Moderator's Warning: |
we essentially committed fraud in the 70's when we spend more then we had and bankrupted our end of Bretton Woods, so his views aren't that far off from the truth. probably a bitter pill for someone with your nationalistic pride I imagine.
We were doing pretty fine when we had Nixon in presidency.
no, the spending in the 60's and 70s's is what caused us to commit fraud on the national stage, and we were called on it. we were not doing fine.
:lol: The pols in Congress try hard to try to convince people that they and the people are one and the same.
And, alas, gullible Americans fall for it.
They are. Congress works for those who sponsor them. The average American, OTOH, doesn't pony up substantial funds for their re-election campaigns so pols have no allegiance to them.
You must be very gullible to believe otherwise.
No. Congress is made up of Americans. We vote them in. We have the ability to vote them out.
We just don't. Because we're gullible.
No. Congress is made up of Americans. We vote them in. We have the ability to vote them out.
We just don't. Because we're gullible.
No. Congress is made up of Americans. We vote them in. We have the ability to vote them out.
We just don't. Because we're gullible.
I certainly agree that Yemen is and has been about a dysfunctional as you can get. Clearly they were starting from a much more primitive state and have a far less educated population, very little infrastructure, and numerous other problems.
OTOH I can't heap much praise on Russia. It is riddled with crime and corruption.
If we're the parasites, why aren't Russians coming here to adopt our kids?
How are we going to pay it?
I probably wasn't sufficiently clear. Russia likely had a choice as to whether it defaulted (it chose default). Russia had no choice when it came to the onset of its crisis. In contrast, if U.S. policy makers choose wisely, the U.S. still has enormous latitude to avoid the kind of crisis that unfolded in Russia. But will the U.S. choose wisely remains to be seen. Risks of a less than prudent course likely have increased on account of the recent political dysfunctionality exhibited during the debt ceiling debate. That a modest deficit reduction agreement was sealed to avoid a self-inflicted crisis does not mean that U.S. political risk has diminished.
Also, I fully agree about PM Putin's motives. He is extremely focused on Russia's interests how he perceives them and those interests alone. The less exaggerated point about the opportunity costs associated with large capital inflows is a reasonable one. PM Putin's exaggerated claim goes well beyond that narrower issue.
In regards to the last paragraph, the United States could do with focusing on ourselves by ending all foreign aid and military involvement.
I probably wasn't sufficiently clear. Russia likely had a choice as to whether it defaulted (it chose default). Russia had no choice when it came to the onset of its crisis. In contrast, if U.S. policy makers choose wisely, the U.S. still has enormous latitude to avoid the kind of crisis that unfolded in Russia.
In regards to the last paragraph, the United States could do with focusing on ourselves by ending all foreign aid and military involvement.
The U.S. will be gradually winding down military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, foreign aid is a tiny fraction of the federal budget. Of course, foreign aid should be focused based on American interests.
Completely eliminating foreign aid would not be helpful. First, even if foreign aid were completely eliminated, that outcome would have almost no impact on the nation's fiscal trajectory. Second, abdication undermine overseas U.S. interests leading to greater risk of future military interventions. Such operations are far more costly than foreign aid. Hence, a neo-isolationist policy would, at best, contribute very little to the nation's finances, and could well increase the nation's security, economic, and financial risk exposure.
In your opinion, what can the US do to avoid this sort of crisis? With such a large deficit and unimaginably huge unfunded liabilities in the future such as medicare, medicaid, social security, etc., how can the US ever have a balanced budget? People say cut entitlements, but they fail to see just how much money the fed has "loaned" to both domestic and foreign corporations and banks. Even if it cut all of the entitlement programs (which would be a disaster) that still wouldn't cover it all. Not even close. And then there is the unemployment rate, and the lack of growth. It comes down to basic accounting: either the US needs more growth or less spending, preferably both. However, even if all of these things happened, the dollar is still losing ground and many foreign governments are dumping the dollar for more secure currency. To me, this looks like impending doom. But to most people, they seem to find hope- but hope in what, exactly?
By drastically decreasing the size and scope of the government and letting the earning power of capitalism fill the coffers
I see, so we keep making the 'vig' on the nations blackmail payoffs....Jefferson was weary of becoming involved in foreign entanglements, how is it any different when we use our money, or our troops?
j-mac
I think you are confused. We suffer Corporatism and it is not the same as Capitalism. Corporations are legal persons now, thanks to the Supreme Court. Of course, Corporations don't live and breathe so don't tend to want the same things living, breathing species need and they don't die and are simply about money so the viewpoints they espouse are not related to the needs of humans. Could that bode ill for our future? Spell Corporatism with a capital "R" for Republicans. Keep your hand over your ass, and don't bend over.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?