give HIS property. So, it does not matter whether the girl A earned this money on her own or not. Someone has done it before and noone has right to take any part of it (oh god, the inheritance taxes!).

So, since we have the owner of the money, why are we talking about justice at all? The owner can be just or not and this is his choice and his moral decision. He could have given it as well to a welfare organization, noone has any right to make decisions for him.

Another important fact is that such public services will be more expensive. In your model of education, this poor GirlB also pays for school, but probably much less that the GirlA. The problem is more visible when we look at them as a whole. The money has to travel from both girls A and B to the budget and then, from the budget, back to the schools. Everyone can notice that there is a loss, since these operations also cost.

It is not that I see it black and white. I know that this is a problem, but why should we enhance somebody's life on someone's else expense?

EDIT:
I'm sorry, I started writing this before xentaka removed his post.

---

We bailed out our "too big to fail" banks and corporations when the market failed. The American taxpayers funded their failures, and I would see that as us enhancing their life at our expense.

I know that life isn't fair, and completely understand what you are saying. My contention is that without social programs that allow the poor to have access to higher education we would become an aristocracy. The poor would become virtual slaves with no recourse. This is something that a moral society has to wrestle with, and I can only hope that we make the right decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmdv

You can state that B worked much harder that A and still does not have as much as A has from her parents. This can be true indeed, but you are a bit injust, since you miss one important part, the origin of the money:

If person A is rich, he must have some source of income, which allowed him to get this amount of money. What if he does not have such an income? Then probably, he got it from his parens. Wait, what if his parents do not have such an income too? Then we can get yet deeper to his grandparents, great-grandparents and so forth. Money has not appeared from nowhere. Someone worked HARD to accomplish this. Whether this was the girl or not, someone is the owner of the whole money and it is HIS decision who he will give HIS property. So, it does not matter whether the girl A earned this money on her own or not. Someone has done it before and noone has right to take any part of it (oh god, the inheritance taxes!).

So, since we have the owner of the money, why are we talking about justice at all? The owner can be just or not and this is his choice and his moral decision. He could have given it as well to a welfare organization, noone has any right to make decisions for him.

---

So you want to base every american's chances of completing an education and getting a decently paid job, on how much money their ancestors earned? Land of the free indeed, as long as you're not born in the slums.

How many African American families in the US came from old money?

Another reason why a lack of social programs would be a moral travesty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xentaka

We bailed out our "too big to fail" banks and corporations when the market failed. The American taxpayers funded their failures, and I would see that as us enhancing their life at our expense.

I know that life isn't fair, and completely understand what you are saying. My contention is that without social programs that allow the poor to have access to higher education we would become an aristocracy. The poor would become virtual slaves with no recourse. This is something that a moral society has to wrestle with, and I can only hope that we make the right decisions.

---

Firstly, you are talking about Americans while my post was referred to the general.

Secondly, please, do not say "us enhancing", "at our expense", and "our decisions". Maybe you wish to maintain lazy/non-productive people, but me not. Say "me enhancing", "at my expense", and "my decisions", can you see the difference?

Quote:

---

My contention is that without social programs that allow the poor to have access to higher education we would become an aristocracy.

---

Do you know what is the result of everyone having degree? In my country you can study whatever you want. There are really non-productive majors, like 'Knowledge about Europe' (I honestly do not know how to translate it). Such people are pseudo Masters of Art. Here, everyone can have highest level of degree possible.
What is the result? After sociology, linguistics, psychology, economy you have NO job. Well, if you want to, you can sweep. But the problem is that someone who is MA does not want to earn the minimum wage. The goverment wastes money on teaching these people absolutely nothing. Sometimes people study 2 or even 3 majors simultaneously (!) having no job either (which is pretty obvious through).

You cannot have a society where everyone is equal and educated. There will always be classes, the richer, the poorer, the wiser. Yet forcing people to participate in this bizarre game is not only crazy, but hits freedom of man.

There are two primary things that goverment could teach in my opinion:
* Arithmetic, so the individual can count change (in fact he needs only addition and subtraction).
* Reading/writing, so the individual can read and sign the agreement (so in fact he needs only reading).

Anything else is optional. This may sound strange, but it is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmdv

You cannot have a society where everyone is equal and educated. There will always be classes, the richer, the poorer, the wiser. Yet forcing people to participate in this bizarre game is not only crazy, but hits freedom of man.

---

This is true, the question you should ask though are 1) "if we allow anybody to educate themselves as much as they want, will they all go for the top educatinal level"? and 2) "should the level of education available to a person be determined by the amount of money he (or his parents) can afford to spend"?

In my country all university education is free, no tuition fees or anything, yet we have no shortage of car mechanics or construction workers.

And I strongly disagree with what you think should be taught. Do you really think we (as in humanity) would be where we are (in terms of technological advancement) without a functional education by some of the biggest nations? I don't think we would have computers (and thus not having this discussion) if it weren't for education.

Edit: Regarding the two things you think government should teach: so you want a country full of mindless people that signs agreements without understanding them (remember, you said being able to read, not being able to comprehend what they have actually read or understand the concequences). A country full of uneducated people is a country waiting to be exploited, either by people within the country itself or by people outside the country so yah, I guess I can see where you are coming from; you want to go back to the slave days...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakti

if we allow anybody to educate themselves as much as they want, will they all go for the top educatinal leve?l

---

I have already said that you cannot have everyone being educated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakti

should the level of education available to a person be determined by the amount of money he (or his parents) can afford to spend"

---

Of course, and this can be achieved by removing education from public services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakti

Do you really think we (as in humanity) would be where we are (in terms of technological advancement) without a functional education by some of the biggest nations? I don't think we would have computers (and thus not having this discussion) if it weren't for education.

---

If something is needed, desired, it will not be forgotten. Math has not been required to be taught and it has been fine for thousands of years. If people did not care about technology and science it could be dropped and forgotten. There would be no reason to maintain something that is not needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kmdv

I have already said that you cannot have everyone being educated.

---

And I said I do not believe it to be an issue to give people a choice, but please prove me wrong with citeable sources.

Quote:

---

Of course, and this can be achieved by removing education from public services.

---

I agreed that not everybody should be as highly educated as anybody else, and again I do not think it is a problem. Again I invite sources linking public funded education with this phenomena.

Quote:

---

If something is needed, desired, it will not be forgotten. Math has not been required to be taught and it has been fine for thousands of years. If people did not care about technology and science it could be dropped and forgotten. There would be no reason to maintain something that is not needed.

---

And you really believe we would have seen such a rapid advancement in such a short time as we have during the 20th century if it weren't for education? I can give at least one source that holds my view as the correct view in "The Growth Competitiveness Index: Measuring Technological Advancement and the Stages of Development", 2001, John W. McArthur and Jeffrey D. Sachs, Center for International Development at Harvard University we get to hear that "A very poor country with rudimentary levels of health and education will generally not be competing on the basis of technological innovation."

Edit: Also many economists lists education as one of the keys to economic development (The Primacy of Education, Anne Case, July 2004), so I do not think a worsened public education would benefit any country at all.

I will start by saying that this has all been in relation to the United States, and I have made no attempt to offer global solutions. When speaking about "us" I am talking about the United States only and will continue to do so since we are one nation.

Education is key to economic development and I would contend that doing away with social programs that improve it would be disastrous to our economy.

If the contention is that we can save money by removing social programs meant to further education, but still maintain two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then I really must disagree.

I understand. I am talking about my vision of a country, where I would like to live in. Since it is pretty common nowadays to have public education I know that this is impossible to deregulate it completely.

I do not know any of you, I am yet a student. What I have recently experienced are "social programs", "social education", "social integration", and so forth. And no, I do not live in distict or country. I live in a rather big and developing city and attended one of the best high schools. The problem is that people who talk about public education have absolutely no idea about the reality. The teachers want to keep their jobs and do everything to signal their existance and usefulness. The students in turn do as least as possible, and the slums equivalents do yet less.

I remember lessons of one of the subjects. There were usually 3 people (out of 30) who were interested in the lecture. My teacher was nice and knew we do not care about it. Hopefully I could sit with notebook on my knees under desk and code. There were some important subjects where I paid attention, but this is about 10% of the whole.

After all, freedom of choice is the priority to me. Such people like you force me to learn things I do not need and I do not want. It is time and money too.

One may consider slavery to be beneficial (from economical standpoint of course). Does this mean that we should introduce it to pay the debt?

If I need to choose between a higher developed country, where I am a slave and have to learn and do what the government me wants to, and a less developed country, where I am a respected and free individual, I choose the latter.

I'm not surprised this discussion took a turn to the worse. When it comes to ideology, utopia is just one step away; with very few willing to concede to reasonable and realistic objectives that may not always follow their strict ideological path. I despise ideology.

Neither I quite understand what's the big deal with education in a country like USA, with very respectable educational standards thorough. Certainly anything can see improvements, certainly anything has its flaws, but pretending to generally attribute poverty in a modern western country to education is entirely wrong and just another typical show of trying to find solutions to problems on all the wrong places.

In any modern western country, individuals themselves will always be the ones deciding for their own educational level. They are, in fact, in charge. While there may be some structural barriers to education, these will always amount to sporadic cases that, while no doubt true, then get overblown and dramatized by certain sectors of our societies. But in fact, we witness everyday, kids dropping out from school where none of the reasons have anything to do with poverty or lack of ability to overcome structural barriers that may still exist in the educational system. And these are the vast majority of the cases.

Now, hold on that thought for a moment and let's get back to poverty in western countries. While we may see some cases of structural poverty that are no doubt worrying, the vast majority of our poor are instead of social and cultural causes. The first, the structural poverty is indeed a responsibility of the government; the system has flaws that leads to a type of poverty that lays down a path that becomes unavoidable and, once reached, inescapable. But the second much larger group isn't. It's up to the civil society to try and solve that poverty that is born out of social and cultural contexts.

Now, going back to education... Education plays a big role in that second larger group of poor in our country, but does absolutely nothing for the former. And it's exactly because of that, education becomes it too a responsibility of the civil society when it comes to deal with the social poor. We see it everyday too, when problematic neighborhoods see organized groups rise within that start promoting education and civic values in order to try and increase the opportunities and lifestyle of their citizens. Conversely, the structural poor will not be "saved" by education. They are caught (were found themselves in) broken clogs of the system that lead them to a path of poverty. I'm talking about the homeless, the mentally or physically inept, the old. Here the government has the responsibility to intervene by removing these people of their otherwise inescapable destiny and to oil the machine to prevent these situations from occurring.

Poverty in western countries is however largely determined by social and cultural aspects. When I visit a 'hood', for instance, I see youngsters dropping out of college to get into an easy life of crime or being influenced by their friends into dropping out of college. I see folks spending what little they can get on large LCD TV sets, stereo systems for their cars, expensive clothes and hairdos. Even on 3rd world societies the issue of poverty has a strong social context. In Nigeria where net scammers can make something like 4,000 USD with a single victim, go spend their money the next day on bars, chicks, clothes and TV sets. There's a real "mea culpa" here that can and should be attributed to the poor themselves. Make no mistake.

And our societies will probably always behave like this. Social stratum isn't just something our ruling bodies imposed on the population. Long gone are the days when that was true. Today, on western countries enjoying economic growth, being poor, middle-class, or high-class is mostly a decision left to the individual. We may want to pretend it's the government's fault and demand the government does something about it, but the simple fact of life is that it isn't, and there is nothing the government can do.

What drives me off the wall is that a certain left sees these issues in the context of their own ideology where the state is the over-reaching branch of our society that controls all and everything. The Big Government. And they propose taxes should be raised, and rich should be taxed more, so these problems go away by throwing money at people that could instead do something about their own lives. It's particularly pernicious because we know very well this type of social poverty never sees it that way; the blame is always on something or someone else. So this left populist demands find a very convenient echo on the minds of these people. "Yeah! It's their damn fault I'm a criminal", "Yeah! it's their fault I'm poor!", "Let the rich pay!".

But the so-called rich... they are the principal agents of a country's economic opportunities, by directly or indirectly supplying it with businesses, jobs, and financing.

Quote:

---

And our societies will probably always behave like this. Social stratum isn't just something our ruling bodies imposed on the population. Long gone are the days when that was true. Today, on western countries enjoying economic growth, being poor, middle-class, or high-class is mostly a decision left to the individual. We may want to pretend it's the government's fault and demand the government does something about it, but the simple fact of life is that it isn't, and there is nothing the government can do.

---

I disagree on that point, and will list why:

Americas Growing Aristocracy

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w...ychart-1-1.jpg

Wealth Gap in America

Notice the area between 1940-1980 and then deregulation from 1980-2011. I would contend that the government can do something, and it would involve banking regulation and progressive tax rates just like after the depression.

Think bringing corporations under control is a new idea?

Speaking of Theodore Roosevelt:

Quote:

---

Roosevelt kept McKinley's cabinet and promised to continue McKinley's policies. One of his first notable acts as president was to deliver a 20,000-word address to Congress asking it to curb the power of large corporations (called "trusts"). For his aggressive attacks on trusts over his two terms he has been called a "trust-buster."

---

Here is the link if anyone is interested in reading about this great man.

The big joke being played on the American people is the idea that we can truly be successful if we just work hard for our masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xentaka

The big joke being played on the American people is the idea that we can truly be successful if we just work hard for our masters.

---

And you think many haven't? Success is evaluated many ways. And rarely it means getting higher than a comfortable middle class. Keep that in mind. And on that level, your country is in fact an example to follow. It still promotes and rewards people wanting and doing something to increase their lifestyle. You remind me of this couple friend of mine that the more they pamper their child, the more he's becoming an impossible brat never fully appreciating their parents efforts. A clash with reality is perhaps what you are missing (whereas on the case of the kid, I'd solve it with a well placed spank).

But please don't let any of your country achievements get in the way of your "rich are evil" tirade. Proceed to degrade your country -- and take the part for the whole -- in the name of your ideals of a Marxist society, no doubt as you type them from behind your comfortable middle-class computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

And you think many haven't? Success is evaluated many ways. And rarely it means getting higher than a comfortable middle class. Keep that in mind. And on that level, your country is in fact an example to follow. It still promotes and rewards people wanting and doing something to increase their lifestyle. You remind me of this couple friend of mine that the more they pamper their child, the more he's becoming an impossible brat never fully appreciating their parents efforts. A clash with reality is perhaps what you are missing (whereas on the case of the kid, I'd solve it with a well placed spank).

But please don't let any of your country achievements get in the way of your "rich are evil" tirade. Proceed to degrade your country -- and take the part for the whole -- in the name of your ideals of a Marxist society, no doubt as you type them from behind your comfortable middle-class computer.

---

Social Democracy

Does it matter what you think I believe?

I already know what you believe: ( from Wikipedia )

Quote:

---

Right-wing politics involves in varying degrees the rejection of egalitarian objectives of left-wing politics, claiming either that equality is artificial or that the imposition of social equality is detrimental to society.

---

You accept the idea of a plutocracy since it is the next obvious step for people that think like you.

I will take no offense at your insult since I realize you really do think I am degrading my country by not agreeing with you ( narcissism).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xentaka

You accept the idea of a plutocracy since it is the next obvious step for people that think like you.

---

You accept the idea of Robin Hood. Sure, why do we have to work, when we have the rich, the root of all evil. We could take some money from them and give it to the poor, they have it more than enough anyway.

And let's make no mistake. Anyone opposed to charging the rich is as unscrupulous and evil as them, since they demonstrate the same lack of moral standards for their odious disregard to the wellbeing of the poor and fragile citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xentaka

I will take no offense at your insult

---

Glad to see you finally grew some backbone and can get into a political debate without having a girly fit anytime someone throws a pie at your face.

Anyways, I don't know want to link to Wikipedia. But I made it easier for you by marking the relevant parts as red. I trust you don't mind my laziness, and even welcome it.

Not a backbone, but I try to talk with people on the internet like I would if we were face to face. Disrespecting others through an anonymous medium is not being "tough".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C_ntua

The military is kind of an exception. Private postal office, yes. Private army, I wouldn't agree.

But, you are right that the US spends a lot in their army. To prove your point, though, you need also to compare the result. Are they paying too much because soldiers and higher ranks are paid too much? Equipment are too expensive? Do they pay too much because of the recent wars they had to maintain, thus this is temporary? Just questions, I don't have the answers, but the picture is not very clear.
In Greece there is a big spending on army as well and there was always the same debate. The soldiers don't have the benefits they have here nor they have the expensive equipment. The army there is just for defense, so the cost is much less. When you have to send army on the other side of the world then you can imagine the budget skyrocketing. So cutting budget significantly would also mean a complete change on the US military operations.

---

The military is already sort of privatized, just to let you know, since wherever conscripted soldiers aren't going you have mercenaries like Black Mesa (I'm joking) and Blackwater doing the work. It's not even really just people, but the whole military industrial complex functions on constant defense contracts. Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a speech on the military industrial complex around the time he actually made it into law. In it he basically asserts that we will be spending money on defense all the time now, which is fine with me.

It is because of the military industrial complex I think the military would sufficiently defend our country against attack, especially post-9/11, or coordinate humanitarian efforts. But to respond to you directly, it is indeed possible that we can't afford the whole military reasonably anymore. In rather pathetic fashion, you can read about this very subject here and the rest of the article, as well as here. I'm specifically focusing on that because of the research. Even if we could afford the whole military before, recent increases in the defense part of the budget -are responsible for N% of the future debt we will create. I'm still only guessing, but I think the replacement programs are only so expensive because we are routinely using our gear in the war effort, and whether you agree with the effort or not, the temporary things may turn out to be the most expensive things.

Because the extent of my interest only goes so far:

Quote:

---

So again the question should be "does the US spend too much for what they achieve?" rather just comparing the final budget.

---

Does the US spend too much because they want to do too much? Almost certainly yes. I've wanted a responsible end to the wars in the Middle East and the situation keeps changing so an abrupt end is not morally responsible, unfortunately. But an abrupt end would be good for us financially.

Quote:

---

There is no need to add an amendment on the Constitution just add some laws or even just guidelines on how you want the government to operate financially.

---

I am actually just responding to your comments through a historical lens. The Congress is granted the power to manage the revenue of the country by the Constitution. You might be afraid of amendments, especially since you're not proposing anything specific, but an amendment is what reform should become, unless Congress actually grants its powers to another institution by law. I can give you two examples: The Federal Reserve was created to handle monetary policy with much controversy, as the Congress also managed monetary policy before then. Also, read the 27th Amendment: very much "a law on how the government should operate financially". Guidelines, being not as binding as laws, you might think are easier to come up with, and while that may be true, I think that you are actually talking about the rules of Congress which is handled by a committee of congresspeople; that is, consisting of your elected representatives. Beyond that you elect such people, it isn't really a power in our hands.

What really took me back on those links was the reality of the bush tax cuts. If I am reading that right then the bush tax cuts eclipsed the Obama stimulus packaged by a full 7%!

List of countries by military expenditure.

I agree that we must spend money on defense, but when the next closest country is 570 billion below you things are getting fairly crazy. We could cut that budget in half and still be sitting on top by quite a bit. My hope is that we can eventually pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you are right in that we don't want to pull out prematurely and cause another Fall of Saigon. Comparing it to Vietnam seems somehow appropriate.

O_o

All the links in this thread has drivin me to losing interest.

Soma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomotap

O_o

All the links in this thread has drivin me to losing interest.

Soma

---

Well I wanted to stay out of it but people will ask me questions about "a clearer picture" without really seeking that clarity themselves.

I wonder if Firefox can open all of these with a click...

Edit to add: Not really.

Don't feel bad... nobody else read any of the links either. ;)

I actually read them all so it doesn't bother me much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I wonder if Firefox can open all of these with a click...

Edit to add: Not really.

---

I remember a good time ago seeing an addon exactly for that.

I try to read links. Although usually I just skim through them, unless it's something really worth reading in detail. But what I do with links pointing to references corroborating numbers or ideas, is a bit different though: If what the author of the post is saying is to my knowledge, or deemed plausible, I tend to ignore any reference links. But I always appreciate the extra effort in putting them. And depending on how well I know the author of the post, the fact he put up a reference will even have a chance of taking his word for it, without me clicking the link when in doubt.

What I find unnecessary and unnerving is the habit of some to put up links to word definitions. Unless we are talking about an obscure word, I find this act patronizing. Or (take your pick) not very bright; After all, if I feel I'm talking to someone who needs the definitions of the word "plutocracy", "narcissism" or "aristocracy", the fact I decided to have a political discussion with him definitely makes me look like a fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I remember a good time ago seeing an addon exactly for that.

I try to read links. Although usually I just skim through them, unless it's something really worth reading in detail. But what I do with links pointing to references corroborating numbers or ideas, is a bit different though: If what the author of the post is saying is to my knowledge, or deemed plausible, I tend to ignore any reference links. But I always appreciate the extra effort in putting them. And depending on how well I know the author of the post, the fact he put up a reference will even have a chance of taking his word for it, without me clicking the link when in doubt.

What I find unnecessary and unnerving is the habit of some to put up links to word definitions. Unless we are talking about an obscure word, I find this act patronizing. Or (take your pick) not very bright; After all, if I feel I'm talking to someone who needs the definitions of the word "plutocracy", "narcissism" or "aristocracy", the fact I decided to have a political discussion with him definitely makes me look like a fool.

---

You caught me red handed. I post links in a public forum ( that anyone can read btw ) because it was my backhanded way of patronizing your superior intellect, and because I had no idea what they meant before I linked them.

All of those insulting messages that had absolutely no content also really made your case, and in no way made you look like a fool.