Posted on 01/07/2007 7:07:44 AM PST by infocats
C.?
Absolutely true. Unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of real enemies, both within and without.
I stand corrected. You are absolutely correct! Thanks for the heads up.
I think historically, this has been a pretty universal technique.
You have said many conflicting things on this thread. You also have admitted to having no expertise on nuclear weapon technology yet you don't believe the people in charge of our nuclear arsenal. $100 billion is not "massive" in a 2 and one half trillion dollar annual budget and on what do you base your statement about "exhorbitant" costs? We spend billions just maintaining our current aresenal and the costs go up as the stockpile continues to age.
Technical considerations aside, what you fail to appreciate is that our National Debt is such that foreign countries, a prime source of U.S. investment, are starting to dump their U.S. currency in favor of the Euro which will ultimately lead to a collapse in the value of the dollar, regardless of whether or not we can get deficit spending under control as promised.
Foreign investment isn't bad and it is a two-edge sword. Almost half of our nearly $9 trillion national debt is in the form of "intragovernmental holdings," i.e., the SS Trust Fund and other similar trust funds, which are really unfunded liabilities. I would be far more concerned about the reform of our entitlement programs like SS, which has an unfunded liability of $13 trillion and Medicare, which is in worse shape, than the fall of the dollar. The SS "surplus" starts decllining in 2008 and we will be paying out more than we are taking in in 2017.
Surely, if the Republicans learned nothing from the results of the last election, they should have learned that this should be an integral part of the calculus before taking on new debt.
Taking on what new debt? The $100 million to maintain our nuclear arsenal?
"Taking on what new debt? The $100 million to maintain our nuclear arsenal?"
No, taking on a new 100 billion dollar debt for an unproven program.
As to perceived inconsistencies in my statements, it is because you have either misrepresented them or taken them out of context.
Look, I am an unrepentent populist. The problems in this country are so massive and largely ignored because of inadequate funding, that taking on massive new expenditures is really a concern to me as it should be to any thinking person.
Mercifully, we have a robust economy, yet the problems worsen. Why? Because we tend to piss the money away on B.S. programs that benefit a few oligarchs, or paying interest on a bloated debt, as opposed to using the money wisely like guarding our borders or improving the educational system.
Great Link!
So far no one has asked if it's gas-electric or Diesel-electric...
First you lament spending money on weapon's systems we will never use, i.e., nuclear weapons. Then, you decry the plans to modernize our aging nuclear arsenal and want us to use "proven technology" even though you have no idea what you are talking about from a technical standpoint. Finally, you want our political leadership to grow a pair like HST and use nuclear weapons. You are madder than a March hare.
Look, I am an unrepentent populist. The problems in this country are so massive and largely ignored because of inadequate funding, that taking on massive new expenditures is really a concern to me as it should be to any thinking person.
$100 billion is not a massive new expenditure, especially as it is spaced over a number of years, "The current schedule, which is subject to change, would call for the president to make a decision in a year or two and, if approved, to begin engineering development by fiscal year 2010 and production by 2012." The status quo is not an option and we have no idea what it would cost following your prescription. We are already spending around $4 billion a year maintain the current arsenal.
Mercifully, we have a robust economy, yet the problems worsen. Why? Because we tend to piss the money away on B.S. programs that benefit a few oligarchs, or paying interest on a bloated debt, as opposed to using the money wisely like guarding our borders or improving the educational system.
Almost half of the budget is being spent on entitlement programs. Social Security pays more than $450 billion in benefits each year. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget. Defense spending is about 20%, which is equal to about the rest of the world combined. Servicing the national debt costs 17 cents out of every dollar of revenue collected. I don't want the federal government spending more money on education, but rather, less.
Unless we get the entitlement programs under control, we are headed for a train wreck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.