Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fed doesn't account for nearly any of our federal deficit, thats military spending, social security, and medicare.
Focus on what will fix the problem, those three things.
If people don't want them cut, then you have to raise taxes.
Governing people isn't hard, when you don't worry about re-election.
The only way to fix this is to shrink govt. They make 2/3 of their money on investments. So taxes are very small part of the equation at this point. You don't need federal income tax. TRFs would eliminate this, using the exact same model currently in use.
Why would you hand more money over to someone who mis-manages it? You want to get them spending less? You think cutting off the credit card might have an effect?
How do you think they are able to do what they do economically? Spending and investing? The FED is at the heart of it. Granted, congress is also a big player. The govt owns the public traded companies and the only thing that is going to help save joe bloe is job creation. Fiscal policy is in there, but not really the cause. More an effect.
50% of military spending can be cut. We account for nearly 50% of all world wide military spending. Out of the top 7 countries on military spending, we are close allies with 5 of them, we are the highest, China ranks second, at 7% total.
So we are at nearly 50%, and they are at 7 to 8%? And we are going into debt for what?
The other 5 countries are our close European allies mostly, who have cut their defense spending every year for the last 20 years. Ours has gone up, for the last 12.
Its foreign aid for Europe, our defense spending.
Gut it, cut defense, bring all troops home, close all overseas bases, all of them. Then don't go to war unless invaded, or our allies are invaded.
We account, with your allies, for nearly 75% of all world wide military spending, nuts, stupid, ignorant.
Ron Paul wants some of what I just said to, which is why he isn't completely stupid.
Social security? Raise the retirement age to 70 on future retirees under the age of 40 (yes, this would effect me). Social security, when enacted, had a retirement age of 62, the average life expectancy of the time. Our average life expectancy now approaches 80 years old. And we've raised the retiremeng age by 3 years? Doesn't make sense.
Same with medicare, and since health insurance companies can't deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions. Since medicare was enacted because seniors couldn't find care, and that is no longer a problem, why do we need that again? End it, starting with everyone 18 and under.
That'd just about do it.
But Paul would end social security, something 70% of Americans don't support. Which is why he'll never be President. Realistically, they don't want medicare gone either, so just raise the eligibility age, like with social security, and enact means testing for both.
50% of military spending can be cut. We account for nearly 50% of all world wide military spending. Out of the top 7 countries on military spending, we are close allies with 5 of them, we are the highest, China ranks second, at 7% total.
So we are at nearly 50%, and they are at 7 to 8%? And we are going into debt for what?
The other 5 countries are our close European allies mostly, who have cut their defense spending every year for the last 20 years. Ours has gone up, for the last 12.
Its foreign aid for Europe, our defense spending.
Gut it, cut defense, bring all troops home, close all overseas bases, all of them. Then don't go to war unless invaded, or our allies are invaded.
We account, with your allies, for nearly 75% of all world wide military spending, nuts, stupid, ignorant.
Ron Paul wants some of what I just said to, which is why he isn't completely stupid.
Social security? Raise the retirement age to 70 on future retirees under the age of 40 (yes, this would effect me). Social security, when enacted, had a retirement age of 62, the average life expectancy of the time. Our average life expectancy now approaches 80 years old. And we've raised the retiremeng age by 3 years? Doesn't make sense.
Same with medicare, and since health insurance companies can't deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions. Since medicare was enacted because seniors couldn't find care, and that is no longer a problem, why do we need that again? End it, starting with everyone 18 and under.
That'd just about do it.
But Paul would end social security, something 70% of Americans don't support. Which is why he'll never be President. Realistically, they don't want medicare gone either, so just raise the eligibility age, like with social security, and enact means testing for both.
Then worry about the fed.
You can't do any of what you say until we change our monetary policy. Of course doing what you said would also force that change but the question then is are Americans prepared for the hit they will take to make that change? It will be a big hit. It will be coming soon enough either way I think. I agree let others build their own armies. We still need one too though especially if we pull back and do nothing throughout the world. Somebody else will rise up to fill the vacuum created and they may not be our friends.
The fed simply creates debt, because lawmakers pass budgets (or continuing resolutions) that require them to print money.
The largest holders of United States debt? US citizens, with the US savings bonds you buy with your social security taxes.
If Republicans had the stones to balance the budget, then there would be no need for extra federal reserve debt.
Get it?
So you are saying the democrats have no stones and are a moot point then if it's all on the back of the republicans?
Quite simply none of em have the "stones" because it would be political suicide for either party to actually do what needs to be done. Better to kick the can down the road in their eyes.
Yes, your desire is partisan attacks as opposed to solutions.
No, thats what fed audits and budgets with no revenue increases are, partisan attacks with no solutions.
The solution is to balance the budget, and the best option for that right now, Simpson-Bowles. Because without 60 seats in the senate, both sides have to compromise, period.
If not, we'll go belly up.
If you balance the budget, there is no need for the fed to print money.
End of story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
