Any thoughts on balancing the budget?

buze81123buze81123 Posts: 15
edited September 2010 in A Moving Train
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008 ... LOzu5XY-nw

So far, I definately think that having Ron Paul and Obama in this 2012 election would give us a good debate. I'm still new to this but apparently his son (Rand Paul) is running for Senate as well. In my mind if we can balance the budget then we can think about possibly hanging on to social security. It's not in here but I thought I remember reading or seeing something on youtube about Ron Paul speaking about getting rid of the federal reserve. I think he was just trying to bring an argument up in an idealistic fashion. But I cannot agree with getting rid of the federal reserve. But I can agree with Rand Paul when he says that there will be no government bailouts even on large banks. I just think that at this point in time something like that seems fair. Especially with people who have made bad loans.

Rand Paul's video here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008 ... Zs-BRG8o7Y
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    buze81123 wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom#p/a/u/0/VLOzu5XY-nw

    So far, I definately think that having Ron Paul and Obama in this election would give us a good debate. I'm still new to this but apparently his son (Rand Paul) is running for Senate as well. In my mind if we can balance the budget then we can think about possibly hanging on to social security. It's not in here but I thought I remember reading something about getting rid of the federal reserve. That I cannot agree with. But I can agree with Rand Paul when he says that there will be no government bailouts even on large banks. I just think that at this point in time something like that seems fair. Especially with people who have made bad loans.

    Rand Paul's video here:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008 ... Zs-BRG8o7Y
    i am a fan of neither paul. the only way the budget will be balanced is if we significantly cut military spending and if we raise taxes. by the way, if paul were to win, there has never been a balanced budget under any republican president in the last 50 years....so it is probably a pipe dream...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Well, for argument sake. Cutting spending is the key. I don't think we can balance the budget with just a new one term president. But I think we should try just so the money that we save does not depreciate in this economy. Also if the war came to us, I can imagine that we should win the war. Then we would have to raise taxes anyways. Anybody have anything to add?
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    buze81123 wrote:
    Well, for argument sake. Cutting spending is the key. I don't think we can balance the budget with just a new one term president. But I think we should try just so the money that we save does not depreciate in this economy. Also if the war came to us, I can imagine that we should win the war. Then we would have to raise taxes anyways. Anybody have anything to add?
    i have this to add...there is no war coming to us. no army or navy is invading us and no army will fight us on our soil. look at the department of homeland security and read this thread... viewtopic.php?f=13&t=140371 this is where a huge chunk of our money is going....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Good article. Let me ask you this. Who do you think would be a good candidate for the Republican 2012 debate?
  • buze81123 wrote:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom#p/a/u/0/VLOzu5XY-nw

    So far, I definately think that having Ron Paul and Obama in this 2012 election would give us a good debate. I'm still new to this but apparently his son (Rand Paul) is running for Senate as well. In my mind if we can balance the budget then we can think about possibly hanging on to social security. It's not in here but I thought I remember reading or seeing something on youtube about Ron Paul speaking about getting rid of the federal reserve. I think he was just trying to bring an argument up in an idealistic fashion. But I cannot agree with getting rid of the federal reserve. But I can agree with Rand Paul when he says that there will be no government bailouts even on large banks. I just think that at this point in time something like that seems fair. Especially with people who have made bad loans.

    Rand Paul's video here:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008 ... Zs-BRG8o7Y

    I believe that balancing the budget is definitely a step in the right direction, but it's worthless unless this practice is maintained over the course of several presidencies. Clinton had a budget surplus, but the US was still trillions in debt to the rest of the world under him. Things have gotten much worse with Bush and now with Obama. Under the current system, being in debt is an inevitability. Every dollar is created with debt attached. Unless you got rid of the Federal Reserve, this country will always be in debt to someone else, be it private bankers on our own soil, foreign soil, or other central banks. Right now, the entire fate of our economy rests on the Chinese as they are holding more of our money than anyone else. It's a very precarious position to be in, considering that they could decide that our currency is worthless (which it is, thanks to The Fed), or demand repyament of the debt.

    More important than actually balancing the budget is that the inflation stops, meaning expansion of the money supply, which the Fed does unchecked every chance it gets. Entire empires have collapsed due to the devaluation of the currency. Really all of this talk about balanced budgets, debt, and deficits are nothing more than huge FAKE numbers. The only thing that is real at this point is confidence in the currency, and it's becoming less real by the day. Reducing deficits and debt only restores confidence in the system, and in a system based strictly on confidence, this is needed. The more these numbers grow, the more unrealistic the chances of this phony debt being repaid. Although the debt is phony, the severe consequences of a run on the dollar are VERY REAL, and again, the fate of our country relies in the hands of other countries. And guess what? We're not a very popular nation at the moment...

    As far as social security goes, it should be privatized if an individual so chooses, and should also be permitted to be held in the government account if that's what a person chooses to do with his or her money. Considering the current social security system is trillions in debt by itself because it is constantly raided for other out-of-control government spending, I would personally choose to have that money to manage myself. Privatization of social security does not necessarily equal managed by Wall Street. It can, but it should be up to the individual where their money goes. Your Social Security is CURRENTLY far more managed by Wall Street, than if a person was allowed to keep that portion of his or her paycheck for future expenditures.

    I can't emphasize it enough. The best way to stop the spending, and thus the wars would be to get rid of the monster that is able to print money out of thin air, that is legally counterfeit and give it to whomever they choose without disclosure.

    I'm all for getting rid of the Fed, replacing it with sound money based on either a single, or multiple commodities of the market's choosing, OR, possibly for fiat money with only a fixed amount of it available. Fraud must again be criminalized, meaning banks have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

    I like Rand. Not as much as Ron, though. He's a bit more hawkish, and a bit less principled, but I have a feeling that he may be politicking and playing to the "conservative" wing of the Tea Party a bit more than the old man. Ron Paul 2012 all the way.
  • I'm not sure I trust either party to get America out of debt right now, when the actual act of making money loses the government money.

    When it costs you more than a penny to produce a penny, then you're already demonstrating that math and economics weren't your best subjects in school :lol:
    And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
  • 8181 Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
    put me in charge, i'll cut spending
    81 is now off the air

    Off_Air.jpg
  • buze81123buze81123 Posts: 15
    edited September 2010
    This is all very scary stuff sorry to say. Fuck man people are smart. Oh well to quote another song...speed of sound...i'm just liking the mandolin part?
    Post edited by buze81123 on
  • buze81123buze81123 Posts: 15
    edited September 2010
    Oh yeah Paul Rand, the graphic designer...I mean Ron Paul
    Post edited by buze81123 on
  • Gonzo1977Gonzo1977 Posts: 1,696
    Well...Getting the hell out of Afghanistan is probably a step in the right direction.

    It's not how much we spending...But where we are spending it.

    That's what's got us under the Lion's paw right now.

    Re-Focusing our attention on the domestic...Spending on stuff that effects us right here at home.

    Infustructure,Industry, Innovation, Education, and Jobs.

    Not some Overseas circle jerk conflict to which we have no business, context, understanding, or purpose.

    No return...No Reward...No point.
  • Just having soldiers plugged into video games at their friend's house over there is costly enough. PS3 baby!
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    the United States spends as much as the rest of the world combined on its military. it is the world's first truly global empire.


    having the strongest military on the planet gives it political leverage against any country in the world....they can dictate to them simply by using the threat of violence. but it also pushes the arena toward that as that is where the US has the upper hand. Elder Bush's line in the lead up to first gulf war, "there will be no negotiotions". of course not, negotiations are for the weak.

    but as US economic might dwindles its reliance on its military increases, and that's a big deal. in an arrangement that already favored violence, it is being pushed even closer to it simply because economic pressure might not be enough anymore, as was the case with Iraq, as is the case with Iran. i also think a big reason why afghanstan was chosen is because it has the potential to cut Iran out of the european oil market, were a pipeline to go through it, giving Washington its economic leverage again. but that's something else.

    if you want to talk about balancing the budget perhaps scaling back some on this empire and putting more effort inside the US borders, that could go a long way.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Kill the poor!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Commy wrote:
    if you want to talk about balancing the budget perhaps scaling back some on this empire and putting more effort inside the US borders, that could go a long way.

    The next time these warmongers spend so much energy trying to whip up war fever amongst the gullible populace it would be nice if the general public grew some balls and brains and told the politicians to go and do the fighting that they themselves crave so much. If the warmongers are really so brave and passionate about killing poor people overseas then they surely wouldn't be able to object to being parachuted onto the front lines to show us all just how tough and 'patriotic' they are when it comes to defending 'our freedoms'?
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    if you want to talk about balancing the budget perhaps scaling back some on this empire and putting more effort inside the US borders, that could go a long way.

    The next time these warmongers spend so much energy trying to whip up war fever amongst the gullible populace it would be nice if the general public grew some balls and brains and told the politicians to go and do the fighting that they themselves crave so much. If the warmongers are really so brave and passionate about killing poor people overseas then they surely wouldn't be able to object to being parachuted onto the front lines to show us all just how tough and 'patriotic' they are when it comes to defending 'our freedoms'?


    aah for the old days of kings and knights.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    if you want to talk about balancing the budget perhaps scaling back some on this empire and putting more effort inside the US borders, that could go a long way.

    The next time these warmongers spend so much energy trying to whip up war fever amongst the gullible populace it would be nice if the general public grew some balls and brains and told the politicians to go and do the fighting that they themselves crave so much. If the warmongers are really so brave and passionate about killing poor people overseas then they surely wouldn't be able to object to being parachuted onto the front lines to show us all just how tough and 'patriotic' they are when it comes to defending 'our freedoms'?


    aah for the old days of kings and knights.

    I wonder how eager these politicians would be for foreign invasions if they knew they'd have to lead from the front? Somehow I think there'd be fewer wars in the world.
  • KatKat Posts: 4,908
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:

    The next time these warmongers spend so much energy trying to whip up war fever amongst the gullible populace it would be nice if the general public grew some balls and brains and told the politicians to go and do the fighting that they themselves crave so much. If the warmongers are really so brave and passionate about killing poor people overseas then they surely wouldn't be able to object to being parachuted onto the front lines to show us all just how tough and 'patriotic' they are when it comes to defending 'our freedoms'?


    aah for the old days of kings and knights.

    I wonder how eager these politicians would be for foreign invasions if they knew they'd have to lead from the front? Somehow I think there'd be fewer wars in the world.

    I always felt that it should be a law that the Government leaders' own sons and daughters be the first to deploy to the war zone. I'd hope then that they'd work overtime to be sure there is PEACE.

    As for the budget, stop spending money that isn't there, stop selling pieces of America away and stop borrowing.
    Falling down,...not staying down
  • Kat wrote:

    I always felt that it should be a law that the Government leaders' own sons and daughters be the first to deploy to the war zone. I'd hope then that they'd work overtime to be sure there is PEACE.

    .
    :thumbup: :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Kat wrote:
    I always felt that it should be a law that the Government leaders' own sons and daughters be the first to deploy to the war zone. I'd hope then that they'd work overtime to be sure there is PEACE.

    True.

    The U.N was created to try and put an end to wars of conquest and occupation. Unfortunately the U.N has been hijacked and now falls far short of it's original purpose.

    It also doesn't help that the people with the least imagination and/or empathy amongst us - politicians - are also those who happen to be responsible for making the decisions regarding war/peace. Maybe Socrates had a point when he said that the rulers of any country should be the philosophers. Politicians are pretty much just businessmen. It's not really in their nature to see beyond their own noses, and it's too easy for these people to make decisions that effect the lives of others whilst viewing everything through the comfort of a computer or t.v screen.
    The consequences of their decisions don't affect them and can be conveniently brushed aside like yesterdays newspapers. The words 'A million dead Iraqi's' are just that: words.
    If they were forced to make a personal contribution then they probably wouldn't be so blasé about it.

    (Seems like blasé is my word of the day today :P )
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    Wasn't McCain's son deployed in Iraq?
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    Wasn't McCain's son deployed in Iraq?

    That just leaves Rumsfelds, Bush's, Cheney's, Wolfowitz's, Rice's, Perles, Powell's, e.t.c, e.t.c. Still, I think what's being suggested is that they are forced by law to deploy either themselves or a family member.

    Obviously it will never happen, but it's a nice thought.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    wars are never fought by those that created them...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    Would we really want them to be? I mean, I get the anger that is being expressed, but sometimes wars are (unfortunately) necessary, and there is a practical benefit to shielding our leaders from the dangers of the front lines (i.e. keeping them alive to continue making decisions, leaving them unencumbered by fear for their personal safety while they are making decisions, etc.) I'm just saying that there is another side to this coin.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    Would we really want them to be? I mean, I get the anger that is being expressed, but sometimes wars are (unfortunately) necessary

    Like Iraq?
    yosi wrote:
    and there is a practical benefit to shielding our leaders from the dangers of the front lines (i.e. keeping them alive to continue making decisions

    I'd argue that we'd be better off if many of these people didn't make any more decisions that cost the lives of millions of others.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    the iraq war, the vietnam war, korea, all of these are wars of choice. not necessary wars. as such, if the cause is so great and just, those starting the wars should be patriots and sacrifice themselves of a member of their family to go fight for it.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • yosiyosi NYC Posts: 3,069
    I'm well aware that many (probably most) wars are unnecessary. I'm just trying to inject some balance into the discussion.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Balancing the budget? Easy. Re-implement taxing the rich a higher percentage, that was cut by the Reagan administration.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Here is the basic info. I say start by chopping 5% off the biggest items.

    PolicyBasic_WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-14-10.jpg
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Kat wrote:
    I always felt that it should be a law that the Government leaders' own sons and daughters be the first to deploy to the war zone. I'd hope then that they'd work overtime to be sure there is PEACE.

    As for the budget, stop spending money that isn't there, stop selling pieces of America away and stop borrowing.

    That reminds me of Fahrenheit 9/11 when Michael Moore approached politicians in D.C. and asked them if they'd be willing to sign their kids up to fight in the war they voted for. If I remember it correctly - and I may not, it has been years since I saw it - not a single one did, and most of them wouldn't even entertain the thought.
    And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Sign In or Register to comment.