The True Cause of the Impending Collapse of the US Economy

Originally posted by NoGod
Im afraid I must agree to disagree with you on this one:For a couple of reasons,Number 1 if we are looking for someone to blame for the economic turbulance then might I suggest that we only look as far as the mirror,We allow these crooked people to cointue doing what they do best raping us,I think we like it and it is some weird sort of stolkholms syndrome,Only we can change this broken system noone else there is no help only each other.

2 Wars are inevtiable we are organisms all fighting for surival and dominance of this floating ball of water in space.We need resorces and minerals from other parts of the globe so we send mussle to do it just like every other civilization befor us.Really there is nothing we can do, the fact is that there are way to many stupid people that watch american idol and teen mom to effectively make a change try telling one of these fat stupid people that there going to be powerless for a couple of days and watch how fast there causing problems for the rest of us trying to fix what we have all aloud to become broken.

You brought up something interesting that I had to take time to think about with your mention of Stockholm Syndrome. Stockholm Syndrome, though, is when a captive(s) develop sympathy/empathy for their captors. Are we captive? I cannot say that we are. However, the American public IS conditioned. Children are taught "Manifest Destiny" in school - that the Native Americans HAD to be killed in order for everyone else to have enjoyment of this land. They teach that it was NECESSARY for over 600,000 to die in order to free those who were enslaved when the truth was that it was about the government losing control of 11 'rogue' states (NOT that slavery was right - don't get me wrong on that!). Also taught is how the U.S. "saved" the world from itself in WWI and WWII and that the U.S. is the (self) 'appointed' defender of 'democracy' for the whole world. And that is the most brief possible synopsis that could make my point.

Americans have been conditioned for over 300 years to the point that the public, taken as a whole, accepts any excuse for U.S. military involvement with no more thought now than they'd give to squashing a mosquito.

So, while I cannot agree that we are captive; I do believe that you brought something worthy of consideration to the discussion by causing at least one person to think on a different path. I do not believe it can be logically argued that the American public is not conditioned - "We must now go to war AGAIN for 'x' reason; meanwhile, please take your thoughts off of the ugliness of war and focus, instead, on countless 'reality' shows that have nothing to do with reality, while watching commercials for a myriad of products and luxuries you do not need but now suspect others have, and grow resentful and complain while we go blow people up and minimize it for your viewing pleasure," a point you bring up in your next paragraph.

We have plenty of resources here; our government just won't allow them to be utilized until we've used up everyone else's resources which we take by force.

Not to stray off topic, but this thread illustrates one point (being without power) you made quite well.

Originally posted by NoGod
So imo we are never going to fix it: So what do you do you can try like hell to seclude your self move change your name and number go off the grid and live in a cave till your time is up ... (truncated)

Americans are effectively secluded from the rest of the world and they are secluded from one another, as well. Most are as secluded from the neighbor next door or upstairs as someone who's 'taken to the hills.' Social interaction has become twitter and texting and Facebook. "Friends" are no longer multiyear, personal relationships of mutual respect, understanding and assistance; "friends" are the long list of names on their Facebook page. Americans have somehow managed to simultaneously anonymize themselves while also disclosing more about themselves than anyone wants to know.

There are people in Detroit, for example, who've never been OUT of Detroit but who believe others in the Country live like what they see on television. (I'll try to find the link to that study) And there are millions who neither know nor care about the conditions of Detroit ~ once one of our greatest cities.

Video games are so graphic that life has been cheapened to nothingness for millions.

So, in your opinion, we're never going to fix it. In my opinion, we'd better fix it and we'd better do so darned fast or the matter that is the subject of this thread is going to be on our streets. In all matters requiring balance ~ and society requires balance ~ there is a tipping point. We are nearing that tipping point and NOT in a positive way but with a society fully conditioned to it.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by queenannie38

 

The cause of all our troubles is simply WAR.

War

FUNDING

Gotta have funding before you can have a real good war. Bottom line: those who vote to fund the wars and who must then borrow from the fundamentalist funders to pay for war are the cause of our troubles.

"Those who vote" meaning the public or meaning the politicians?

Would you be more specific?

Originally posted by kyoiism
this is truly saddening. the only war I consider we fought for the last 12 years was Saddams and that didn't last long, and the rest has just been one long occupation.

they say the USA did it for the oil, how much oil would it take to pay off 4trillion dollars worth of war at current prices bbl?

Considering that $229.9 billion (as of Sept 2011) of the $4.7 trillion total public debt owed by the United States is owed to "Oil Exporters," specifically named as including Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria...I think it is far more complicated than that.

As to how much more and in what way....I have no idea! That starts getting into a place where my head spins...and it takes a lot to make my head spin most of the time.

That info is from www.guardian.co.uk

Originally posted by queenannie38
The truth of the matter is that around 17 million of American children live in what is now called 'food insecure' homes...

Some great links provided by you and member 'Tarzan the apeman' and I've looked at all of them. I think the biggest statement in all the links ... .the 'money' statement, if you will ... is that Washington, D.C. (with a 30.7% - 32.3% food insecurity, depending on which link I looked at) - the "home" of ALL our elected officials for most of the year, has THE highest percentage of food insecurity. If NOTHING else points out that all the politicians, regardless of (D) or (R) behind their name can live there and ignore that, then that should SCREAM at everyone about just what degree they care about any of the citizens of this Country. The shame cannot be measured.

Originally posted by queenannie38
There is simply no humanitarian logic in cutting assistance that will increase these numbers! Especially when there IS money that COULD BE made available to alleviate this number right now....but is spent on weaponry and equipping soldiers and maintaining something like 700 American Military bases on foreign soil.

On the surface of the matter, I would agree with you about there being no humanitarian logic of cutting assistance; however, I think this is another matter that goes far deeper than the surface. We could feed the children for FAR less money that is paid out in welfare payments. In other words, those hungry kids didn't ask to be born; however, more and more of them WILL be brought into the world unless we begin to scale back on what I view as the true entitlement problem and stop rewarding people for having children they cannot afford to feed.

Back in the '80s I knew a girl from Sweden. She was stunned by our system. She said they, too, had governmental financial support for people below the poverty line, but it was REDUCED for them if they had more than 2 children. Smart system!

Slowly scale back the "Earned Income Credit," too, which is nothing but another reward for having more children than someone can afford.

I'm not saying we don't need to help! I'm saying we need to do something to let people know that 'x' amount of things WILL come to an end in 'x' amount of time. Prepare them. Isn't 2 children enough for someone who has no means to support them?

I don't know that we can fully throw stones at Paul Ryan's plan until we know all the details of it - or did I miss the details of it? All I saw was a pie chart and blogs. Do the bloggers KNOW something they're not sharing? Did I miss the details? I do not trust bloggers who are making supposition without cold, hard facts that they also provide to the reader. The pie chart also includes Medicade and Pell Grants - what if most of it is being cut from there? What if they're going to cut illegal immigrants off from Medicade and Pell Grants? I'm just saying I'll wait for details before I conclude that they intend to starve children.

Regarding all the American military bases on foreign soil, I have long wished they would close everyone of them and bring ALL of our military here. Set up bases HERE - all along the southern border; all along our seaboards; space some out in the various states. Those bases support local FOREIGN economies; they could as easily support local HERE economies. We could be ready to defend ourselves at a moment's notice while keeping our nose out of others' business. If another Country asked for our support, with today's technology it would be an easy matter for all registered voters to go VOTE on whether or not WE were willing to do it because WE would be paying for it. If we allied closely with Canada and Mexico for mutual DEFENSE (after all, this IS just one big land mass), all the better, imho.

Originally posted by SeesFar
Some great links provided by you and member 'Tarzan the apeman' and I've looked at all of them. I think the biggest statement in all the links ... .the 'money' statement, if you will ... is that Washington, D.C. (with a 30.7% - 32.3% food insecurity, depending on which link I looked at) - the "home" of ALL our elected officials for most of the year, has THE highest percentage of food insecurity. If NOTHING else points out that all the politicians, regardless of (D) or (R) behind their name can live there and ignore that, then that should SCREAM at everyone about just what degree they care about any of the citizens of this Country. The shame cannot be measured.

I could not agree with you more!
To turn a blind eye to the little things is to turn a blind eye to the big things, too.

On the surface of the matter, I would agree with you about there being no humanitarian logic of cutting assistance; however, I think this is another matter that goes far deeper than the surface. We could feed the children for FAR less money that is paid out in welfare payments. In other words, those hungry kids didn't ask to be born; however, more and more of them WILL be brought into the world unless we begin to scale back on what I view as the true entitlement problem and stop rewarding people for having children they cannot afford to feed.

Back in the '80s I knew a girl from Sweden. She was stunned by our system. She said they, too, had governmental financial support for people below the poverty line, but it was REDUCED for them if they had more than 2 children. Smart system!

Yes, I've read much praise for the Sweden national welfare program...welfare meaning in this case simply looking out for what people need since they are citizens of Sweden.

As far as the having children thing is concerned...China takes it to the extreme...but I think that is more about space than anything else...I could be wrong.

But as to the point you are making about scaling back the entitlement programs...President Clinton drastically reformed the 'cash assistance' part of welfare in the US back in 1996...no longer is there AFDC under which there was quite a rampant amount of abuse and mismanagement simply due to the enormity of the problem.

As a result, what we have now is TANF and the guidelines are considerably stricter and also put the details of such in the hands of the state governments which receive 'block grants' to fund these programs on the state level. There are requirements that must be met in order to receive the funding...not meeting those means there are no funds and states can not afford to fund these programs on their own...less and less, in fact.

The caseload decreased by 53% and the workforce saw an increase in working mothers and others who had formerly received cash assistance based on how many mouths they had to feed and nothing else.

Before, AFDC was funded according to how many met requirements...but now, like I said, it is per state and a set amount. So the states much each manage those funds to best serve the citizens in their state. In most cases, all able bodied adults must enter into the workforce or some sort of training/schooling within a certain amount of time...the maximum that any one individual can receive TANF assistance in their lifetime is 60 months. 5 years and that's it. Period. And this is a Federal guideline...some states make that even less than the max 5 years.

Details on TANF at Wiki. I had a friend who was on TANF several years ago after splitting with her husband and having 2 kids and absolutely no skills or anything to even get a job at McDonald's....no one to watch her kids...any of that. And so I know that in NM the guidelines were both quite strict but in the end, she benefited greatly and now works full time in a clerical setting and has no problem taking care of herself or her kids. And she was happy for it...she didn't want to be handed a fish but wanted to learn how to fish...so now she can and does!

Food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program are not included in this at all as they are administered by the Department of Agriculture under the Food and Nutrition Service agency, along with the school lunch program and the program to help end child hunger in the US and also Women Infants and Children (WIC)...and many other programs I've never even heard of...15 all together. It is in fact the largest agency under the Department of Agriculture.

The Official Site says they help one in four people, but up 1 million in a year per budget report data for May 2012 that is available in pdf format here.

The numbers are pretty spare, imo.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Social security is a Ponzi scheme, Medicare is a ponzi scheme and Obama care will be the same. All these entitlements are paid by the young and use by the old.

I just wanted to add that these programs (excluding Obamcare) are not Ponzi schemes, unless by that you mean the money allocated to each program was raided by politicians, then you are right.

The problem is not that it is a give away to people, it's that we let the federal government run the program. It should have been administered by the states and regulated by watchdogs to keep an eye on corrupt people in office.

Can you imagine what would of happened if SS was privatized? Wall Street would have lost all of the money in a heartbeat. Privatization of the SS program IS the definition of a Ponzi scheme!

Of course they are ponzi schemes, because you have to have more people get in to pay off the people who got in first. Look up the definintion of ponzi and you will find this is true. This is also why we cannot just end these programs because as soon as people stop getting in and paying, there will not be payouts to people already there. Also, Obamacare takes money out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare programs. Obamacare isn't just the cost of insurance coverage for a million people, it's the administration costs as well.