TexasCHLforum.com

So, perhaps I just don't get it, but why, are we shipping Billions of dollars to other countries just so they'll be our friend?

I feel sure that we send cash to most countires in Europe, Asia, PacRim and South America.

If we are having problems with the budget, why not start cutting those funds we send abroad and use them here at home?

Help me undersand...

PBratton wrote:If we are having problems with the budget, why not start cutting those funds we send abroad and use them here at home?

Its not even just "friendly" countries.

We send money to pakistan, and there is every indication that pakistani intelligence knew where bin laden was.

we send money to saudi arabia, and they send us terrorists.

we send money to canada, and they send us justin bieber.

We send money to Iraq and they use it to buy our fighter aircraft that we will eventually have to face again in fights!

because, it is less than 1.5% of the budget or this is what is claimed. Better idea, cut the war spending which is like Billion dollars a DAY! How about entiltments? SS like Raise the SS limit on the wealthy, deny SS for those who have more than $500k/yr of income after age 65.

Have a war tax to claim back the $1,000,000,000,000 spent in the last 10 yrs on war.

I am fiscal conservative, please stop the borrowing! Budget deficit/surplus should be +- 3% of GDP with +1% reserve. A strategy that worked great for Canada from 1994 to 2007.




More info here: http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2010/repor ... eng.asp#a4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One way would be to not approve any more borrowing.

This seems to be the direction the country is headed. It is not insolvency. It is just the point you put the credit card away and say no more.

You still pay your mortgage, you still pay your car payment, you still pay, ok only the minimum on the credit card bill.

But stuff you really do not have to have, you don't buy.

Pretty soon paying other neighbors money to have them like you, paying the rent for relatives who don't work or are from another country or buying that cow fart study on the home shopping channel, doesn't seem that important.

The really insane part, to me, is China.

We send billions in foreign aid to China. First, we borrow the money from China, then we give it back to them as foreign aid! What the heck!

Jumping Frog wrote:The really insane part, to me, is China.

We send billions in foreign aid to China. First, we borrow the money from China, then we give it back to them as foreign aid! What the heck!

USA owe China 1T dollars, that 1,000 billions. Interest only is like $100 million a DAY!

Wait, you guys mean to tell me that borrowing money from China, giving it as aid to other countries, and then borrowing more money from China to bomb those same countries is not fiscally responsible?!?!?!? Clearly the complexity and subtlety of international relations is lost on flyover country.

In addition to China and Japan, there is the 1.6 trillion owed to the FED and some 2.7 trillion to Social Security. Of course they'll just print more off and hope that we are dumb enough to think that more money makes us wealthier. In reality the exact opposite is true since printing money out of thin air doesn't produce goods and services out of thin air as well, so each dollar you and I have represents a smaller portion of the real wealth (goods/services) in existence. When the FED basically doubled the money supply over the last couple of years it means that we all have about half of the purchasing power (unless you are lucky enough to be the first to receive the newly created money).

The only thing keeping prices from going through the roof is that the business who received the latest batch of fiat money are keeping all off the market do to the uncertainty created by our government. Nobody wants to invest or loan money since there is no telling who, which company, or which industry the administration is going to target next.

Also of note, the method for calculating the consumer price index was changed in the last few years. Food and energy prices are no longer considered. Imagine that.

Why do we owe China so much? Sams/Walmart. So stop buying "Made In China." Oh no! There goes our Wally Walk!

PS: The USA owns 4500 trillion plus of assets. The current fiasco between the three parties is what George Bush Sr. might have called "voodoo economics."

What happens to the world if the US economy stops feeding them? What law of unforeseen consequences events could occur?

Beiruty wrote:because, it is less than 1.5% of the budget or this is what is claimed. Better idea, cut the war spending which is like Billion dollars a DAY! How about entiltments? SS like Raise the SS limit on the wealthy, deny SS for those who have more than $500k/yr of income after age 65.

Have a war tax to claim back the $1,000,000,000,000 spent in the last 10 yrs on war.

I am fiscal conservative, please stop the borrowing! Budget deficit/surplus should be +- 3% of GDP with +1% reserve. A strategy that worked great for Canada from 1994 to 2007.




More info here: http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2010/repor ... eng.asp#a4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That, plus close the borders...all borders and stop immigration.

BTW, Social Security is also known as the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. It is not an entitilement but a much abused and robbed insurance program.

WOW! I am very impressed by Ron Paul. He says it like its.. "On this side, they love entitlements on other side, they love wars!"

The best Fiscal Conservative talk till date:

“The reason we don’t cut spending is, one side loves entitlements and one side loves war,” he said.

Failure to stifle that spending will propel inflation even as it erodes the dollar’s buying power, he said.

“If we don’t understand this, this default will not be because we don’t send out the checks,” Paul said. “We will send out the checks. It will be defaulted on because people will get their money back, or they will get their Social Security checks, and it won’t buy anything.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Ron Paul: US Will Default on Unsustainable Debt
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RonP ... /id/404278" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You pay "escorts" but you don't have to pay friends.

Beiruty wrote: like Raise the SS limit on the wealthy, deny SS for those who have more than $500k/yr of income after age 65.

Touchy subject.
I live my life and plan for the day I retire, expecting fully that I will get exactly zero in SS benefits, after paying in for so many years...

However......

SS is a forced, defined-benefit, savings plan... It's not "insurance". Eliminating benefits for those that don't need them is a great idea (IMO) but completely contrary to the nature of the plan and all of the promises its made since inception. If we could redefine SS as "insurance", then I would want to opt out and get all my money back.... And we know that the BHO mandatory heathcare plan is unconstitutional, so, not allowing us to opt out of SS "insurance" would similarly be unconstitutional as well.

A difficult situation...

The only fix for SS without breaking a ton of promises, is to slowly raise the age at which you can begin to collect benefits. The median life span for US citizens has gone up from ~62 (1935, when the SSA was first passed), to 77.5 (2003 data. ref here) today, but the age at which you can begin collecting benefits has failed to keep up with this increasing lifespan. Back in 1935, ~half the population died before they became eligible for benefits. Not even close today. No wonder SS is going broke.