deficits to continue breaking records

[Nascar1966]

Maybe if the USA would quit aiding all these counties the deficit would be less than what it is going to be. Are all the countries we are giving aid to helping the USA out? Probably not, yet the people in DC would rather take care of another country then thier own country. Pretty bad if you ask me. Lets give Pakistan more aid so they can keep on hiding Bin Laden from us and help out the Taliban. The same for Afganistan, lets give them aid so they can support the Taliban.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Maybe if the USA would quit aiding all these counties the deficit would be less than what it is going to be. Are all the countries we are giving aid to helping the USA out? Probably not, yet the people in DC would rather take care of another country then thier own country. Pretty bad if you ask me. Lets give Pakistan more aid so they can keep on hiding Bin Laden from us and help out the Taliban. The same for Afganistan, lets give them aid so they can support the Taliban.

did you even pay attention to what i posted above? did you read any of it? it's all well and good to say cut foreign aid, but again, it's a negligible amount when you compare it to our overall budget. it would be luck you attempting to help your personal budget by not buying a bottle of water once a month. as for what you wrote above, that has a lot more to do with military spending than foreign aid. but i'd imagine the thought of cutting military spending would throw you into hysterics, without you actually even looking at what our military spending entails.

[joeydb]

OK, by foreign aid I also meant all contributions to the IMF. And, reduce our contributions to the U.N. -- an organization that always seems to act against our interests anyway.

The U.N. will probably "vigorously condemn" us for that, but when was the last time that mattered?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK, by foreign aid I also meant all contributions to the IMF. And, reduce our contributions to the U.N. -- an organization that always seems to act against our interests anyway.

The U.N. will probably "vigorously condemn" us for that, but when was the last time that mattered?

ok--how much would that save? what are those budgeted amounts compared to the real drains on the treasury?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok--how much would that save? what are those budgeted amounts compared to the real drains on the treasury?

It would help. But you have a good point -- the real drains on the treasury are the "unfunded mandates", a term that can only exist in Washington, calloquially equivalent to "you must pay for this, no matter how much it costs, and regardless of whether you actually have the money." It's absurd.

This is compounded by the fact that at least some of the programs, like Social Security, are in fact unsustainable due to their mathematical resemblence to other Ponzi schemes. These programs ought to be first on the chopping block since they are guaranteed to fail once the paying population is less than the collecting population -- the "Baby Boomer" bubble.

Other things, like maintaining a nuclear arsenal, are expensive and continuing drains as well, but may be planned for and will likely improve as technology improves. Lower maintenance designs will be made.

Only the roads we can't seem to make indestructible. Those government contracts to repair highways, that go on for 5, 6 years at a time at a snail's pace, they seem to wrap up just as the road needs to be redone. Amazing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It would help. But you have a good point -- the real drains on the treasury are the "unfunded mandates", a term that can only exist in Washington, calloquially equivalent to "you must pay for this, no matter how much it costs, and regardless of whether you actually have the money." It's absurd.

This is compounded by the fact that at least some of the programs, like Social Security, are in fact unsustainable due to their mathematical resemblence to other Ponzi schemes. These programs ought to be first on the chopping block since they are guaranteed to fail once the paying population is less than the collecting population -- the "Baby Boomer" bubble.

Other things, like maintaining a nuclear arsenal, are expensive and continuing drains as well, but may be planned for and will likely improve as technology improves. Lower maintenance designs will be made.

Only the roads we can't seem to make indestructible. Those government contracts to repair highways, that go on for 5, 6 years at a time at a snail's pace, they seem to wrap up just as the road needs to be redone. Amazing.

sure, it would help. it just seems that instead of obama forming commissions to study the problems, they should take real steps to fix the actual problems that are right in front of them.

i read a line in a book yesterday, it seems to fit d.c. and it's politicians pretty well:

'the first inclination of the uncertain is to accept that which seems easy.' from rise to rebellion by jeff shaara.

the pols know we have a serious crisis on our hands, yet they are uncertain what to do. no one wants to take on a difficult task, one that will anger too many voters. after all, they want nothing more than to be re-elected. so, the true drains on the treasury are left alone, while talk of allowing tax breaks to the rich will be allowed to expire-yes, that will accomplish soooo much overall -while in fact, nothing of note will have been done. no deficit attacked, no debt reduced. that increase in funds will be spent elsewhere. two wars will continue, their funding will continue. we will continue to have bases worldwide, with tens or even hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready. for what? why do we have nato, if we still must keep bases in europe? why a un, when we still keep bases in far east? why do we remain in germany? why is nearly half of the entire worlds spending on military our expense alone? we can't afford it. it is unnecessary. why can't we project our strengths worldwide by spending half that? we would still, alone, account for one quarter of the worlds military spending if we did so. still a huge amount.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Danzig

did you even pay attention to what i posted above? did you read any of it? it's all well and good to say cut foreign aid, but again, it's a negligible amount when you compare it to our overall budget. it would be luck you attempting to help your personal budget by not buying a bottle of water once a month. as for what you wrote above, that has a lot more to do with military spending than foreign aid. but i'd imagine the thought of cutting military spending would throw you into hysterics, without you actually even looking at what our military spending entails.

I agree with you about the military being a vast amount of the budget. If we would get out of Iraq and Afganistan and let them blow up thier own country the budget could possibly have a even less of a deficit. We have no business in either country especially Iraq. BTW I am a 20 year retired Navy person.

[Danzig]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews


Pentagon can't account for how it spent $2.6 billion in Iraqi funds, audit finds

By Ernesto Londoño
Washington Post staff writer
Tuesday, July 27, 2010

BAGHDAD -- Because of poor record-keeping and lax oversight, the Department of Defense cannot account for how it spent $2.6 billion that belonged to the Iraqi government, according to the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

An audit of a $9.1 billion fund of Iraqi oil proceeds showed that most American military agencies entrusted with spending the money on reconstruction projects failed to adhere to U.S. rules on how such money must be tracked and spent, the inspector general found.

U.S. officials failed to create bank accounts for $8.7 billion in the Development Fund for Iraq, as mandated by the Department of Treasury, creating "breakdowns in controls [that] left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," according to the report, which is scheduled to be released Tuesday.

The audit is the latest probe to fault the U.S. government for mismanagement of Iraqi funds in the years following the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, which led to an insurgency and a years-long occupation.