reserved

I am no longer sure that a majority of Americans have the capacity to understand what a trillion $$$’s is, besides a big number. More than a million and even larger than a billion: all just really big numbers. If you gave 90% of Americans a million $$$’s, the majority would consider themselves set for life (not really true).  

We know that the federal government is anything but prone to listen to the people for direction, seemingly, no uncannily capable of deciding for itself what is in our best interest, go figure.  Any family that lives through a checking account and with credit cards understands what a “debt sealing” is if by another name. Since this covers a majority of Americans, why is it seemingly so difficult for our elected officials (the self-defined elite) to understand the concept? Could there be a conflict of interests here?

The debt ceiling is by design a device built into the system to PREVENT the federal government from indiscriminant spending beyond the ability of the Country to be accountable. In a current fervor of spending cuts … it is inconceivable that our providing a larger purse would in any way contribute to a reduction in spending. But then, how long has it been since our government has done much of anything beyond promoting its own self interests?

I would hate to think that our downfall would be the result of our inability to be educated enough to understand how this country works. I can't help but wonder how is it that people can go about their daily lives being completely ignorant to what is happening on Capital Hill, not realizing that we are facing a real major problem that can affect us in a way that could be devastating for our future.

It's as if our society has evolved to become so sure of themselves that, just like most people can't grasp the concept of what 1 trillion really means, they don't seem to think that anything can happen to this nation. That destruction and chaos of an entire country such as those seen in movies like Terminator, Resident Evil and Independence Day is impossible and will never happen because we are too powerful, too big. Although these movies are exaggerations and situations not likely to happen, the idea that we can become a third world country is simply because we ignore what is happening, because we don't make it our business to educate ourselves beyond what we think is necessary, because we don't believe that status quo can be changed, and more than anything because we have convinced ourselves that the only power we have (sorta) is at the voting booth and 2 and 4 years.

In a way sometimes I think we deserve to get screwed, lose our position in the world as the most powerful country an more than anything, we deserve anything other than democracy. I say this because todays generation does not want to do any of the work itself, it wants someone else to do it for them, mainly the Gov't, and this can only suggest that people do not want democracy, they want dictatorship. Makes me wonder why Cubans and Mexicans want to come here so badly. The way I see it, they are simply switching one dictatorship for another that is slowly but surely coming.

First line - bring/Brink.

I agree.  But I am not going to hold my breath while the republicans threaten then cave.  It is unfortunate that there are only a few handfuls of Tea party activists in congress - not enough to make a difference yet.  But I do not trust the Republicans (I do not call them RINOS since they are republicans, just not conservatives) to go along.  They like the Capital Parties and accolades they get from the fawning media just too much.

I am so tired of listening to people and politicians and pundits refer to social security as "entitlements". Do they not realize that in every paycheck we pay into that system, and then take short term loans in order to live until the next one. Do they not also realize that this is a very efficient form of insurance devoid of the burden of profit share that feeds the multbillion dollar insurance sector. Let's try to find another term please. 

SS is perhaps the only TRUE entitlement.  It is a pact between you and the government.  They are supposed to take YOUR money and invest it so that when you retire you have something to retire with.  So SS is YOUR Money. 

SS Disability, and all the other pork they threw on it is not. Nor is Medicare or Medicaid.  While you do pay into those, there is not the same pact with the government.  And indeed, Medicaid is pure welfare.  All the other "entitlements" are like that as well- pure welfare.  So when they start talking about cutting, those should be top of the list.  It is always nice to give to charity from what you have. It is stupid to give when you have nothing to live on.  We are at that point.

Tal- Part of the problem is a segment that want the country in ruin. These individuals and groups no longer hide in the shadows, they are right out in the open about it. One just has to look at the recent union protests garnering open support of communist groups. The unions and the Democrats did little to distance themselves from them (maybe the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking). You also have anti-capitalists, anarchists, and even religious fundamentalists that would like nothing better than tearing down the "old system" for something more to their liking.

Now these may not be large, but what is surprising is the lack of concern and the "oh well" attitude by a large section of the population. The indifference ultimately weakens unique American values and eventually will be our downfall. Some may not notice, but it's way more prevalent than 10 - 15 years ago.

Rome (especially the Western Empire) rotted from the inside. It didn't happen over night. I often wonder if the some Romans of the time said, "Oh, there are just a few Barbarians here, they will never change what we built". I don't compare the Roman Empire to the USA. No nation in history has been as generous to both friends or enemies than us. I does leave little hope for when we no longer exist in our present state. 

Money (or lack of) will surely do what no army has been able to do. If the economy collapse, it won't take long for the vultures to pick apart what little is left.   

The SS you pay for isn't an entitlement... its a ponzy scheme. It is unsustainable and bad for entirely different reasons.

The sad part is that people actually believe this shit. Ponzy schemes are not efficient insurance, not by a long shot.

@Nitro Cruiser: yes, the unions are a menace.

That will never happen. That will stop the cycle that drives the US. They will keep raising the ceiling until not one government around the world will accept the US dollar then inflation will skyrocket. I think the US is already dead and is just running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

It is typical that the discussion always turns to cutting services and breaking unions when the US needs to be stopped defense (what a joke to use that term) spending.

Alan Grayson: "Which Foreigners Got the Fed's $500,000,000,000?" Bernanke: "I Don't Know."

Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon

But I guess cutting money from seniors and cutting unemployment is the real problem. What a joke.

END THE FED

 Since the U.S. has reached its debt ceiling, will hyperinflation occur soon after August if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling and the government is forced to default on its debts?

By the government claiming it will default on its debts to foreigners if they aren't able to borrow more and get more deeply into debt, it is admitting to running a ponzi scheme. The debt ceiling will be raised and even if it wasn't, it doesn't mean the U.S. will have to default on its debts. With our current record low interest rates, the U.S. certainly has enough tax revenues to continue making payments on its debts if it made major cuts in other areas of the budget. If the U.S. did default on its debts, that itself wouldn't cause hyperinflation. What will cause hyperinflation is if we continue printing the money to pay back our debts, which is what NIA is deeply concerned about. 

http://inflation.us/nianswers/

Ok, I was talking about intent, not actual fact.  It is SUPPOSED to be an entitlement since you were promised it was your money.  However, yes it is a ponzy scheme since the money is not invested, nor kept in a lock box, but spent by the government until you are ready to draw.  Then they take the current payments of workers to pay you.

Very few powers were enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution.  About the only one that costs money is Defense.  But even if we were to just junk defense altogether, that would barely dent the deficit.  The sad fact is the welfare programs now spend more than the government takes in.  The only solution is to cut them.  period.  That is not politics.  That is reality.

I give to charity a lot more than Obama or Biden do.  However, the times I was laid off from work, my charity giving dried up since I had to pay obligations I incurred (food, clothing, shelter, fuel) before I could think about being generous.  Had I been giving out money, I would have been giving out money that was not mine to give.  So it is with the government.  Even if you confiscated (you can only do this once) every penny of the "rich", it would not eliminate the deficit for this year.  It is indeed spending and services.

Social Programs are designed to help the economy and the people that actually contributed to that economy. What good is this military (that has not 1 thing to do with defense) to the peoples welfare?

How about bring all the jobs back from overseas and maybe Americans will actually be able to contribute to the government. Make the corporations pay for the unemployment since they caused it.

 2010 Military Spending

Budget Breakdown for 2012

Defense-related expenditure	2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[18][19]	Calculation[20][21]
DOD spending	$707.5 billion	Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism	$2.7 billion	At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs	$5.6–$63.0 billion	At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related	$21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs	$70.0 billion
Homeland Security	$46.9 billion
NASA, satellites	$3.5–$8.7 billion	Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions	$54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending	$8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars	$109.1–$431.5 billion	Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending	$1.030–$1.415 trillion

 Dont forget to add foreign aid which is just a nice way of saying "here are tanks and planes, go kill our mutual enemies. 3.2 billion to Israel alone in 2010 and Egypt's dictator was next on the list. 

So this is what is allocated then you got trucks backing up to the pentagon and removing loads of cash as well. What is in the budget and what is actually spent are 2 totally different numbers. Ever hear of cost over runs? WTH, almost 500 billion a year just on the interest for other wars and that will just keep rising. Ah hell that's OK we will just send a 70 year old vet to go work at a job in a sweat shop in China because THERE ARE NO JOBS LEFT.

No, social programs are not.  You do not get richer by taking a dollar from your left pocket and putting it in your right pocket (with the government, you have to remember to remove the vigorish from the dollar as well).

Now you are just being silly.  While you can eliminate the defense (do not expect to be speaking english much longer then), the "Pensions" are the same as SS.  They do not get SS, and that is their retirement - a debt already incurred (again - giving out charity with money that is not yours?)

The interest on debt is a non-sequitur.  It is not defense as it is on debt period. and since Defense is the only thing the Constitution calls for, a better argument is the interest is for the welfare that is not covered constitutionally.

but in either case, it does not matter.  You are obligated to pay your debts and the interest on them - so are nations.  So the real figure is still only 700b.  The deficit is 1.6t.  The wealth of the rich is just under 1t.  Like the Daffy Duck cartoon where he wanted to break into show business - you could balance it that way once - just once.  And then you would have no country left to worry about.  I am sure some out there would love that.  Personally, I kind of like the country and do not want to get rid of it, so I will avoid doing what you suggest.

Edit: BTW - the first 26 weeks of unemployment IS paid by corporations.  Corporations pay a tax on salaries that goes to fund the program.  If you are in a high turnover industry, your rate is higher.  It is the other 73 weeks that the government is giving out and is essentially the same as the other welfare checks.

For the folks that like pictures.

Defense spending covers all Americans. Entitlement spending is for the few (but growing), and displayed here under Heath and Human Services, basically anyway you want to dice it, redistribution from the haves to the have nots. Remember 47% of Americans effectively pay 0 in taxes, with a portion of those actually getting a net gain. If I were a betting man I would venture to say the the people recieving H and HS, fall into that 47% bracket.

DG I'm in for over 14% of my pay for charity this year so far. Many concervatives dig deep on there own. while many liberals want one to dig deep for the government to deciede where it goes, which doesn't nessisarily mean charity will see any of it. Funny how that works. One would believe the individual knows where the money is needed better in their area. Well someones got to pay for those government union bosses to lobby for the Democrats while the taxpayer pays their salary.

it might shock you, but "the government needs to spend within its means" is not codeword for "cut all social programs and don't cut anything from defense". Yes, we could stand to cut some on that as well. Specifically, cut enough so that we spend within our means.

But we can't just eliminate defense spending as some would like, as then we will be defenseless... and the term defense is VERY apt for the USA army since its not a conquering nation. It had many opportunities and advantages and could have conquered the whole world, it chose not to do so again and again.

... Attempts to conquer the world occured throughout history. Rome, China (founding emperor especially), Alexander the great, Ghengis khan, and many more. In the past this was impossible due to several reasons:

1. Lack of fast communication: Instead of near instant radio signals communication relied on runners.

2. Lack of fast transport: armies took too long to reach places. We didn't have airplanes and cars, 

3. Lack of modern medicine (first emperor of china died because his alchemists fed him mercury to make him immortal. Alexander the great died of minor infection, etc).

As for USA's opportunities:

1. The USA was the first country to develop nuclear weapons, it could have levered it easily to achieve total world dominance.

2. The USA was for a long period the only superpower in the world, it could have conquered with impunity.

3. The USA has developed a variety of weapons that far outclass any other contemporary weapons for a period of several years.

The army does what its told:

1. Where are you going with that? I mean, is this a reply to something I said?

Vientnam:

1. In the vietnam war the united states lost 58,220 soldiers... the vast majority of those in the first 2 years. The first year the US lost 35k soldiers, by the 4th year it was under 1k soldiers a year dead. The USA was winning, significantly so, and has managed to halt communist aggression for which the world should be thankful.

The united states won the war on the third year. Liberal anti american propaganda by the US media outlets convinced the USA that it has lost with made up statistics such as "the average survival time of a soldier dropped into Vietnam is under 60 seconds" and other such nonsense. The USA was firmly in control... It was the USA leaving (far too early) that allowed communist resurgence and lost he war.

My goodness ... people believed that stuff, go figure. 60 seconds ... come on now. Are you talking about people below the age of three or what, hahaha...? So the US was winning, well how did all that turn out?

I believe we went into Afghanistan to help finance a battle against the communist scourge to the north. I think China has been in the news of late. What communist aggression are you referring to? Remember the ‘Killing Fields’ in Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge came into power between 1975 and 1979 … the year we left Vietnam, humm. Our bombing across the borders led to the takeover by the Khmer Rouge regime where 20,000 mass grave sites indicate at least 1,386,734 victims. Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a population of around 8 million. In 1979, communist Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea and toppled the Khmer Rouge regime. We were key in setting them up in power, bummer that.

We left Vietnam too early … no wonder you appreciate our overlong stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. We couldn’t pull off an illegal war back then in 20 years and we cannot do it today in 10 … with our entire superior stuff and all. Are you trying to tell me we have been just been improving the Iraqi or Afghanistan lifestyles and forming good relations for the past 5 years? I think we are just too invested into raping the country and the American taxpayers and cannot get out. Then considering where we still have to stretch our dominant influence, we had better stay there, go figure.

The Army does what it is told, period. Just a statement of fact … is there somewhere you want to take it? You mean like physically take over the world, what planet are you from, hahaha. But we did use our nukes and just as you said it worked just fine … for a start, imagine that.

For people who failed to conquer the world, they sure gobbled up most of it and you missed several. Those masters did not need our ‘stuff’ to do what they did and we do not need to use our stuff to copy their model, just a thought.

the 60 seconds figure comes from my college US history

Unless you are insane, you do not go around randomly stating "facts" that are not in any way related to anything at all you are discussing.

If I were to state "the capital of france is paris" in the middle of our current discussion without any context or point to it you would think me insane.

I am asking what the heck are you actually tryng to SAY here.

1. The video is completely unrelated to any point you made.

2. You didn't actually make any point beyond "our stuff is not needed to conquer the world" (our stuff presumably being the 3 things I said are needed. Fast communication, transportation, and medicine). You don't actually back up your claim, you simply state "they didn't need it" without explaining why it isn't needed or why empires in their golden conquering years stopped expanding. I would like to point out that rome had to split in too because limits of communication and transportation made it necessary in order for it to be governed at all.

3. Your syntax is all over the place and mostly you are just saying nonsense... nonsense as in random words with no coherent meaning. I am not saying you are wrong or right in this statement, I mean I literally its nonsense... i mean, what "masters"

I don't care where you got the 60 second sound bite, but only an idiot could believe such nonsense as for those who bring this crap as some valid argument are ... whatever. You touted the fact that American deaths were continuously diminishing so WTF, you can’t have it both ways. Many things do not require an explanation like the above ... but it must be true because your book said so.
 
“The army does what it is told.” What in the world are you questioning here silly. Or are you trying to say the army doesn’t do what it is told? Obviously you are militarily biased but who cares. I joined the military in 1970 (age 18) to support the war efforts but never made it to Vietnam. I got out in 1979.

You brought up the subject of historical empirical conquests not me.You stated that world conquest could not be accomplished because of a lack of modern technical advantages and I pointed out that they in fact did conquer much of the known world at the times without them. I pointed out that Hitler had the modern communications and other things you listed but he failed to conquer the world because he tried the old fashion way … brute military force and failed. I do not understand how I can make this call any simpler for you?

You stated that we halted communist aggression for which we are supposed to be proud of and I pointed out a couple of instances where communism still flourishes unchecked, go figure. Do you really need more examples? I stated that there was a large American body bag count and you stated that we lost 58,220 (58,212 by my count) soldiers … what was my error? I said the war was unjust and you ignored that. We left and the communists won … but if you want to considered this a victory of some kind, more power to you. Maybe this will help. When I say army, I am talking about all our military forces and am not trying to pick out one branch or another … seems I have you to do that for me. The vast majority of those killed were in the first 2 years I think not!

Country Year of Death Number Killed
USA
 
         1956–1964               401
         1965                     1,863
         1966                     6,143
         1967                   11,153
         1968                   16,592
         1969                   11,616
         1970                     6,081
         1971                     2,357
         1972                        641
         1973                        168
         1974–1998             1178

                         Total     58193, humm I missed a few.

As for the debt ceiling, I think we are doomed. There will be an increase and it will be business as usual ... as usual. Do you believe the teleprompter will allow Obama to refuse to raise the ceiling? Read my lips … again and again, hahaha

You fail at reading, try again. I explained clearly that only a moron will buy the 60 second expectancy bullshit.

I pointed out I "learned" it in US history in college not as an argument for its validity, but as a jibe at how stupid prevalent this kind of crap is.

I am questioning your sanity and your reading comprehension. The statement "the army does what it is told" is completely unrelated to anything discussed here and I am asking why you are making it.

"much" of the "known world" is bullshit. They would have conquered ALL of earth if they had modern technology.

... hitler lost, yes. But if things went a little differently he COULD very well have conquered the whole world.

So? halting their advances once does not completely eliminate all its instances around the world. That would be as stupid as saying "you said WW2 stopped a genocidal maniac but there are still genocidal maniacs today in existance". No kidding there are.

I didn't ignore it, I said the war was NOT unjust because it had a just cause, stopping communist aggressive expansion.

Which is a bad thing, yes. The united states failed to achieve its goals, it snached defeat from the jaws of victory. First it secured its victory, then it pointlessly withdrew and let the enemy recover and achieve their goals.

You sited some statistics that I did not agree with so I posted a chart indicating the start and ending of the war and the numbers of deaths and when …??? I seem to have taken you more literally than you meant. If you thought the 60 second bit was unimportant, why was it the only liberal propaganda bite you mentioned? I understand logic but I cannot read minds.  You have to understand the correlation between the “known world” way back when and the “whole world” of today, only a child might not. I do not know how to go back in history hypothetically … it is what it is. This is ‘the what if game’ we played as children. Are you going to give modern marvels to just one side or what? Well what if this or how about that … this is just a game. Your last word on Hitler was “But if things went a little differently he COULD …” Is it that difficult to use accurate data and actual historical information to tell the truth?

“Advisors” started arriving in 1950. The Vietnam War started on 1 November 1955 and U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965 but … US troops were there from the early 60’s tripling in 1961 and again in 1962. (I am sure I do not know the differences between US troops and combat units, but that is what it said.) U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973. The War ended with the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. Accurate to a day, probably not … but accurate enough.

please do not mesh two completely unrelated arguments into a single sentence, it makes your spiel difficult to follow.

Seriously what the hell are you trying to say with this and why do you insist on making such a statement? what is your POINT in making such a statement. If I said "tomatoes are red" in the middle of this discussion you would question why I am making random statements unrelated to the issue as well. I don't have a "chip on my shoulder", I am merely giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren't batshit crazy and actually are trying to make a point of some sort that I am failing to undertand.

You are right, human memory is fallable and the exact death's by year I quoted was wrong; I probably mixed it up with the sum of the 3 toughest years, and understated it somewhat as its actually closer to 40k. That being said look at your own chart, at its worst it was over 16k a year dead. But look at the last 2 years of the war in your own chart:

 1972                        641

 1973                        168

and it ended in august of 73.

Now, the USA loses shrunk to a fraction of their previous amounts, it effectively won 2 years before it decided to retreat and managed to snatch a loss out of an assured victory.

It isn't unimportant, its false. there is a difference. Its also one of the many false statements that liberal media made to make it look like there were countless american casualties in the war. Its importance is in that it is still believed in today, years after the fact.

The notion that we are losing countless soldiers in vietnam is what caused the american public to sour on it and call for a retreat which lead to failure to accomplish objectives.

You have to understand that ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues at hand only degrades your position on a subject.

I AM using accurate historical data to tell the truth. Accurate historical data is reason he COULD and the people a thousand years before him COULD NOT. Just because he DIDN'T doesn't mean he COULDN'T. The ones before him actually couldn't.

And what facts and figures are you touting here, hahaha.

Was it the start of the war whenever that was or was it the American victory 3 years later? Maybe it was the vast majority of American deaths that took place in the first two years whenever that was or the 35,000 killed in the first year. Or was it the part about how we "effectively won" 2 years before we withdrew whenever that was. And now you are trying to use my facts to justify your rambling is just amazing is all.

I find it difficult to believe you are studying anything about history. Most people I know like history for many different reasons ... but reinventing it is just not one of them. Why, if someone were like this, they might even review an old Sci-Fi classic film as a modern day political documentary, go figure. It’s been a while since I heard such trivial pursuits.

Yea well, if you give your barbarians modern weapons, I will send my little green men back and … hahaha.

the facts I am touting are the ones from your own chart:

         1965                     1,863
         1966                     6,143
         1967                   11,153
         1968                   16,592
         1969                   11,616
         1970                     6,081
         1971                     2,357
         1972                        641
         1973                        168

I admitted that I did not correctly recall the exact figures off the top of my head, I'd like to see you do better.

But I did recall the correct conclusion, it is the conclusion I have arrived after seeing the above figures. it was near 40k dead on the worst 3 years of the war (67-69) not the FIRST three, fine, whatever. Point is that at the least 2 years the deathtoll was practically nothing. On the last year its about 1/100th the deathtoll of the worst year. As I said, the USA effectively won and then decided to withdraw after winning for no reason other then hostile propaganda convincing us that we having mountains of body-bags coming home.

@Rest of post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule with the smiley faces to back it. How droll.