Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Military budget cuts abroad

March 3, 2014

Americans may be paying more for defense while getting less in troop strength, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel recently hinted....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(91)

wally1

Mar-09-14 11:59 AM

Well then stay out of all these countries problems. They hate us anyways

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 12:16 PM

In this particular article, I didn't see the author term the "New Deal" as communist.

It should be HAetc's turn to put up or...well, we all know what...about that particular charge of his.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 12:14 PM

conclusion...

"Yes, Social Security is popular in America, but that’s true also of other fast-growing Ponzi schemes, at least initially; the main pain comes later, as the inflow-outflow ratio shrinks. The “later” of our yester-years is now upon us, today. What can be done? Given Social Security’s popularity, some call it the “third rail” of politics, an issue candidates dare not “touch” because it’ll kill their chances of election (or re-election). Yet if the system’s defects were more widely known, voters might demand that their politicians put an end to it, now."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 12:11 PM

cont...

"...it’s irrelevant whether a Ponzi perpetrator sets out deliberately to inflict his scheme or instead only ends up with one after many years of evading his bad results and “cooking the books” to hide them. Either way, it’s still fraud. Likewise, by now it matters not whether FDRs’ New Dealers “intended” Social Security to be “true insurance” or else a patent fraud starting in 1935; the fact remains that it has long since become an actual fraud. Today only fools or frauds dare deny it. Private-sector Ponzi schemes have built-in sensors, enemies, and anti-fraud laws to prevent and terminate them, while Social Security has the opposite: built-in perpetuators, coercion, muzzled and shrinking rivals, a growing pool of serfs, millions of admiring heralds, and a superficial air of legality..."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 12:10 PM

cont...

"A “Ponzi scheme” (the term made infamous by Charles Ponzi in the early 1920s), like Bernie Madoff’s recent scheme, and like any “pyramid” scheme or “chain letter,” is an operation that pays alleged “investment returns” to clients from the clients’ own paid-in funds and with payments by subsequent clients, rather than from investments in productive assets or securities....

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 12:08 PM

From forbes article...

"...Democrats don’t even try to be candid about Social Security, or try to present a real fix; they’re content to run ads with GOP suits tossing granny off a cliff, which means they’re content to be infantile about the debate – which means they’re not amenable to a real solution.

"The facts about Social Security are these. Yes, it’s a Ponzi scheme (Santorum), thus criminally fraudulent (as I’ll explain), but even worse, because it coerces us to be a part of it. Since the scheme began in 1935 the full force of the U.S. government has compelled a growing portion of citizens to suffer by it, such that we all do so by now. A scheme of such widespread, compulsory fraud is unprecedented in U.S. history, and perhaps one of the most shameful (and popular) of FDR’s New Deal schemes..."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 12:06 PM

OK, HAetc, I see I must do the heavy lifting here in order for this back-n-forth to have some credibility. Like I've said many times before, I don't believe anyone's posts at first take, and I'll research them when I have the time/inclination to do so.

forbes . com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 11:54 AM

"'To just say we're just going to do that alone? No, I wouldn't be for that — that kind of a potshot approach,' he said. 'But if you're talking about a package that gives another 20, 30, 40, 50 years of solvency to Social Security, that takes care of the poorest people on Social Security, who don't even reach the poverty level; takes care of the elderly, whose savings are gone — I'm listening. Let's talk it through.'

"But Durbin, like most Democrats, is wary of including any far-reaching and long-lasting entitlement reforms in a hastily thrown-together deal to avoid the fiscal cliff."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-08-14 11:53 AM

npr . org 12-15-12 (before the fiscal cliff thingy)

This article is entitled "Democrats Dig In Their Heels On Entitlement Cuts." Any quotes from this article are now 15 months old - a lifetime in politics. It's possible what was said then is not the way anyone feels now.

"...Republicans have proposed...making the formula used for cost-of-living adjustments to entitlement programs less generous. It's something known as "chained CPI" — referring to the consumer price index. Vermont Rep. Peter Welch, a Democrat, says it would be a bitter pill to swallow.

"Chained CPI's tough; it is a cut," he said. "The president's negotiating that. So there's not enthusiasm on the Democratic side to do that — a lot of opposition, in fact."

"But Democrats are not unanimous in their opposition. (Sen. Dick) Durbin said it could win his support..."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-07-14 3:05 PM

I suppose if I got all bat-crazy with what some say the Democrat platform includes (abortion on demand, unlimited and unquestioned entitlements with generous COLAs, doing away with the constitution and substituting banana republic policies), I'd be accused of being unreasonable. But I wouldn't do that. Bat crazy ain't befitting.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-07-14 3:02 PM

"Can you really deny that Republicans want to abolish the entire New Deal and Great Society programs? Can you deny that Republicans want to abolish all gun laws?"

I haven't heard this, that all Republicans want to do what you allege, and that the Republican party platform states what you are alleging above.

IF (and I'll repeat myself) IF you can find a source that substantiates the above allegations, I'll try to address them sincerely.

Until the source is provided, instead of what seems to be the usual Democrat liberal boilerplate charges, I can't take your posts seriously, no matter how condescendingly you approach the issue.

These two words will suffice: got proof?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoInPeace

Mar-06-14 7:31 PM

We all agree that congress gets paid.Lets keep the active military and pay them the same but only make them work 2 days a week,Just like congree.Look at the savings.Goinpeace

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-06-14 11:19 AM

The partisan viewpoint is all that matters to you, HAetc.

You won't debate or even list specifics. Instead, you make generalized grandiose emotionally-charged claims, hoping that somebody will agree with them, I guess. That "living under a rock" thingy - priceless.

Have a partisan day

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 9:11 PM

"They (GOP) want to take America back to the Wild West where we have rampant lawlessness and a gunslingers paradise, again 19th century or before."

Speaking of lawlessness, I've been thinking about several states' attorneys general and upholding states' laws on the books...

"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr....injected the Obama administration into the emotional and politicized debate over the future of state same-sex marriage bans, declaring in an interview that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory...

"Six state attorneys general — all Democrats — have refused to defend bans on same-sex marriage, prompting criticism from Republicans who say they have a duty to stand behind their state laws, even if they do not agree with them."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 9:03 PM

"Loco, I am far more interested in the actions and unwritten agenda of the GOP than I am the "for public consumption" written platform."

Interesting, HAetc. To suit some people, the very same thing can be said about another political party (excuse the very slight edit)...

I am far more interested in the actions and unwritten agenda of the Democrat Party than I am the "for public consumption" written platform."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 9:01 PM

HAetc, when I make an assertion, I try to back it up. Why should I be responsible for backing up, or even researching, your own assertion, that of a supposed 19th century social agenda?

Your list of 6 lines might be compelling if you had another source confirming what you say and think. Until then, are we to believe your word as you say it's a matter of public record?

Like I said, prove it and put up some details, like independent sources verifying your assumptions, or...well, I already told you about the rest.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GoInPeace

Mar-05-14 1:16 PM

I believe what takkak says.Thanks to slide I get to vote no everyday.Goinpeace

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 11:34 AM

gop . com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform

This is for HAetc. Time to put up or...well, you know the rest.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 11:05 AM

"17th century social agenda"

I asked HAetc the other day for proof of his assertions about the Republican platform being stuck in the 19th century. No reply.

Today his magical century number is 17th. Got proof today?

Wait for it...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 11:03 AM

Seriously, billgrr, you're going to have to tone down the rhetoric, or that myth about compassionate and tolerant Democrats is going to bust big time.

Wait for it...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 10:58 AM

"America is moving in a very liberal direction, and unless the Rethuglican party stops pushing their 17th Century social agenda, they are done nationally."

Is this a perdickshun? Or is it oh-so-wishful partisan Democrat liberal thinking? I choose b.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 10:54 AM

"Never bring a dictionary to a gun fight"

Now this was funny.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 10:51 AM

investopedia . com

"To monetize is to convert an asset into or establish something as money or legal tender. The term monetize has different meanings depending on the context. It can refer to methods utilized to generate profit, while it also can literally mean the conversion of an asset into money. For example, the U.S. Federal Reserve can monetize the nation's debt; this involves the process of purchasing debt (treasuries) which in turn increases the money supply. This essentially turns the debt into money (monetization)."

Notice that phrase "to establish something as money." Perhaps if I say that my homemade jelly is just as good as currency, and I get others to agree with me, my new buddies and I will use my jelly to pay my bills. Does that work for everybody?

I think to "monetize" is to make money out of thin air, no more, no less.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 10:48 AM

"Congress passed and President George Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program (aka "TARP" bailouts) in October of 2008. The Fed lent the Treasury $700 billion (or so) to distribute between failed private sector corporations.

"The Fed knew that in order to keep financial recovery on the upswing, it had to continue this policy of monetizing debt for the federal government. QE1 began one month later...QE2 commenced in November 2010...QE3 began in September 2012..."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Mar-05-14 10:43 AM

"The Dow Jones Industrial closed up 224 points. The best day yet in 2014. Where is muleskinner to give President Obama credit?"

Like I said the other day:

The Rich making money in the stock market under Republicans - BAD

The Rich making money in the stock market under Democrats - GOOD

Many normal Americans don't have the money to speculate in the stock market, but the government has been throwing in billions for a few years now. Yes, I know it began under Bush.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 91 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web