Spending like drunken sailors on war while the US is headed towards economic Armageddon

[MadHound]

Just days after launching our latest round of war, the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve came out with this chilling statement:
"If we continue down on the path on which the fiscal authorities put us, we will become insolvent, the question is when,"

<http://www.cnbc.com/id/42209447>

Yes, the economic path we're on has become so dangerous that members of the Fed are feeling compelled to point out the problems that became obvious to us years, even decades ago. We simply cannot continue to engage in reckless spending, year in, year out, and not expect there to be consequences.

The vast bulk of that spending goes towards our military adventures, like those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. Questions of the morality of engaging in Libya aside, the simple, brutal truth of the matter is we simply cannot afford our wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less opening another war in Libya.

Look around you, your friends, neighbors, communities. We are hurting. The persistently high rate of unemployment and underemployment continues unabated, and will continue until we put a true job creation program in place. Our infrastructure is crumbling due to years and decades of neglect, and it won't be fixed until we start paying for it. Public education is being ravaged, and will continue to disintegrate until we start investing in schools, teachers and students, rather than trying to do public education on the cheap.

The list of ills caused by lack of money goes on and on, and it will continue to grow as long as we keep spending our money on war. The time has come for us to stop transferring wealth from the poor, working and middle classes into the pockets of the wealthy elite in the MIC.

For if we don't, we will take the Soviet option of ending empire, spending our treasure on war while the rest of our country crumbles away beneath us.




"

[Rex]

1. That is what they want, then they can default on all debt owed

while the ultra rich line their pockets with even more money. Today we have laws written for corporations and the ultra wealthy. The system must breakdown at some point if there is no equality in it.

[Quantess]

2. We simply cannot afford it.

The drain is circlinmg ever faster, as america swirls down the toilet.

[Catherina]

3. Rec'd but it seems some prefer to speed off into that economic Armageddon n/t

[Obamanaut]

4. More akin to spending like politicians who have access to the wallets of the taxpayers. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. This is offensive to drunken sailors

A drunken sailor might spend foolishly until his pockets are empty. Then he's forced to stop, because he's unlikely to find bartenders, taxi drivers, or prostitutes willing to extend credit.

The U.S. has bartenders, taxi drivers, and prostitutes (well, ok, arms and fuel suppliers) lined up willing to extend credit so that we can go into more wars without concern as to the contents of our pockets. Unlike the drunken sailor, there is no limit to the financial damage we can inflict on ourselves.

Stop these wars.

[quaker bill]

6. I am no fan of war

but I grow really tired of the "we can't afford this" meme. We are still the richest country on the planet. We can afford Social Security, universal healthcare, good roads, good schools, and this action in Libya. We simply need to start collecting revenue from those who have all the money.

[sendero]

8. We don't have..

... anything like universal health care.

[quaker bill]

33. True

but we not only could "afford it", but such a program would actually save money, so my point remains.

[IndyPragmatist]

9. Sure, we could afford those things....

if we weren't so deep in the hole. Sorry, but the reckless spending of the last two administrations has really put America in a terrible situation. We obviously have to raise taxes, but some of you act like thats the solution. I guess it's just a lot easier to scream and yell than it is to think.

Unless you would prefer a collapse of the dollar, which would hurt the middle and lower classes much more than the upper class. But that wouldn't happen for, like, 20 years, screw that, lets just spend another trillion in the red! The future is such a long way away.

[BzaDem]

12. If the dollar were going to collapse in 20 years, don't you think the interest rate on a 30 year

bond would be somewhat higher than the lowest in decades (save the peak of the financial crisis)?

The truth is that our fiscal problem has little to do with the spending of any particular past administration. Rather, it is healthcare costs growing at 3 times the rate of inflation.

[quaker bill]

31. Right, you just collect taxes

We are not deep in a hole. We aren't collecting taxes from the people who have all the money. The economy thrived far better than anything we have witnessed since Nixon at vastly higher tax rates on wealth. The top 2 percent have more wealth than the bottom 50 combined.

It is really quite simple, collect taxes. It is actually the thought out approach. Yelling that we are going broke is the current unthought nonsense and a product of much republican propoganda.

[Selatius]

37. It's not so simple. You have to elect people who think raising taxes on the top 1% is a good idea.

That's difficult to do in an election system where you must solicit money to run your campaign, and the business leaders have the most money. It's even harder to do when you have many news outlets under the control of the very same business leaders, and those news outlets pump out propaganda equating anybody who raises taxes on the rich to supporters of "godless socialism" or just plain supporters of communism/Stalinism.

[quaker bill]

38. True

getting a government that will do this is a challenge.

[MadHound]

13. So I guess the word of a Fed President means nothing to you then?

I suppose that you either don't know, or don't care about the fact that we're quickly approaching insolvency then, eh. Just close our eyes, open our wallets, and spend ourselves into oblivion on more wars:eyes:

It is no longer the simple issue of getting more revenue from the rich, but also the simple, stark fact that we need to make major cuts in our budget. We can either cut programs that serve the most vulnerable, or we can cut back on that massive welfare system known as military spending. Take your choice.

[quaker bill]

32. We are approaching insolvency

because we do not tax those who have all the money. They actually do really and truly have all the money, it is real money, and it exists. I am no fan of war, but this "we can't afford it" BS is republican propoganda. Please oppose the war, but find a real reason, like an objection to killing people or something.

We aren't insolvent, this was a single Fed President and in the minority of opinion on the matter. There is plenty of money, we just aren't collecting it. We still have, even now, the largest GDP in the world. The fact that you and I are not benefitting from this is just the product of horribly flawed conservative economic policy.

[leftstreet]

7. K&R

[Junkdrawer]

10. Oh hell, there's lots of SS spending to be cut....

Plenty of fat for the fires of War left...

[BzaDem]

11. The truth is, the reason we aren't spending money on education/infrastructure/etc has nothing to do

with the amount we are spending on Libya, and has everything to do with the structure of our government that makes it very easy for a small group to kill meaningful change. It is ridiculous to think that if we never went into Libya (and left Iraq and Afghanistan), we would spend even one additional penny of that money on the things you mentioned (in the current political climate). The problem at the moment is politics, not lack of funds or high interest rates.

[Quantess]

14. Fine, but we still can't afford it.

Wars are very expensive. Where is that money going to come from, if we don't collect more in taxes? We are already heavily in debt.

You have a point about the politics, but, this will just drive the USA even deeper into debt.

[MadHound]

15. No, the problem is money, plain, pure and simple.

Know that first stimulus bill that had money for infrastructure repair and job creation. If we weren't in such a sad state regarding our debt load, we could have doubled, tripled the money, and actually done a lot of good. But the constraints of our debt limited the effectiveness of that bill.

Meanwhile, as our debt goes up, our credit rating continues to be threatened, by Moody's and other institutions. We are on the brink of getting our credit rating lowered. Then we'll be in real hell.

And if we weren't in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Libya, yes, we would be spending money on infrastructure, education, and other such items. After all, idle money does nobody any good, so that money would be staying active, actually building this country.

[BzaDem]

34. "If we weren't in such a sad state regarding our debt load, we could have doubled, tripled"

Actually, that is completely false. Absent political constraints, we could easily have doubled (or more) the stimulus, and the markets wouldn't have batted an eye. Interest rates would not have gone up, because we were (and still are) in a liquidity trap. That's why with 14 trillion in debt and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, the 30-year bond interest rate is at record lows, going back decades.

As Krugman said,

"There are, however, some consequences of that situation. One of them is that increased borrowing by the government — or by anyone else — does not push up interest rates.

And that’s the sense in which the low level of interest rates now, lower than rates before the big deficits began, is evidence that the theory of the liquidity trap applies.

Really, this isn’t hard; you can read the words, or, if you’re a trained economist, work through the formal models. It’s only confusing if you really, really don’t want to understand."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/liquidity-traps-once-again/

You should heed Krugman's advice and learn the economics of a liquidity trap, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything you keep claiming they are.

---

"And if we weren't in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Libya, yes, we would be spending money on infrastructure, education, and other such items. After all, idle money does nobody any good, so that money would be staying active, actually building this country."

What are you talking about? That is the most ridiculous statement I have seen about the workings of our government on DU in at least a month. Idle money does NOT get spent to "stay active." It remains idle until the Republican house appropriates the money. Such appropriations won't be forthcoming. They don't care that "idle money does nobody any good."

[treestar]

16. So you're completely sure that you would shrug off deaths of Libyans

so that our economic position would be better?

Just want to be clear here.

[MadHound]

17. So you're completely sure that you are willing to continue to transfer wealth

From the poor, the middle, the working classes, all to enrich the few, the wealthy, elite members of the merchants of death, the MIC.

Just want to be clear here.

[treestar]

18. No, my point is that you'd be OK with whatever happens in Libya

And would not be criticizing Obama, the government or anyone, but would be supporting our staying out of it. No matter what happens there. There would be no outraged posts about how we are leaving the protestors on their own and doing nothing about it. We don't have the money to do anything about it and have to spend it on our country. So whatever happens in Libya is not our problem. Is that right?

[Quantess]

19. I can't speak for anyone else,

but I say we have too many problems of our own, right here in the USA, and we aren't collecting enough taxes to even pay for that.

Not to mention American lives.

[treestar]

22. OK, so you would be fine with whatever happens in Libya

And would not blame our government. Right?

[Gravel Democrat]

26. How can anyone be blamed but the Libyans for what Libyans do to each other?

If "Help" meant something other than "Bombs" maybe there would be more support.

Would Ghandi have advocated "helping" with $600,000 cruise missiles?

Here's someone the US/NATO "Helped" in Kosovo:



This woman had the audacity to shop when a NATO jet was "helping" by dropping a cluster bomb over a market place in Nis.

Sometimes the bombers would drop a load on a target (a train for example) and then fly off for 20-25 minutes. Then, they would circle back and drop another bomb on the hapless victims that were trying to rescue the first people that were "helped".

One of the most troubling things (...) is how people ignore the blowback factor. It's surreal.

[treestar]

28. OK, so if Gaddafi did in fact kill a lot of people

You would be making no claims that we should be doing anything about it? The Libyans are all responsible. I can at least respect that as consistent.

[IndyJones]

35. Okay, so if the drug lords in Mexico killed 36,000 in 5 years, you

would be making no claims that we should be doing anything about it? The Mexicans are all responsible. I can at least respect that as consistent.

Oh yeah, that really IS happening in Mexico and we really ARE NOT intervening with military force to "help".

[MadHound]

20. Let's look at our record of "helping" such countries

We "helped" many such South and Central American countries over the years, and yet our "help" made possible such atrocities as occurred in the soccer stadium in Chile.

We "helped" Vietnam, and our "help" turned into five million dead and untold destruction in a country that we once helped.

We "helped" the Iraqi people get rid of Saddam, and are apparently still there, "helping".

Our help, our violations of national sovereignty have, time and again, done far more harm than good. Our help is deadly, and those that receive our "help" generally suffer much more than those that don't.

And no, this isn't just an Obama thing, I've been pointing out the folly of this "help" since the days of Nixon. What about you? Why are you in favor of this "help", here, now? Because this help comes with a D behind its name, with Obama offering this "help"?

[treestar]

21. does not answer my question

[ReggieVeggie]

36. my point is you're only happy if everything is 100% in support of Obama

[Marr]

27. Oh, please. Let's just be honest.

That line is as ridiculous as it was when Bush said it about the people of Iraq, and his loyal supporters were regurgitating it around the clock. You're into "helping the Libyan people" because Obama is sending forces there, and that is all. Obama's motivations are debatable, but we can be pretty sure as adults that it has very little or nothing to do with "protecting the Libyan people".

There are problems everywhere and you seem very comfortable not trying to fix them all. Are you willing to shrug off the deaths of people in Somalia/Yemen/Sri Lanka/Congo/etc.,etc. simply because policing the world will turn us into paupers? Why only Libya? Why only now?

[Rex]

29. You nailed it...Obama.

It is the ONLY reason for one dimensional people. Black and white are all that exist. Bush + war = bad, Obama + war = good. Blind up until the very end imo.

[bullwinkle428]

23. War truly is "crack" to American politicians.

:banghead:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. But..but.. this time it's a noble cause..like it was in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan....

Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, and all those other countries we've "helped".

[Octafish]

25. Don't worry. Be happy.

[Modern_Matthew]

30. We should cut our military so much that it'd only be possible to defend against invasion. nt