Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[numan]

'
No, of course not!

I'm just saying, don't have unrealistic expectations, and plan for the future based on the facts!!

Don't release a rock from your hand and expect it fly up into the sky!!

The American society is doomed, and no power on Earth can stop the inertia of the destructive energies.

What you can do is prepare to survive the collapse, and have some realistic plans for the aftermath.
.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The bottom line is, the government is spending the nation into bankruptcy and nobody but us conservatives seem to care. You said TARP was a one time allocation. Yes it was. But once the TARP money was spent and the stimulus package money was spent, they kept right on spending at those new higher levels every single year since and as far into the future as it is possible to speculate. Government has done that for a very long time. Once we let them spend it, however temporary it is supposed to be, it NEVER gets rolled back. It just gets relabeled into something else.

And that is why we are adding mega billions to the national debt every single day and, unless somebody stops them, they will absorb the entire economy into the government or government control just to fuel that debt.

And again, nobody seems to care but the conservatives.

Your assumption that only conservatives care is false. So is your assumption that the levels of higher spending were maintained. The deficit spending has been dropping ever since it reached a peak because of the 2008 economic collapse. If you want to ignore the FACTS then there is no point in having this discussion. If you want to just blame government without proposing any concrete solutions then there is no point in having this discussion either. We the People are the government so what are We the People going to do about this situation? Blame everyone but ourselves? Try to force a one sided "solution" down the throats of others? Or find a common solution that works for everyone?

And you keep moving the goal posts. I wasn't talking about deficit spending. I was talking about spending. Whether they borrow the money or drain the economy of it, it has largely the same effect. They spend more year after year after year. If you can show me ANY year in recent history that the government spent less or even close to the same amount as the year before, you might have some justification for your passionate defense of them.

And reductions in trillion dollar deficits don't mean a hell of a lot when deficits are projected to never get much below $400 billion a year for the next decade and that 'low' amount will be brief and fleeting.

We have had four straight years of $1 trillion plus deficits. The CBO projects a $669 billion deficit this year due to sequestration and slight improvement in the economy, but I'll believe that when I see it.

Obama's budget projects reduction in the deficit of $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. That would be less than 10% of the deficits we have been running. This also supposes that we really will save the money with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down and assumes that Congress won't spend the money saved on something else. Which they have always done for a long time now. And the projection is based on Obama's assumption that the economy will generate $6 in revenues for every $1 in spending increases over the next 10 years. That is a HUGE assumption. But there is ZERO assumption that they will even try to balance a budget.

And nobody seems to care but the conservatives. Everybody else tries to divert attention from it, mnimalize it, excuse it, ignore it, blame Bush, or pretend that promised 10% reduction in the deficit is significant--anybody want to buy a nice bridge or two?

The CBO is required to use the projections the Congress and/or the President feed to it. As a result it is rarely, if ever, accurate in its projections. But even if we go with the CBO's projections:

Overall, the budget office says Obama's budget would produce $5.2 trillion in red ink through 2023. That is $1.1 trillion less than the deficits that would be generated over that time if no tax or spending laws are changed.
CBO: Obama budget cuts deficits $1.1T by 2023 | Deseret News

Now is this okay with you? Or is it still only the conservatives who care?

So suggesting that We the People do something about coming up with a compromise solution is "moving the goal posts"? Do you actually want to find a solution or is this just a venue for you to vent your frustrations? So far the latter appears to be case. There is no point to this if you (and your fellow conservatives) aren't willing to come to the table. This has to start somewhere and it has to start with someone and most importantly it needs to start now. If you don't step up to the plate then you will be accepting responsibility for the worsening of this situation. Do we discuss solutions or don't we?

 

[Foxfyre]

Your assumption that only conservatives care is false. So is your assumption that the levels of higher spending were maintained. The deficit spending has been dropping ever since it reached a peak because of the 2008 economic collapse. If you want to ignore the FACTS then there is no point in having this discussion. If you want to just blame government without proposing any concrete solutions then there is no point in having this discussion either. We the People are the government so what are We the People going to do about this situation? Blame everyone but ourselves? Try to force a one sided "solution" down the throats of others? Or find a common solution that works for everyone?

And you keep moving the goal posts. I wasn't talking about deficit spending. I was talking about spending. Whether they borrow the money or drain the economy of it, it has largely the same effect. They spend more year after year after year. If you can show me ANY year in recent history that the government spent less or even close to the same amount as the year before, you might have some justification for your passionate defense of them.

And reductions in trillion dollar deficits don't mean a hell of a lot when deficits are projected to never get much below $400 billion a year for the next decade and that 'low' amount will be brief and fleeting.

We have had four straight years of $1 trillion plus deficits. The CBO projects a $669 billion deficit this year due to sequestration and slight improvement in the economy, but I'll believe that when I see it.

Obama's budget projects reduction in the deficit of $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. That would be less than 10% of the deficits we have been running. This also supposes that we really will save the money with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down and assumes that Congress won't spend the money saved on something else. Which they have always done for a long time now. And the projection is based on Obama's assumption that the economy will generate $6 in revenues for every $1 in spending increases over the next 10 years. That is a HUGE assumption. But there is ZERO assumption that they will even try to balance a budget.

And nobody seems to care but the conservatives. Everybody else tries to divert attention from it, mnimalize it, excuse it, ignore it, blame Bush, or pretend that promised 10% reduction in the deficit is significant--anybody want to buy a nice bridge or two?

The CBO is required to use the projections the Congress and/or the President feed to it. As a result it is rarely, if ever, accurate in its projections. But even if we go with the CBO's projections:

Overall, the budget office says Obama's budget would produce $5.2 trillion in red ink through 2023. That is $1.1 trillion less than the deficits that would be generated over that time if no tax or spending laws are changed.
CBO: Obama budget cuts deficits $1.1T by 2023 | Deseret News

Now is this okay with you? Or is it still only the conservatives who care?

So suggesting that We the People do something about coming up with a compromise solution is "moving the goal posts"? Do you actually want to find a solution or is this just a venue for you to vent your frustrations? So far the latter appears to be case. There is no point to this if you (and your fellow conservatives) aren't willing to come to the table. This has to start somewhere and it has to start with someone and most importantly it needs to start now. If you don't step up to the plate then you will be accepting responsibility for the worsening of this situation. Do we discuss solutions or don't we?

I don't see that you have offered any solutions. What I see is you bashing Republicans, George Bush, and conservative concepts. I have given you plenty of opportunity to express what you think the best policy/law should be re deloyment of troops and your response has consistently been that you think the War Powers Act is all that we need. Well I don't think that is sufficient since we have been at perpetual war for a very long time now and the President seems to have absolutely no reluctance to use the military on behalf of NATO or the UN or whatever makes him look like a big shot. His only reluctance is in using the military to protect and defend our people under attack such as in Benghazi.

My solution is to stop spending money we don't have on stuff we don't absolutely have to have. My solution is to stop doing things that we can't afford and we don't absolutely have to do. My solution is to pull the President and Congress's ability to enrich and empower themselves at our expense in ways the Founders never intended.

And your solution seems to defend whatever the hell they want to do now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And you keep moving the goal posts. I wasn't talking about deficit spending. I was talking about spending. Whether they borrow the money or drain the economy of it, it has largely the same effect. They spend more year after year after year. If you can show me ANY year in recent history that the government spent less or even close to the same amount as the year before, you might have some justification for your passionate defense of them.

And reductions in trillion dollar deficits don't mean a hell of a lot when deficits are projected to never get much below $400 billion a year for the next decade and that 'low' amount will be brief and fleeting.

We have had four straight years of $1 trillion plus deficits. The CBO projects a $669 billion deficit this year due to sequestration and slight improvement in the economy, but I'll believe that when I see it.

Obama's budget projects reduction in the deficit of $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. That would be less than 10% of the deficits we have been running. This also supposes that we really will save the money with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down and assumes that Congress won't spend the money saved on something else. Which they have always done for a long time now. And the projection is based on Obama's assumption that the economy will generate $6 in revenues for every $1 in spending increases over the next 10 years. That is a HUGE assumption. But there is ZERO assumption that they will even try to balance a budget.

And nobody seems to care but the conservatives. Everybody else tries to divert attention from it, mnimalize it, excuse it, ignore it, blame Bush, or pretend that promised 10% reduction in the deficit is significant--anybody want to buy a nice bridge or two?

The CBO is required to use the projections the Congress and/or the President feed to it. As a result it is rarely, if ever, accurate in its projections. But even if we go with the CBO's projections:



Now is this okay with you? Or is it still only the conservatives who care?

So suggesting that We the People do something about coming up with a compromise solution is "moving the goal posts"? Do you actually want to find a solution or is this just a venue for you to vent your frustrations? So far the latter appears to be case. There is no point to this if you (and your fellow conservatives) aren't willing to come to the table. This has to start somewhere and it has to start with someone and most importantly it needs to start now. If you don't step up to the plate then you will be accepting responsibility for the worsening of this situation. Do we discuss solutions or don't we?

I don't see that you have offered any solutions. What I see is you bashing Republicans, George Bush, and conservative concepts. I have given you plenty of opportunity to express what you think the best policy/law should be re deloyment of troops and your response has consistently been that you think the War Powers Act is all that we need. Well I don't think that is sufficient since we have been at perpetual war for a very long time now and the President seems to have absolutely no reluctance to use the military on behalf of NATO or the UN or whatever makes him look like a big shot. His only reluctance is in using the military to protect and defend our people under attack such as in Benghazi.

My solution is to stop spending money we don't have on stuff we don't absolutely have to have. My solution is to stop doing things that we can't afford and we don't absolutely have to do. My solution is to pull the President and Congress's ability to enrich and empower themselves at our expense in ways the Founders never intended.

And your solution seems to defend whatever the hell they want to do now.

Your solutions are generic. If this is going to work there need to be specifics. What exactly are you proposing to stop spending on? Please note that I have already made proposals but you ignored them so let's hear what exactly you want to cut funding from and by how much?

 

[Foxfyre]

So suggesting that We the People do something about coming up with a compromise solution is "moving the goal posts"? Do you actually want to find a solution or is this just a venue for you to vent your frustrations? So far the latter appears to be case. There is no point to this if you (and your fellow conservatives) aren't willing to come to the table. This has to start somewhere and it has to start with someone and most importantly it needs to start now. If you don't step up to the plate then you will be accepting responsibility for the worsening of this situation. Do we discuss solutions or don't we?

I don't see that you have offered any solutions. What I see is you bashing Republicans, George Bush, and conservative concepts. I have given you plenty of opportunity to express what you think the best policy/law should be re deloyment of troops and your response has consistently been that you think the War Powers Act is all that we need. Well I don't think that is sufficient since we have been at perpetual war for a very long time now and the President seems to have absolutely no reluctance to use the military on behalf of NATO or the UN or whatever makes him look like a big shot. His only reluctance is in using the military to protect and defend our people under attack such as in Benghazi.

My solution is to stop spending money we don't have on stuff we don't absolutely have to have. My solution is to stop doing things that we can't afford and we don't absolutely have to do. My solution is to pull the President and Congress's ability to enrich and empower themselves at our expense in ways the Founders never intended.

And your solution seems to defend whatever the hell they want to do now.

Your solutions are generic. If this is going to work there need to be specifics. What exactly are you proposing to stop spending on? Please note that I have already made proposals but you ignored them so let's hear what exactly you want to cut funding from and by how much?

I want to cut ALL funding 100% for federal projects that constitutionally were intended to be the prerogative of the states. As the Founders intended, I want the federal government to do ONLY what they HAVE to do to secure our unlienable rights, keep us knit together as one nation, and prevent the various states from doing physical, economic, or environmental volence to each other and/or limited functions in the interest of the general welfare that the states cannot realistically do..

That means the federal government begin now to phase out ALL social programs, however long it takes to do that without creating excessive chaos, and return those duties to the states where they belong. Except when attack on American citizens is imminent, I want the President to have to obtain the consent of Congress before deploying our military anywhere. I want the federal government to get out of the business of dispensing any form of charity or benefit to anybody and to make it virtually impossible for those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to enrich themselves at the taxpayer's expense. And then I want the federal government to take the bare minimum in taxes that it has to have to fulfill the constitutional responsibilities that will be left.

If we do that, those nations that now depend on us to provide military protection for them will find it necessary to devise a system to protect themselves. And we won't be losing hundreds of our young men and women in the military on foreign soil for missions we don't have a clue what they are even there for.

I want federal government to be scaled back to be a tool and servant of the people and the people to return to a system in which they govern themseleves and create whatever sort of societies they wish to have.

 

[Kondor3]

So, we've morphed from a Perpetual War discussion to a Sky-Is-Falling festival? Cool.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't see that you have offered any solutions. What I see is you bashing Republicans, George Bush, and conservative concepts. I have given you plenty of opportunity to express what you think the best policy/law should be re deloyment of troops and your response has consistently been that you think the War Powers Act is all that we need. Well I don't think that is sufficient since we have been at perpetual war for a very long time now and the President seems to have absolutely no reluctance to use the military on behalf of NATO or the UN or whatever makes him look like a big shot. His only reluctance is in using the military to protect and defend our people under attack such as in Benghazi.

My solution is to stop spending money we don't have on stuff we don't absolutely have to have. My solution is to stop doing things that we can't afford and we don't absolutely have to do. My solution is to pull the President and Congress's ability to enrich and empower themselves at our expense in ways the Founders never intended.

And your solution seems to defend whatever the hell they want to do now.

Your solutions are generic. If this is going to work there need to be specifics. What exactly are you proposing to stop spending on? Please note that I have already made proposals but you ignored them so let's hear what exactly you want to cut funding from and by how much?

I want to cut ALL funding 100% for federal projects that constitutionally were intended to be the prerogative of the states. As the Founders intended, I want the federal government to do ONLY what they HAVE to do to secure our unlienable rights, keep us knit together as one nation, and prevent the various states from doing physical, economic, or environmental volence to each other and/or limited functions in the interest of the general welfare that the states cannot realistically do..

That means the federal government begin now to phase out ALL social programs, however long it takes to do that without creating excessive chaos, and return those duties to the states where they belong. Except when attack on American citizens is imminent, I want the President to have to obtain the consent of Congress before deploying our military anywhere. I want the federal government to get out of the business of dispensing any form of charity or benefit to anybody and to make it virtually impossible for those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to enrich themselves at the taxpayer's expense. And then I want the federal government to take the bare minimum in taxes that it has to have to fulfill the constitutional responsibilities that will be left.

If we do that, those nations that now depend on us to provide military protection for them will find it necessary to devise a system to protect themselves. And we won't be losing hundreds of our young men and women in the military on foreign soil for missions we don't have a clue what they are even there for.

I want federal government to be scaled back to be a tool and servant of the people and the people to return to a system in which they govern themseleves and create whatever sort of societies they wish to have.

Thank you for the specifics. Presumably the federal govt will have to retain the powers to regulate commerce, pass legislation and adjudicate. The issue with handing everything back down to the state level that needs to be resolved is the inequity of resources. By having a union without interstate tariffs those resources were able to move freely. There will be an incentive on the part of states with more resources than others to find ways to earn revenues from those resources to pay for state run programs. (As an example think of Alaska with huge oil revenues and a relatively small population vs Arizona with fewer revenues and a larger population.) Right now these imbalances are remedied via federal taxes. There will also be a natural instinct to "protect" a state against what some see as incursions. How will the southern states control the border unless there is a federal authority to control it (and it still can't do it effectively). What if they start allowing immigrants and drugs into the nation because they either can't stop them or they find it profitable to allow it to happen? We are going to need to think these things through in order to have answers when these issues are raised. So let's go state by state with pros and cons. Where do you want to start?

 

[Anitabeme]

For those who get all their information from that "box" in the corner, no.

For the others, people that want the truth, will do the things to get it.

In other words, almost no one!!

But why should I bore you with my opinion? Here is Governor Jeb Bush, quoted in a book by Uri Dowbenko, Bushwhacked, speaking to retired Naval Intelligence Officer Al Martin (Sept. 2002):

"The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross -- all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million-or-so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you've got another think coming. Because the million-or-so people in this country who are truly interested in the truth don't have any money."

.

Another arrogant bastard.

 

[Anitabeme]

Actually I agree with this provided it is a well informed public grounded in a solid sense of right and wrong and pretty well agreed on which is which. But when one side controls most of education and the media, it won't happen because that side will control the message that gets to most of the people. This inevitably leaves the public largely uninformed and/or intentionally dumbed down to the point that I think most Americans now don't even bother to try to pay attention, much less become personally involved. Or they operate within the parameters that are dictated to them.

And if you add into that mix the fairly new phenomena of fanatical partisanship that includes demonization of any different point of view, the whole thing is greatly exacerbated.

And the perpetual war machine along with every other corrupting force in our society goes largely unchallenged.

You're putting the burden of being well-informed on others, when it should rest soley with you.

People who desire the truth, will do what it takes to get it.

Those who think they already have the truth don't go looking for something else though. And I do believe the adults need to teach the children and help them avoid making the mistakes we have learned not to make. And I believe we must make accurate information and honest history available to them and do not presume to tell them what to think, but rather teach them HOW to think so that they will process what they learn in a way to do things better than we have.

If you have an education system skewed to indoctrinate rather than teach, that skews the information to be how some WANT it to appear rather than what actually happened, the children have no way to know that they aren't being educated.

I've watched maybe a dozen 'man-on-the-street- interviews involving several people each now, and it is shocking how many--probably eight or nine out of ten--had no clue where Benghazi was or what had happened at our consulate there. When you have a media that reports only what fits a particular ideological or politically correct perspective or that avoids casting their heroes in any kind of negative light, you cannot have a population who is informed.

Everybody isn't going to to be a history or political or media junkie as some of us are. And in many cases you have to know what you don't know before you can know what you need to educate yourself about.

And there lies the tragedy of this country...our public school indoctrination. I'm a proud high school drop-out, and I learned a hell of a lot more out of school than I did in. They don't "teach" you anything, except nowadays in my school district, they teach high schoolers how to carry a baby around in school. This is supposed to sway them from wanting to get pregnant, all the time they're teaching them sex ed and how to fuck.

Oh well, off topic. Carry on.

 

[Anitabeme]

Your solutions are generic. If this is going to work there need to be specifics. What exactly are you proposing to stop spending on? Please note that I have already made proposals but you ignored them so let's hear what exactly you want to cut funding from and by how much?

I want to cut ALL funding 100% for federal projects that constitutionally were intended to be the prerogative of the states. As the Founders intended, I want the federal government to do ONLY what they HAVE to do to secure our unlienable rights, keep us knit together as one nation, and prevent the various states from doing physical, economic, or environmental volence to each other and/or limited functions in the interest of the general welfare that the states cannot realistically do..

That means the federal government begin now to phase out ALL social programs, however long it takes to do that without creating excessive chaos, and return those duties to the states where they belong. Except when attack on American citizens is imminent, I want the President to have to obtain the consent of Congress before deploying our military anywhere. I want the federal government to get out of the business of dispensing any form of charity or benefit to anybody and to make it virtually impossible for those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to enrich themselves at the taxpayer's expense. And then I want the federal government to take the bare minimum in taxes that it has to have to fulfill the constitutional responsibilities that will be left.

If we do that, those nations that now depend on us to provide military protection for them will find it necessary to devise a system to protect themselves. And we won't be losing hundreds of our young men and women in the military on foreign soil for missions we don't have a clue what they are even there for.

I want federal government to be scaled back to be a tool and servant of the people and the people to return to a system in which they govern themseleves and create whatever sort of societies they wish to have.

Thank you for the specifics. Presumably the federal govt will have to retain the powers to regulate commerce, pass legislation and adjudicate. The issue with handing everything back down to the state level that needs to be resolved is the inequity of resources. By having a union without interstate tariffs those resources were able to move freely. There will be an incentive on the part of states with more resources than others to find ways to earn revenues from those resources to pay for state run programs. (As an example think of Alaska with huge oil revenues and a relatively small population vs Arizona with fewer revenues and a larger population.) Right now these imbalances are remedied via federal taxes. There will also be a natural instinct to "protect" a state against what some see as incursions. How will the southern states control the border unless there is a federal authority to control it (and it still can't do it effectively). What if they start allowing immigrants and drugs into the nation because they either can't stop them or they find it profitable to allow it to happen? We are going to need to think these things through in order to have answers when these issues are raised. So let's go state by state with pros and cons. Where do you want to start?

Private citizens are capable of controlling the border, and they've tried, but it was deemed illegal. We need to legalize drugs and the criminal element will die a natural death instead of the bloodshed that is going on today. It's time for this bullshit to end.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can anyone on this Board right now, remember a time when our Nation wasn't involved in some sort of military action? Curious to see what you all think. Thanks.

My whole life and so what of it? Actually this President, if he is to be believed, and the right says he did what he said he'd do (socialism?) wants to take us off this path