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.
So why are all you good dubies still paying mortgages? Why not be smart like these entrepreneurs and cheat like any big business?
Yep. The typical strategy is to stop making your mortgage payments, and have your lawyer continue to delay/reschedule court dates until the Statute of Limitations expires. That = house free and clear, no foreclosure. You may still "owe" the debt (Ha ha! Fat chance collecting on that.), but your home cannot be surrendered as pledged collateral.
Actually, spending on maintaining wars/empires in other nations *is* spending on underachievers, in the sense that they are not benefitting Americans themselves in any meaningful way.
He can't understand that....apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
Most US foreign aid is military - which means that the recipient country gets credits, which it has to spend on US hardware. That's how Egypt, for instance, has M1A tanks, Humvees, arty, Strykers (?), F-16s, F-15s & etc. A further stipulation in transporting the goods is that they have to be shipped in US hulls (that may have changed by now). Food & development aid is similar - countries get credits, which they can spend for food & services from US suppliers.
Relatively little money is spent by US gov. outside of these channels. The US-based NGOs now - that's a different story. But official US foreign aid isn't much (as a % of the total US budget), & it mostly goes to the US military-industrial-Congressional money/patronage machine. See
National insecurity : the cost of American militarism / Melvin A.Goodman, 1938- c2013, City Lights Books, San Francisco
American militarism, costs and consequences -- President Eisenhower's legacy -- George H.W. Bush's New World Order -- Clinton's problems with the Pentagon -- Bush's surrender to the Pentagon -- President Obama's deference to the military -- The Pentagon's grip on the intelligence community -- The Pentagon's phantom missile defense -- Defense spending: Eisenhower's "cross of iron" -- What needs to be done.[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
Length
461 pages ; index, chapter notes. No photos nor maps.[SIZE
Very good on the politicization of intelligence (CIA), & then the militarization of intelligence, foreign policy (to the detriment of nuclear arms control & anti-proliferation, USIA - the dismantling of the two under B. Clinton) even as budget constraints & poor foreign policy decisions strain our ability to project military power into Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. An excellent read from a long time professional intel insider.
I'm talking about military and military related spending. How much does it cost to defend South Korea annually?
This. Especially when the fact is, we spend billions of dollars "rebuilding" countries we bombed the hell out of in MANUFACTURED WARS we chose to wage. Let's not even talk about the astronomical costs of carrying out those wars for more than a decade now, and what those wars will continue to cost us for decades. Why don't you complain about that, OP?
Incidentally, who are the "underachievers" in your eyes, OP? It never seems to amaze me that, here on CD at least, lots of people who condemn other people as "underachievers", "lazy", "unfocused","unambitious", etc, are often not particularly accomplished themselves. Not academically, anyway, which in today's global economy, for good or bad, matters a LOT.
What value do the underachievers bring to this nation, for us to spend trillions of dollars on. Resources that were taken by the threat of force, from the people?
That also means no big business bailouts, no agricultural subsidies, and no corporate subsidies in general. No public roads, public parks, or libraries either. No social security or Medicare, either.
The goal of the private sector is to have the least amount of overhead possible while maximizing profits. More automation as result of technological advances and the elimination of jobs that will happen as a result of it will necessitate a stronger welfare state than what we currently have now. With this trend, scaling back or eliminating the welfare state is unthinkable
Give a man a fish v. teaching a man to fish.
Some do not care to learn, because they get a fish today.
Well..... Let me put it like this. If you want a return to fuedalism than just say so. Remove all gov oversight and rules and the rich can just buy the whole state of whatever. Lords and dukes and earls and castles . from now till the end of time there will be those with and those without . peasants , serfs and those in the middle. The working class folks. Your PVC fence won't protect you from the hungry angry masses with pitchforks and torches. Study history and see what happens when the poor vastly outnumber the rich and middle. Geeees out country is only 240 years old....
In a free market, there would be more competition and not government running the show, to eliminate competition from the people(pick the winners)
If the rich brought value to the people, yes they would be productive. If they didn't, they would be bankrupt.
If the poor out number the rich, like they always have, seems the market share would eventually dwindle and no one could afford yo and you then fail too.
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.
