IMF calls for US deficit cuts

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is one of those times that me and the IMF agree strongly. Time to cut the debt Obama.

Defecit not debt.

I'd like to see the debt cut in half.

Right now every citizen in the US owes $42,000.

Its time to shut the government off, send them to spending rehab, and pay for the damages of their wild ride.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

But it doesn't make this advice wrong right now. It's probably the first time ever a conservative opinion was espoused by them.

The political equivalent of a lightning strike, with the IMF pushing for the right action.

The IMF has ALWAYS taken this draconian "conservative" stance. They require the country to impose murderous policies on the people and encourage the taking of nationally owned resources by private companies against the will of the people. You need to read up on the IMF - it is PURE EVIL. Just like Friedman and his Chicago Boy douchebags. NOT ONE COUNTRY HAS EVER BEEN BETTERED BY SHOCK THERAPY. NOT ONE!!! What they do should be illegal. IMF is NOT pushing for the right action. They are pushing for more Pinochets.

 

[R.C. Christian]

This is one of those times that me and the IMF agree strongly. Time to cut the debt Obama.

Defecit not debt.

I'd like to see the debt cut in half.

Right now every citizen in the US owes $42,000.

Its time to shut the government off, send them to spending rehab, and pay for the damages of their wild ride.

Not really realistic or possible to eliminate the debt. The Timmy Geitners of the world would probably make the argument that as long states like Saudi and of course China continue to buy our debt then we can run up the debt indefinitely creating more wealth etc. There has really never been an intention to pay it back. Nevertheless, the entire scheme is batshit insane.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Defecit not debt.

I'd like to see the debt cut in half.

Right now every citizen in the US owes $42,000.

Its time to shut the government off, send them to spending rehab, and pay for the damages of their wild ride.

Not really realistic or possible to eliminate the debt. The Timmy Geitners of the world would probably make the argument that as long states like Saudi and of course China continue to buy our debt then we can run up the debt indefinitely creating more wealth etc. There has really never been an intention to pay it back. Nevertheless, the entire scheme is batshit insane.

Its both realistic and possible. The unrealistic part is getting american citizens to make personal sacrifices to do so.

yes its the governmnet who did it but ultimately, in our society, the citizens are responsible for the government. Which sucks for us all at this point in history.

I love the whole....run up the debt to create more wealth line that comes out of washington. "You have to spend to save" LOL.

Yeah its definately batshit insane.

 

[editec]

Cuts from what programs?

There's the rub.

 

[sparky]

But it doesn't make this advice wrong right now. It's probably the first time ever a conservative opinion was espoused by them.

The political equivalent of a lightning strike, with the IMF pushing for the right action.

The IMF has ALWAYS taken this draconian "conservative" stance. They require the country to impose murderous policies on the people and encourage the taking of nationally owned resources by private companies against the will of the people. You need to read up on the IMF - it is PURE EVIL. Just like Friedman and his Chicago Boy douchebags. NOT ONE COUNTRY HAS EVER BEEN BETTERED BY SHOCK THERAPY. NOT ONE!!! What they do should be illegal. IMF is NOT pushing for the right action. They are pushing for more Pinochets.

There's a world of truth in that the IMF simply serves as the arbitrators for the world's elites Peeps. They don't win many friends wielding the wieght of thier doctrines on 3rd world countries who are basically held to groveling to them, or living in complete fiscal (and by way of that trade) isolation

but this is rather inescapable here......>

The IMF said it projected that under current government policies, that debt burden would grow to 95 percent of GDP by 2020 and climb to 135 percent of GDP by 2030.

basically, if we in fact were a say, lower that alleged first world order country, the IMF would have rolled it's way on in, and taken over the books by now

The rub here is, we haven't revealed ours , it's all conjecture as to what our real 'worth' is here....

 

[Charles_Main]

IMF calls for deficit cuts in US - Yahoo! Finance

A bunch of elites in Europe get it. Why doesn't our government get it?

So you're on-board with all those tax increases they're suggesting?

There is a portion of the right-wing of the political spectrum that would rather see the US default than taxes raised.

No you guys all wrongly assume that the only way to cut deficits is to raise taxes. You can cut wasteful spending. Of which we have plenty going on. You can Cut Taxes that stifle Economic Growth and cause increased revenues to the Fed. Of course I know that concept is to complicated for Liberals to understand, but it has been proven to work in the past on more than one occasion. The right taxes cuts can and will increase revenue. Eliminating the Capitol Gains tax, and Lowering Business taxes is just one way to go about it. Yeah I know you liberals will call that tax cuts for the rich again. However Actually if it stimulates our economy and increases revenues to the fed. Well then it helped us all Didn't it. Not that I expect Liberals to ever admit it or understand. No I am sure they will spout off with some liberal Lies and propaganda about how it will not work.

As far as the IMF giving us their advise. I think it is kinda funny maybe our first spending cut should be to STOP funding the IMF

 

[editec]

The IMF is starting to treat the US government in much the arbitrary way that it has ALWAYS treated third world countries.

That's mostly because the USA is becoming a third world nation.

 

[Charles_Main]

The IMF is starting to treat the US government in much the arbitrary way that it has ALWAYS treated third world countries.

That's mostly because the USA is becoming a third world nation.

Yeah a 3rd world nation that provides more than Half the IMF funds.

LOL

 

[Cuyo]

So you're on-board with all those tax increases they're suggesting?

There is a portion of the right-wing of the political spectrum that would rather see the US default than taxes raised.

And why exactly do you think raising taxes is going to fix anything?

Taxes have been raised many times this past this half century. And which time did it actually end deficit spending? The deficit/debt is higher than ever because politicians don't know how to spend money with any sense of maturity. Till they do that, why should we give them more money? Especially when it will slow down the economy.

Is this a trick question? It ended deficit spending under Clinton... Does that count?

 

[editec]

The IMF is starting to treat the US government in much the arbitrary way that it has ALWAYS treated third world countries.

That's mostly because the USA is becoming a third world nation.

Yeah a 3rd world nation that provides more than Half the IMF funds.

LOL

Its the American people who are living in that third world nation.

The IMF is the internationalist government of the banker class.

You know who they are right?

The people who we gave licence to invent money to, so they could lend it back to US at interest?

 

[Greenbeard]

Spending Cuts is what conservatives want.

Spending cuts where?

 

[sparky]

The IMF is starting to treat the US government in much the arbitrary way that it has ALWAYS treated third world countries.

That's mostly because the USA is becoming a third world nation.

Yeah a 3rd world nation that provides more than Half the IMF funds.

LOL

Its the American people who are living in that third world nation.

The IMF is the internationalist government of the banker class.

You know who they are right?

The people who we gave licence to invent money to, so they could lend it back to US at interest?

brudda, can you spare an elitist dime?

The IMF has long been a bought, and paid for, muscle arm of the U.S. government and the banking elite.

The play goes like this. Banks loan money to third world countries that have no chance in hell of paying the money back. The IMF comes in with "austerity" programs that include heavy new tax burdens on the working class. The revenue from the new taxes will, of course, go to payoff the banking elite. It's a sick game, but the elite seem to get their jollies by pulling this scam in country after country.

It appears the elite appear to want to up the ante. It appears they are getting set to turn the guns inward and go after the hard earned money of Americans.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Is the IMF about Ready to Muscle U.S. Taxpayers?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul suggest we pull back our armed forces from the four corners of the world; At one time conservatives complained and argued we should not be the worlds policemen - then Booooooosh and the neo-conservatives took control and now we are, but can't afford it.
Yet can we afford to leave power vacuums? Such is the quandry left to Obama.

 

[Big Fitz]

Neocons are not Conservatives. They are Wilsonian progressives.

Conservatives by nature are isolationist and wish for the rest of the world to go forth and do their own thing, neither depleting our resources, or threatening us. The only time we should be involved in the foreign affairs of other nations is when they directly affect our interests.

We need to return to a Washingtonian foreign policy to the point of potentially even dropping the Monroe Doctrine which we still in some way maintain. Ron Paul made the mistake of suggesting this right after we were attacked and suffered the loss of over 2000 civilians. This would have been tantamount of a presidential candidate saying we need to pull out of the Pacific following Pearl Harbor and a few years of war with Japan. Bawney Fwank on the other hand is an anti-military moron who has the geo-strategic understanding of a dung beetle which he resembles.

 

[MIPS]

IMF calls for deficit cuts in US - Yahoo! Finance

A bunch of elites in Europe get it. Why doesn't our government get it?

Simple, they were all out sick the day the school taught that basic arithmetic class........ Look Joe Biden has a note from his mom and everything.

 

[editec]

Neocons are not Conservatives. They are Wilsonian progressives.

Call em what you will, you shall know them by the policies they implement

Conservatives by nature are isolationist and wish for the rest of the world to go forth and do their own thing, neither depleting our resources, or threatening us. The only time we should be involved in the foreign affairs of other nations is when they directly affect our interests.

That had been the traditional policy of the USA without doubt.

NO ENTANGLING ALLIANCES, remember that?

And that policy served us rather well until we decided that the US continental empire (that we started building ASAP) wasn't enough empire for us, too.

 

[KissMy]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul suggest we pull back our armed forces from the four corners of the world; At one time conservatives complained and argued we should not be the worlds policemen - then Booooooosh and the neo-conservatives took control and now we are, but can't afford it.
Yet can we afford to leave power vacuums? Such is the quandry left to Obama.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

On September 14, 2001 The House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).

On September 14, 2001 The Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq War Resolution

House

Party............Ayes....Nays...PRES...No Vote
Republican.....215.........6.........0..........2
Democratic......82......126.........0..........1
Independent......0.........1.........0..........0
TOTALS........297......133.........0..........3

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT) Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

United States Senate

Party............Ayes....Nays...No Vote
Republican.......48........1.........0
Democratic......29.......21.........0
Independent......0.........1........0
TOTALS..........77.......23.........0

21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI). The only Independent Senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

 

[Wry Catcher]

Barney Frank and Ron Paul suggest we pull back our armed forces from the four corners of the world; At one time conservatives complained and argued we should not be the worlds policemen - then Booooooosh and the neo-conservatives took control and now we are, but can't afford it.
Yet can we afford to leave power vacuums? Such is the quandry left to Obama.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

On September 14, 2001 The House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).

On September 14, 2001 The Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

Such 'fact(s)' provide an interesting point for debate. Those on the right claim the U.S. Constitution must be taken for it's "Original Intent" (see arguments for the Second Amendment); yet the same persons justify our engagement in Iraq because Congress Authorized the "War Powers Act". If these persons really believed in "Original Intent" then only the Congress has the authority to declare war.
One more piece of evidence exposing the hypocrisy of the RW in America today.

P.S. By the way, George W. Bush ran as a Compassionate Conservative; he was supported by the Evangelical Conservative Christians (Falwell, Robertson and their flock) as well as the banking, insurance and investor classes.

 

[Big Fitz]

Call em what you will, you shall know them by the policies they implement

Then you would know that they are not conservative, but progressives.

That had been the traditional policy of the USA without doubt.

NO ENTANGLING ALLIANCES, remember that?

And that policy served us rather well until we decided that the US continental empire (that we started building ASAP) wasn't enough empire for us, too.

Nooooo Enntanglinggg... Alliancesss???? Ummm.... maybe? Yes I know exactly about that. Why do you think I brought it up in the first place with Wilsonian Foreign policy, and now that I think about it, even that was prefaced by TR's "Great White Fleet" and "Big Stick" foreign policy where he went shoving the American fleet in everyone's face. TR was a progressive. The first Neocon if you think about it, and Wilson was a progressofascist. They are the ones who dragged us away from Washington's wise council to stay out of entanglements abroad. But thanks to Wilson, and the damnable League of Nations fiasco, we effectively got stuck in other nation's bullshit to this day. All for the sake of "protecting our interests" which in reality aren't protecting OR dealing with our interests but rather obligating us to serve other nations!

Manifest Destiny is NOT related to foreign policy. The Pacification of Native American tribes is not the same. It was a series of military actions of highly questionable and downright despicable acts. American Imperialism began during the Post Civil War era which set the current borders of our nation with our 'colonization' of the Pacific and capped with the Purchase of Alaska. With the exception of Alaska, it was a lamentable affair with very little good to show for it other than securing our military supremacy on the Pacific with the exception of Japan in WW2.

No, Manifest Destiny came from the greed and theological belief that the entire continent was given by God to the colonists to make their home. The gentile's promised land in the minds of many. White settlers under this very common belief would not be denied land they found desirable that the natives had. Their greed coupled with the impression that the Natives were demon worshiping savages for the most part justified in their minds many of the absolutely horrific acts committed. In that way, they dragged politicians willingly or not to legalize their land grabs and wholesale slaughter.

One possible view of the Trail of Tears for instance, could be viewed as an effort at least in the Jackson Cabinet as an attempt to save the Cherokee from the destruction they faced at the hands of uncontrolable white settlers. Jackson could not stop the encroachment no matter what he tried, so moving them farther west than what he believe settlers would move to (as the great plains of Oklahoma were viewed as nothing more than uninhabitable desert to most Americans of that day. Unfortunately the application of the government policy turned it into an ordeal of great shame and suffering from the scarlet fever infested blankets to the use of the military to turn it into a forced march a tribe that was completely peaceful and willing to coexist with whites. I'm not saying it's a correct view, but it is one view with some value.

You are attempting to associate unrelated points in an effort to make political points. BUT... you are right and we do agree that we must return to an isolationist foreign policy.