United States of America

[Spaf]

United States of America


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


http://www.usatoday.com/

[Spaf]

The Federal Reserve Board
aka
Federal Open Market Committee [FOMC]

< Link >
http://www.federalreserve.gov/FOMC/

[grandma]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003082509_navy24.html

[grandma]

Can the whole of the owners/publisher/editors/writers be charged with Treason?

http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/articles.showarticle.db.php?intArticleID=960
http://tinyurl.com/hocdf

[Mike]

I doubt they'll prosecute. I think they should but they won't.

[Spaf]

Famous quotes!

[Spaf]

Top Level Advice!

[Spaf]

Internally!......How are we doing on our war against terrorism.........:confused:

[grandma]

GOOD MORNING,

WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have
learned to speak English.
:p ;) :p :cheesy:

[Spaf]

Army shuns system to combat RPGs
:confused:

Experts agree it might help save lives, so why isn’t it in the field?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14686871/

[rokid]

Not Invented Here Syndrome.

No contracts for congressional districts and no promotions. What's to like?:notrust:

[Spaf]

Government shuns Soldiers
[See post above!!]

RPG (rocket propelled grenades) are still killing soldiers! Yet RPGs are not NEW! We have an old problem that has been somewhat solved with the technology available. Israel is using it, but we are not.

NBC News investigation finds contractor enjoyed competitive advantage
See >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14704366/from/RS.2/

Why is it taken so long?

Attached is a photograph of the planes we flew in Vietnam that were hit by RPGs way back in 1969. Like 37 years ago!
O1-G hit in elevator by RPG, documented Jan. 1969, Dak To, RVN. Aircraft US Army 0-14576. Try and land that sucker! Well we did!


http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/Spaf/RPGRVNJan69.gif

[mlk_man]

That article really upsets me and makes me ashamed to work for the govt. :(

[JOVARN]

And they said this would not be another Vietnam.

[Birchtree]

For crissakes Iraq is not Vietnam - you will not have a casualty count of more than 52,000 dead. We are still less than 3,000. I have a daughter presently serving in Kirkuk - and she qualified expert marksman. Pity the poor rag heads that get in her way.

[rokid]

I wish her the best.-----Rokid

[JOVARN]

For crissakes Iraq is not Vietnam - you will not have a casualty count of more than 52,000 dead. We are still less than 3,000. I have a daughter presently serving in Kirkuk - and she qualified expert marksman. Pity the poor rag heads that get in her way.

Its not the body count.... Should have never got involved.
Lost total control.
stayed to long

What makes this different is that we will never buy tee shirts made in IRAQ

[Spaf]

USS New York


http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/ussnewyork.asp

[Quips]

It is curious how some of our past presidents are called names for advocating, in essence, pay as you go policies concerning US government expenditures. Presidents like Carter and Clinton -- the latter who actually presided over the last fiscal surpluses in decades.

Since these two presidents the US government has gone into the TRILLONS of dollars into debt to those nations and their institutions who cannot be counted on as friends and who may simply take whatever advantage they can should the opportunity present itself.

We can thank presidents Reagan and the current one and the political party of "family values" for accelerating that process.

[Birchtree]

I'll be one of the multi-millions that will thank them for a fine job. They stand straight and true.

[nnuut]

Oh, about Presidents like Carter and Clinton, I don't really want to go into what I think about these two, but Mr. Bush inherited their problems and the economy turned to shiest. I purposely went to the poles to vote against these two, no matter who they were running against need I say more?:mad:

[Birchtree]

I think you said enough for both of us. After the Clinton fall from grace I was relieved - I was completely exhausted after his eight years. He and his wife were so corrupt and nothing has changed. I hope she runs so she can be soundly flagelated. Poor Vince Foster.

[Quips]

Typical of the Party of Family values to blame others for the country's problems and to accept no responsibility for the the challenges facing the country.

The Family Value's party is good for passing the buck.

However, pay as you go is a definate policy that Clinton and Carter pursued, and they did not rely on those whose best interests are not those of America's to finance -- through bonds and loans -- its departments and agencies.

[Birchtree]

Yes Clinton did pay as he went - even getting money from the Chinese, and renting out White House bedrooms, and proping up Saudi tents. He could really shake'em down. I often wonder what Sandy was stealing from the archives - trying to cover something up. Bill is the only guy I know who could successfully suck start my Ducati.

[Quips]

Facts are Birch, the national debt has exploded under the Family Values Party ... it has gone up exponentially.
Rather than paying as we go, America has maxxed out on debt.

The true cost of our system and lifestyle would be better measured by paying as we go. Both Clinton and Carter advocated such policies.

The giant debt load America has taken on simply masks reality; it address the symptoms and not the disease. Atleast higher taxes -- or paying as one goes -- reflects the true costs. It may be bitter medicine, but it is what it is.

A 9 or 10 trillion dollar debt -- and that held by those who hardly share American values -- it a problem waiting to happen.

It is funny: the Fed is holding monetary growth to a minimum, but what would happen if certain debt holders called in their loans? Either interest rates would go sky high and growth stopped in its tracks, or inflation would go sky high and dollars would be worth much less.

That is the conundrum ... lol.

I can see a future where some Americans will choose to retire overseas ... like an exodus.

[Quips]

Maybe immigration and "undocumented" aliens could be given a deal: if the head of the household would serve six years in any branch and capacity of the armed services, they and their family could become citizens.

I kind of like that.

[Birchtree]

What'a the best thing that can happen? Remember a few months ago when the North Koreans tried to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile and it blew up 20 seconds off the pad. Well wouldn't it be swell if their nuclear bomb blew up in their own back yard - that would be swell.

I actually know three sets of retired couples that have retired to Costa Rica and they just love the value of the dollar. Most are ex-military so they don't worry too much about the local banditos. That land down there is so lush.

[Quips]

Um, I see some of that at work myself: Americans retiring in Central and South America. Recently one guy was telling me about his retirement in Cochabama, Boliva. So I looked it up on Google earth: What a surprise!

Problem is that, like it or not, taxes are a good indicator of a nation's fiscal policy. Recently the NY Times had an article about the slowdown in real estate, how some depreciation has occured in some markets, and how their financing and payments are now eclipsing the current value of their property: negative amortization. LOL

I don't think it would happen in the USA as a whole (maybe for its currency?), but I can see the country selling off assets. It is already being done with the highway infrastructure.

I'm not a big proponent of debt -- mortgaging the future.

Most, if not all politicians in Washington are seeking only to be re-elected and are not willing to make unpopular decisions. I suppose it is all about power and prestige. Tax and spend is nowhere to be, but I think "charge and spend" is more insidious since the payment is deferred for another time and it is not a good thing to be in debt to those who may be be looking out for our best interests.

Chances are the future will hold both tax increases and benefit cuts and/or greater co-pays and greater user fees. That is when more of an exodus of Americans to other lands will occur. There will be a squeeze. It would be wise for anybody to make plans concering their income and taxes NOW.

[Quips]

A Social Security Liquidation Sale
by Gary Jason

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/jason1.html


DIGG THIS

It is obvious to everyone (except those completely blinded by liberalism) that Social Security in particular and entitlement spending in general is headed off a fiscal cliff. Our national debt stands at $7 trillion (give or take a few hundred billion dollars), and there is $10 trillion in unfunded Social Security liability. I won’t even mention the Medicare obligations, and such "minor" fiscal pits such as the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, dicey Fannie Mae loans, and such like. I have seen truly frightening estimates that current "obligations" may be upwards of $40 trillion in all.

Now, faced with a huge debt load brought about by promiscuous spending, the average Joe or Josephine will declare bankruptcy and liquidate assets. While I don’t suggest that Uncle Sam declare bankruptcy, I do want to suggest that we look closely at the option of selling off assets. In the current discussions covered in the press on the issue of social security reform, I have heard every other proposal put forward but the one I am proposing. Some have suggested a dramatic lowering of benefits, while others – including to my dismay an ordinarily rather fiscally respectable Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) – have proposed jacking up payroll taxes, and still others have suggested "means testing" social security – which means telling (say) the wealthiest one-third of the populace that every nickel ever forcibly extracted from them as contribution to what was (and is) claimed to be an "absolutely secure" retirement system is being flat-out confiscated. (This is what happens when a Ponzi scheme collapses: many of the later investors eat it, while the earlier investors just laugh). But – again – nobody, Democrat or Republican, has explored the route all private individuals in a similar self-induced pickle would be forced to take, to wit, the liquidation of assets.

You, the reader, might wonder to which Federal assets I refer. I don’t have in mind the gold in Fort Knox – there is only about $100 billion of the shiny stuff, a laughable pittance compared to the near $20 trillion we owe. No, I have in mind two major assets: Federally owned companies and land.

Take the first. The Federal government owns among other things power facilities. We should look at selling off any and all of them. The original rationale for owning such utilities has obviously faded since the 1930s. We don’t need to target the rural South for electrification and development: the South has risen again, economically speaking. And the worry that private power companies would act monopolistically if we had no publicly owned utilities is belied by our current experience with private utilities. Moreover, the option of additional Federal regulation is always available. But I wouldn’t stop there. Amtrak (the National Railroad Passenger Corporation) is possibly saleable. Indeed, I would even look at privatizing the U. S. Postal Service – the parcel post portion of the business would be quite attractive to UPS or Fed Ex.

More importantly, there is land. The Federal government currently owns about 30% of all land in the U.S. It owns roughly 81% of Alaska, 42% of Arizona, 45% of California, 30% of Colorado, 60% of Idaho, 30% of Montana, 80% of Nevada, 33% of New Mexico, 52% of Oregon, 60% of Utah, 30% of Washington State, and 47% of Wyoming. (Even in the remaining states, in which the Feds own less than 10% of the land, we are talking about a huge amount of property). Now, a lot of this land is directly tied to the Defense Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park System. I am not suggesting selling National Parks, military bases or Indian reservations, of course. But there is a huge amount of other land that could be sold, and since a lot of it is in states that are white hot from the real estate perspective – Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington State and Idaho in particular have all seen residential and commercial real estate values rocket up – sales of large chunks of land should bring in enormous revenue.

Now, selling off almost all unused Federal land would offend violently those of Greenish hue. The whole environmentalist focus over the last few decades has been in the opposite direction of what I am proposing (viz., Uncle Sam selling off his unused land). The enviros have been working hard – with, alas, considerable success – to take or tie up privately owned land without compensating the owners. So we can expect a battle royal. But by educating the public about how horribly the Feds have screwed up financially, about, that is, how profoundly in debt we really are, we may succeed in getting public support for selling the unused land.

If you think that my modest suggestion of paying down national debt by systematically selling off national assets is totally outr&#233;, you might reflect upon the recent announcement by the Japanese government that they are contemplating selling their $7 billion stake in the Central Japan Railway company as part of a large-scale sale of their assets to pay down their national debt (which is no less daunting than our own). This involves looking also at selling their holdings in other railway companies, as well as their holdings in the Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corporation.

There would be several side benefits to such an asset sale. First, as the lands get sold, they would be developed, creating more businesses and more jobs. This would in turn add a lot to the tax base, increasing tax revenues at all levels of government. Second, by selling off Federally owned corporations, the large ongoing Federal subsidies would be ended, helping bring down the grotesque level of government spending.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a massive sell-off of Federal assets would concentrate people’s minds wonderfully regarding the virtue of fiscal responsibility. We might be able to privatize Social Security altogether (for those who choose freely to do so), and – if you will excuse me for dreaming here a bit – finally pass a balanced budget amendment. It might go like this: we set up a commission (say, of all living American Nobel laureate economists who would volunteer to serve) to identify all Federal assets that should be sold, and as they are sold, use the money to pay back (on a first come, first served basis) any person who wants to elect out of the Social Security system, returning to each person every nickel they have ever contributed (including the employer contributions).

October 10, 2006

Gary Jason [send him mail] is a writer, businessman and philosophy instructor in San Clemente, CA.

[rokid]

If we want to cut expenditures, we should start with the Iraqi War which is costing us between $6-9B per month. The Defense Department could also use a haircut. We spend 6X as much as China on defense - $518B vs. $81.5B. China is second in the world in total defense spending. Source: CIA World Factbook.

I notice Mr. Jason didn't mention how much revenue would be realized from the sale of U.S. assets. However, I did notice he mentioned "Sale". As a businessman he should know that dumping a lot of assets on the market will depress the price received (supply and demand). In addition, who would buy these assets? U.S. citizens or foreigners? Do we care?

Finally, I haven't noticed that this Congress or this Administration is at all worried about deficits. Any asset sales would probably be used to fund yet another round of tax cuts - further robbing our children and their children.:mad:

[coach222]

So, what are the solutions?

Too few Americans vote (51% of eligible voters cast a presidential ballot in 2000 - one of the largest turn-outs ever) and when they do, they aren't willing to cut social welfare programs.

Politicians (any party) will never serve any interest but their own. As long as they create the appearance they are serving their constituents - what can you do for me today - they will continue to spend without bounds and legislate for the lobbyists who pay for access.

Tax cuts, tax increases, what difference does it make?
- Americans are NOT entitled to subsidized health care
- Americans are NOT entitled to a guaranteed retirement
- Americans are NOT entitled to handouts of ANY public money
None of these are listed anywhere in the Constitution or its amendments. I am not against some social welfare, however, our system has become excessive. Furthermore, tax cuts at one government level are made up by increases in another. For example, property tax cuts at state levels have been offset by excessive appraisals at county levels.

Robbing from our children? Too many people are worried about what handouts they will lose to be concerned about the impact on future generations.

Somewhere along the line, we (yes, WE) got lazy and decided that increasing public handouts and larger government was the way go. Life got too easy.

Am I an extremist? Maybe. But, I don't believe anything short of government bankruptcy or another depression and a loss of all public entitlements will provide the opportunity for Americans to re-learn that it was hard work, self-reliance, and a "can do" attitude that made us a great country in the first place.

We are definitely on the downhill side of a peak of greatness. Unfortunately, I don't see enough people willing to do anything about it.

So, what are the solutions?

[rokid]

So, what are the solutions?

Some suggestions:

1. Get out of Iraq. Don't even think about invading Iran or North Korea.
2. Cut the defense budget.
3. Eliminate outsourcing subsidies to corporations.
4. Repeal tax cuts for the rich - including the "death tax". The rich benefit more from government, so they should pay more - much more.
5. Tax religious organizations. Why shouldn't they pay their way?
6. Don't use Social Security revenues to subsidize the general budget (put them in a "lock box").
7. Eliminate farm subsidies. In fact, eliminate all corporate subsidies.
8. Increase gasoline taxes to raise revenue and discourage the wasteful use of oil.
9. Criminalize the use of illegal immigrant labor, i.e. avoiding the payment of income and SS taxes.
10. Require corporations to pay SS for outsourced labor.
11. Don't bail corporations out of the promises they made to employees - pension and health care. GM should have accounted for those costs back in the 1960s and 1970s. They didn't, so their shareholders should suffer - not the tax payers, i.e. corporate and shareholder accountability.

Eliminating SS is a non-starter. Baby boomers vote. Unless we eliminate old people, someone will have to pay for their care - society or family. No free lunch!:p

[coach222]

Of course, all of those are great suggestions on what needs to be done.

However, what I'm looking for are ways to accomplish them.

And, eliminating SS is a starter. The biggest problem Americans have is the loss of a sense of self-reliance. Old, sick, retired - that is a family and individual responsibility, not the government or the taxpayer.

Medicare and Social Security are the largest liabilities facing taxpayers. Where are the people willing to forego those entitlements and rely on themselves?

Another starter is eliminating most of the federal civil service system including reduction of DoD. There are too many excesses in both. Where are the people willing to give up these jobs and generate employment that creates wealth rather than redistributes it?

But, none of this matters if the legislators more concerned with lining their own pockets will not step up to the plate and get it done. The party or political affiliation doesn't matter. Where are the LEADERS who can sell the necessary changes to their constituencies?

So, once again, HOW do these things get accomplished? Where are the people that are willing to make the sacrifices neccessary? Taxing businesses and corporations won't work - they pass these costs to their customers. Furthermore, if the cost of doing business in the US becomes to high, they will do business elsewhere...wait, that's already happening!

As I said before, unfortunately, I don't see enough people willing to do anything about it.

[rokid]

You might want to read what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has to say about the issue:

The Financial Outlook for Social Security

Social Security is currently running an annual surplus. In 2003, total outlays (benefits plus administrative costs) equaled 4.4 percent of GDP, whereas dedicated revenues (Social Security payroll taxes and the income taxes that some recipients pay on their benefits) equaled 5.0 percent of GDP. CBO projects that at the end of the century, revenues will equal nearly 5 percent of GDP, about the same as today (see Summary Figure 1 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=1#summaryfigure1)). Outlays, by contrast, will increase substantially in the near future with the retirement of the baby-boom generation. Annual spending will outstrip annual revenues starting in 2019 and will reach 6.1 percent of GDP in 2030--nearly 40 percent higher than in 2003. With life expectancy continuing to increase, outlays are projected to keep growing thereafter: to 6.3 percent of GDP in 2050 and nearly 7 percent of GDP in 2100. CBO's projection of a widening gap between outlays and revenues is consistent with other analyses of the outlook for Social Security. That gap is the key economic indication of the shortfall between the program's spending commitments and dedicated revenues.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0

So Social Security benefits will consume 7% of GDP in 2100? That sounds doable.

The alternative, is to repudiate 50 years of SS promises and throw old people on the mercy of families and local governments. That's the way it used to didn't work - why do you think we have SS? However, the cost, no matter how you slice and dice it, will probably close to 7% of GDP. No free lunch.

I'd say our greatest problem as a country is the cult of individualism and our loss of sense of community. Survivors of the Depression and of WWII know that luck, and connections, play a BIG role in individual success. Bill Gates, whose father was a prominent lawyer, dropped out of Harvard, not Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC). In addition, true patriotism would suggest that we care for all of our citizens. What is love of country, love of some piece of land?

Finally, if corporations want to leave the country because they're asked to pay their fair share, I say let'um go. However, they're not going anywhere. The U.S. is the biggest market in the world. Our taxes are the lowest of any developed country. In addition, we have a robust physical and governmental infrastructure conducive to supporting corporate growth (roads, telecommunications, education) and to protecting corporate and individual property rights and profits (federal, state, and local governments).

[nnuut]

You might want to read what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has to say about the issue:

The Financial Outlook for Social Security

Social Security is currently running an annual surplus. In 2003, total outlays (benefits plus administrative costs) equaled 4.4 percent of GDP, whereas dedicated revenues (Social Security payroll taxes and the income taxes that some recipients pay on their benefits) equaled 5.0 percent of GDP. CBO projects that at the end of the century, revenues will equal nearly 5 percent of GDP, about the same as today (see Summary Figure 1 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=1#summaryfigure1)). Outlays, by contrast, will increase substantially in the near future with the retirement of the baby-boom generation. Annual spending will outstrip annual revenues starting in 2019 and will reach 6.1 percent of GDP in 2030--nearly 40 percent higher than in 2003. With life expectancy continuing to increase, outlays are projected to keep growing thereafter: to 6.3 percent of GDP in 2050 and nearly 7 percent of GDP in 2100. CBO's projection of a widening gap between outlays and revenues is consistent with other analyses of the outlook for Social Security. That gap is the key economic indication of the shortfall between the program's spending commitments and dedicated revenues.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0

So Social Security benefits will consume 7% of GDP in 2100? That sounds doable.

The alternative, is to repudiate 50 years of SS promises and throw old people on the mercy of families and local governments. That's the way it used to didn't work - why do you think we have SS? However, the cost, no matter how you slice and dice it, will probably close to 7% of GDP. No free lunch.

I'd say our greatest problem as a country is the cult of individualism and our loss of sense of community. Survivors of the Depression and of WWII know that luck, and connections, play a BIG role in individual success. Bill Gates, whose father was a prominent lawyer, dropped out of Harvard, not Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC). In addition, true patriotism would suggest that we care for all of our citizens. What is love of country, love of some piece of land?

Finally, if corporations want to leave the country because they're asked to pay their fair share, I say let'um go. However, they're not going anywhere. The U.S. is the biggest market in the world. Our taxes are the lowest of any developed country. In addition, we have a robust physical and governmental infrastructure conducive to supporting corporate growth (roads, telecommunications, education) and to protecting corporate and individual property rights and profits (federal, state, and local governments).
BRAVO! I''m definitely with you 100% on this one Rokid!! :D :nuts:

[ebbnflow]

This grandfather has a report on everything about the government. Taxes, Social Security, national debt... :D

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debt_b.htm
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/soc_sec.htm

[coach222]

You might want to read what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has to say about the issue:

The Financial Outlook for Social Security

Social Security is currently running an annual surplus. In 2003, total outlays (benefits plus administrative costs) equaled 4.4 percent of GDP, whereas dedicated revenues (Social Security payroll taxes and the income taxes that some recipients pay on their benefits) equaled 5.0 percent of GDP. CBO projects that at the end of the century, revenues will equal nearly 5 percent of GDP, about the same as today (see Summary Figure 1 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=1#summaryfigure1)). Outlays, by contrast, will increase substantially in the near future with the retirement of the baby-boom generation. Annual spending will outstrip annual revenues starting in 2019 and will reach 6.1 percent of GDP in 2030--nearly 40 percent higher than in 2003. With life expectancy continuing to increase, outlays are projected to keep growing thereafter: to 6.3 percent of GDP in 2050 and nearly 7 percent of GDP in 2100. CBO's projection of a widening gap between outlays and revenues is consistent with other analyses of the outlook for Social Security. That gap is the key economic indication of the shortfall between the program's spending commitments and dedicated revenues.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=0

So Social Security benefits will consume 7% of GDP in 2100? That sounds doable.

The alternative, is to repudiate 50 years of SS promises and throw old people on the mercy of families and local governments. That's the way it used to didn't work - why do you think we have SS? However, the cost, no matter how you slice and dice it, will probably close to 7% of GDP. No free lunch.

I'd say our greatest problem as a country is the cult of individualism and our loss of sense of community. Survivors of the Depression and of WWII know that luck, and connections, play a BIG role in individual success. Bill Gates, whose father was a prominent lawyer, dropped out of Harvard, not Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC). In addition, true patriotism would suggest that we care for all of our citizens. What is love of country, love of some piece of land?

Finally, if corporations want to leave the country because they're asked to pay their fair share, I say let'um go. However, they're not going anywhere. The U.S. is the biggest market in the world. Our taxes are the lowest of any developed country. In addition, we have a robust physical and governmental infrastructure conducive to supporting corporate growth (roads, telecommunications, education) and to protecting corporate and individual property rights and profits (federal, state, and local governments).


I'm not interested in eliminating Social Security. That seems to be your concern. But it needs to revert to the INSURANCE program (like it was supposed to be), at a fixed FICA rate (that has been increased 14 times to eliminate deficits - and will have to increase again to fund future requirements), in a trust fund that is not a government IOU and cannot be touched by Congress (but is raided continually).

All the CBO assumptions you present are correct. As long as foreign countries continue to finance our debt. But, if foreign countries stop playing our game (China, for instance - yuan tied to the dollar), all those CBO numbers are worthless.

Maybe the problem is financial education. Too many trust the government is going to take care of them. If the CBO says something, it must be true. The problem is, what the CBO says is true UNDER CERTAIN, LIMITED CONDITIONS that they didn't mention. However, I'll let you do the research on national debt, money supply, foreign investment, and artificial interest rates. For starters, try fiat money and what the requirements are to maintain its value.

Sure, the government should step in during a poor economy. But, social welfare programs created during that economic weakness need to be eliminated after the problem has passed.

Unfortunately, SS is only ONE (VERY SMALL) piece of the problem that few are willing to address. Not only does the federal budget need to be balanced, but also the principal of the national debt needs to be eliminated. This will require tough choices, sacrifices, and leaders.

DoD, civil service, and subsidies all need to be reduced or eliminated. Who is going to accomplish this?

Thanks for verifying my point, though. No one (or very few) are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to correct the imbalances. Without fixing the problem now, your SS may be worthless anyway. And, if not yours, your children's or those who will really need it.

Once again, where are the leaders that will stop spending more money than they collect? Who is going to eliminate unfounded subsidies? Who is going to reduce the bloated civil service programs? Who is going to stand up and make a difference?

[coach222]

ebbnflow

Thanks for the links. I haven't seen that site before.

I will be spending (goofing off) the rest of the day reading it!

Eric

[ebbnflow]

You're welcome, Eric! :)

[rokid]

I'm not interested in eliminating Social Security. That seems to be your concern.

If your beef is balancing the budget, I'm for it! Politicians showing leadership? I'm with you. Goring my ox, no way! :cheesy:

[vic]

I think they should do away with social security and replace it with TSP. If every one in the country had t TSP acount they would learn how to better manage their money. The economy would grow and we would all benifit from the process. The gov't wants social security so they can play with the money.

[mayday]

I think they should do away with social security and replace it with TSP. If every one in the country had t TSP acount they would learn how to better manage their money. The economy would grow and we would all benifit from the process. The gov't wants social security so they can play with the money.

Socialism wants to take care of you. Give me your money so you wo'nt spend it. We're smarter then you we can save it. Let me spend it I'll take care of you. Sounds more like communism. Yet it is the only retirement some people have and it's in the hands of theives who spend every dime of it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He who has the gold makes the rules.

[Show-me]

And I'll add that hunger and necessity are great motivators. Motivates me.


Socialism wants to take care of you. Give me your money so you wo'nt spend it. We're smarter then you we can save it. Let me spend it I'll take care of you. Sounds more like communism. Yet it is the only retirement some people have and it's in the hands of theives who spend every dime of it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He who has the gold makes the rules.

[Quips]

Funding For War, Social Security, Medicare: Pick Any Two of These Three

by Bill Sardi
by Bill Sardi


DIGG THIS

The day is coming when there will be no money to fight wars, unless there are severe cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security.

After I wrote an article for Lew Rockwell showing that the U.S. military budget is far greater than what the public is allowed to see (the government’s pie chart is shown herein, depicting only 16% of the nation’s annual budget involves the cost of war and defense), the Pentagon made an urgent request for an additional $40.6 billion to fulfill commitments in Iraq and elsewhere (an increase from $98.2 to $138.8 billion extra).

Military/defense spending accounts for more than 50% of the current U.S. budget, not 16% as the government says.

Recently the army made it sound like it couldn’t continue fighting the war in Iraq and meet other defense commitments (e.g. Korea) around the world without additional billions. In order to get this money, anticipate some saber rattling somewhere in the world (e.g. "shots fired at Korean DMZ") to shake more money from the tree. The army also says it needs an additional $8+ billion next year for equipment repairs.

However, a report in the Los Angeles Times points out that "a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, but rather to new weapons it wants – particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has." [LA Times Sept. 25, 2006]

One chart shown herein depicts the U.S. Budget as the Federal government portrays it, and the other chart more like the way it really is (figures are in billions). The U.S. spends more than $1 trillion a year in past and present war/defense debts and obligations. Much of this is hidden in budgets of other Federal departments than the Pentagon or is simply "off budget spending."

How much more will US citizens permit to be spent for war? With Medicare headed for an impending bankruptcy relatively soon and Social Security under-funded in its future commitments, something will have to give. Cutbacks in Social Security or Medicare will likely be at the cost of putting more money in the Pentagon’s coffers. Does the public recognize their future is being marginalized by war mongering?

If there were a cutback of let’s say 30% of the war budget, there would be squawking from hawkish veterans and former generals that the U.S. can’t afford to cut back on its military obligations. But the country is obviously squeezed financially because of its overly-fat defense budget. It cannot hold up all three of its biggest financial outlays – war, social security and Medicare. The nation will not be able to compete against growing economies (e.g. China) if it continues in this manner.

As I pointed out in my previous LR column, some hawkish writers have even gone so far as to suggest that Social Security is "crowding out" defense spending, and even the Heritage Foundation that addresses budget issues very realistically, has openly stated that "entitlements" threaten defense spending. In other words, the government shouldn’t have to live up to its commitments to its citizens because of the need to fight more winless wars.

Unless some unexpected epidemic disease shortens many retirees’ lives before they can tap into Medicare and Social Security, there will certainly be a meltdown. Why, all that would be needed is a virulent form of the flu to sweep the globe to fix the budget problem, since adults are far more vulnerable to infectious diseases as they age. Or who knows, maybe a new type of unproven flu vaccine would backfire and cause unpredictable death among seniors.

If the graphs on this page were shown on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers, there would be certain rebellion. But these figures are kept hidden. There are certainly enough adept journalists who could point all this out to the nation’s voters before the next election. But they won’t. This shows collusion by the 4th Estate in misleading the people.

Keep reading LewRockwell.com for more of the truth.

October 9, 2006

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a consumer advocate and health journalist, writing from San Dimas, California. He offers a free downloadable book, The Collapse of Conventional Medicine, at his website.

[VirginiaBob]

Just read the rest of his page. If you haven't figured it out already, he's a political hack.



Funding For War, Social Security, Medicare: Pick Any Two of These Three

by Bill Sardi
by Bill Sardi


DIGG THIS

The day is coming when there will be no money to fight wars, unless there are severe cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security.

After I wrote an article for Lew Rockwell showing that the U.S. military budget is far greater than what the public is allowed to see (the government’s pie chart is shown herein, depicting only 16% of the nation’s annual budget involves the cost of war and defense), the Pentagon made an urgent request for an additional $40.6 billion to fulfill commitments in Iraq and elsewhere (an increase from $98.2 to $138.8 billion extra).

Military/defense spending accounts for more than 50% of the current U.S. budget, not 16% as the government says.

Recently the army made it sound like it couldn’t continue fighting the war in Iraq and meet other defense commitments (e.g. Korea) around the world without additional billions. In order to get this money, anticipate some saber rattling somewhere in the world (e.g. "shots fired at Korean DMZ") to shake more money from the tree. The army also says it needs an additional $8+ billion next year for equipment repairs.

However, a report in the Los Angeles Times points out that "a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, but rather to new weapons it wants – particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has." [LA Times Sept. 25, 2006]

One chart shown herein depicts the U.S. Budget as the Federal government portrays it, and the other chart more like the way it really is (figures are in billions). The U.S. spends more than $1 trillion a year in past and present war/defense debts and obligations. Much of this is hidden in budgets of other Federal departments than the Pentagon or is simply "off budget spending."

How much more will US citizens permit to be spent for war? With Medicare headed for an impending bankruptcy relatively soon and Social Security under-funded in its future commitments, something will have to give. Cutbacks in Social Security or Medicare will likely be at the cost of putting more money in the Pentagon’s coffers. Does the public recognize their future is being marginalized by war mongering?

If there were a cutback of let’s say 30% of the war budget, there would be squawking from hawkish veterans and former generals that the U.S. can’t afford to cut back on its military obligations. But the country is obviously squeezed financially because of its overly-fat defense budget. It cannot hold up all three of its biggest financial outlays – war, social security and Medicare. The nation will not be able to compete against growing economies (e.g. China) if it continues in this manner.

As I pointed out in my previous LR column, some hawkish writers have even gone so far as to suggest that Social Security is "crowding out" defense spending, and even the Heritage Foundation that addresses budget issues very realistically, has openly stated that "entitlements" threaten defense spending. In other words, the government shouldn’t have to live up to its commitments to its citizens because of the need to fight more winless wars.

Unless some unexpected epidemic disease shortens many retirees’ lives before they can tap into Medicare and Social Security, there will certainly be a meltdown. Why, all that would be needed is a virulent form of the flu to sweep the globe to fix the budget problem, since adults are far more vulnerable to infectious diseases as they age. Or who knows, maybe a new type of unproven flu vaccine would backfire and cause unpredictable death among seniors.

If the graphs on this page were shown on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers, there would be certain rebellion. But these figures are kept hidden. There are certainly enough adept journalists who could point all this out to the nation’s voters before the next election. But they won’t. This shows collusion by the 4th Estate in misleading the people.

Keep reading LewRockwell.com for more of the truth.

October 9, 2006

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a consumer advocate and health journalist, writing from San Dimas, California. He offers a free downloadable book, The Collapse of Conventional Medicine, at his website.

[mayday]

John Kerry got it wrong. Its not the dumb serving in Iraq. Its mostly the economically disadvantaged the poor middle class. They are bearing the burden and brunt of war. While the financially endowed go to their choice of universities and avoid any obligation to a country that has given so much. The less fortunate serve 4 or 5 or 6 tours many come home in a box. How many people in politics have kids in the military?

[weatherweenie]

John Kerry got it wrong. Its not the dumb serving in Iraq. Its mostly the economically disadvantaged the poor middle class. They are bearing the burden and brunt of war. While the financially endowed go to their choice of universities and avoid any obligation to a country that has given so much. The less fortunate serve 4 or 5 or 6 tours many come home in a box. How many people in politics have kids in the military?

Amen!

There's a line in the movie Platoon that addresses the point of the poor/disadvantaged doing the fighting/dying. Sad, but true. :(

[mailmanusa]

There are many reasons why people enter the military. It doesnt make much difference why. Once they are in they have equal opportunity. The armed forces turn out intelligent, decent, respectable, honorable citizens. What else matters?

[vic]

I agree with you mailman. When we had the draft, the upper and the upper middle class could get deferments and stayed in college forever to avoid the draft. It was expected when you turned 18 that one would serve in the armed services and you were proud to serve. Yeah you made 66 dollars a month, but you had fun. You complained about everything, but it made you mature and stand on your own two feet. Kids today want to stay home forever, do not want to take responsibility for their actions and want to blame every one else for their shortcomings. I say bring back the draft.

[ChemEng]

Im not sure that I agree with reimplementing a Vietnam style draft again, but I think that a requirement that every civilian has at least 2 years of federal service in whatever capacity.

[Show-me]

Im not sure that I agree with reimplementing a Vietnam style draft again, but I think that a requirement that every civilian has at least 2 years of federal service in whatever capacity.

Big DITTO! :D :D

[Birchtree]

Ask me someday why I hate yellow back Jimmy Carter?

[SkyPilot]

This seems to be a fairly comprehensive recap of who serves and why...

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=Population_Bulletin1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12460

Not what you thought?

[James48843]

This seems to be a fairly comprehensive recap of who serves and why...

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=Population_Bulletin1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=12460

Not what you thought?

Skypilot-

Thanks for that read. Very good.

As a recently retired Army NG officer (dual service couple) I was actually surpirzed to read how few service people married to service people actually make it all the way to retirement. That report contains a facinating amount of interesting information. thanks.

[grandma]

A quote book for Hillary
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49176

http://tinyurl.com/ybe2x8


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/triso/wreath_lights_mc.gifAren't the stores Gorgeous !!!!

[rokid]

Grandma,

You're from Arkansas. How did you like Hillary when Bill was governor?

I don't agree with all of her politics, i.e. Iraq. However, she does seem real smart and the people in NY (the city and out state) seem to love her - which wasn't the case when she originally ran for senator. Finally, it would be a real coup for women if she actually ran/won the presidency.

My wife doesn't like Hillary because she didn't divorce Bill after Monica. Bill was the bad guy. Wasn't Hillary was the victim?:confused:

Finally, a politician telling tall tales and abusing staff! Not exactly news. :cheesy:

However, after all of that, Grandma and all TSPers, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!-----Rokid

[Birchtree]

Rokid,

You have no idea why Vince Foster killed himself, do you?

Some day I'll tell you - but right now I don't want to ruin your holiday.

Dennis

[rokid]

No, I remember the name. Did he kill himself. If so, why?

[Birchtree]

I can't it's too salacious.

[grandma]

Grandma,

You're from Arkansas. How did you like Hillary when Bill was governor?
However, after all of that, Grandma and all TSPers, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!-----Rokid

Since you asked: the Clinton's, as a pair, are worse than individually, thru their history, probably!!!

Christmas was celebrated as it originated - joyfully!!

Shoot - I can't get my Holiday ZIP opened right to insert some Mighty Fun pictures a Mighty Fine Personage left me - so you'll just have to take my word for it:
HAPPY NEW YEAR back to you and to all the TSPers!!!
Grandma

[grandma]

This seems to be a fairly comprehensive recap of who serves and why...

A recent article with his point of view on who ends up serving during a draft -
http://tinyurl.com/yf7qyz (http://tinyurl.com/yf7qyz)

..still I can't keep from believing there are many whose lot would improve if they did serve, who would not unless forced to.

[grandma]

USS New York

It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center

It is the fifth in a new class of warship - designed for missions that
include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors
and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and
assault craft.

Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite
, LA to cast the ship's bow section. When it was poured into the molds on
Sept. 9, 2003 , "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total
reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there. "It was a spiritual
moment for everybody there."

Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center
steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck
stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked
us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back."

The ship's motto? "Never Forget"

[ChemEng]

Great story. Thanks for sharing!

[ayla]

Grandma,
You gotta go back in history.
We developed a very good armed forces in the 70's. However, Congress and the executive branch cut all the meat off the bone and went to the concept of an "All Volunteer Army". A lot of the experienced soldiers were canned, the angels stayed. Now the angels are calling up reserves and guard because their concept was bunk. They don't know what it takes, but we some how listen to them!


Lots in the news about small towns bearing the brunt of war losses.

[grandma]

Thank you, Ayla, for this article. Among other things, I think our greatest shame is the poor financial support for the troopers & their families. Their pay, and their benefits, should each increase every year by the same percentage the Congress increases theirs. And, in case of death, should cover ALL expenses - after all, they most likely would not have died had they not left US soil. I base that statement on the fact I have seen no information out that indicates the death rate in America has decreased by comparable numbers in these past five years.

[grandma]

this poem also mentions the Soldier's stipend in comparison w/the politician's.
http://iam.homewithgod.com/nspirn1/Salute.html