Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

The debt

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:25:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
is it sustainable? I say no...discuss
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:28:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

I (if I was king) wouldn't cut military spending but would freeze it.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:29:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:28:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

I (if I was king) wouldn't cut military spending but would freeze it.

I would increase military and police force spending.

Decrease everything else.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:29:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:26:43 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I say no also, but we are not in as bad a position as, say, Greece. (Last time I checked...)

yeah but our debt % is actually higher. they just overreact. and inflate to much.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:29:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:29:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:28:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

I (if I was king) wouldn't cut military spending but would freeze it.

I would increase military and police force spending.

Decrease everything else.

what is the point?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 5:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:29:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:29:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:28:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

I (if I was king) wouldn't cut military spending but would freeze it.

I would increase military and police force spending.

Decrease everything else.

what is the point?

Imperialism and homeland security.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:19:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:30:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:29:32 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:29:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:28:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

I (if I was king) wouldn't cut military spending but would freeze it.

I would increase military and police force spending.

Decrease everything else.

what is the point?

Imperialism and homeland security.

we have enough of that. dislike imperialism. I am with rick santorum here, freeze spending. no cuts no increase.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:31:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We would cut overall spending in unnecessary areas by alot. The spending would go down at least 50%
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:48:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rome also thought that funding an empire would be a good idea, and look what happened to them. They spread too far and couldn't afford to sustain it, and collapsed.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:50:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:48:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Rome also thought that funding an empire would be a good idea, and look what happened to them. They spread too far and couldn't afford to sustain it, and collapsed.

Rome lacked effective communications. This was why when spread out, it collapsed. The US is highly different.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 10:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:50:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:48:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Rome also thought that funding an empire would be a good idea, and look what happened to them. They spread too far and couldn't afford to sustain it, and collapsed.

Rome lacked effective communications. This was why when spread out, it collapsed. The US is highly different.

OMG. This reminds me of my history class a while back.

THere are several reasons why Rome collapsed. Don't start this debate up.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:04:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:58:32 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:50:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:48:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Rome also thought that funding an empire would be a good idea, and look what happened to them. They spread too far and couldn't afford to sustain it, and collapsed.

Rome lacked effective communications. This was why when spread out, it collapsed. The US is highly different.

OMG. This reminds me of my history class a while back.

THere are several reasons why Rome collapsed. Don't start this debate up.

1, debt
2, to big
3. to many enemies
4. All things tend towards entropy.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2012 11:04:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 10:50:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/8/2012 10:48:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
Rome also thought that funding an empire would be a good idea, and look what happened to them. They spread too far and couldn't afford to sustain it, and collapsed.

Rome lacked effective communications. This was why when spread out, it collapsed. The US is highly different.

The military budget is huge no need to expand it. Still no reason to increase it's spending.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 6:56:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

"Conservatives" like you are half the reason why our national debt is expanding at such an alarming rate. Why should military cuts be off the table? And since when does increasing military spending equal increased defense? Cuts to our military shouldn't be off the table. Do you seriously think that we have to maintain 900+ military bases in 130+ countries? I fail to see how maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Korea, Germany, and Japan increases our security, or why we shouldn't be talking about closing some or all of those bases.

Besides, the same argument many "conservatives" make against domestic welfare programs - that regardless of their merits, the reality is that we just don't have endless money to spend - can be made against military spending.

Increasing military spending does NOT increase national security. Ever hear of the CIA-coined term "blowback?" Basically, if we think we're so awesome that we should be spreading our awesomeness around the world with sanctions and bombs and bullets and secret invasions, resulting in millions of innocent deaths and even more pissed off family members/friends, eventually some people are going to be pissed enough to retaliate. Yeah, if America behaves foolishly and irresponsibly around the world, there might actually be consequences! This is the biggest reason the 9/11 attackers gave to explain their actions. Not trying to justify that, just trying to say that actions have consequences....

My point isn't that as a result of "blowback" we should bring all the troops home immediately. My point is that there should at least be some debate about ending some of our 900 military bases and maybe bringing some troops back from Korea, Japan, Germany, and other places that aren't at all relevant to our national security.

(I understand the last video is pretty controversial. I posted it not to label Bush as a terrorist but rather to demonstrate that our military presence overseas will inevitably create a backlash.)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 10:56:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 6:56:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

"Conservatives" like you are half the reason why our national debt is expanding at such an alarming rate. Why should military cuts be off the table? And since when does increasing military spending equal increased defense? Cuts to our military shouldn't be off the table. Do you seriously think that we have to maintain 900+ military bases in 130+ countries? I fail to see how maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Korea, Germany, and Japan increases our security, or why we shouldn't be talking about closing some or all of those bases.

Besides, the same argument many "conservatives" make against domestic welfare programs - that regardless of their merits, the reality is that we just don't have endless money to spend - can be made against military spending.

Increasing military spending does NOT increase national security. Ever hear of the CIA-coined term "blowback?" Basically, if we think we're so awesome that we should be spreading our awesomeness around the world with sanctions and bombs and bullets and secret invasions, resulting in millions of innocent deaths and even more pissed off family members/friends, eventually some people are going to be pissed enough to retaliate. Yeah, if America behaves foolishly and irresponsibly around the world, there might actually be consequences! This is the biggest reason the 9/11 attackers gave to explain their actions. Not trying to justify that, just trying to say that actions have consequences....

My point isn't that as a result of "blowback" we should bring all the troops home immediately. My point is that there should at least be some debate about ending some of our 900 military bases and maybe bringing some troops back from Korea, Japan, Germany, and other places that aren't at all relevant to our national security.





(I understand the last video is pretty controversial. I posted it not to label Bush as a terrorist but rather to demonstrate that our military presence overseas will inevitably create a backlash.)

+1

For the military part
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2012 11:08:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 10:56:44 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/9/2012 6:56:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

"Conservatives" like you are half the reason why our national debt is expanding at such an alarming rate. Why should military cuts be off the table? And since when does increasing military spending equal increased defense? Cuts to our military shouldn't be off the table. Do you seriously think that we have to maintain 900+ military bases in 130+ countries? I fail to see how maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Korea, Germany, and Japan increases our security, or why we shouldn't be talking about closing some or all of those bases.

Besides, the same argument many "conservatives" make against domestic welfare programs - that regardless of their merits, the reality is that we just don't have endless money to spend - can be made against military spending.

Increasing military spending does NOT increase national security. Ever hear of the CIA-coined term "blowback?" Basically, if we think we're so awesome that we should be spreading our awesomeness around the world with sanctions and bombs and bullets and secret invasions, resulting in millions of innocent deaths and even more pissed off family members/friends, eventually some people are going to be pissed enough to retaliate. Yeah, if America behaves foolishly and irresponsibly around the world, there might actually be consequences! This is the biggest reason the 9/11 attackers gave to explain their actions. Not trying to justify that, just trying to say that actions have consequences....

My point isn't that as a result of "blowback" we should bring all the troops home immediately. My point is that there should at least be some debate about ending some of our 900 military bases and maybe bringing some troops back from Korea, Japan, Germany, and other places that aren't at all relevant to our national security.





(I understand the last video is pretty controversial. I posted it not to label Bush as a terrorist but rather to demonstrate that our military presence overseas will inevitably create a backlash.)

+1

For the military part

Wow, very surprised that anyone who supports Rick Santorum could agree with anything in that post. It's literally anti-thetical to his foreign policy. Also seems to be different than what you've said about Ron Paul - you've condemned his foreign policy for being "weak" and all that. So just wondering, how could you support Santorum's foreign policy, not support Paul's, and agree with anything in my post?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 1:31:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/9/2012 6:56:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/8/2012 5:27:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Nope.

Cut everything except the police force and military. Not only will this cause the debt to go down significantly, but will increase security of the nation.

"Conservatives" like you are half the reason why our national debt is expanding at such an alarming rate. Why should military cuts be off the table? And since when does increasing military spending equal increased defense? Cuts to our military shouldn't be off the table. Do you seriously think that we have to maintain 900+ military bases in 130+ countries? I fail to see how maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Korea, Germany, and Japan increases our security, or why we shouldn't be talking about closing some or all of those bases.

I agree. But the greater question is: Why is anything "off the table"? Disregarding a potential solution without considering the solution is ridiculous, and the reason why we can't even produce a budget.
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 7:48:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/8/2012 5:25:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
is it sustainable? I say no...discuss

Paul Krugman recent opined that (http://www.nytimes.com...) if the government can ensure the debt grows more slowly than the tax base, the debt will become increasing irrelevant. He uses the US debt after WWII as an example of how it didn't make our nation poorer and according to him it was never repaid.