O/T: A Prognostication

Page 3 of 3  
snipped-for-privacy@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote in

Didn't the 14th amendment predate the law that limits the national debt? If that is so, then the SCOTUS needs to speak as to whether the later law is constitutional ... Or did SCOTUS?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's not clear to me why you think that makes any difference. The amendment refers to public debts authorized by law -- but there is no language there restricting when, or how, such debts might be authorized. The historical context of that clause shows that its purpose was to allow the United States to repudiate debts incurred by the Confederacy or by individual Confederate States, because those debts had *not* been "authorized by law."
It simply isn't applicable to the current situation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@example.com (Doug Miller) wrote in

I didn't make myself clear. Congress has clearly authorized expenditures that now result in what we call too much debt, by running deficit after deficit for however many years (there were a few years with nominal surpluses). To me (but IANAL!!) that means those debts were authorized as per the 14th amendment. The later law setting a debt limit does or doesn't make the 14th amendment moot. That is the question I am asking (remember, IANAL). I am guessing that no one has challenged the debt limit law, since Congress has always raised the limit in time.
Please remember also that I came to the US as a 23 year-old biomedical researcher, and am only a citizen since 1984 or so. Since I am now retired, I have more time for discussions <snicker>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That simply means that servicing the debt has to take priority over shrimp-on-the-treadmill. There is plenty of money coming in to pay the debt.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I shouldn't do this but.....
I happened to find a link that shows the breakdown of the federal Budget proposal for 2012. It doesnt go deep enough and I need to look at things on a higher level than I wanted but it gave me enough insight that I wanted to puke. After I read this, I have been thinking about these things and more:
1.    The first place we need to cut is our defense budget. It is over $650 BILLION!! We are in far too many places where we shouldnt be and I dont mean in Iraq or Libya or places like that either. I mean places like Japan and Poland. Screw that! Why do we need to be in those places?! That smacks of Imperialism and we moan about China being that way. If we close shop, we can reduce our military budget a TON without sacrificing bullets and tanks for our soldiers. Heck, I say let Japan rearm itself. That would take away a huge expenditure away from us AND it would make China and North Korea sit up and pay attention because they are both afraid of the Japanese.
2.    We need to quit giving money to the IMF. We need to quit giving money to Pakistan. We need to quit giving money to India, to Iceland, to everybody!!! Unless there is a natural disaster of some sort, stop even if there IS a natural disaster. We gave tons of money to Haiti after what happened to them but, did you know, Americans donated much, much more money than our Federal Government ever sent, so why use our tax money?
3.    We need to start seriously looking at entitlements. Why should Warren Buffett get Social Security or be allowed to sign up for Medicare? He shouldnt and the same goes for many, many people. At the same time, there are FAR too many people abusing the system. There are literally generations of people in the same family who have never had a paying jobthey have lived off the rest of us. I say stop it. No more. My plan is not to pull the rug out from underneath them because you would literally have violence. It needs to be a phased approach and we would have to kick up the giving before we take it away. My plan would be to train these people in whatever they want. If they want to be a plumber, go for it. If they want to be an accountant, go at it. If they want to be a hairdresser, so be it. We will pay them to go to a trade school or college or whatever. We will help them with child care and medical and living expenses until they get their degree or certificate. We will buy them clothes to wear on interviews and even give them low interest loans to open a business. We will train them on how to take interviews. We will do whateverbut there WILL be an end to it. I say 6-12 months after graduation, they will be knocked off the public relief roles. There is nothing like an empty stomach that will make somebody work.
4.    States should start paying their Federal representatives. Why should a State with a small population like Rhode Island or Montana have to pay equally for the paychecks to all 535 members in Washington? Why should their tax dollars need to kick in to pay for representatives from California and New York and Texas?? That is not fair. And, even more, every State should be allowed to PAY their representatives what they wantnot a standard pay for all of them.
<I'm dead!>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
busbus wrote:

The United States maintains a military presence in over 180 countries (and I'm not talking about Marine guards at the embassies). Certainly the larger ones (Japan, Germany, UK0 could be reduced or eliminated.

We don't give money to anybody. We give credits they can use to buy U.S. stuff, such as military equipment or wheat.

Because he paid into the Social Security system for most of his life. We call it "Social Security," but the program's real name is " Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance" (OASDI) program. Note the word "insurance." No other insurance vehicle determines claim amounts based on how much you make.

Good idea. Maimonides listed thirteen levels of charity. The worst was publicly and officiously giving a poor person money. The best kind of charity? Loaning someone sufficient funds for him to start a business.

Ooo! I LIKE that idea!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/29/2011 2:14 PM, busbus wrote:

Q. Why have so many National Guard units been called to active duty over the past several decades? A. Because the federal military budget is not large enough for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force to fulfill their missions.

Do you have any evidence that Warren Buffett is collecting SS, or using Medicare? I dunno, but I rather suspect most ultra-wealthy do not participate because they can afford not to, and it's not worth the hassle for them.

I agree with the concept, BUT, in our present economy and high unemployment rates, do you really expect that newly trained plumbers, hairdressers etc. will be able to find unemployment when even experienced workers cannot? Your solution would have to address that problem. One alternative would be that instead of unearned welfare benefits, they would have to work for the government, mowing lawns, cleaning toilets, picking up litter, whatever, at 75% of the minimum wage rate. They could either do that, or go out and get a private sector job, but they couldn't simply sit at home watching TV on the government dole.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:53:32 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

I have a feeling a considerable number would turn to crime, resulting in prison, resulting in us paying for them anyway - and at a higher rate.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/30/2011 10:59 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

If they did that, as prisoners they could be made to work at the same jobs, for 25 cents an hour.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is the matter with good, old-fashioned chain gangs? We could provide the hard-boiled eggs though!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Um, do you think maybe it is because we smack a little of Imperialism? Is there any reason we have so many troops and facilities abroad? Do we need that many? Are they all necessary? Wouldn't they be better used to serve in these United States? Just wonderin'...........

I have no evidence of that but they are allowed to tap into it. And, yes, I do know people who are receiving it but don't really need it. They use the check to fund their "fun" things. For example, one guy I know uses it to go to Atlantic City for gambling money. Ain't that wonderful? Seems like a good use of that money to me. He bristles whenever questioned about the ethics involved and his response is that he paid into it and he should be allowed to do what he wants with his share because it is his. That is one example I know of. Maybe we need to seriously increase the age when a person receives SS. Whenever it was introduced (as a VOLUNTARY thing, mind you), the average life expectancy was around 65--now it is much higher. T'ain't working anymore, McGee!!

Now, I like that idea!! I remember a guy who used to say this. He called his plan Welfare Hall. It is like a union carpenter who is sitting on the bench. Whenever his name is called, he either chooses to accept the work (and the subsequent paycheck) or he doesn't (and he goes hungry). The government would have a list of things that needed done and would pay you your welfare check providing you performed the task. He didn't think of the 75% of the minimum wage rate but that is the key to this: it needs to be more worth somebody's while to work at a minimum wage job than to sit back and collect welfare. GREAT IDEA!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:14:57 -0700, busbus wrote:

Oh boy, another idealist :-). A great idea, but it runs into a brick wall of reality.
A lot of those folks aren't trainable. By definition, half the population is of below average intelligence. If someones mother was a alkie or a drug addict, or even just had really bad eating habits, that person is going to be considerably below the average.
Even that problem could be overcome if we could somehow bring back more manual labor jobs, but the only way that would happen is with another CCC. Still government assistance, but at least with some return.
But another problem remains. Some of the people you're trying to change just plain don't want to work. How many times have we heard of some black kid trying to better himself while the local gang members accuse him of "acting white". And I'm not picking on black folks. The same attitudes exist in other groups such as the "po' white trash" who accuse a child in similar circumstances of "acting uppity" or "above himself".
And they pass those attitudes on to their children. The only way you'll break that cycle is to remove the kids at birth and give them to a family that will raise them properly. And even that doesn't solve the problem of those who are born brain-damaged.
I'm an idealist too. But time has made me a cynical idealist.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I hate to say that you have a point. But what I am trying to do is arm these people with something tangible, like a skill. I know a high percentage of them will scoff at this but we need to quit just giving money away. It is this practice of giving money away that gave these people the attitudes they undoubtedly do. It took 40+ years to get to this point, so I know it will take an entire generation or so to get away from it. 20-30 years. But you need to do something instead of just gripe about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:53:17 -0700, busbus wrote:

What needs to be done is to bring back jobs for unskilled labor. But other than point that out to the politicians, there's not much an old geezer like me can do.
BTW, how many migrant farm workers do we import every year because American workers won't do stoop labor? At least that's what the farmers (i.e. farm corporations) claim.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:07:33 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

Yes, I have to agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, times have changed. When I was 18 (mid seventies), if I was willing to do a little manual labour, I could go out and get a new job every week. It isn't that way anymore. (or so I'm told). Today, every potential employer wants references and work experience. The practice of teaching a new employee from the ground up has all but disappeared.
Of course, the sense of entitlement that many young people have these day doesn't help the current situation much, but they had to learn that sense from somewhere, and unfortunately it's us, the older generation who taught it to them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One of the reasons I retired was that I wanted to use my hands some of the time to make something, rather than move bytes in my work computer. But yes, even my wonderful grandkids sometimes grumble about manual work.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What they mean is that Americans won't do it for the low wages that the corporate farms want to pay them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:07:33 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

How many people are going to continue to spew that bullshit for how long? Christ, Americans are lining up for ANY job now, and they have for eons. The reason those jobs go to illegals is because they'll work for less, work for longer hours, and never complain. It's money, not American choice, which drives that business attitude.
Then again, many Americans can't bend over that far due to obesity.
-- In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer. -- Albert Camus
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another online chain letter?
You USanians are suckers for anything and everything.
---------------
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
The Congress will not pass a bill to raise the federal debt by 08/02/2011.
As a result, President Obama will execute an executive order to raise the federal debt on 08/02/2011 per terms of the 14th amendment.
Obama will not allow default to happen.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wrote:

---------------------------------- One for three works for a prognostication.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.