Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by billwald, Jul 14, 2011.
because any plan can be changed by any congress at any time.
Doesn't make it fiction.
That makes it "potential" fiction!
Billwald is correct except it is not because of changing congress. All that congress can do is slow down or speed up what is coming down the road. Our debt is too large and growing too fast. I am surprised at how many do not understand just how much we are in debt. I wish more would run the numbers.
Right now we are adding to the debt at a rate of over 1.5 trillion a year on average even though this president has far outstripped that by two times.
At just 1.5 trillion and a population of 300 million some math can show why it is impossible.
If just one half of the population paid income tax (children the retired and unemployed don't usually pay which adds up to about 45 to 50 percent of the population) it would cost each individual an additional 6600 dollars in one year to just get rid of the increase not to mention the debt itself. keep in mind that most who do pay could not stand another 600 dollars in taxes much less 6600. If spending was cut in half along with a tax increase each would still have to pay an additional 3300 just to make the deficit balance and that would not even touch the debt of over 14.4 trillion. So we have went too far in debt and yes it is impossible to correct and we will default at some point and lose just about everything we have when the dollar is devalued and retirements are wiped out.
Surely the potential for alteration doesn't make the plan to pay off your national debt, or any other plan, come to that, "fiction".
You seem to be implying that because Congress can change plans, they shouldn't make any.
Which is a notion without any real logic. the far left does not want to be forced to pay off debt. It limits their ability to move forward with entitlement programs. Neither do they want a balanced budget. It ties their hands. Quite frankly I find that mentality offensive, worrisome, and without any real credibility or logic.
That is political mumbo jumbo and a straw mans argument. The debt has not come about because of one side or the other. It is not about liberal or conservative. Both sides has been in power and both sides run up the debt. It is about irresponsible and corrupt handling of the peoples business on all fronts and the people playing politics along with the politicians by voting party tickets instead of backing those who would act responsible. Now it is too late and now at some point we will pay the piper.
When Congress changes legislation it isn't lying but when members of congress change their minds it is lying?
No, it is a fact regardless of the mishandling done on the right.
If a personal balanced budget includes making payments on outstanding loans then a national balanced budget should also include making payments on outstanding loans.
"Both sides has been in power and both sides run up the debt."
Both parties have been in power; simply liberal and liberal-lite - not liberals AND conservatives. Big difference.
I used to consider myself a "REPUBLICAN", but no longer. I'm now just a "CONSERVATIVE". Again, big difference.
I fear you are correct. What will a post-cataclysm America look like?
first let me say I hope and pray this is not what is in store for us and I would welcome being wrong, but everything I see points to this. As to what will "post-cataclysm America look like" I don't know, but my guess is that we will be much like Mexico or some other south American country or worse, but the America of the free would be no more.
I think that either you have understood my post, or (far more likely, knowing me!!) I have misunderstood your reply, because I don't see how your reply relates to what I said (or at least, to what I meant).
Let me reword the first part of my message to clarify matters (I hope):
Surely, whoever makes any plan, whether it's your government, my government, or any individual, it has the potential for alteration. My wife might plan to cook a cauliflower cheese next Wednesday, but when she goes to the shop, she finds that cauliflowers have gone up to a ridiculous price, so she changes her plans and makes macaroni cheese instead. But the cauliflower cheese plan was a real plan, not "fiction".
I certainly didn't mean to be offensive or worrisome to you. I apologise that for a reason I don't understand, you found it so.
I think that you are right.
And I also think that we are past the point of no return.
It looks like Obama can get out the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
The only way the debt will ever begin to be paid off is if we, the people, start to consistently demand it. As it is, far too many of us are far more interested in getting our goodies from government than seeing fiscal responsibility. As long as reps and candidates can get votes by promising to give things to the voters, there is no incentive for them to slow down the spending. And while Dems and Repubs are both guilty of this, it's worse with the Dems because they also really believe that increasing spending is a good thing, whereas most Repubs merely see it as politically necessary to some extent.
The US government is like a company on the verge of filing as bankrupt. Cutting future costs will not pay off creditors if the income stream is insufficient.
>but my guess is that we will be much like Mexico or some other south American country or worse, but the America of the free would be no more.
Just because the workers will be living in slums like Mexico, doesn't mean we will be less free. Why should it? Poor people can't be free?
As I was about to say to EWF, freedom is really the thing that is at risk. Americanism at the core is about historically unprecedented freedoms, especially the freedom to believe and worship in accordance with the dictates of one's conscience, and even more, the freedom to publicly espouse and promote those beliefs.
The coming socialist utopia will be utopia for that segment of our society that is so desperate for their next meal that they do not value those freedom. The is the crux of the matter when it come to immigration. Are those coming to this country coming here because they share our ideals and principles, or are they just coming here to get American dollars to send back home?
But that socialist utopia will be hell for those of us that cherish those freedoms, for the life is more than meat and drink. Socialism always has and always will, by virtue of its nature, suppress those individual freedoms that are perceived as threats to the "common good". After all, socialism is a form of collectivism, isn't it? And we know what happens to those that do not go with the flow in collectivist societies or those who have the nerve to dissent from the group consensus.
There simply is no such thing as freedom in a socialist society. Oh, there may or may not be certain privileges granted by a supposedly benevolent government, but there are no individual rights and no individual freedoms, for in that system, rights are not inalianable, for they do not emanate from God, or even the basic nature of man, but they emanate from the almighty State. Therefore, what the State grants, belongs to the State and not the individual. Just read Marx and Engels, they'll tell you that.
The reason America rose to greatness is because of individual freedom which includes the freedom to accumulate wealth, in other words, capitol, in other words, capitalism. The motivation to excel, to produce, to gain, to profit, is squelched in all collectivist systems; and the general prosperity of our nation is squelched in direct proportion to the redistribution of accumulated capitol (wealth) to non- or lesser producers.
Well, that's a lot of words to say this: American collapse = goodbye to freedom as we know it.
No it was me. I was not addressing your words but the idea you were addressing. In short I am in agreement with you.
>The reason America rose to greatness is because of individual freedom which includes the freedom to accumulate wealth,
Define "greatness" in this context. Historically, the "great" nations made it on the backs of slaves and/or by exploiting their colonies.
When's the last time you heard a politician refer to the working class? You all have been renamed "middle class" and this has blinded you to the economic fact that most everyone on this list are neo-negros, de facto slaves who think you are free because you can own guns and vote for your tax collector. Now days our masters pay their field hands in cash and collect it back in taxes.