[Kosh]

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?

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[Colonol Dekker]

Scrap the armed forces and hire. . . . .The A team.

[TrashMan]

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.

[Wobble73]

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!

[Rictor]

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.

[redsniper]

1. Attach turbines to founding fathers spinning in their graves.
2. Solve energy crisis.
3. ?????
4. Profit.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[Roanoke]

Is this the US Budget ? 'cos the Uk had a budget recently too.....

[Rictor]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[Fearless Leader]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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.

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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.

[Zoltan]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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...

[Mefustae]

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.