Just normal American Utopia...

[Archy1221]

42 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Reign in DoD spending and the deficit would fix itself. Yet one party insists on ridiculous levels of defense funding while simultaneously bemoaning and blaming the deficit.

The deficit is larger than the entirety of defense spending.  You can’t just cut defense spending to fix the deficit. 
The deficit isn’t a single party issue/problem.  

[JJ Husker]

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The deficit is larger than the entirety of defense spending.  You can’t just cut defense spending to fix the deficit. 
The deficit isn’t a single party issue/problem.  

Point is, you would actually be able to start making a dent in it. The deficit is the result of all government spending combined. It isn’t attributable to only certain things.  Makes sense to me that reigning in the largest line item expense would be a good place to start. And of course, that isn’t the only answer.

 

Don’t you find it the least bit ridiculous that one certain party decries the deficit but gives carte blanche to defense spending while blaming the deficit on comparatively meager democrat spending for social problems like healthcare, welfare etc.?

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 8/2/2023 at 10:00 AM, Archy1221 said:

Cut military spending to a sustainable level.

Close tax loopholes 

full audit of CMS (so much fraud and waste there) 

Stop the “emergency spending bills or the country will not recover”  nonsense. 
Audit government headcount (bloat that isn’t needed)

Update the software system for IRS

Quit monetarily propping up “too big to fail companies” with government money.  
Government revenues at current levels ( or previous years revenues quite frankly) are plenty to not have the yearly deficits Congress gives us.  

 

 

 

Hippie.

[Archy1221]

19 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Makes sense to me that reigning in the largest line item expense would be a good place to start. And of course, that isn’t the only answer.

SS, HHS, and debt service payments are actually bigger line items (or at least becoming bigger) but your point is well taken.  
 

21 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

Don’t you find it the least bit ridiculous that one certain party decries the deficit but gives carte blanche to defense spending while blaming the deficit on comparatively meager democrat spending for social problems like healthcare, welfare etc.?

Yes.  I’ve said so a few times here.  

[JJ Husker]

18 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

SS, HHS, and debt service payments are actually bigger line items (or at least becoming bigger) but your point is well taken.  
 

Yes.  I’ve said so a few times here.  

Well okay then.

I thought you were reacting because I suggested defense spending was the obvious place to begin.

 

The problem with SocSec is I look at that as an entitlement. People have been specifically taxed for that specific purpose, some for their whole working lives. Fixing that one isn’t as simple as reducing spending. And the fix needs to be phased based on age. People in or near retirement need to be made whole and treated fairly. I don’t have a good answer because our politicians have royally f#&%ed it up. It could’ve been the most simple self sustaining program but here we are. I’d like to see it phased out completely and eventually make people responsible for saving for their own retirement.

 

And there is nothing we can do about servicing the debt except for slowly eating away at it and not adding more. Reducing Defense spending seems like the best place to begin that process.

[Scarlet]

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

 

The problem with SocSec is I look at that as an entitlement. People have been specifically taxed for that specific purpose, some for their whole working lives. Fixing that one isn’t as simple as reducing spending.

Definitely agree.  It’s gonna require some people not getting the benefits they paid in for.  Otherwise it can’t be cut at all.  

[Archy1221]

No idea if this is a good dude or piece of s#!t, but the story isn’t quite what Snopes and Cooper make it out to seem.   He’s a small Angel Investor in the movie and the local news is saying he was the landlord keeping police from entering the rental where the kids were.  Story goes the kids were with a different parent and the parents partner and neither had legal custody, hence the kidnapping charge.  We will certainly find out the whole story soon enough and whether this guy is a scumbag or hot.  However, Cooper wants so badly to have a gotcha on the movie that he is rushing into framing this into something the local news is not doing.  I usually tend to side with local news on these things.   And it has nothing to do with the movie John……and others 
 

https://www.kmov.com/2023/08/04/chesterfield-man-charged-with-accessory-child-kidnapping-donated-anti-child-trafficking-movie-newsweek-report-claims/

[teachercd]

3 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

 

 

Weird how most every American can agree on these common sense things but partisan politics prevents anything approaching common sense.

 

Reign in DoD spending and the deficit would fix itself. Yet one party insists on ridiculous levels of defense funding while simultaneously bemoaning and blaming the deficit. While the other side pretends the deficit isn’t a problem out of necessity to fund things that are impossible to fund with defense expenditures where they are.

 

In my mind I’m hearing Yakov Smirnov saying “what a country”.

In Mother Russia cars run on Vodka, no need for gas!

 

 

[commando]

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

In Mother Russia cars run on Vodka, no need for gas!

 

 

are you saying russian cars are gassed?

[Lorewarn]

10 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

No idea if this is a good dude or piece of s#!t, but the story isn’t quite what Snopes and Cooper make it out to seem.   He’s a small Angel Investor in the movie and the local news is saying he was the landlord keeping police from entering the rental where the kids were.  Story goes the kids were with a different parent and the parents partner and neither had legal custody, hence the kidnapping charge.  We will certainly find out the whole story soon enough and whether this guy is a scumbag or hot.  However, Cooper wants so badly to have a gotcha on the movie that he is rushing into framing this into something the local news is not doing.  I usually tend to side with local news on these things.   And it has nothing to do with the movie John……and others 
 

https://www.kmov.com/2023/08/04/chesterfield-man-charged-with-accessory-child-kidnapping-donated-anti-child-trafficking-movie-newsweek-report-claims/

 

 

 

Not surprised at all that there is some relevant context and dare i say it, nuance, to the clickbaity headlines people have been sharing in here about this guy. I called it internally in my head after the first tweet I saw.

 

Folks are so desperate (citizens and media 'professionals' alike) to support their already-decided conclusions these days it's frankly disturbing and pathetic.

[Scarlet]

2 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

Not surprised at all that there is some relevant context and dare i say it, nuance, to the clickbaity headlines people have been sharing in here about this guy. I called it internally in my head after the first tweet I saw.

 

Folks are so desperate (citizens and media 'professionals' alike) to support their already-decided conclusions these days it's frankly disturbing and pathetic.

 

I don't know that's a little assumptious and dramatic isn't it?   I only see two posts that state what has been widely reported....that he was a funder of the film and that he was arrested for child kidnapping. The first brought the subject up and the second was to confirm after the first was questioned. Are you saying he wasn't a funder and wasn't arrested?  If you know more, then post it.  Other than that I'm not seeing much here by anyone drawing any 'already-decided" conclusions .  

[RedDenver]

17 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

Well okay then.

I thought you were reacting because I suggested defense spending was the obvious place to begin.

 

The problem with SocSec is I look at that as an entitlement. People have been specifically taxed for that specific purpose, some for their whole working lives. Fixing that one isn’t as simple as reducing spending. And the fix needs to be phased based on age. People in or near retirement need to be made whole and treated fairly. I don’t have a good answer because our politicians have royally f#&%ed it up. It could’ve been the most simple self sustaining program but here we are. I’d like to see it phased out completely and eventually make people responsible for saving for their own retirement.

 

And there is nothing we can do about servicing the debt except for slowly eating away at it and not adding more. Reducing Defense spending seems like the best place to begin that process.

Cutting SS won't help fix the debt at all - unless we cut SS benefits but keep the SS tax. If we're going to have a tax just to reduce the debt, then we should create one for that purpose.

 

But something else to keep in mind is that the government's debt is other people's investment. Reducing the debt means reducing the number of treasury bonds (and other bonds and securities) available, which are generally considered the most stable and least risky investments in the world.

[Archy1221]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Cutting SS won't help fix the debt at all - unless we cut SS benefits but keep the SS tax. If we're going to have a tax just to reduce the debt, then we should create one for that purpose.

 

But something else to keep in mind is that the government's debt is other people's investment. Reducing the debt means reducing the number of treasury bonds (and other bonds and securities) available, which are generally considered the most stable and least risky investments in the world.

I think most people would take the trade off of less debt and less at bills.  Making sure we invite more and more debt just so foreign countries and some US citizens can buy a stable asset isn’t much of a fiscal strategy in my view.  

[Archy1221]