Letter From My Senator About US Default

[kathylove]

It may be only a tiny slice of our out-of-control budget, BUT - $23.5 billion is STILL a lot of dough! And from what I have read, a lot of it is spent in ways that I believe are not in our best, long term interest. A few billion here, a few billion there - it adds up!

I think part of our problem is that the budget is so huge that it doesn't even seem worth it to discuss savings of just a million or two - has to be at least $100 billion to even make a difference, or be worth the valuable time of our Congress Critters to think about, lol!

 

[helifreak]

Also, in keeping just the facts on the table - here is an infographic which shows exactly where all this "debt" came from in the last 10 years...

 

[helifreak]

It may be only a tiny slice of our out-of-control budget, BUT - $23.5 billion is STILL a lot of dough! And from what I have read, a lot of it is spent in ways that I believe are not in our best, long term interest. A few billion here, a few billion there - it adds up!

I think part of our problem is that the budget is so huge that it doesn't even seem worth it to discuss savings of just a million or two - has to be at least $100 billion to even make a difference, or be worth the valuable time of our Congress Critters to think about, lol!

It does add up - and I would love to be able to route all that foreign aid to something I feel more strongly about - like say education here in the US - however, I believe that global politics are more complicated than they appear on the surface. For example, if we were to say "hey, we are broke - no more foreign aid for anyone" - well, what do you think that message is going to convey to all the countries that we do business with? It could have a major impact in our trade agreements, as well as relationships we keep with our allies.

We really need to figure out how to fix the "big" problems of our debt... exploding cost of entitlements to an aging population, cost of health care, lack of revenue (either due to tax cuts or loss of jobs), and corporate control of Washington DC.

Maybe this is why Mr Snakey is not eating... he is worrying too much about our nation's debt.... :shrugs:

 

[Nova_C]

The US spends more on its military than the rest of the first world combined, and very nearly the rest of the entire world combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

$25 bln for foreign aid is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $700 bln spent on the military. Every country is well within its rights to prioritize certain kinds of spending, of course, and I'm not being critical of the US spending so much on the military.

But it seems to me, an outside observer, that the first place to look for savings for the United States is in the one place that the US outspends every other nation in the world.

 

[pridecity]

I'm not much of a military person. I'm too soft to join. I do think that it is a good program to turn out responsible, hard working people (if you exclude a few people I know). I think that it's great that they offer college for those who are in the military.

However, I hate that the government does spend enough money on the military for stupid wars. Don't get me wrong, I think that the terrorist attacks were wrong. Not because they happened to us but because they happened at all. I don't care what country did it to whichever country. I think that after 10 years, enough is enough. It should have been over a lot sooner.

 

[kathylove]

It is a nice side benefit that the military provides training for young people. But of course, the real purpose in having military at all is to be prepared to fight a war.

I don't see why we have to take on the role of the world's policeman, though. I feel that the core reason we get our military involved in so many foreign affairs (not any one PARTICULAR war or entanglement, just so many in general) is because of ego, and politicians want to whip up national pride, which will make them look good and help them get re-elected. And of course, voters like hearing that our military (and by extension, all of us) is "the best" and can solve anything, anywhere. It seems like we would have figured out by now that we CAN'T always solve anything, anywhere, no matter how much (BORROWED) money we throw at it. But government (= politicians) are not necessarily about achieving our stated goals in the most logical manner with the best "bang for the buck". They are about whatever sounds best in the news, and getting re-elected. Our "stated" goals are not even necessarily our REAL goals. Our REAL goals are whatever will help re-elect those who are stating the goals.

Of course, voters COULD see through all of that, and vote for the few who will go against human nature and put national interest ahead of personal interest. And they COULD vote out incumbents after a couple of terms and make them go back to REAL and PRODUCTIVE work (whatever they did before becoming politicians). But they don't. And I don't know if they ever will.

I don't believe that other politicians in other countries are probably any better. They are human, too. But the bigger the government, the more room to hide in lack of individual accountability. And the bigger the budget, the more room to hide (or discount the importance of) a few million (or billion, even), here or there.

 

[Rich Z]

The purpose and goal of the US military should be to protect our national borders from invasion by hostile forces. That is IT. Not to be fighting for commercial concerns in foreign lands, not to be trying to force influence on foreign governments, not to secure access to resource assets under foreign soil, certainly not to be used as political chess pieces in negotiations with foreign governments, and most DEFINITELY NOT as resources to be used at whim by the United Nations.

Cut the military budget until their true purpose is all that it can afford to do.

But of course, that won't happen simply because the people who would need to do this are exactly the persons who are bloating the military budget to do exactly what they want it to do.

 

[kathylove]

"The purpose and goal of the US military should be to protect our national borders from invasion by hostile forces. That is IT. Not to be fighting for commercial concerns in foreign lands, not to be trying to force influence on foreign governments, not to secure access to resource assets under foreign soil, certainly not to be used as political chess pieces in negotiations with foreign governments, and most DEFINITELY NOT as resources to be used at whim by the United Nations.

Cut the military budget until their true purpose is all that it can afford to do.

But of course, that won't happen simply because the people who would need to do this are exactly the persons who are bloating the military budget to do exactly what they want it to do."

I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!!

Now that you are retired, want to run for office? Start small and local, and work your way up, lol! (joke! The only people worth voting for are those who see what a horrible headache it would be to run, be subjected to all of the scrutiny candidates get, then, if elected, vote against their own personal interest "for the greater good", probably get voted out for it, and do it anyway! I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone I care about, haha )

 

[helifreak]

Back to the OP's request of understanding what is going on - I found this video which does a really good job of simplifying and explaining things:



And yes, I think most people would agree that we spend way too much on defense and the military... unfortunately, that is a very politically toxic topic. It seems that any politician running on a "elect me and I will cut defense spending" platform, would most certainly be targeted as a "weak" candidate and someone who is not "american enough". It's unfortunate, but true in this current political landscape.

 

[starsevol]

I have not really been following this on the news. I already knew it was coming, it has been coming for a long long time now. And this is just the beginning. I watch alot of news programs on satelite television from other countries. I personally think it is criminal how uninformed the media is keeping the american people. They spend way too much time on things that are not news, like sports, celebrities and pop culture but fail to tell us EVERYTHING our government is up to.

 

[Dreamsnake]

All government employees should get paid whatever the minimum wage is and buy their own healthcare or get medicare. Then we'll really see this country whipped into shape.

The entitlements of exCongress members should also be withdrawn, making them go back to work instead of living off taxpayers and receiving free medical expenses.

 

[Hypancistrus]

Every single person in the US got together and demanded all government officials to remove themselves from office and were replaced by people far less corrupt who would accept reasonable salaries for their jobs with taxes to fit income? A revolution of sorts.

Any type of revolution in this country would be impossible at this point. The government is a thousand times better armed and better equipped than the populace. It would be over before it began. That's a very alarming thought, to me, so I don't spend much time on it....

I hate voting to be honest. Every time I vote on anything to do with politics, I get jury duty.

Jury duty is a tiny part of what is required of US citizens. Be glad you can participate in a legislative process. Under Saddam, there were no juries in Iraq... none were needed, because his decisions were absolute.

All government employees should get paid whatever the minimum wage is and buy their own healthcare or get medicare. Then we'll really see this country whipped into shape.

Surely not ALL government employees?? There are government employees who spend their work lives cleaning the offices and toilets of these idiots that spend their days preening and primping in front of the TV cameras. Do those people deserve to suffer simply because they are employed by the government? How about the people that manage our fisheries and wildlife populations? How about the people that clean the snow off the roads and respond to emergency calls. All of those people are government employees too.

 

[Allalaskan]

Any type of revolution in this country would be impossible at this point. The government is a thousand times better armed and better equipped than the populace. It would be over before it began. That's a very alarming thought, to me, so I don't spend much time on it....

Why do you think so many big politicians are so anti gun? We are in a time and age where the people fear the government, when it should be the government who fears its people.

 

[helifreak]

All government employees should get paid whatever the minimum wage is and buy their own healthcare or get medicare. Then we'll really see this country whipped into shape.

The entitlements of exCongress members should also be withdrawn, making them go back to work instead of living off taxpayers and receiving free medical expenses.

Not even close... First of all have a look at where our government spends its money...

As you can clearly see, the spending on government agencies is probably less than 20% of the total budget.

So are you really suggesting, for instance, that all of the scientist that work at the National Institute of Health be paid minimum wage? Let's say you are a scientist on the leading edge trying to find a cure for breast cancer, and you should work for minimum wage?

What about the scientists at the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention)? What would happen if we got rid of all government employees during the next nationwide Salmonela outbreak? Who would you suggest to figure out where the outbreak is coming from? Exxon? BP? Or any private industry? Not a chance.

Currently, for every dollar we spend, we borrow 40% (40 cents). So lets say we get rid of all government agencies... You are only gonna get back 20%, but more importantly you are gonna lose all of the income tax revenue generated by government jobs. Remember, they have to pay taxes too.

I am sorry, but this whole concept - that the government is useless that - seems to be gaining steam recently is misguided.

Certainly, we are spending more money than we should be. And we should have thoughtful debates about how to reduce our debt and deficit. But, seriously, it was not spending on government agencies that got us in to this mess!

Demonizing government employees makes no sense. We should be rewarding them. Especially teachers and scientists who are fighting to make our future better than ever.

Note: I am not a government employee, nor have I ever been - I was just thankful enough to have really good (government paid) teachers growing up who taught me how to rationalize and use common sense.

 

[Allalaskan]

Its not the government is useless as it is a lot (not all, but a lot) of Political parties and members are corrupt and do not care what the people of this country want, but have their own agendas and forget WHO put them there. That is my problem with our current government, they seem to forget that they answer to the people of this country (or so they are suppose to) and those who do care seem to never make it any where up the chain to really make a difference or their names get dragged through the mud.

Which leads me to another thing, there is SO MUCH name calling and dragging others through the mud that it makes me sick. how am I suppose to respect some one let alone vote for them when they drag each others names through the mud with false facts and non truths. And I dont care if its Republican or Democrat, it happens on both sides. To Often its Republican vs Democrat and you know what they are BOTH guilty, they BOTH are corrupt and they BOTH are not trust worthy as a whole. When it comes time to vote, its voting for the "lesser of two evils" and it bothers me that this country is to that point. That point where they say one thing, then when they get into office seem to forget all about those promises they made before they were elected.

Sorry, but this is a touchy subject with me.

 

[helifreak]

Why do you think so many big politicians are so anti gun? We are in a time and age where the people fear the government, when it should be the government who fears its people.

Please name a single politician who is "anti-gun"? Or maybe first off, please explain what you mean by "anti gun"?

The 2nd Amendment guarantees every US citizen the right to keep and bear arms. I have never in my life heard of a single politician who is fighting to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

There are some politicians who believe that it is important to limit who can purchase firearms (for instance, making it difficult for psychotic citizens to own firearms) - and there also some politicians who believe that certain types of weapons should be more heavily regulated than other types (i.e., assault rifles) - but there are no politicians who want to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

And to believe that creating laws which limit certain people from owning firearms or limiting certain types of military assault rifles because the government is afraid of a "revolution" is just preposterous... Seriously... The government has tanks, tomahawk missiles, and F-16s, and Nuclear bombs... An AK-47 is not gonna do much damage any of these.

 

[helifreak]

Its not the government is useless as it is a lot (not all, but a lot) of Political parties and members are corrupt and do not care what the people of this country want, but have their own agendas and forget WHO put them there. That is my problem with our current government, they seem to forget that they answer to the people of this country (or so they are suppose to) and those who do care seem to never make it any where up the chain to really make a difference or their names get dragged through the mud.

Which leads me to another thing, there is SO MUCH name calling and dragging others through the mud that it makes me sick. how am I suppose to respect some one let alone vote for them when they drag each others names through the mud with false facts and non truths. And I dont care if its Republican or Democrat, it happens on both sides. To Often its Republican vs Democrat and you know what they are BOTH guilty, they BOTH are corrupt and they BOTH are not trust worthy as a whole. When it comes time to vote, its voting for the "lesser of two evils" and it bothers me that this country is to that point. That point where they say one thing, then when they get into office seem to forget all about those promises they made before they were elected.

Sorry, but this is a touchy subject with me.

I actually agree with just about all of this... It is also my opinion that the people have lost control of the government to the large corporations, large banks, and Wall Street.

And I think this sentiment is what is driving the Tea Party movement we have seen. However, it is my opinion that the Tea Party sentiment that ALL GOVERNMENT is BAD - is a destructive. There is a lot that the government does that is good for us - and more importantly, is not something that any private industry would every consider doing because it is simply not profitable.

Here is an example that most of us on this forum should be familiar with...

The U.S is thought to be completely out of Coral Snake antivenom. The last batch was made in 2003 and was set to expire in 2008 - however, there was no other company willing to make antivenom (because it is not a profitable business). The expiration has been extended through 2011, but it is unclear if any antivenom remains on the market.

This is an example of something the government left up to "private" market - and the private market decided that their commitment to their stock holders is more important than any moral commitment to society. This is the problem we would face in a purely objectivist society. There clearly has to be a balance is all I am saying.

 

[medusacoils]

Please name a single politician who is "anti-gun"? Or maybe first off, please explain what you mean by "anti gun"?

The 2nd Amendment guarantees every US citizen the right to keep and bear arms. I have never in my life heard of a single politician who is fighting to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

I can name several politicians who are "anti-gun", meaning that they personally feel that the second amendment should be abolished, but don't have the ballz to admit publicly because it would alienate a large portion of the voting public. To say that there are "NO" politicians who want to abolish our rights is preposterous.

All you have to do is look at the records and policies of Charles Schumer(D) for NY or Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston. I can name a lot more.

There are some politicians who believe that it is important to limit who can purchase firearms (for instance, making it difficult for psychotic citizens to own firearms) -

But we already have those laws. Felons, people declared to be mental defectives and those who have committed crimes against children or women already lost their rights. The NICS background check is designed to weed those people out.

and there also some politicians who believe that certain types of weapons should be more heavily regulated than other types (i.e., assault rifles) - but there are no politicians who want to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

Could you accurately describe an "assault rifle"? Is this one:

If you said yes, then you have been "brainwashed" into thinking that anything that looks like this is an "assault weapon". This is a .22cal rim fire rifle. In reality, my hunting rifle has more delivered punch than some of the so called "assault rifles". Your caught in an image that has been drilled into your brain by the media.

And to believe that creating laws which limit certain people from owning firearms or limiting certain types of military assault rifles because the government is afraid of a "revolution" is just preposterous... Seriously... The government has tanks, tomahawk missiles, and F-16s, and Nuclear bombs... An AK-47 is not gonna do much damage any of these.

That isn't as preposterous as you may think. It has been done before. Just read your history book or look at what happened to the residents of New Orleans following Katrina.

http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/

Wayne

PS thanks for explaining the other information regarding the default.

 

[helifreak]

All you have to do is look at the records and policies of Charles Schumer(D) for NY or Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston. I can name a lot more.

Find me one (verifiable) source where Schumer says he is against the 2nd Amendment, and I will give you a point for this one. However, even if you found 1 senator who does not believe in the 2nd Amendment, thinking that the 2nd Amendment is in jeopardy is preposterous.

But we already have those laws. Felons, people declared to be mental defectives and those who have committed crimes against children or women already lost their rights. The NICS background check is designed to weed those people out.

And how many gun shows across the country are simply ignoring these laws.

Could you accurately describe an "assault rifle"? Is this one:

If you said yes, then you have been "brainwashed" into thinking that anything that looks like this is an "assault weapon". This is a .22cal rim fire rifle. In reality, my hunting rifle has more delivered punch than some of the so called "assault rifles". Your caught in an image that has been drilled into your brain by the media.

Actually, I do not describe and assault rifle by its looks, so no, I would not describe that as an assault rifle.

I would say a Glock 9mm with an extended magazine would fall into the category of "assault rifle" - and feel we should have a healthy debate about the usefulness and purposes of things like extended magazines, but honestly, I am don't feel strongly one way or another. If the arizona shoot has a regular magazine instead of the 33 round extended magazine, then, yes, I do believe more people would have lived in that horrible tragedy.

I am not anti gun. I personally don't own any guns, but have shot them many times and do see the attraction to the sport of "guns".

Its just I feel strongly that the "fear" that the 2nd Amendment is under attack and that one day our government is going to take away our right to bear arms is just silly.

 

[helifreak]

p.s. I think it's time for me to pony up to the contributing member status - so I can edit my stupid spelling mistakes and grammatical errors... :headbang: