How would you fix the United States' budget problem?

[Laissez-Faire]

Or just make legal immigration easier.

Problem solved.

Some immigration is fine. But "easier" immigration will inevitably lower the standard of living for native Americans, concentrate wealth, and stoke the flames of fascism.

?

Immigration only improves the status of America. We don't have some sort of nationalist culture to protect to the infinite degree.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Some immigration is fine. But "easier" immigration will inevitably lower the standard of living for native Americans, concentrate wealth, and stoke the flames of fascism.

?

Immigration only improves the status of America. We don't have some sort of nationalist culture to protect to the infinite degree.

See my post in the last page.

[Wamitoria]

?

Immigration only improves the status of America. We don't have some sort of nationalist culture to protect to the infinite degree.

See my post in the last page.

Having large amounts of immigrants is what keeps the US from having the same demographic problems that Western Europe and Japan are having.

[Laissez-Faire]

Considering the vast majority of extremely anti-immigrant Americans are old white people, I don't think we need to cater to them.

Well the fascism statement was a bit much. But The other concerns are real. Many illegal immigrants work under the table for less of what an American would make. Some of the money they earn is then sent back to their country of origin which hampers the multiplier effect. This allows This allows big business to keep a bigger share of the profits and keeps native Americans unemployed. Lastly, when we turn down immigration levels people are more likely to marry out side of their race and ethnicity. This reduces balkanization, which I consider to be a good thing considering the alternative.

Egalitarian immigration is only increased with proper and easier inmigration channels. And what is this about a slower immigration rate resulting in more intercultiral experience? You are assuming immigration makes natives hate immigrants even more, when the native structure is entirely formed as a superiority complex by that previous assertion.

Immigration only helps America's spread of capital by spreading and collecting our 'pool' of intellect. I still maintain my point about America not having a strong singular culture to nationalize. It's more about a philosophy than a single 'native ethnicity', and it pretty much always has been.

[Laissez-Faire]

See my post in the last page.

Having large amounts of immigrants is what keeps the US from having the same demographic problems that Western Europe and Japan are having.

This as well. Although to both Western Europe and Japan's credit, however slight, their condition is fundamentally different.

[Falsea]

Reduce Military Spending.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

And what is this about a slower immigration rate resulting in more intercultiral experience? You are assuming immigration makes natives hate immigrants even more, when the native structure is entirely formed as a superiority complex by that previous assertion.

Most people are naturally endogenous and tribalistic. But they will look outside of their race/ethnicity if there are less of their own around. It's the reason why most people of Japanese decent marry outside of their race.

Immigration only helps America's spread of capital by spreading and collecting our 'pool' of intellect. I still maintain my point about America not having a strong singular culture to nationalize. It's more about a philosophy than a single 'native ethnicity', and it pretty much always has been.

It certainly wouldn't be America as a whole. But certain areas, the neo-confederate movement in the deep south and the Neo-Nazi border patrol Arizona, are known for not liking the "other".

[Laissez-Faire]

Reduce Military Spending.

If NSG had a nickel for every time that's been proposed, we'd be able to purchase multiple server farms.

[Falsea]

Reduce Military Spending.

If NSG had a nickel for every time that's been proposed, we'd be able to purchase multiple server farms.

Too right

but well, it would be effective wouldn't it?
i mean, cut the budget and give it to other Government Departments.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Reduce Military Spending.

If NSG had a nickel for every time that's been proposed, we'd be able to purchase multiple server farms.

Poll: Americans Support Cuts To Military Spending

The poll, conducted by the Center for Public integrity, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) and the Stimson Center finds that when shown the discretionary budget for national defense alongside the discretionary budgets for education, veterans’ benefits, homeland security and various other spending areas, 65 percent of respondents found Defense spending to be more than what they had expected. Overall, respondents would cut the budget by 18 percent. Republicans cut an average of 12 percent and Democrats 22 percent.

[Wamitoria]

If NSG had a nickel for every time that's been proposed, we'd be able to purchase multiple server farms.

Too right

but well, it would be effective wouldn't it?
i mean, cut the budget and give it to other Government Departments.

Hell, if you cut the military budget by about 10% and wind down the war in Afghanistan, all you have to do is raise taxes to Clinton levels and you're practically at a balanced budget.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Too right

but well, it would be effective wouldn't it?
i mean, cut the budget and give it to other Government Departments.

Hell, if you cut the military budget by about 10% and wind down the war in Afghanistan, all you have to do is raise taxes to Clinton levels and you're practically at a balanced budget.

No. We still have Medicare Part D that was unfunded. And we'd have to leave taxes at their current level for probably 6 or so years before employment reaches it's normal levels.

[Laissez-Faire]

And what is this about a slower immigration rate resulting in more intercultiral experience? You are assuming immigration makes natives hate immigrants even more, when the native structure is entirely formed as a superiority complex by that previous assertion.

Most people are naturally endogenous and tribalistic. But they will look outside of their race/ethnicity if there are less of their own around. It's the reason why most people of Japanese decent marry outside of their race.

Immigration only helps America's spread of capital by spreading and collecting our 'pool' of intellect. I still maintain my point about America not having a strong singular culture to nationalize. It's more about a philosophy than a single 'native ethnicity', and it pretty much always has been.

It certainly wouldn't be America as a whole. But certain areas, the neo-confederate movement in the deep south and the Neo-Nazi border patrol Arizona, are known for not liking the "other".

Nazi ideology is not largely seen in Arizona. Nazism is far to complex a philosophy to be used as a mere synonym for purist and absolutist views on security.

[Wamitoria]

Hell, if you cut the military budget by about 10% and wind down the war in Afghanistan, all you have to do is raise taxes to Clinton levels and you're practically at a balanced budget.

No. We still have Medicare Part D that was unfunded. And we'd have to leave taxes at their current level for probably 6 or so years before employment reaches it's normal levels.

Of course. I'm not suggesting that we go for austerity while the economy is still recovering.

Also, I thought Part D was repealed with Obamacare?

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Most people are naturally endogenous and tribalistic. But they will look outside of their race/ethnicity if there are less of their own around. It's the reason why most people of Japanese decent marry outside of their race.



It certainly wouldn't be America as a whole. But certain areas, the neo-confederate movement in the deep south and the Neo-Nazi border patrol Arizona, are known for not liking the "other".

Nazi ideology is not largely seen in Arizona. Nazism is far to complex a philosophy to be used as a mere synonym for purist and absolutist views on security.

Nazism is well connected in the border patrol groups. You need to look up the J. T. Ready and Russell Pearce fiasco that happened earlier this month. Russell Pearce is the first vice chairman of Arizona Republican party, and former head of the state senate, and he has had extensive connections with neo-nazi groups. He personally baptized and mentored J. T. Ready, a Neo-Nazi fucktwat, into Mormonism.

[Wamitoria]

Most people are naturally endogenous and tribalistic. But they will look outside of their race/ethnicity if there are less of their own around. It's the reason why most people of Japanese decent marry outside of their race.



It certainly wouldn't be America as a whole. But certain areas, the neo-confederate movement in the deep south and the Neo-Nazi border patrol Arizona, are known for not liking the "other".

Nazi ideology is not largely seen in Arizona. Nazism is far to complex a philosophy to be used as a mere synonym for purist and absolutist views on security.

Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confeds are far more common in Arizona than in most southwestern states, along with the more extreme of the militia movement.

That may be what he's trying to say.

[Laissez-Faire]

Nazi ideology is not largely seen in Arizona. Nazism is far to complex a philosophy to be used as a mere synonym for purist and absolutist views on security.

Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confeds are far more common in Arizona than in most southwestern states, along with the more extreme of the militia movement.

That may be what he's trying to say.

But that's that, extreme. As in not acting in the role subscribed to it in the post about Arizona.

[Wamitoria]

Neo-Nazis and Neo-Confeds are far more common in Arizona than in most southwestern states, along with the more extreme of the militia movement.

That may be what he's trying to say.

But that's that, extreme. As in not acting in the role subscribed to it in the post about Arizona.

Of course they aren't. These groups would shit their fucking pants if they actually went up against the cartels and their smuggling operations. That's why they go after peaceful undocumented immigrants.

[AiliailiA]

This is addressed to all of those who are calling me out.

What the fuck?

Social security is not a handout. Social security is, by design, a contract. A contract offered by government to inviduals, and only accepted by individuals in the very indirect way of some of them voting for it, and few of them voting against it, over successive governments since it was implemented more than half a century ago. A "social contract" which was written down, and signed by at least one party to it: government.

Yes, it's probably necessary to rewrite that contract, with or without the consent of the direct beneficiaries. People who've been paying in for all their working lives, accepting costs in the expectation of future returns, will get somewhat screwed.

There's no right way to do that. Government programs shouldn't be made that way in the first place. Government should not make promises it cannot keep. It would have been better to simply institute an Old Age Pension, and a range of charitable handouts for those in need. For no more reason than it's the decent thing to do, and without any implied promise to continue it forever.

There's no right way to contain the growth of social security costs. It was a promise made by government, which government just cannot keep. Someone's going to get screwed.

There is no right way. But there is a wrong way, and it's what you just said. "Do away with Social Security".



Whatever. Cut military spending, increase education spending, some rubbish about being a business haven with some implied trickle-down nonsense, and be nice to you.

It's all inconsequential, after the horrendous breach of trust you suggested first up. You might as well bin government. You've certainly binned your own reputation as someone who thinks before they post.

"Do away with Social Security" ... it doesn't matter what you say after that. Nothing can make that right.

Stop assuming shit about my motives behind me saying what I said.

I don't see how I did that.

EDIT 1: OK, I see it now. "Be nice to you". That was a snipe, and I apologize for it. Still, it's hard to see how same-sex marriage matters on the fiscal scale you're talking about. Gays all leaving for Sweden would hit the US economy, but that's not going to happen is it? Just for marriage rights?

In fact, reading it back over, didn't I say not once but twice that the idea itself is bad? Egregious breach of the social contract signed by government (if not by the People) .. etc, etc .. I could write the whole thing out again, whoever it was addressed to or whatever their motivations.

But since you invite comment on your motivations: it seems to me that you're asking for special consideration. As though I should know you have good motives for saying that bad thing.

It's a bad idea. You expressed it very bluntly: "do away with social security (temporarily)"

Pardon me for not firing a warning shot. Pardon me for the broadside from my main guns.
But I'd do the same to anyone who suggested what you did. Whether it was Katganistan, You-Gi-Owe, Nanatsu no Tsuki, or Alien Space Bats.

A bad idea is a bad idea, whoever has it.

From my understanding (admittedly very limited), the two things our government spends the most on is SS and the military.

The way I figure, if we don't cut social security, pretty soon, we won't be able to afford to pay it anyways. So, either way, all the peopel who depend on it are going to get screwed. The question is, do we cut it now, and give ourselves a chance to get back on our feet economically as a whole, and then reinstate it with some provisions to prevent out of control spending again, or do we allow EVERYBODY in America to get screwed over? I realize this problem probably has more than these two solutions, so if anybody can give me a solution that will be a decent compromise, then I will gladly support that solution.

I think you might be buying into the "deficit panic" manufactured by the Teapublicans. But I shouldn't comment on your motives, should I?

The United States is not Greece, and it's not Japan. I think the US can survive a higher level of public debt than Greece can (not least because Greece is beholden to the EU which doesn't want to take the risks Greece might take ... and exiting the Eurozone would be really bad for Greece) but it probably can't prosper with levels like Japan has (where high public debt is offset by low levels of private debt, or is it actual savings ... their government is essentially borrowing from their own people, and the interest payments stay at home).

The US has worrying levels of public debt (government debt). Worrying, but not "Throw the cannons overboard, or the old people, you choose, or we will all be drowned!" That's a manufactured panic, from the same people who for decades have said that Tax Cuts are all good, Spending Cuts are necessary ... and have delivered the former but not the latter. The United States fell on hard times, as most of the world did, and tax revenues fell sharply. That, more than increased spending, is what caused the current "crisis".

Note that I don't consider it a crisis. I consider it necessary deficit spending.

Cop a load of this:

It's the "headline" graphic from some Wikipedia page.

It looks pretty bad, doesn't it? That's a big wide gap between Federal revenue and Federal spending, wider about as wide as the average for the last thirty (EDIT 2 DAMMIT) forty years. And the "President's Budget" seems to make it much worse.

The last 40 years have all been imprudent ... with the shining exception of Clinton's term: fairly flat spending which appears on that graph as falling spending because it's scaled to GDP, and GDP generally rises. Rising revenues directly following from the Deficit Reduction Act ... which Clinton campaigned on, and was put in place by a Democrat-majority Congress, and stuck with even when Democrats lost control of Congress. Producing a surplus for the only time in the last 40 years.

I could be a little bit bitter about how Repubicans supported "austerity" only so they could turn around and say how great it would be to have some tax cuts, like in the good old days of Ronald Reagan, and thus got one of the ten worst Presidents ever elected ... but I might come across as a bit partisan if I said that.

There's nothing heroic about the Clinton era. That's just what governments should do in good economic times. Get "money in the bank", improve their fiscal security, so they can run high deficits when, inevitably, there is a downturn. Governments certainly can damage the economy, but their ability to fix it is rather limited. The less debt they're in, the more cheaply and safely they can raise new debt when they really need to: to maintain spending in recession without raising taxes (because in a recession is the one time NOT to raise taxes), cope with the drastic fall off in revenues (income taxes are very sensitive to recession), and cope with increased demands for unemployment payments and all sorts of welfare. If the government's fiscal position is good enough, they can afford "stimulus" as well. Or, I should add, to counter sudden and unexpected external threats. Wars. But the better way to do that is how it was done back in WW2: issue War Bonds, which only citizens can buy, have low interest payments, and appeal directly the to patriotism of those who support the war effort.. What GWB did was quite the opposite: he fought a war off the budget, and stuck the people with the bill later. Look at that pie chart again, Grenny. Military pensions are military spending too. Health care for veterans is military spending too. The veterans who got limbs blown off, got their brains damaged, or got PTSD from an unnecessary war, they're in our future budgets. Casualties, not just fatalities, are the cost of war. We have to pay. We promised them.

I've kind of forgotten what point I was trying to make here. I think it was something like "Ronald Reagan wasn't really that bad, but he set a very bad precedent of deficit spending in good times, the Clinton-era Democratic and then Republican Congresses did the right thing, then the United States got a smack habit and is now in rehab" ... something like that.



Seriously, that was some bad-ass recession we had. It would really have helped for government to have had "money in the bank" for MORE drastic intervention, but what was spent did actually help. Things will be bad for a while yet, but that's just how it goes. Unless we're prepared to make government much bigger so it's the majority of the market, government will never be able to prevent recessions. Manage them to some extent yes, and cushion the impact on individuals. Yay for government.

To return somewhat to what I'm supposedly replying to: don't be too afraid of either deficit or of debt. Look at the servicing cost of debt (the annual interest payments), both now and into the future. That's the annual cost you have to weigh up against proposed cuts to spending or proposed increases in tax revenue.

Finally on your idea, which you graciously admit probably wasn't such a good idea: definitely you should consider throwing some cannons overboard. Sell some aircraft carriers, on the condition that they be made into diving reefs, not used for power projection. But don't fuck with the old people: they vote, unlike young people. They'll rip your lungs out if you try to take the money they believe (rightly or wrongly) they have already paid in and deserve back.

[Freiheit Reich]

?

Immigration only improves the status of America. We don't have some sort of nationalist culture to protect to the infinite degree.

See my post in the last page.

Immigration is good but only should be allowed from nations that do not have a majority of the population that supports terrorism and hates western values. Immigrants should also have to pass a literacy test and have proof of a fair amount of savings to prove they will not depend on welfare. We need educated immigrants with good technical skills from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Denmark but we do not need Afghans, Somalis, Iraqis until their country can prove it is educated and developed and their population decides to stop hating anybody that does not share their religion. The USA has enough people that we can be choosy in who we select. Immigration is a right, not a privledge.

[Cameroi]

how about this: "retire" both the republican and democratic parties and let people choose between libertarians and greens instead?

[Wamitoria]

how about this: "retire" both the republican and democratic parties and let people choose between libertarians and greens instead?

So we either cut the entire military budget and raise taxes to 90% on the rich to pay down the deficit, or we cut taxes down to 10% on everybody and cut everything from the budget?

I'll pass. I'll stick with the one party that isn't going to turn the US into Somalia, 1970s Britain, or Saudi Arabia.

[Milks Empire]

how about this: "retire" both the republican and democratic parties and let people choose between libertarians and greens instead?

So we either cut the entire military budget and raise taxes to 90% on the rich to pay down the deficit, or we cut taxes down to 10% on everybody and cut everything from the budget?

I'll pass. I'll stick with the one party that isn't going to turn the US into Somalia, 1970s Britain, or Saudi Arabia.

SPUSA?

[Wamitoria]

So we either cut the entire military budget and raise taxes to 90% on the rich to pay down the deficit, or we cut taxes down to 10% on everybody and cut everything from the budget?

I'll pass. I'll stick with the one party that isn't going to turn the US into Somalia, 1970s Britain, or Saudi Arabia.

SPUSA?

I said I didn't want to be in 1970s Britain didn't I?

[Free Individuals Who Support Ron Paul]

-Bring ALL the troops home from EVERYWHERE
-Get out of the UN and stop paying UN taxes
-End ALL foreign aid
-Drastically cut the size of the federal government
-Significantly decrease congressional pay
-Abolish the Federal Reserve