US in debt

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
What would our country be like if we weren't behind in trillions of dollars?




posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I think that if we were to pay off the national debt and work to reduce government spending, we'd find that 80% or more is useless.

Education is one area that needs major revamping and additional funding is going to be just one part of that.

I think every single person that wants education should be given the money to get it at whatever university they want. In other words, giving people an opportunity. I'm against programs like welfare that people can just rely on and not ever do anything for themselves. But I think a program to give everyone an opportunity for education and a job would be a good use of money - whether they decide to use that opportunity or not is their choice.

The education system - and I'm now referring to pre-college level - needs to be changed to actually teach people to think for themselves and be able to learn on their own. Rote facts are forgotten quickly. Obviously things like math and all the basics of science, history, language, etc., need to be taught. But they also need to learn to think rationally and have the ability to learn various subjects on their own in the future. Wikipedia and other aspects of the internet are really helping this, but I think schools should embrace them more.

Also, if we weren't so in debt and had a large surplus of money, the need for such overtaxation wouldn't be needed and we could clean up the tax system to make it easy to understand, universal to everyone and reasonable.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

You have voted LoganCale for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



LoganCale for President.....



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Logan, I hope if you win you have a plan to reduce national spending. I think it's spending that creates the debt.

But then I also think it the need from more, more, always more that creates spending.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
If we had done the smart thing and paid down the debt instead giving huge tax breaks to people like Bill Gates are currency would be a lot stronger for one thing we wouldn't need the chinese to finance our debt. However a stronger currency can be a double edged sword because it can reduce the competitiveness of your industries. But we would also be drawing alot more investment if we had a stronger dollar.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Uber Fr0g: Thanks for the vote and the Presidential endorsement.


danwild6: I agree. Tax breaks for the rich are too abundant and tax refunds were feel-good nonsense. I think taxes need to actually be reduced - but not until we get the debt paid off. And while the debt is being paid off, we need to work on cleaning up reckless spending.

There are some programs that I don't think the government should be running and should be privatized, like NASA and Amtrak. Public transportation is great, but I think the government's role should be encouraging the creation and usage of such things, not running them themselves. And I feel space exploration should also be encouraged, but not neccessarily by the government. An addition to the large amount of money spent on it, it will eventually lead to U.S. regulation of space and I don't feel that anyone should be regulating space at the time being.

And while I think it's good for the U.S. to have a strong military, I think it needs to be worked on a bit. We don't really have any enemies at the moment that are a threat to us in the air or on the water. And considering that we're likely far more advanced in those areas with secret developing projects than we are publicly, I think we can probably cut back on some of that development for a while and use the money for either other domestic uses or even just working on redesigning the Army to deal better with guerilla tactics. Designing new, better armored vehicles, researching new types of body armor that don't restrict movement so much, but also offer better protection, etc...



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
danwild6: I agree. Tax breaks for the rich are too abundant and tax refunds were feel-good nonsense. I think taxes need to actually be reduced - but not until we get the debt paid off. And while the debt is being paid off, we need to work on cleaning up reckless spending.


Glad to see that you agree. I also think that in the long run it would be a good thing to reduce taxes on the middle class. I would even consider a flat tax. But you are correct in saying that the debt should take priority. And yes the amount of wasteful spending in the congress needs to be dealt with.


Originally posted by LoganCale
There are some programs that I don't think the government should be running and should be privatized, like NASA and Amtrak. Public transportation is great, but I think the government's role should be encouraging the creation and usage of such things, not running them themselves. And I feel space exploration should also be encouraged, but not neccessarily by the government. An addition to the large amount of money spent on it, it will eventually lead to U.S. regulation of space and I don't feel that anyone should be regulating space at the time being.


NASA and Amtrak are prime examples of govenment failure. Whether they should be privatized I'm not so sure. I think they have to be given new missions.

It was written in NASA charter from the vey beginning that they were task with developing space technologies to benefit the american people which they haven't done. I think we should fund NASA not for the purpose of Space Exploration but as a testing ground for new technologies which after being developed by the government can then be given to american aerospace companies to make them more competitive internationally.

As far as Amtrak was given contradictory goals from the get go. They were task with both passenger rail services amid decreasing demand and to operate as a commercial service. While at the sametime they are dependent on freight railways which often leads to disruption of services. I'm not against a national rail service just one we put the time and effort into.


Originally posted by LoganCale
And while I think it's good for the U.S. to have a strong military, I think it needs to be worked on a bit. We don't really have any enemies at the moment that are a threat to us in the air or on the water. And considering that we're likely far more advanced in those areas with secret developing projects than we are publicly, I think we can probably cut back on some of that development for a while and use the money for either other domestic uses or even just working on redesigning the Army to deal better with guerilla tactics. Designing new, better armored vehicles, researching new types of body armor that don't restrict movement so much, but also offer better protection, etc...


Exactly we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on defense and still are troops are under equipt. That is total BS. We need to get our priorities straight. We don't need the F-22 as much as we need more and better protection for our troops and better training for our troops.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

quote: Originally posted by danwild6
It was written in NASA charter from the vey beginning that they were task with developing space technologies to benefit the american people which they haven't done. I think we should fund NASA not for the purpose of Space Exploration but as a testing ground for new technologies which after being developed by the government can then be given to american aerospace companies to make them more competitive internationally.

As far as Amtrak was given contradictory goals from the get go. They were task with both passenger rail services amid decreasing demand and to operate as a commercial service. While at the sametime they are dependent on freight railways which often leads to disruption of services. I'm not against a national rail service just one we put the time and effort into.


I suppose I could possibly support NASA being what you say it should be and leaving the exploration to private organizations.

Regarding Amtrak: I think it's great to have an interstate train system and I've used it several times. But, as you said, the dependence on freight tracks causes constant delays. It took 16 - 20 hours to get to California from Arizona the times I used Amtrak. For comparison, it takes 7 - 9 hours to drive the same distance.

I guess I just think the government should leave such things to private companies. They seem to be able to do things more efficiently and that leaves the government able to focus on some of the more important things. When they're spread over so many different things, everything suffers.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale
I suppose I could possibly support NASA being what you say it should be and leaving the exploration to private organizations.


If NASA footed the bill for R&D than I think we would get cheaper services from new aircraft to satellite launch systems. Great things can come from government research things such as the internet. Things that otherwise couldn't be done. But the government then privatized the internet and it has been a great benefit to us all.


Originally posted by LoganCale
Regarding Amtrak: I think it's great to have an interstate train system and I've used it several times. But, as you said, the dependence on freight tracks causes constant delays. It took 16 - 20 hours to get to California from Arizona the times I used Amtrak. For comparison, it takes 7 - 9 hours to drive the same distance.


Yes Amtrak as it is is terribly ineffecient. I think Amtrak should invest in more high speed rail lines such as the Acela. If they did that here in California they would make a huge profit which then could be sent to support other lines.


Originallt posted by LoganCale
I guess I just think the government should leave such things to private companies. They seem to be able to do things more efficiently and that leaves the government able to focus on some of the more important things. When they're spread over so many different things, everything suffers.


Government should keep out of a lot of stuff because you are right they are terribly wasteful but they also have responsibility to provide for the welfare of a nation. Just simply privatizing everything won't work. And state regulation certainly doesn't work. I take inspiration from countries like Norway and Sweden. In those countries you have great sevices and a high standard of living and they are some of the most competitive nations on earth. The biggest key to their success is they have a great balance between the private and public sectors. In those countries the governments know when to back off.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join