Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[phinds]

No, but there is a really really big difference between shutting off someone's access to the internet and shutting off the entire internet.

Sure, but how do you JUST shut off access for terrorists? Who defines terrorist? I know we could do what I think would be a pretty good job of that BUT ... (1) our politicians could run amok with such a power and (2) other countries could use that example to stifle their own citizenry even more than they already do. I just think it's a terrible idea in the real world, but I agree w/ should work on it.

One thing I DO think we should do is require MUCH more vigilance by the internet companies that make huge profits to monitor things more, and more closely, and block stuff that any reasonable American would agree is, for example, ISIS propaganda. Even doing that would likely require some internet tweaking in America that would then be subject to corruption by our politicians.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, but how do you JUST shut off access for terrorists?

For starters, you enlist the help of the social media sites they use to communicate and get those sites to ban them. Or you can go so far as to bomb communications and power infrastructure.

Who defines terrorist?

I don't know where you are going with that, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.

 

[phinds]

For starters, you enlist the help of the social media sites they use to communicate and get those sites to ban them.

Which is exactly what I just suggested.

I don't know where you are going with that, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.

I think it has a lot to do with the concept of limiting access to the internet for terrorists. How do you limit access to a group or to certain kinds of speech if you don't know how that looks. My point is it looks different to different people and particularly to different governments. As I said above, I think we could do a good job of it, but it opens up a whole can of worms and becomes subject to corruption.

 

[russ_watters]

Which is exactly what I just suggested.

Yes, I know. So why are Trump's words being twisted wildly beyond what we both know (and I suspect everyone here knows) is reasonable interpretation of what he said?

...er, well, I think we all know the answer to that too.

I think it has a lot to do with the concept of limiting access to the internet for terrorists. How do you limit access to a group or to certain kinds of speech if you don't know how that looks. My point is it looks different to different people and particularly to different governments. As I said above, I think we could do a good job of it, but it opens up a whole can of worms and becomes subject to corruption.

Since Trump didn't mention any of that, there isn't even a starting point for a conversation about it.

 

[phinds]

Since Trump didn't mention any of that, there isn't even a starting point for a conversation about it.

I don't even know how to respond to that. If you don't see any applicability of a definition of WHAT we want to limit to the concept of imposing a limit, then I have no argument that would be meaningful to you.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't even know how to respond to that. If you don't see any applicability of a definition of WHAT we want to limit to the concept of imposing a limit, then I have no argument.

I think you are looking to have a conversation about those things unrelated to any position Trump might have about them.

 

[phinds]

I think you are looking to have a conversation about those things unrelated to any position Trump might have about them.

See post #1055

 

[Salvador]

Russ I like your new application or Ryan Lochte, did you invent this analogy yourself or found it somewhere on the net ? Anyways it's funny.
Instead of saying BS in it's full form which might get censored at some sites as too vulgar I will now just go with Ryan ,
"why are you telling me some random Ryan Lochte" for example. :D

As for Trump , I think it will soon appear to 5 year old's that his phrases are taken out of context on a regular basis to destroy his candidacy more than he himself contributes to that.
Although I must say the Democrats are also doing unwisely by trying to silence the opposition , obviously there are quite some many folks who agree with Trump on many issues and that has nothing to do with his other radical ideas , it simply shows that there are certain matters that the people are fed up with and the Democrats don't seem to be listening , in the long term that is a bad situation as it will increase the cracks in the US public.

As for the internet , surely no one can shut down it simply like that , well you can physically but that would be like cutting the legs of the statue of liberty , it would undermine the very core values on which the US is based.
There is no easy answer to this and surely regimes that are much more authoritarian like the Russian Federation or China have a better chance at containing terrorism simply because they censor and oversee everything and terrorism just falls under that already existing blanket of pure state government control.
Take any other rather free modern democracy and you can see that it's benefits and liberties are also a silver dish to it's enemies , like Europe for example , it's free borders are cool and I've used them many times and it's so easy and saves time , yet it allows some middle age full Ryan Lochte in the head idiots who follow a dangerous religion to use them to kill innocent folks.

And yes I am not afraid to say that Islam is dangerous because quite simply it is , it's full of hateful authority and it basically oppresses it's own followers.And please anyone who thinks that Islam is the peaceful thing that it's followers and naive western liberals try to prove , go and read the Quran , I have read it and I know my deal.
And please don't take this down and then tell me it's hate speech , it;s not , it's an educated and informed opinion and it's my freedom of speech.That being said I have to say that because of the world that we live in we must change , yes even our basic freedoms in order to fight the enemy.No need for full net shutdown all that needs to be done is more vigilance and a bigger authority to agencies like NSA to scan the web for words that might be included in a conversation between a possible suspect and or a terrorist plot.This may sound crazy to some and yes there are dangers of these special duties being mistreated , but then again doing nothing gives us an equal and bigger danger of getting us killed while being in a food store or whatnot.I am not trying to advocate some sort of Soviet KGB all seeing eye here and trust me back in the day without any computers or databases they managed to know everything and infiltrate everyone , the whole society was like a big intelligence machine with each janitor being a sort of small case agent.That surely isn't possible or needed in the US , but there must be some sort stronger oversight and control of what's going on , face it folks the world is full of different people , many are bad and some are radically evil , there is no equality there will never be , it's against the very human nature and unless someone comes up with a tool to change that, we will be like we are.
I'm shocked by the modern Europe , were the awful crimes committed by the mostly uneducated and quite dumb immigrants are sort of like covered up and not talked much about.It almost feels like this whole situation is beneficial to someone but then I have the question , to whom ? Definitely not the citizens of Europe.

P.S. and after all since when we decided to be so open and helpful towards Muslims and other races? I am not saying we should kill them or disrespect them I just think it's better for two such vastly different races to live in their own parts of the world and follow their own tradition , this mixing up isn't doing any good.
After all those who will want to travel to the US for example by will , will also have the decency and mindset to abide by the rules and live a decent life.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ I like your new application or Ryan Lochte, did you invent this analogy yourself or found it somewhere on the net ? Anyways it's funny.

Thank! Yes, I just invented it.

Instead of saying BS in it's full form which might get censored at some sites as too vulgar I will now just go with Ryan ,
"why are you telling me some random Ryan Lochte" for example. :D

Well, I was using it as a verb. You can claim the noun version.

 

[Salvador]

All in all I just want to say that any detailed discussion about the very serious issues concerning this election is far beyond the scope of this thread or maybe any thread for that matter , matters like why the middle east has been a war zone not just for decades but centuries and how much has that to do with their religion are very deep and require long hours of reading writing and analysis.
if we want to talk "current" news concerning POTUS here it's actually quite hard because the very candidates themselves talk big issues more like newspaper column titles , they sort of say them and then there is no deeper following analysis of how exactly they will or plan to solve the problem ,then there is the clickbait media which only grabs the most sensational moments in order to gain attention.Rarely have I seen a in dept story somewhere in Politico or WSJ or elsewhere.

Like the whole "bringing back jobs to US" slogan , I'm all for it but how exactly is anyone whether it be Hillary or Trump - the author of this , how will they achieve it.Or the making Wallstreet pay their "fair share of taxes" ,basically a slogan for the Bernie supporters so that they would start liking Hillary more.

All I know is that Wallstreet surely pays their fair share of speaking fees to prominent officials.

 

[mheslep]

Sure, but how do you JUST shut off access for terrorists? Who defines terrorist? I know we could do what I think would be a pretty good job of that BUT ... (1) our politicians could run amok with such a power...

In the last several years of the Obama administration, the US has i) executed hundreds of drone attacks against terrorists in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, ii) executed a (relatively feeble) piloted air campaign in Syria and Northern Iraq, iii) inserted hundreds of US troops into Syria and over 4000 into Northern Iraq, all of which has the goal fight and destroy the terrorist organization ISIS. Domestically, the US has arrested hundreds of *would be* terrorists for actions like attempting to travel to Syria and join ISIS.

The US government has been privately defining, identifying, arresting, and killing terrorists for years. All this is common knowledge. Yet comes Trump proposing a serious digital versions, attacks aimed at ending ISIS "communications", his actual word, and out comes the claims that he really means there's an internet kill switch and that defining and attacking terrorists is dangerous and novel.

 

[mheslep]

How do you limit access to a group or to certain kinds of speech if you don't know how that looks.

I suppose for some reason you're starting from some absolute interpretation of free speech, but there's never been an absolute realization. There are restrictions on speech, and they have been in force since before there was an internet, and in print before that going back to 1798. You know it is illegal to physically threaten the President for instance, independent of group identification. Or, try and set up your own KKK chapter threatening violence over social media; see how long it takes to attract the interest of the FBI. In the US today, if you can be identified as actively seeking to join or recruit people to travel to Syria and join ISIS you can go to jail. In the US today, increasingly social media services that ride atop the internet are terminating accounts used for such purposes, all without "shutting off the internet worldwide". IMO they should have started doing so some time earlier.

Look, Twitter JUST "shuts down 2,000 ISIS-linked accounts" in a week.

 

[mheslep]

↑

For starters, you enlist the help of the social media sites they use to communicate and get those sites to ban them.
Which is exactly what I just suggested

Which is exactly what I just suggested.

Then why when analyzing Trump's proposal to "we must shut down their access to this form of communication, his actual words, demand the extreme interpretation that Trump wants to shut off the internet. Why isn't Trump's proposal also be realized as social media restriction?

 

[mheslep]

Relevant expert comments on ISIS cyber warfare:

Seth Berenzweig, an attorney who specializes in constitutional law

"There are a small handful of narrow and rare constitutional instances where the federal government may shut down communications over the Internet,"
"The feds can shut down someone’s Internet communications, such as taking down their server if they are for example publishing pro-ISIS callings to commit murder, or explaining how to construct a bomb to kill people ... Trump has some law on his side for his argument, but these exceptions will be narrowly and strictly construed."

Samuel Bucholtz, co-founder of Casaba Security,

"He narrowed his focus to disabling their (ISIS) web presence in Syria. Isolating a country from the rest of the world’s Internet is possible," ... though he added that maintaining a long-term ban could prove tough.

Dave Chronister, founder of Parameter Security.

"You can’t shut down the Internet access in one region without creating collateral damage and unintended consequences across that area, in neighboring regions, and for other Internet users as well,"

 

[mheslep]

shut off terrorists access to the internet world wide

Just as there's no need to kill or arrest everyone that identifies with ISIS "world wide", nor is it necessary to shut off global communications to curtail ISIS. Cutting off all communication (cell and internet) to, for instance, the ISIS capital of Al-Raqqah is likely to slow them down.

 

[gleem]

.

And yes I am not afraid to say that Islam is dangerous because quite simply it is , it's full of hateful authority and it basically oppresses it's own followers.And please anyone who thinks that Islam is the peaceful thing that it's followers and naive western liberals try to prove , go and read the Quran

I have found the following paper informative and would recommend all to read..

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/tolerance.html

Islam is not just simply a religion, it is a whole inseparable religious, political and social system. built around the direct order of God.
.

 

[Salvador]

Sweet bejesus , that's one long reading right there.I will copy it out on paper and read it then but from the first glimpse seems like a good read.

A short followup on the Islam thing.The problem is everyone these days asks to respect different opinions and religions , ok fine I have been doing that since the dawn of me , but when the very thing that I should respect disrespects me and even more wants to kill me for my different beliefs then I say enough is enough.No Islam and no respect for it.

And folks , please understand this one thing, most Muslims are peaceful only because their human nature and logic still prevails over the most radical parts of their scripture , and since scripture is something that can be interpreted they simply say oh it must have been originally thought otherwise.
But here's the key - interpretation. Now some other folks who may not have been so lucky in their lives and are poor and with no education and a basic human desire to revenge this very world which they think did this to them , take the same Quran and read the verses which say quote: "Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out."

There are many more verses , this post is not meant for all of them but anyone who thinks that it sounds bad simply because it is out of context go and read the full verses , the net is full of Quran so nothing is hidden , see for yourself.

Mohammad and the Quran is basically the opposite of Jesus , both are very popular beliefs and to both many find their sympathies , only in the case of Quran those sympathies may well turn out ot be the sympathies for the "devil"

 

[Evo]

Something no one has mentioned, China and Russia and many countries have government owned internet, the US doesn't. Egypt does, but during the Egypt Spring when the Egytian government attempted to shut down the internet they were not completely successful, whether it was intentional or not, it was an international cable that mainly fed the stock exchange.

The US does not have the authority to shut down any part of the internet, only through requests and agreements with other parties can they limit access if the other parties owning the access agree to it. You can read about more in the second link I posted. But ISIS is a moving target, you shut down one account, another pops up.

 

[Salvador]

Well Evo , one thing is for sure , it's hard to fight against an idea or a set of beliefs, especially if those who hold them live a poor and cruel life that in itself is pushing them towards violence.
The perfect scenario would be to kill the idea , but an idea cannot be killed so we are back were we started , if we want to prevail we need to act and use force, any force, physical were needs to be , informational , psychological.

Please don't get me wrong but sometimes I'm tired of this western incapability of solving stuff , like in UK the police sometimes is simply unwilling to solve the clashes with immigrants , same in France , lorry drivers get broken windows because some stupid low class immigrant fools decided it would be a nice idea to throw a brick in his window, what's best - for no good reason whatsoever.

I know you dislike Russia but maybe you should take a thing or two from them , in terms of getting rid of bad people. the West is showing too much mercy and some abstract thing they call love and empathy towards people who don't deserve it.
In modern Europe chances are you will be robbed by a immigrant and then you will use force out of self defense against him, and the chances are they will charge you and let him free.
Hello , were are we going with this ?

I don't like or love people, what I like is the truth , and when some people start messing it up I develop a serious hate towards them and I think it's a just one. And maybe you should have one too in order to save yourselves and your country.

P.S.Evo, do you have any factual evidence of all Russian internet being government owned , I don't think it's government owned , it is government censored , there's a difference.
As for the US , the US doesn't have to shut down the internet , the internet cannot be shut down as such , all the government needs to do is shut down access to the net or some of it's content to the very pc and devices within their territory.I'm not saying they should do that I'm just saying the way in which it would be done.Just as China doesn't shut down google or the net it simply blocks the access to it from it's territory.

Just a sidenote , if you really think Russia would be better of with a transparent and tolerantly weak democracy you should think twice , I think these assumptions arise out of the lack of knowledge about Russians and their mentality.

 

[Astronuc]

All in all I just want to say that any detailed discussion about the very serious issues concerning this election is far beyond the scope of this thread

Well, the title states, ". . . the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues." National security and foreign policy are two critical issues among several, and will be for some time.

I was thinking about the US national debt, nearly $19 trillion, and if the government were to pay it down (which requires a surplus) at $100 billion/yr, it would take nearly 190 years. How stupid it that?!

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51384
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-federal-debt-what/

 

[Evo]

I know you dislike Russia

No you don't, I've never said anything about how I feel about Russia.

 

[Evo]

P.S.Evo, do you have any factual evidence of all Russian internet being government owned , I don't think it's government owned , it is government censored , there's a difference.

There is so much, the government is taking over control and buying out. I didn't say that they own all but they own a large portion and control more.

Buying control of Russia’s web

Centralization of Internet control represents another concern. “We’re definitely seeing a consolidation of ownership of Internet companies under allies of the Putin regime,” said Wilson, the Virginia Tech expert on Russian Internet.

For example, financial control of VKontakte – Russia’s largest social network and Europe’s second most popular – has been secured by investors with close ties to the Putin Administration.

United Capital Partners, controlled by Putin ally Ilya Sherbovitch, quietly acquired a 48 percent stake with assistance from Igor Sechin, head of the state-owned gas giant Rosneft. The remaining 52 percent is owned by Alisher Usmanov, a billionaire industrialist and co-owner of mobile provider MegaFon. Sherbovitch, Sechin and Usmanov are all said to have Putin’s ear.

http://www.voanews.com/a/1901411.html

http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/russian-federation-state-control-of-internet-proposed/

Just google it for more there are dozens of articles.

But we are straying again from the US Presidential elections.

Just a sidenote , if you really think Russia would be better of with a transparent and tolerantly weak democracy you should think twice , I think these assumptions arise out of the lack of knowledge about Russians and their mentality.

And who supposedly said this? More misinformation directed at me?

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Well, the title states, ". . . the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues." National security and foreign policy are two critical issues among several, and will be for some time.

I was thinking about the US national debt, nearly $19 trillion, and if the government were to pay it down (which requires a surplus) at $100 billion/yr, it would take nearly 190 years. How stupid it that?!

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51384
https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-federal-debt-what/

Astronuc, I have an MBA in finance. I decided to take a look at the national debt to see if there was any scenario that would pay down the debt. The variables I used were GDP growth numbers, interest rates, and tax rates (revenue as % of GDP). There is no way to pay down the debt. You cannot tax the people enough or grow the economy enough to pay down the debt. I used a simple spread sheet to generate the numbers. One assumption made was that gubmint stopped borrowing money in year one.

 

[mheslep]

There is no way to pay down the debt. ...

There is no need to zero the national debt, nor any serious suggestion to do so. There is a need to *reduce* the debt to GDP ratio down from 100% to more like 70%, as debt this high has been shown to drag on an economy, though I doubt this is politically possible without the abolition and reboot of the US government.

 

[Dotini]

My question is, should interest rates rise, would interest owed and paid on the national debt also rise? If so, how much would it have to rise before it overshadows all other government expenditures?

 

[CalcNerd]

I doubt this is politically possible without the abolition and reboot of the US government.

.
Well, Trump can make it possible. Sounds like a case for strategic bankruptcy.
.
U.S. Treasury Bonds anyone? This is a GREAT chance to stick it to the Chinese as that country has bought the most Bonds (debt) from us (that will teach them to loan us money!, we'll use the new fangled strategy of being too BIG to fail!). A great method to redistribute wealth, the capitalistic way!
.
All kidding aside, this is the elephant in the room. And it has been abused by and mismanaged by both parties. If the Tea baggers had any real math skills and realistic plans for paying off this debt, I might have jumped on their bandwagon. Unfortunately, their math sucks and often tosses the baby out with the bath water. Case in point. Ted Cruz shut down the government with his filibuster to impede a budget and to save money. Ted actually cost good ole Uncle Sam at least $20 billion annually for his money saving filibuster government shutdown. How? By dinging our government's AAA bond rating. That .125% increase in our interest increase = 0.00125 * $16x10^12 (national debt)= $20 Billion. Thanks Ted! Not the only reason I dislike the guy, but a start. (I do suspect our government didn't deserve its AAA rating, but I give Ted the credit for our government's new lower rating).
.
A real approach to our problem will need to span a decade or more to be feasible and realistic. And it will involve draconian cuts in many government programs. Not sure that is possible with either party as both parties have programs that they do NOT Touch. Everything has to be on the table to get the debt down to a reasonable level.

 

[Salvador]

a lil bit off current topic at first , I talked with Evo and she raised some objections that in my last post when I referred to the dislike sentiment towards Russia I was indeed thinking a general unwritten policy and also the feelings on many people not specifically Evo or any other member mentioned here or somewhere else.
I sometimes write my posts quickly in order to catch up with my thought so my wording may seem suspicious for some but I can only say it's never the case and if I would like to comment on someone I would mention their nick or name.Oh yeah the credit ratings and debt , imagine how vast the spectrum is these days , from ancient religious cults and violent behavior to something that first turned up it's head in the recent decades.
I may sound unpopular by saying this and I sure won't get elected if I ran with such philosophy for public office but in general debt is when you want to live higher than you can afford.I know the whole financial system is much more complicated than "hey Dan , lend me some , I need to take my wife to the movies tonight" but overall it still reflects the need or wish or both to live over your head.
In this life just as in physics everything must have some kind of a source a fundament on which it is based and if the US economy has gotten smaller and less powerful than it maybe was in it's golden days back in the 20th century after WW2 and so on then the establishment would do wisely to adjust it's spending and general policy to cope with the new way things are.
I guess it's hard for people who have lived quite a good life to suddenly settle for something less , even though that something less may be almost as good as it was before.

I don't want to run into deep philosophy here but there is a saying that a country is only as strong as the majority of it's citizens.Now if we follow down this line then we can assume that if the majority is strong then the country as a whole is much much better off , or we can call the majority the middle class.
Now from here on one must think to himself , what makes a man strong ? Probably many things combined starting from his physical health to his mental one and maybe even his spiritual side for those who believe such things.One thing leads to another , take away or degrade the culture and that too can influence all this big chain of events down to a less potent workforce etc.It's not always just how much you earn it's also how you look at life.
After the second world war Europe was in ruins , the place were I live was also pretty much destroyed , we had to start from the bottom , but for the record probably much harder than Drake had...
We had no money no infrastructure no nothing and yet somehow people believed it's worth it. The US has never encountered an all out war on it's soil and even with a large , maybe the largest national debt? in the world it's still a easy fix , but the question is are the people of US ready to do it , or are they too busy being divided between "crooked Hillary" and radical Trump.

And quite frankly I think it's sort of pathetic that in order for some to realize real life issues like violent foreign religions and groups , national debt , white vs black problems etc etc it takes a yelling Trump to start to consider them seriously for the first time in their lives , maybe it's a blessing that Trump is the way he is , atleast there is a shakeup of sorts in the otherwise calm and bit stinky political puddle.
Although I would enjoy it so much more if he devoted all his energy of which he seems to have plenty for his age (that he hasn't lied single bit) to yelling about serious issues only and avoiding the small talk which gets big news titles.

 

[mheslep]

.
All kidding aside, this is the elephant in the room. And it has been abused by and mismanaged by both parties.

As 10 is to 1. On the spending side, the War on poverty and the large entitlements: Medicare and Medicaid, SS, and now the ACA - all these were created by the Democrats. The GOP contains elements that have and would spend too heavily on the military, though military spending has no significant future commitment. On the revenue side, the Democrats are lost in the-1%-pay-their-fair-share fantasies instead of pursuing the obvious paths to more economic growth (internationally competitive business taxes, regulatory rollbacks, getting the ACA off the back of small business) and thus revenue growth.

...realistic plans for paying off this debt, I might have jumped on their bandwagon...

Speaker Paul Ryan Path to Prosperity Budget (budget surplus in 8 years, reviewed by the CBO)
https://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy15_blueprint.pdf

Senator Rand Paul budget (balance in 5 years, returns discretionary spending to 2008 levels).
https://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf

There are several other GOP plans to balance the budget.

...Ted actually cost good ole Uncle Sam at least $20 billion annually for his money saving filibuster government shutdown. How? By dinging our government's AAA bond rating.

That's like blaming a foreclosed house and 10 maxed out credit cards on one late payment. Ted Cruise didn't ding "our government's AAA bond rating". The debt over 100% of GDP, with large pending spending increases dinged the rating.

 

[mheslep]

My question is, should interest rates rise, would interest owed and paid on the national debt also rise? If so, how much would it have to rise before it overshadows all other government expenditures?

CBO 2014

Interest payments on that debt represent a large and rapidly growing expense of the federal government. CBO’s baseline shows net interest payments more than tripling under current law, climbing from $231 billion in 2014, or 1.3 percent of GDP, to $799 billion in 2024, or 3.0 percent of GDP—the highest ratio since 1996.

By share of the budget, that increase would take interest from its current 6% to almost 25%.

 

[Salvador]

I get your position mheslep and I agree on it for some 50%.It's not like anything that benefits the average citizen is bad in terms of growth , it's just that many times the social benefits are used unwisely and simply to live by and work less.But this is a problem of a degraded and lazy society rather than welfare or social stuff itself.
I mean take guns for example , if someone would really like ti kill someone , literally anything would suffice.The guns don't get to choose , we do , although with guns it's a bit different they are very dangerous , welfare is not it's just misused.
Take the UK for example part of what fueled the Brexit was that foreign workers and their families live heavily on social payouts almost to the point were it turns ugly , I know these stories first hand , a mother "getting laid" simply to have children because that earns her money so she doesn't have to move a finger, now that's pathetic , If I were the King I would jail such people , I think they commit more crime in the long term indirectly (read unwanted kids having a sad life) than any decent robber possibly can.

personally I think the perfect solution is having something of both worlds , like in a great family, you get some love but you also get some punishment so that you remember that working hard is the key instead of living lazy.
If there was one good thing about Soviet socialism then it was free education , and despite who may want to deny it it was world class , after all they managed to build and invent great stuff along the US.
The good thing about free education instead of social handouts is that education is not something you will just run out and grab like cash , education is hard and it requires those who pursue it to work hard and earn it.But after that they have the chance to live a better life , get a better job do some good to the society in general and themselves in particular.
I really think that treating education as a business is one of the great mistakes of capitalism in the long term.
I'm not against private schools , it's just that the government should also run a high class and standard of schools for the less lucky ones to have a chance to change the world.

But in general anything can be misused so in the end it's up to some regulations and wise action from the ones capable of thinking more than the average folks to steer this big ship of humanity towards some logical and meaningful result.And it's also up to the citizens to be willing to do something with their lives , can't just shovel up welfare and social benefits to lazy fat mothers and fathers unwilling to work and have a decent family and life in general.

What's the lesson hard to say , too much regulation bad , too less again bad simply because of human character that tends to misuse whatever freedoms he has been given with a few exceptions.

 

[Dotini]

ABC news reported on air that Hillary Clinton lied in her 2009 nomination hearing when she promised not to give special access to Clinton Foundation donors. Apparently the majority of the people she met with as Secretary of State had previously donated over a hundred million dollars to the foundation. The hunt is now on for exactly what was received in return for the donations. Former Illinois governor Rob Blagoyevich is now serving time in prison for similar "pay to play" corruption. Undoubtedly Hillary will be held above the law by the current Justice Department. So a special prosecutor or new administration will be required if justice is to be served. But don't get your hopes up. Might makes right and the ends justify the means. Only the winners write the history. One way or the other, a criminal or an opportunist playboy will be our next president. Surely the end is near.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ABC-News-Clinton-Lied-Donor-Access/2016/08/23/id/744759/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html

 

[Kevin McHugh]

There is no need to zero the national debt, nor any serious suggestion to do so. There is a need to *reduce* the debt to GDP ratio down from 100% to more like 70%, as debt this high has been shown to drag on an economy, though I doubt this is politically possible without the abolition and reboot of the US government.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you look at a graph of a company's value vs its corporate debt, you will find it reaches a maximum at about 40% debt, and then begins to decline. You are right that we don't need 0 debt, but we should cap our national debt at about 40-50% of GDP. That would really free up our economy.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

My question is, should interest rates rise, would interest owed and paid on the national debt also rise? If so, how much would it have to rise before it overshadows all other government expenditures?

If interest rates rise, our debt service increases as well. The gubmint is constantly issuing new debt as older term debt instruments mature. The US offers debt with maturities from 30 days to 1 year (T-bills), and from 5 to 30 years (T-bonds). So, if rates increase, the interest payments increase as well.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

This country is bankrupt, and has been for many years. Every time the debt ceiling crisis comes up, we find we have to increase our debt limits to BORROW money to pay our current liabilities. If we don't do this, then we default. That is the very definition of bankrupt, when you don't have the money to pay your bills.

 

[Salvador]

This all seems like a rather sad picture then , doesn't it ?
Hillary indeed is about pay to play , I tried to point out that earlier here but to not much attention.She and her husband have found a clever way to get big money , beyond any limit they could possibly earn with office alone and in a way which directly doesn't go against the law, after all it's all for charity and sometimes for a nice speech.
And quite frankly with Trump as the only second option who would take down Hillary now , for all I see she could rob a bank and shoot a black guy and the Black lives matter movement would still follow her and so would the rest simply because they dislike Trump so much more.
Rather funny if it wasn't so true.

As for the bankruptcy I must say such outcomes or anything near it would also pretty much default NATO , it's not a huge secret that NATO's biggest contributor and pillar is the US and if the US gets out of the way whether because of Trumps plans or financial issues or otherwise Putin might seriously rethink his stance against Europe in terms of force.
The only thing standing in the way of a Russian world domination is the US and has been for some nearly 100 years since the dawn of the industrial revolution and especially after the 1917 October revolution.
With the US out of the way Europe won't hold up , the water is too strong and Europe's dam is too weak and divided upon itself with large cracks in it.
This makes me nervous a little because in flooding terms I am living right at the bottom of the dam wall and if it breaks the first one to get washed away (literally) will be me and my country.
The only thing I always hope for is that the Kremlin will resort to non violent means of conquering Europe mainly because the Russians like Europe themselves, especially Germany (for those who know history well this is rather paradoxical, isn't it ).