Re: Debt crisis could hit US by 2013

[Guest guest]

Presumably, Moodys makes this projection based on the assumption that all things

will remain equal.

If the nation gets dumped into another recession, debt will likely increase

sooner. If we get hit with another terror attack and Obama makes war on some new

country as a response, or simply starts a war with Iran or Korea, debt will

likely increase sooner.

One way to reduce the debt is to destroy the US tax code and put a flat tax on

everything. The IRS could then dump the majority of its employees, except for an

enforcement wing that would go after businesses who are improperly reporting the

collection of taxes. Then you would have a vast part of government that would no

longer need to be funded. If the Fed dumped nationalized healthcare, it could

save billions more.

If the Fed did NOT go to the flat tax system, but instead paid a cheap bounty on

illegals, it could raise revenues by transitioning millions of tax paying

citizens into jobs previously held by illegals while saving money on immigration

people who spend days trying to feret out just one or two illegal citizens.

There are many ways to reduce the debt WITHOUT increasing taxes. The government

is just too lazy to explore alternatives.

Administrator

Partial article.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=532490

U.S. Debt Shock May Hit In 2018, Maybe As Soon As 2013: Moody's

[Guest guest]

I expect it will be coming sooner. Europe is probably close to tanking. Once it goes, the US will soon follow, particularly given the current administration's lust for spending and debt.

War in various places it also possible. Korea is one place, but Pakistan just test new long-range missiles that could carry nukes and reach India's capital. Not sure how many they have but the series seems to be years old. They wouldn't need many though to wipe out key Indian cities and spread panic through the country. Of course, India has nukes too and the means to deliver them. Obama also seems to be playing up the Pakistan angle in the recent NYC bombing attempt and drones have been active there for some time, increasingly so under Obama. Maybe he is angling to move into the tribal regions of Pakistan? something I think would be a big mistake. Doing that would only make the rest of Pakistan turn on us and we'd lose a major supply route to Afghanistan plus we'd be facing a nation even larger than Iraq that would be coming for our troops. Sure we've got the high tech edge, but they'd have sheer numbers. What? Are we going to just slaughter waves of human attackers with cluster bombs and such? Well, Obama might get a pass for that for a little while, in the US anyway, but not forever.

Anyway, yes, lots of dangers out there.

In a message dated 5/9/2010 2:11:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Presumably, Moodys makes this projection based on the assumption that all things will remain equal. If the nation gets dumped into another recession, debt will likely increase sooner. If we get hit with another terror attack and Obama makes war on some new country as a response, or simply starts a war with Iran or Korea, debt will likely increase sooner.

[Guest guest]

It was the same with Clinton. Those in politics, media, etc. who railed at Reagan and Bush the First about their military actions lauded Clinton for all of his piddling little actions, especially getting us involved in the Balkans, which would only last a short time (but we're still there). They probably will praise Obama for invading Pakistan.

What I see potentially happening is the various "stans" to the north of Afghanistan could change their minds about letting use their bases and flying over their countries. That would effectively strand our troops with only the resources on hand far from the coasts. The supplies they have now are already short, so things would get bad for them very fast. Of course, we are supposed to be getting out of Iraq in a few months, so we'll also be losing bases there and increasing the length of the supply lines.

In a message dated 5/10/2010 12:46:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Obama said while he was still campaigning that he was looking to wage war in Pakistan against the Taliban. It is no surprise what he is doing over there. He promised and he is delivering on this promise. Democrats, who jeered Bush's intrusions into Afghanistan and Iraq, cheered Obama on during the campaign.Administrator

[Guest guest]

Obama said while he was still campaigning that he was looking to wage war in

Pakistan against the Taliban. It is no surprise what he is doing over there. He

promised and he is delivering on this promise. Democrats, who jeered Bush's

intrusions into Afghanistan and Iraq, cheered Obama on during the campaign.

Administrator

Obama also seems to be playing up the Pakistan angle in the recent NYC bombing

attempt and drones have been active there for some time, increasingly so under

Obama. Maybe he is angling to move into the tribal regions of Pakistan?

something I think would be a big mistake. Doing that would only make the rest of

Pakistan turn on us and we'd lose a major supply route to Afghanistan plus we'd

be facing a nation even larger than Iraq that would be coming for our troops.

Sure we've got the high tech edge, but they'd have sheer numbers. What? Are we

going to just slaughter waves of human attackers with cluster bombs and such?

Well, Obama might get a pass for that for a little while, in the US anyway, but

not forever.

[Guest guest]

I agree with this sumnation. From a purely operational standpoint, it would be

foolish to try to stir things up in Pakistan now.

Administrator

What I see potentially happening is the various " stans " to the north of

Afghanistan could change their minds about letting use their bases and flying

over their countries. That would effectively strand our troops with only the

resources on hand far from the coasts. The supplies they have now are already

short, so things would get bad for them very fast. Of course, we are supposed to

be getting out of Iraq in a few months, so we'll also be losing bases there and

increasing the length of the supply lines.