Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb
It would help. But you have a good point -- the real drains on the treasury are the "unfunded mandates", a term that can only exist in Washington, calloquially equivalent to "you must pay for this, no matter how much it costs, and regardless of whether you actually have the money." It's absurd.
This is compounded by the fact that at least some of the programs, like Social Security, are in fact unsustainable due to their mathematical resemblence to other Ponzi schemes. These programs ought to be first on the chopping block since they are guaranteed to fail once the paying population is less than the collecting population -- the "Baby Boomer" bubble.
Other things, like maintaining a nuclear arsenal, are expensive and continuing drains as well, but may be planned for and will likely improve as technology improves. Lower maintenance designs will be made.
Only the roads we can't seem to make indestructible. Those government contracts to repair highways, that go on for 5, 6 years at a time at a snail's pace, they seem to wrap up just as the road needs to be redone. Amazing.
|
sure, it would help. it just seems that instead of obama forming commissions to study the problems, they should take real steps to fix the actual problems that are right in front of them.
i read a line in a book yesterday, it seems to fit d.c. and it's politicians pretty well:
'the first inclination of the uncertain is to accept that which seems easy.' from rise to rebellion by jeff shaara.
the pols know we have a serious crisis on our hands, yet they are uncertain what to do. no one wants to take on a difficult task, one that will anger too many voters. after all, they want nothing more than to be re-elected. so, the true drains on the treasury are left alone, while talk of allowing tax breaks to the rich will be allowed to expire-yes, that will accomplish soooo much overall
-while in fact, nothing of note will have been done. no deficit attacked, no debt reduced. that increase in funds will be spent elsewhere. two wars will continue, their funding will continue. we will continue to have bases worldwide, with tens or even hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready. for what? why do we have nato, if we still must keep bases in europe? why a un, when we still keep bases in far east? why do we remain in germany?
why is nearly half of the entire worlds spending on military our expense alone? we can't afford it. it is unnecessary. why can't we project our strengths worldwide by spending half that? we would still, alone, account for one quarter of the worlds military spending if we did so. still a huge amount.