<p>Eisenhower has warned about the military-industrial complex some 5 decades ago, [Military-Industrial</a> Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961](<a href=“http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html]Military-Industrial”>http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html) . It is a hammer seeking for nails, being advertised as nails needing a hammer. :-)</p>
<p>This was in last Sunday’s Baltimore Sun. I thought that it explained things pretty well. Goes along with the Cardinal’s post pretty well.</p>
<p>[Debt</a> limit: The consequences of failing to raise the debt limit would be severe - baltimoresun.com](<a href=“http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-debt-limit-20110718,0,1032560.story]Debt”>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-debt-limit-20110718,0,1032560.story)</p>
<p>^^
Unfortunately we have become THE MILITARY of the world. If we don’t handle a military or police situation, it gets out of hand very quickly and very easily. We get in trouble by the UN when we don’t act as the international police force. Those other countries should start paying for our services, but they never will. </p>
<p>I think that it needs to be required that if they raise the debt ceiling, they must also cut the budget by ___% and work to continue to decrease it.</p>
<p>That’s what the military-industrial complex want us to believe. The cool-aid has been served for a long time. :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mizzbee, you have to remember that before we went into Iraq, the administration told us that we would take the Iraqi oil, and the war would cost nothing, because we would pay for it out of oil revenues.</p>
<p>Oh, I remember. That is one of the reasons that I find it amazing when I hear these people crying that we are not being responsible. The price of the war must be paid, and it shouldn’t be on the backs of our poorrest citizens. I am just trying to think of any way to make a revenue increase seem practical and/or patriotic. Funny thing is, I truly believe that if we had raised taxes to cover the way, the average conservative American would have agreed, so that it wouldn’t affect the national debt. We should have been payign as we go back then.</p>
<p>MizzBee, you’re using way too much common sense and logic. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you think we should cut Medicare and Social Security, or the FBI, or food inspections, or the military, fine. Congress can do that at any time. But Congress can’t authorize spending, and then not provide the money to pay for it-- that makes us a deadbeat, and it would cause a worldwide catastrophe. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would help no one. It would help no one.</p>
<p>Hmmm, so if my kid charges a bunch of silly stuff on the family credit card we have to pay the debt, but I sure would be getting the scissors out. What’s his incentive to stop the madness if I just keep paying the debts? There need to be consequences.</p>
<p>^^ but you still pay the debt. Then you figure out the consequences. That is what he is trying to say.</p>
<p>It sounds like we do need to raise the debt ceiling. There are many people here who would know better than I would. But we need to have a plan and requirements so they have to actually FOLLOW THE PLAN to reduce our spending and bring the debt under control.</p>
<p>Somebody needs to take the checkbook away from Congress… they appear to fully believe the old thought “I’ve got checks in my checkbook=I’ve got money to spend!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you wouldn’t say, “You charged this but we’re not going to pay the bill. We’ll go into bankruptcy.” You would not allow him to charge anything more, maybe you’d sell off the Playstation and the motorcycle, but you wouldn’t just not pay your bills. Going into default, not raising the debt ceiling, is the same as not paying our bills. And if we don’t pay our bills, not only will people be reluctant to loan to us, but contractors will charge us more. That’s what happens. It’s expensive to ruin your credit, which is why people don’t want to do it.</p>
<p>We should not ruin our credit. That’s just crazy.</p>
<p>It’s also a mystery to me how some House Republicans think it would be just dandy to default. Do they not realize that Barack Obama would then be in charge of deciding which bills got paid and which didn’t? Why does the House want to give their power away to a Democratic President?</p>
<p>Some of you can dismiss this all you want, but I can tell you that the states are going crazy right now. Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter which party the governor belongs to - they’re freaking out because not increasing the debt ceiling means that they may not receive the money they get from the federal government. </p>
<p>I’m curious why so many people dismiss this as an issue. If Republican governors are afraid, and Republican economists are united in warning of dire consequences, what are the reasons you are not concerned?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And communities are freaking out because the states ARE NOT paying the money owed to the local communities. In Illinois, the state has decided that regional school offices should be paid by local tax dollars BUT the state won’t send the local community their share of the taxes collected.</p>
<p>should we be worried that colleges will have their functionality affected if they aren’t able to get checks for work study and student loan programmes?</p>
<p>seriously, if the government defaults, there are a whole bunch of checks that aren’t going out. if federal financial aid monies aren’t going to colleges, then I, along with millions of my classmates, are going to be royally screwed.</p>
<p>gives this some immediacy to us all</p>
<p>i think it is time that we made drastic cuts in the funds sent to other countries…i remember watching a show months ago…all foreign aid is in one lump sum that includes all the countries together…if given to one country it is given to all countries on the list… in fact China (the country we are borrowing so much money from) is receiving aid from the us? now how crazy is that…its time to split the countries up…and only give to those who need it and unfortunately at this time, reduce the amount.</p>
<p>parent56, the total numbers (per CNN and CNBC) for foreign aid are puny compared with the rest of the spending; less than 1 percent. I agree that Uncle Sam has to be more judicious when doling out aid to the needy nephews, but drastic cuts in foreign aid will hardly make a dent in the budget.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But when you start combining that with other cuts, it BECOMES A BIG DEAL!</p>
<p>This argument is so old; politicians talk about the “drops in the bucket” worth millions and billions of dollars. Start collecting those drops and quit spending them!</p>
<p>oh i agree bunsenburner, it may not be much, but we need a change to start considering where our money is going… at a time when for example the OP’s mother wont get her check is it still right to be sending monies overseas right now?.. There are definitely some countries that need it, and i would not cut those (for as you say its a small dent) but even for only appearances sake… the politicians need to be thinking of americans right now.</p>
<p>its kind of like, when your college kid is spending money at starbucks everyday and complains he doesnt have enough money to make ends meet at school and wants an increase in the money you give him… it may only be $3.00… but it is those small things that add up, and if you dont have money for the things you need, you must cut back on things you want.</p>
<p>^^^^I agree with hops_scout.</p>