Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This nation will be made even poorer by this. People will slip even further into poverty, and the middle class will go completely extinct. The debt has to be paid somehow, or the world economy will utterly collapse on a scale never before seen in the world.> What we have spent in Iraq is a drop in the bucket when compared to what we will have to pay if we don't do something about Medicare and Social Security.
Originally Posted By jonvn Not that we couldn't do better with those programs, but those are not costing us trillions.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't see how social security or medicare is ever going to cost us that much. We do need to do something about health costs in this country, though. The thing is that without social security and medicare, you are dooming a lot of elderly to a very inhospitable life. It's why they were created in the first place. What would you replace them with? Because private charity did not work, and people fell through the cracks.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << I don't see how social security or medicare is ever going to cost us that much. >> Social Security and Medicare will eventually cost trillions. Far more than the war in Iraq. The real problem with the Iraq expenditures is that they are escalating our budget deficits to the point that we have no options to pay for our aging population in the future. Theoretically, if we were able to pay down our debt and reduce the amount of the federal budget that is simply servicing debt, we might have some wiggle room to pay these large bills that are coming due. As it stands now, we have no options to bail out Social Security or Medicare as the Baby Boom generation swells into a life of geriatric care. Something has to give. I expect Social Security benefits will be cut drastically and we'll scale back on any attempt to provide health care to the masses. The treasury is empty. They've tried to solve the problem in the past couple of years by simply printing cheap money, but all that's done is contribute to inflation and unsustainable asset bubbles in the real estate and commodities markets. When it all comes crashing down, it will be very ugly.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Social Security and Medicare will eventually cost trillions." How? "I expect Social Security benefits will be cut drastically and we'll scale back on any attempt to provide health care to the masses." Then you are going to run into a problem of old people going hungry. Other countries manage to take care of their elderly, and manage to give health care to their citizens. We can't. Explain to me again what's so great about living here?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Other countries manage to take care of their elderly, and manage to give health care to their citizens. We can't.*** Yup. ***Explain to me again what's so great about living here?*** Ample availablilty of guns? Seriously... It's a great suicide device for the aged. Let me give you an example...today, here in Japan (health care available to all, by the way), some suicidal person jumped in front of a train. I don't know why, but it's quite popular these days. Anyway, my train was delayed as a result, which was annoying. IF that person had access to a gun, perhaps he'd have spared the rest of us the delay. See...that's why America is a better place to live! Less delays due to suicides! And, more guns! (in fairness, I doubt that the universal health care offered here in Japan would have helped that guy that jumped in front of the train much...there is only so much that healthcare can do!)
Originally Posted By jonvn "I doubt that the universal health care offered here in Japan would have helped that guy that jumped in front of the train much" Especially after he jumped in front of the train. But I think you are missing something here. In the San Francisco area, we get dozens of people every year who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. About once every other week. I've been around there for four of them myself. Then we also have a commuter train line. People like to jump in front of that. 19 people this last year did it. So, see? You don't need a gun in the USA to kill yourself. Although they do help, and of course, it's also a great way for your kids to accidentally shoot themselves or their playmates. There was a recent article someplace stating which countries are the most free. We don't rank number 1. Finland, of all places, has that spot in a few surveys you can find on the web.
Originally Posted By Mr X Let me guess...Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Canada all rank up near the top? Greenland, too? (geez, why do all the true "lands of the free" have to be so damn COLD!! are there any liberated TROPICAL countries on this list!?)
Originally Posted By jonvn Denmark, Sweden, Finland. Those are the highest ranked. In one survey, the USA ranked at 53. Slipped down from #17 in 2002. Nice.
Originally Posted By Mr X Not in the least bit surprising, though. In fact, I'd be interested to see where America ranks on the list of "most repressive countries" in the last 5 years.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'd be interested to see where America ranks on the list of "most repressive countries" in the last 5 years. >>> Or how about the "state sponsors of torture" list?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< They've tried to solve the problem in the past couple of years by simply printing cheap money, but all that's done is contribute to inflation and unsustainable asset bubbles in the real estate and commodities markets. >>> I don't think the record supports what you say above at all. The "printing cheap money" comment would generally refer to a government creating more money (either by printing it or through electronic means) to finance operations or retire old debt. But the US is not doing that - it's just borrowing the money on the open market. Sure, this is causing the national debt to skyrocket, but it's not having a direct inflationary effect as would be the case if money were being printed.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj The bond market is how our government finances it's expenditures. The Fed and Treasury are capable of printing money and loaning it out to financial institutions as a way to pump liquidity into the financial markets. This practice has been accelerating in recent years. It's not a widely reported practice and usually only draws the attention of macroeconomists. If you hit up a couple of macroeconomic websites, you'll find that there are a lot of people who are very concerned about the Fed and Treasury's recent behavior to keep liquidity in the economy. Inflation has been on the uptick as a result.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ So, do you think that the alleged printing of money would be reflected in M-1 and/or M-2?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj M2 and M3. Of course, the Fed mysteriously stopped reporting M3 this year. I wonder why?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< M2 and M3. Of course, the Fed mysteriously stopped reporting M3 this year. I wonder why? >>> The Jewish conspiracy that runs the Federal Reserve? (for the humor impaired: my comment above is sarcasim)
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> This attitude is why he did ignore evidence that Iraq didn't have WMDs. I really don't care whether he lied or not. I care about his need to be right in the face of overwhelming evidence that he is wrong. How can one have "evidence" of something NOT existing? Its non-appearance? So, the fact that there have been no shootings in your neighborhood in the last week proves no one in your neighborhood has a gun? People keep saying the Bush administration's sole justification for war was WMD. Baloney. Much more than I heard about WMD, I heard about Saddam's repeated violations of U.N. resolutions ... resolutions that were designed to verify compliance, prove he wasn't a threat, and thereby avoid further conflict. Saddam did not cooperate. Without his cooperation, there was no way to know anything. And, without complete certainty from inspections, we had only his track record on WMD to go on ... which is about the same as Mike Tyson's record of domestic violence. Clearly, many of you would have made a different call, and that's fine. But you weren't in his seat, with his heavy burden of responsibility for protecting Americans against any threat. No threat against the U.S. ??? Ha. Whatever. No one thought bin Laden was much of a threat either. A little hit here, a little there, no big deal ... even after the Cole was hit. You forget that Saddam had a serious plot to assasinate the U.S. president at one time. I take that as a threat. Maybe you don't because the target was a Republican? Now that others are very clearly explaining how Bush, whatever you think of his judgement, is not necessarily a liar, a lot of people who accused him of such are now backing-off, cautiously. That's a good thing, but demonstrates how quick we are to snap at our neighbor, while we show pity for world-class criminals. FYI, Bush has admitted weaknesses and faults about many things. His "stubbornness" is fabricated from people's anger that he doesn't adopt their own views. People just think what they want to about the man. Most of this comes from Bush's insistence on "staying the course." Little consideration is given to the fact that Bush consults with and responds to commanders on the ground in Iraq, and what their needs are. Things are ugly in Iraq, but the premature assumption is that some other strategy would or could have made it better. That's strictly speculation. Now changes ARE being made, and diehard Bush haters aren't any happier. (On top of that, they still can't agree on what to do in Iraq now, nor could they agree on how to respond to Saddam before.) With regard to stem cell research, Bush was completely against it at one time. He studied the issue, listened to both sides, and relaxed his policy position. In the run-up to Iraq, he was advised to go through the U.N. first ... which he did. He has worked with and consulted with Democrats both in Texas and in Washington. He has had Democrats in his administration. The idea that he's the most stubborn thing to hit the Oval Office is ridiculous. Just because he doesn't adopt YOUR position doesn't mean he hasn't considered it. He's absolutely respectful of other views in the face of vicious and personal criticism. Contrast that with his predecessor, who only said "sorry" about one thing ... and that was after he was caught ... and that was after he scolded the world for questioning his honesty. Hillary Clinton never admitted error for falsely accusing Republicans of their 'conspiracy' of lies about Clinton's behavior. Kerry and Edwards never apologized for politicizing Mary Cheney. Dan Rather stubbornly clings to a story that has all the signs of fabrication. If you want to find stubborn ... look left.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>People keep saying the Bush administration's sole justification for war was WMD.<< I don't think anyone has ever said it was his 'sole' justification. It wasn't his sole justification, but it was, far and away, his primary one. Just go back and look at speech after speech in the run-up to war. It was WMDs that represented the biggest threat to the US and its allies, and the president wasn't the only one saying so. Colin Powell's speech to the UN was the thing that swayed a lot of folks, and that was all about WMDs. >>Most of this comes from Bush's insistence on "staying the course."<< Wait, I thought the new line is that it's never been 'stay the course'? The frustration is that we're stuck in Iraq now and faced with a series of choices ranging from bad to worse. This happened on this president's watch. Uncomfortable as that may be for supporters, the buck stops with the president. And I think he has no more idea about how to best proceed than any of us. That's rather disturbing, isn't it?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> How can one have "evidence" of something NOT existing? Its non-appearance? << But you don't start a war based on claims that are wholly and completely unsubstantiated, and as it turns out, untrue. Don't you see that? There was NO corroborating evidence to support the administration's contentions. Not only on WMD, but also the nuclear threat and the ever present innuendo of saddam's involvement in 9/11. And then there's powell's presentation to the UN - total fabrications with satellite photos and bar charts - all of it bunk. You're willing to give our government a pass on that? More to the point, you're still willing to believe anything they say after that? Why would anybody? >> Without his cooperation, there was no way to know anything. << Yes, there was. Hans blix and his UN weapons inspectors - who had been at the task for years and were saying all along that they weren't finding any evidence. >> No threat against the U.S. ??? Ha. << No threat against the US. Ah. >> No one thought bin Laden was much of a threat either. << Apparently they don't seem to think he's one even now. They're doing nothing to apprehend or kill him. Why is that? You'd think with his "heavy burden to protect americans from any threat" that this would be a higher priority. By the way, what else has bush done to protect us besides the justified invasion of afghanistan and the unjustified one into iraq? Heavy burden ... right. >> That's a good thing, but demonstrates how quick we are to snap at our neighbor, while we show pity for world-class criminals. << The whole bungled handling of saddam's trial and execution actually managed to make him into a relatively sympathetic character. Tough to do, but not for this bunch - they can screw anything up. >> FYI, Bush has admitted weaknesses and faults about many things. << Not that I'm aware of. >> Little consideration is given to the fact that Bush consults with and responds to commanders on the ground in Iraq, and what their needs are. << Yet he routinely ignores his own joint chiefs of staff. I guess he must know better than them how to fight a war. >> Now changes ARE being made, and diehard Bush haters aren't any happier. << The changes are to escalate the war, so yeah - I'm not happy about it. Just when he's been given a clear dictum that the public wants out, he wants to send in another 20k to 30k. >> He studied the issue, listened to both sides, and relaxed his [stem cell]policy position. << Barely. He made a useless compromise. Some people believe that his stance is based on 'moral principal' - others see it as a kowtow to the christian right, who think darwin is a heretic. I heard something recently about how rangers at the grand canyon are now prohibited from discussing the age of the canyon, because the science doesn't jibe with the biblical version of creation. Seriously. This is what's happened to our own government in just six years. >> In the run-up to Iraq, he was advised to go through the U.N. first ... which he did. << He lied to the UN. He said he'd return for a second vote for authorization, but when it was clear he wouldn't get it, he just stiff-armed them and invaded anyway. Which is completely in character for him. >> The idea that he's the most stubborn thing to hit the Oval Office is ridiculous. << The big problem isn't "stubborn". It's "incompetent". And "arrogant". And "not very bright". >> Contrast that with his predecessor, who only said "sorry" about one thing << Wink wink nudge nudge. This endless sophomoric fixation on BJs from the right is amazing to me. >> Hillary Clinton never admitted error for falsely accusing Republicans of their 'conspiracy' of lies about Clinton's behavior. << Why would she? Are you actually contending that there was not a deliberate and concerted effort within the GOP to implicate the clinton's in any way they could? I can't wait to hear the republicans howl in protest when congress begins actual oversight of the white house, and opens investigations into it's actions for the past six years. They're already complaining that they're not being given the proper accordance due to the "minority party". What crust. >> Kerry and Edwards never apologized for politicizing Mary Cheney. << More nonsense. They don't owe her any apology. The fact that the daughter of the VP is openly gay is widely known. And she actually works in support of reelecting the most openly homophobic administration DC has ever seen. I don't get it. I've said it before, but it's like a deer being a member of the NRA. Mary cheney deserves every bit of criticism that comes her way - which is almost none. >> Dan Rather stubbornly clings to a story that has all the signs of fabrication. << I know this is hard for some people to understand, but just because a piece of evidence was discounted as fraudulent, doesn't make the story untrue. But bush supporters don't want to know the truth - it's just one more thing they'll have to come up with yet more lame excuses for. So they discredit the entire story because one support fell apart. >> If you want to find stubborn ... look left. << And if you want to find obfuscating, look right.
