Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on March 26, 2008, 08:47:13 am
-
I figure since it is time for the new budget, we should have a new discussion about it. The official national debt is now up to $9.4 trillion, and the proposed budget is estimated to have a deficit of $400 billion. (!) We also need to take something into account: the IOU's that replaced the real money in social security. If we factor that in the off balance sheet liabilities (such as said IOU's) the actual debt is more like $55 trillion (!!!!). I'm still wondering how the hell did we let this happen?
-
I JUST DIVIDED BY ZERO
OSHI-
...that's what we're looking at pretty soon.
I'm guessing the answer to "how did people let this happen" is related to government handing the control of the economics to private sector or, at best, quasi-public organizations (like Federal Reserve) and then letting the private sector dictate the rules of the economy to benefit the few in charge of private sector corporations. Good ol' pure capitalism never fails to screw more people than it benefits... which, I believe, is the idea. :rolleyes:
-
Scrap the armed forces and hire. . . . .The A team.
-
And McGyver... now that would be a great combo.
Old Mac can build tanks and missiles out of bubblegum, string and duct tape for the A-team. Cheap solution.
-
And McGyver... now that would be a great combo.
Old Mac can build tanks and missiles out of bubblegum, string and duct tape for the A-team. Cheap solution.
Yay! Recycling FTW!
-
I figure since it is time for the new budget, we should have a new discussion about it. The official national debt is now up to $9.4 trillion, and the proposed budget is estimated to have a deficit of $400 billion. (!) We also need to take something into account: the IOU's that replaced the real money in social security. If we factor that in the off balance sheet liabilities (such as said IOU's) the actual debt is more like $55 trillion (!!!!). I'm still wondering how the hell did we let this happen?
And everyone called me crazy when I supported Ron Paul. Oh you poor, poor fools.
-
1. Attach turbines to founding fathers spinning in their graves.
2. Solve energy crisis.
3. ?????
4. Profit.
-
And everyone called me crazy when I supported Ron Paul. Oh you poor, poor fools.
That hasn't changed. Ron Paul is a ****ing lunatic.
-
Is this the US Budget ? 'cos the Uk had a budget recently too.....
-
That hasn't changed. Ron Paul is a ****ing lunatic.
Perhaps you may think so. But when everyone else has adopted a "let them eat cake" attitude, this particular lunatic wins by default. Unless aircraft carriers have suddenly become both edible and sources of cheap, renewable energy.
-
But Ron Paul's views are just another face of "let them eat cake." When someone like Ron Paul dismantles social safety nets and just about every other government program, the people who fall through the cracks are told just that. I would love for us to be spending much less on the military, but it's not worth the catastrophic damage he would do.
-
For people of our generation, the social safety net is mirage anyway. Promises which can not possibly be kept. You're not going to see any of that money, because it will be spent on F-22s to fight illiterate farmers in Asscrackistan. When a candidate comes along who can put forward a plan to take a few hundred billion away from the USAF and use it fund education, without being beheaded by the Congress, maybe I'll change my mind.
-
As much as it would be nice to say less military spending would fix the problems. When the air force said it did not need any more c-17s congress said "yes you do" and payed for a bunch more. Because the congressmen, who represented the states that components for the C17s are manufactured in, decided it would be better for their states to keep jobs than the whole country saving a few hundred million.
-
I JUST DIVIDED BY ZERO
OSHI-
...that's what we're looking at pretty soon.
I'm guessing the answer to "how did people let this happen" is related to government handing the control of the economics to private sector or, at best, quasi-public organizations (like Federal Reserve) and then letting the private sector dictate the rules of the economy to benefit the few in charge of private sector corporations. Good ol' pure capitalism never fails to screw more people than it benefits... which, I believe, is the idea. :rolleyes:
The problem, in this case, is not capitalism - it's that the Federal government has not been living in a capitalist world. The debt is the result of assuming money where there is none, something that seems more akin to communism (everybody works for the common good no matter what the money is). The problem with bending the rules of capitalism so far is that at some point they either stab you in the back, or if you're not careful, whip back around and slap you in the face.
The way that capitalism is supposed to keep abuses in check is by the squelching of dollars. When a company (or entity, in this case) can make up funds out of nowhere, it has no accountability. Capitalism, AFAIK, does not consider itself an appropriate system when something goes out of control like that.
-
As much as it would be nice to say less military spending would fix the problems. When the air force said it did not need any more c-17s congress said "yes you do" and payed for a bunch more. Because the congressmen, who represented the states that components for the C17s are manufactured in, decided it would be better for their states to keep jobs than the whole country saving a few hundred million.
Of course. Just like the military doesn't need 14 aircraft carriers, when the next best navy has 2, or a non-functional anti-missile shield. But they'll never say so, because toys are cool and sleek and keep everyone employed. Nevermind that they rob the taxpayers and siphon money from actually useful causes.
Any candidate that ran on "cut money to the military" would be lynched in a second. But someone running on "cut money to the government in general, including the military" might just succeed, which is why Ron Paul is my guy.
-
The problem, in this case, is not capitalism - it's that the Federal government has not been living in a capitalist the world.
Fix'd. :p
The debt is the result of assuming money where there is none, something that seems more akin to communism (everybody works for the common good no matter what the money is). The problem with bending the rules of capitalism so far is that at some point they either stab you in the back, or if you're not careful, whip back around and slap you in the face.
The way that capitalism is supposed to keep abuses in check is by the squelching of dollars. When a company (or entity, in this case) can make up funds out of nowhere, it has no accountability. Capitalism, AFAIK, does not consider itself an appropriate system when something goes out of control like that.
Yeah, I suppose the US economics is about as close to capitalism as Chinese is to communism. My point about capitalism screwing more people than benefiting by default still stands, but you're right - it isn't relevant in this case because the current US economics will screw up everything and everybody. And it's still because private sector entities have been allowed to make the rules for the government. Or, should we say that private sector has been the government in the US for a while. Doesn't make much difference I guess.
I don't think there's even any self-respecting economy model that would want to be associated with the steaming pile of... mess that we're talking about.
-
That makes no sense at all. The private sector has as much, if not more, to lose by the US economy taking a dive than the ordinary citizens. Hell, of all the classes I've been to, the only one where the professor seemed most concerned about international affairs as they pertain to the national economy was one on business.
If the dollar tanks, so does the value of every single business that's tied to the dollar.
-
While I agree that the military is probably getting more money than it needs in some respects, why not cancel social programs like welfare. The US welfare system is one of the worst wastes of money that I have ever seen; all it does is support illegal immigrants, and people too lazy to get off their asses and work. Now take some genuinely poor people (like my grandparents) who have worked their whole lives, paid taxes, and have disabilities, how much do you think they received from welfare? That's right, not a penny.
-
That makes no sense at all.
Does it need to?
The private sector has as much, if not more, to lose by the US economy taking a dive than the ordinary citizens. Hell, of all the classes I've been to, the only one where the professor seemed most concerned about international affairs as they pertain to the national economy was one on business.
If the dollar tanks, so does the value of every single business that's tied to the dollar.
Of course it does have a lot to lose. But the way I see it, the private sector entities are what have caused the current economical criseling, and the government has allowed it to do so.
The ability for long term planning is apparently not the forte of people who are concerned with short term profit, and I think that's what we're mainly looking at. Whether it's the government feeling obliged to try and keep the private sector running, or the private sector runnign the government, I'm not certain. Whatever it is, they're not doing a good job about it.
Meh, I'm not an economics expert. But to me it just looks like the US government has not had either wits or will to set up sustainable rules to the private sector and has resorted to respirating it by importing capita more and more from abroad, which essentially has increased the federal debt to the point that the US is - quite literally - owned by the world.
Of course, other shortcomings of said government - such as tossing said money back to abroad without getting nothing noteworthy back (like in cases of Afghanistan and Iraq) - and in general using it to stupid things in public sector is a different thing. The sub-prime crisis, though, is mostly private sector problem and it's full impact remains to be seen. That's yet another can of worms... :rolleyes:
-
While I agree that the military is probably getting more money than it needs in some respects, why not cancel social programs like welfare. The US welfare system is one of the worst wastes of money that I have ever seen; all it does is support illegal immigrants, and people too lazy to get off their asses and work. Now take some genuinely poor people (like my grandparents) who have worked their whole lives, paid taxes, and have disabilities, how much do you think they received from welfare? That's right, not a penny.
A trick to getting yourself taken seriously is to, y'know, not refer to illegal immigrants in your argument. It may be entirely valid, I don't know, but just that reference alone has destroyed any possible chance of my taking your opinion seriously, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people here feel the same. It's not so much a bad argument, but it's just such a tired cliche of the well-off individual (you have internet access) moaning about problems caused by illegal immigrants. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and just isn't the way to get your opinion across.
Illegal immigrants don't just steal jobs, they steal credibility. Your credibility. Just a friendly heads up. :)
-
It's cliché even minus the illegal immigrants part. The whole "welfare-promotes-laziness" diatribe is one of the most rancid piles of sophistry still being vomited out of America's mythology of self-sufficiency.
-
@Mefustae
I never referred to illegal immigrants causing problems, I said who welfare is being given to. My immediate family is well off (parents) the rest of my family is poorer than ****. And illegal immigrants are very, very common where I live, and while I don't have anything against the people themselves, I'm sick of the reverse discrimination. If I were to break the same laws that they do, I would go to prison, not offered money and amnesty.
@Ford Prefect
Like Mefustae you are jumping to conclusions. I am not trying to preach about how not having welfare would make people less lazy, it won't. I'm merely saying that I don't want my money, that I worked hard for, to pay for them to be lazy. I'm saying that the program sucks.
-
@Mefustae
I never referred to illegal immigrants causing problems, I said who welfare is being given to. My immediate family is well off (parents) the rest of my family is poorer than ****. And illegal immigrants are very, very common where I live, and while I don't have anything against the people themselves, I'm sick of the reverse discrimination. If I were to break the same laws that they do, I would go to prison, not offered money and amnesty.
But you're still moaning in regards to illegal immigrants. That compromises your argument right there. Nobody is trying to call you one of those dip****s who are totally convinced that immigrants wait in the bushes to steal a white man's job as he walks by, but the mere fact that you're bemoaning your situation with heavy references to illegal immigrants just robs you of all credibility from the outset.
And reverse racism, well, i'm not touching that with a 10-foot clown pole.
-
That makes no sense at all.
Does it need to?
Maybe, maybe not. People don't really have to make much sense; but generally it's the people who act with some kind of planning and control and rationality that rise over those who don't, which is a source of continual hostility for the people who are passionate and who do care. The USGov is hardly a pack of staunch nationalists with mob mentality, there's a lot of careful manipulation and planning that goes on (not even including mass conspiracy theories).
The private sector has as much, if not more, to lose by the US economy taking a dive than the ordinary citizens. Hell, of all the classes I've been to, the only one where the professor seemed most concerned about international affairs as they pertain to the national economy was one on business.
If the dollar tanks, so does the value of every single business that's tied to the dollar.
Of course it does have a lot to lose. But the way I see it, the private sector entities are what have caused the current economical criseling, and the government has allowed it to do so.
The ability for long term planning is apparently not the forte of people who are concerned with short term profit, and I think that's what we're mainly looking at. Whether it's the government feeling obliged to try and keep the private sector running, or the private sector runnign the government, I'm not certain. Whatever it is, they're not doing a good job about it.
Meh, I'm not an economics expert. But to me it just looks like the US government has not had either wits or will to set up sustainable rules to the private sector and has resorted to respirating it by importing capita more and more from abroad, which essentially has increased the federal debt to the point that the US is - quite literally - owned by the world.
Of course, other shortcomings of said government - such as tossing said money back to abroad without getting nothing noteworthy back (like in cases of Afghanistan and Iraq) - and in general using it to stupid things in public sector is a different thing. The sub-prime crisis, though, is mostly private sector problem and it's full impact remains to be seen. That's yet another can of worms... :rolleyes:
Q: By private sector, do you mean businesses as a whole?
The problem I have with blaming so much on business is that the businesses which have the unfair amounts of power are also the ones who have the greatest stake and resources in keeping the state stable. Microsoft, for instance, has nothing to gain if the US goes under and a company from China (or India or Japan) establishes dominant share in the software market. Same for any company in GB or the rest of Europe, for that matter.
The people who don't have the resources are the people that usually get the underdog support. The small businesses, the groups of mob protestors, and so on and so forth. Those are the people who lack the capacity for understanding the big picture and the consequences of their actions, if for no other reason other than their inability to allocate as much resources to researching them as larger corporations.
For instance, there was a protest called "UC Nuclear Free" that called for the University of California to end its involvement with the US nuclear weapons program. The UC did end its involvement, and as a consequence, sole control of the labs was handed over to Bechtel and a few other private corporations. To, them, I suppose it was a success. To me, it seems like a complete failure for anyone who believes that there's anything wrong with nuclear weapons, or that there should be any accountability whatsoever, as the UC is, at least, a public institution. Who really won out in that situation? The students, who gave up any semblance of control out of moral outrage, or Bechtel, which (according to wikipedia) gains a near-monopoly on US nuclear weapons production?
And arms companies probably have the most to lose of any corporation, save for the fact that they would be highly prized in any kind of collapse. Obviously the US government is going to be highly critical of who's building the weapons that go into its armies, and isn't going to let them have any close ties with a country that it might consider subversive.
-
@Mefustae
I never referred to illegal immigrants causing problems, I said who welfare is being given to. My immediate family is well off (parents) the rest of my family is poorer than ****. And illegal immigrants are very, very common where I live, and while I don't have anything against the people themselves, I'm sick of the reverse discrimination. If I were to break the same laws that they do, I would go to prison, not offered money and amnesty.
But you're still moaning in regards to illegal immigrants. That compromises your argument right there. Nobody is trying to call you one of those dip****s who are totally convinced that immigrants wait in the bushes to steal a white man's job as he walks by, but the mere fact that you're bemoaning your situation with heavy references to illegal immigrants just robs you of all credibility from the outset.
And reverse racism, well, i'm not touching that with a 10-foot clown pole.
I agree that hearing about immigration issues must be tiring for somone who lives on an island half way around the world, but it is areal, everyday issue where I live. And again, I am not moaning about what they may or may not do, I just don't want to have to pay for it.
-
Like Mefustae you are jumping to conclusions. I am not trying to preach about how not having welfare would make people less lazy, it won't. I'm merely saying that I don't want my money, that I worked hard for, to pay for them to be lazy. I'm saying that the program sucks.
And? That's exactly what I thought you were saying.
-
Like Mefustae you are jumping to conclusions. I am not trying to preach about how not having welfare would make people less lazy, it won't. I'm merely saying that I don't want my money, that I worked hard for, to pay for them to be lazy. I'm saying that the program sucks.
And? That's exactly what I thought you were saying.
In that case, you're quite a bit stupider than I thought. First that is not what you said in your post, so you must be a little bit confused. Secondly, why would you want to pay for a program to help other people, when there is no one willing to give money to help you? I bet you feel really altruistic when you think about your tax money going to welfare...
Edit: Since I guess I'm not allowed to post my opinion because it's not bashing the military or corporate America, I am quite done with this friendly little conversation.
-
Holding a controversial opinion doesn't (usually) get you moderated, but calling people stupid does.
I for one don't really care if you want to keep on arguing your side or not, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't see any reason that you shouldn't be allowed to post it.
-
well if he wants a job as a gardener in phoenix, working outdoors at 100+ degrees 10 hours a day, i dont see what the problem is. so long as you offer to work for the same $4 an hour the mexican did, you would get the job. i personally wouldn't want to work for anyone who would hire immigrants so as to avoid paying a minimum legal wage, to skimp on proper work conditions, and to allow a person to collect money tax free. i say let em work, through use of foreign employee programs, let them earn a proper wage, and make them pay taxes.
these illegal immigrants come here to work for people who pay less than minimum wage, jobs which are not legit in any way. there are those who exploit as well. these people are working hard and its true they export most of that money, but one must also consider the benefit of the work done to society as well.
im not sure what the current state of welfare is. i know my mom managed to live all her life without working. collecting welfare as long as she could, then later getting on disability. i view her as a leach on the system. then again one must blame the system for allowing such a thing to happen. there are also women who's life plans include getting knocked up and using the kids as an excuse not to work (while at the same time screwing up the kids life by being poor and posing a bad roll model). welfare should be a hand up, not a hand out, or so they say. there should be filters in place to keep people looking for a free ride out of the system.
-
It's cliché even minus the illegal immigrants part. The whole "welfare-promotes-laziness" diatribe is one of the most rancid piles of sophistry still being vomited out of America's mythology of self-sufficiency.
If it doesn't promote laziness, what does the American system, in its current state, promote?
Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I want some real input.
-
Welfare done right doesn't promote laziness. Just handing out money to unemployed without asking anything in return is a different story, for example.
Around here, as an example, being on welfare is actually rather hard work - If you're fit to work, you are required to apply for a certain number of jobs every month until you get one in order to keep recieving money. And if you don't show up for any job interviews you're granted, you lose out as well. Additionally, you have to be part of a national database of jobseekers which is used by a number of local job centres to match unemployed people with free jobs, and if you get offered a job through that you have no choice but to accept it or lose unemployment benefits, meaning you're really better off doing a good job at job hunting and finding one you actually like (or at least don't utterly detest).
The caveat here is that such a system only works if there are plenty jobs to go around, as you can't really punish people for not finding jobs if there aren't any to find. The other side of this rather tough policy is that, for people who want to work but have disabilities or are just plain too old to keep up, people who would normally be out of favour with employers, the state will actually sponsor them in jobs by paying part of their wages. This is actually a win/win/win situation - People who want to work can get work even if they're not 'ideal', employers can get work at a relatively low cost, and the state saves money too as it only pays part of a wage instead of full benefits and even gets some taxes back. But again, it only works if there are jobs to be had.
-
Edit: Since I guess I'm not allowed to post my opinion because it's not bashing the military or corporate America, I am quite done with this friendly little conversation.
ZOLTAN! COME BACK!
I agree with your ideas, although the military is a bit fat some places
-
Edit: Since I guess I'm not allowed to post my opinion because it's not bashing the military or corporate America, I am quite done with this friendly little conversation.
ZOLTAN! COME BACK!
I agree with your ideas, although the military is a bit fat some places
Zoltan appears to believe than any and all disagreement with his opinion equals staunch oppression of everything he holds dear, I don't think he's going to come back unless we all vote Republican.
-
He wont come back until we all agree with him 100%. :p
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/cityboyredneck15/redneck/world-map.gif)
-
Okay, okay, steady on. We've had our fun. There's a fine line between taking the piss out of overly-sensitive Americans and actually being anti-American. Let's step back a little, eh? :p
-
i love America, i just hate Americans (i am allowed to say this without being discriminatory because in American, sort of) :D
-
Kosh... that map...
looks similar to the ones my parents grew up with during the cold war.
we have a new one now! :nod:
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn39/fearless_leader_24_7/world-map2008.gif)
I couldnt find one that shows out sourcing, but imagine many arrows drawn to china and mexico
-
Thought I would emulate the American high school tradition of having obsolete maps. :p
-
Edit: Since I guess I'm not allowed to post my opinion because it's not bashing the military or corporate America, I am quite done with this friendly little conversation.
ZOLTAN! COME BACK!
I agree with your ideas, although the military is a bit fat some places
Zoltan appears to believe than any and all disagreement with his opinion equals staunch oppression of everything he holds dear, I don't think he's going to come back unless we all vote Republican.
I'm back, against my better judgement...
I did fly over the handle a bit, and for that I apologize. In all fairness though, you (and Ford Prefect) were not disagreeing with my opinion; I would have been fine with that. You both stated that my opinion was a cliché and that it was fallacious in nature, without providing your opinion on why it is so. It is very funny that you would both point this out, because this topic is one giant cliché.
I am certainly not a Republican, I'm an independent. The parties are, in my mind equally terrible. And Mefustae, if you are so tired of hearing about American issues, why did you read (and subsequently post) in a thread about them?
-
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/217358
:nervous: