Curious....why no cuts to the aid we give Israel?

 

 

Good question.

SO try to kill off the old, working people as fast as possible......yeah good idea.

 

 

 

 

 

How about reforming welfare?

 

How about cut the aid our government gives to other countries except Israel, to 25% of what it currently is?

 

How about every time the UN ask us for "peace keeping" duties we we send them a bill?

 

How about reforming the prison system of the US?

Good answers...

SO try to kill off the old, working people as fast as possible......yeah good idea.

 

 

 

 

 

How about reforming welfare?

 

How about cut the aid our government gives to other countries except Israel, to 25% of what it currently is?

 

How about every time the UN ask us for "peace keeping" duties we we send them a bill?

 

How about reforming the prison system of the US?

 

I am advocating cuts in the areas you suggest (they are included in my comment "mandatory cuts in discretionary spending"). However, I think you'll find that welfare, foreign aid, peacekeeping, and prison expenditures are such a tiny portion of federal spending that the changes you suggest wouldn't have a significant effect on the budget deficit. The 600lb gorilla is entitlement spending like Social Security (which in its current form is nothing more than a ponzi scheme) and Medicare/Medicaid.

 

The simple truth is that the "old working people" you speak of have made promises to themselves that are not sustainable. I don't want the bill going to my kids because the supposed grown-ups were irresponsible and/or bad at math.

This is a little misleading. At the end of fiscal year 2007, the outstanding debt was $8,925.6 billion. Of that debt, $3,915.6 billion was held in government accounts.

Trust funds, and some special funds and public enterprise revolving funds, accumulate cash in excess of current needs in order to meet future obligations. These cash surpluses are generally invested in Treasury debt. The Social Security Administration alone holds $2.6 trillion of federal securities.

 

Of the remaining $5 trillion in debt, the Federal Reserve holds $780 billion.

 

Now I'm not trying to sugarcoat the debt, but you have to remember first that having some Federal debt is actually good for the economy. Its too high, but I have a bigger problem with irresponsible spending than the debt itself.

 

 

Totally agree. Debt can actually be a good thing as it is used to finance things (hopefully worthwhile and necessary things) that can't be financed with cash on hand. Many of us finance our homes, our cars, our every day purchases using debt. Many businesses finance business expansions with debt. All with the expectation that the debt can and will be paid for with future cash flow. To expect the govt to have no debt is a bit odd. The issue, as you alluded to, is whether the debt is being incurred for worthwhile and necessary things that the federal govt should be involved with. If the answer is no, it is irresponsible.

I believe in the Bible and believe that god favors those who stand with Israel.

 

I believe in the Bible as well, but I don't believe in "carte blanche" support of Israel on every issue at every time.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of

$1.55 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

I am advocating cuts in the areas you suggest (they are included in my comment "mandatory cuts in discretionary spending"). However, I think you'll find that welfare, foreign aid, peacekeeping, and prison expenditures are such a tiny portion of federal spending that the changes you suggest wouldn't have a significant effect on the budget deficit. The 600lb gorilla is entitlement spending like Social Security (which in its current form is nothing more than a ponzi scheme) and Medicare/Medicaid.

 

The simple truth is that the "old working people" you speak of have made promises to themselves that are not sustainable. I don't want the bill going to my kids because the supposed grown-ups were irresponsible and/or bad at math.

 

My God, we agree on something. Full moon?

My God, we agree on something. Full moon?

 

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day! :lol:

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day! :lol:

Now, if we could just break the National Debt Clock, or at least make it run backwards.

Elect McCain and put a stop to earmark spending.

This is a little misleading. At the end of fiscal year 2007, the outstanding debt was $8,925.6 billion. Of that debt, $3,915.6 billion was held in government accounts.

Trust funds, and some special funds and public enterprise revolving funds, accumulate cash in excess of current needs in order to meet future obligations. These cash surpluses are generally invested in Treasury debt. The Social Security Administration alone holds $2.6 trillion of federal securities.

 

Of the remaining $5 trillion in debt, the Federal Reserve holds $780 billion.

 

Now I'm not trying to sugarcoat the debt, but you have to remember first that having some Federal debt is actually good for the economy. Its too high, but I have a bigger problem with irresponsible spending than the debt itself.

:thumb: This is a post that many people need to read once again and is very accurate.

 

While the National Debt is a concern, people need to understand that a large portion of it is held by other government agencies.

Elect McCain and put a stop to earmark spending.

 

And yet the data shows that the debt balloons when a Republican is in the White House and it has gone down only when a Democrat was. (See Carter and Clinton)

And yet the data shows that the debt balloons when a Republican is in the White House and it has gone down only when a Democrat was. (See Carter and Clinton)

It also shows that the debt balloons when Democrats control the House of Representatives, which is where all spending bills originate.

 

The only recent period where our government controlled spending effectively was the period when Clinton was in the White House and the Gingrich-led Republicans controlled the House. When the same party controls the House and White House, the president seems to get a no limit credit card.

 

(The same thing happened when Republicans controlled Congress with Bush in the White House.)

 

Carter controlled spending by working to dismantle our military. I do not believe that he thought it was something that he would ever use.

It also shows that the debt balloons when Democrats control the House of Representatives, which is where all spending bills originate.

 

The only recent period where our government controlled spending effectively was the period when Clinton was in the White House and the Gingrich-led Republicans controlled the House. When the same party controls the House and White House, the president seems to get a no limit credit card.

 

(The same thing happened when Republicans controlled Congress with Bush in the White House.)

 

Carter controlled spending by working to dismantle our military. I do not believe that he thought it was something that he would ever use.

 

 

But during the Carter Administration the Dems held the house.

 

I think Carter did defund the military but it would be interesting to see by how much. Was it a natural cut from the end of the Vietnam War when war spending was over?

Carter controlled spending by working to dismantle our military. I do not believe that he thought it was something that he would ever use.

Clinton did the same thing by dismantling both our military and our intelligence gathering abilities. Not only were programs cut that the Pentagon wanted, Congress kept bases open that the Pentagon wanted to close in order to please their constituents.