Chit - Chat for CruisersOpen Forum for non-cruise posts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric that could be considered offensive. We reserve the right to edit or delete for any reason.
Who else is in favor of the recommendations of the Debt Commission? Adopting them, even if some may be painful, may save our country from hyper inflation. Many of us won't be around in 2050 after most of the proposals have taken hold, but they should provide our children and grandchildren with a decent environment. I thank the Commission for outlining what is necessary. I only hope that congress and the president will adopt them. Some of you may disagree, but this is my opinion!!!!
Who else is in favor of the recommendations of the Debt Commission? Adopting them, even if some may be painful, may save our country from hyper inflation. Many of us won't be around in 2050 after most of the proposals have taken hold, but they should provide our children and grandchildren with a decent environment. I thank the Commission for outlining what is necessary. I only hope that congress and the president will adopt them. Some of you may disagree, but this is my opinion!!!!
, many of us have been saying this since 2002, but only recently can do it without being called the most vile names by the "opposition".
What I would like to see is a complete stop to foreign aid.
Bring back ALL of our troops who are stationed overseas.
Put a 50% percent tariff on all imported goods that come to the US.
After this is done then they can start to ask the American people to make sacrifices.
TM
__________________
CRUISES
Century 4/1998
Mercury 4/2000+4/2006+7/2007
Sensation 4/2002
Infinity 4/2003
Summit 4/2004+4/2005
Carnival Liberty New Year's Eve 2007
Liberty of the Seas 5/2008+11/2009
Solstice 4/2009
Oasis 4/2010+4/13/2013
Allure 1/16/ 2011
Equinox 4/11/2011
I have not had the chance to see the whole thing, but the one thing that would hurt us, and so many around us, would be the cutting of the defense. That was tried in the Carter admin, and it didn't work.
I to would love to see some of the aid that is going overseas brought back here, but let's face it. We pay many countries to be our friends. Without those "friends" we would be in trouble with those who would like nothing more than to fly their flag over our capital.
I would also like to see all the jobs that have been lost, brought back to the states. I read the other day about our gov, paying companies to manufacture overseas, in order to sale back to the people of this counrty.
I would like to see us get out of the wars we are in. I don't think it is worth our effort. No matter how long we stay there, whenever we leave the bad guys are still going to call it home. I think we can topple regimes (like Saddam) but I don't think we can change the mindset of people like the Taliban. We have set the stage, if the majority of people in Afg are willing to make the changes we want them to make they will do it now or never.
__________________
I am the editor, but I also speculate, ask questions and play devil's advocate. I reserve the right to change my mind.
What people fail to realize is everytime we kill a combatant over there we are creating enemies out of their children, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc. so by killing one we will be fighting many more later.
Regards,
Thomas
__________________
Book me on your next cruise and enjoy your personal punching bag.
I was planning to refrain from posting on political topics but here I am again . I agree with Manuel .The US has to remove all troops from foreign soil and permanently stay out of the affairs of other nations .
I would love for all troops to come home too. I have more of a reason than most of you, for this to happen, but I am afraid you might regret your wishes. So. Korea would fall to the No. and to the Chinese. Israel would be no more.
Any trouble, anywhere in the world, would have to go on without us, so the strong would take over the weak.
I do not agree with the idea that the more you kill, the more enemies we have. Japan, Germany, come to mind.
What if we could have gotten to Atta, before 911? Would some of the people in American still be alive?
As you sleep at night in your own beds, there are thousands of threats to Americans. Most could not be stopped here in this country, before it was to late.
Oh how I wish we could all live in peace. I wish we didn't need soldiers.
I wish Jim didn't have his "soldier" bags packed at all times, but life is what we have. You just have to accept the fact that several countries would love to own us. Would love to have what we have.
I choose not to debate this issue .I will leave it to others ,however ,Israel would flourish without interference from the United States .
The trillions of dollars spent on US soldiers could have been spent on feeding the destitute in this country ;in keeping social security benefits as they were instead of decreasing them .
You can't buy friends. The countries we are giving foreign aid to are not our friends.
If N. Korea takes over S. Korea, that is not my problem.
N. Vietnam took over S. Vietnam the world did not end.
TM
__________________
CRUISES
Century 4/1998
Mercury 4/2000+4/2006+7/2007
Sensation 4/2002
Infinity 4/2003
Summit 4/2004+4/2005
Carnival Liberty New Year's Eve 2007
Liberty of the Seas 5/2008+11/2009
Solstice 4/2009
Oasis 4/2010+4/13/2013
Allure 1/16/ 2011
Equinox 4/11/2011
Of course I can't run for president because I was not born in the US.
However, I could show the president how to be fiscally responsible.
TM
__________________
CRUISES
Century 4/1998
Mercury 4/2000+4/2006+7/2007
Sensation 4/2002
Infinity 4/2003
Summit 4/2004+4/2005
Carnival Liberty New Year's Eve 2007
Liberty of the Seas 5/2008+11/2009
Solstice 4/2009
Oasis 4/2010+4/13/2013
Allure 1/16/ 2011
Equinox 4/11/2011
Henry, all we need is common sense.
For example, South Korea does not want to import our products, but they want our military protection. I would remove our soldiers from that country starting right now, as fast as possible.
We need to have a strong military stationed. here.
We are spending billions of borrowed money to keep troops overseas. For what?
They should be stationed here. It they were, some jobs would be created in the USA instead of in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea and many other countries.
As far as killing Iraquis to save Iraq, is that not the same policy that did not work in Vietnam?
Once again I say tariffs on imported goods and bring home the troops.
TM
__________________
CRUISES
Century 4/1998
Mercury 4/2000+4/2006+7/2007
Sensation 4/2002
Infinity 4/2003
Summit 4/2004+4/2005
Carnival Liberty New Year's Eve 2007
Liberty of the Seas 5/2008+11/2009
Solstice 4/2009
Oasis 4/2010+4/13/2013
Allure 1/16/ 2011
Equinox 4/11/2011
Tariffs?
US protectionism has already caused me to buy a Japanese vehicle, and flush the 20-year history I had with GM.
Very simply put, tariffs will hurt the US more, because you are the biggest sellers of "stuff" in the world. Every one else will retaliate with tariffs on YOUR stuff and the USA will be the net loser.
If there's a tariff on my Big Mac, I may not want to eat it so much, and there are other non-US options available.
Once again I say tariffs on imported goods and bring home the troops.
Ah yes, protectionism.... might have a chance of working if the U.S. consumed less than it produced, as a starting point.
And then also have to be prepared to do without the things it does not produce, or cannot produce enough of. Oil for #1, plus a long list of other things that you import out of necessity.
Everyone wants their troops home, but that isn't any final solution for economic prosperity. Plus the US would have to find jobs for all the military personnel.
At the moment, sadly what they US makes best is money. And trying to operate a country that primarily makes money is a big part of the problem.
Years and years ago unions had a purpose, then as times changed unions did not. They outlived their usefulness and forced employers to look for alternatives.... that's where many of the jobs went.
Who else is in favor of the recommendations of the Debt Commission? Adopting them, even if some may be painful, may save our country from hyper inflation. Many of us won't be around in 2050 after most of the proposals have taken hold, but they should provide our children and grandchildren with a decent environment. I thank the Commission for outlining what is necessary. I only hope that congress and the president will adopt them. Some of you may disagree, but this is my opinion!!!!
The proposal, as "leaked," is seriously problematic.
>> 1. The changes to retirement age for Social Security and Medicare are too little, too late, to have the needed impact. We probably need to raise the retirement age to 75 by 2020 or so and to 80 by 2030 or so to restore solvency to Social Security and Medicare. This basically means raising the retirement age one day each calendar day until it gets to be 80.
>> 2. The proposed tax hikes will choke the economy, resulting in a long-term reduction in tax revenues. We would do well to make the 2010 tax rates permanent, then to phase in further cuts to reduce the maximum tax rate to 10% as the economy recovers, to get our economic engine going.
Bring back ALL of our troops who are stationed overseas.
You can count on vociferous opposition to that proposal from the United States Marine Corps.
During one of the fiercest battles in the Pacific Theater in World War II, Japanese forces captured the colors of the Fourth Marine Regiment ("Fourth Marines"). The Fourth Marines immediately realized what had happened, redoubled their efforts, and recaptured their colors -- but it did not matter. Having disgraced the United States Marine Corps, the only Marine unit ever to lose its colors in battle has NEVER returned home. The Fourth Marine Regiment remains based on Okinawa to this day -- and EVERY marine to this day knows why!
You may rest assured that the Corps will object, in the fiercest terms, to any proposal that would move the Fourth Marines to any U. S. soil.
Of course I can't run for president because I was not born in the US.
Splitting hairs, the Constitution does not require that one be born in the United States. Rather, it requires that one be a "citizen by birth" (or a citizen at the time of the ratification of the constitution, but that option is moot now). Thus, any person born in a foreign country of parents who are U. S. citizens, documented by a "consular report of birth abroad," is a "citizen by birth" who becomes eligible to serve as President on his or her thirty-fifth birthday in the same manner as a person born on U. S. soil.
FWIW, our nation's founders had a very compelling reason for requiring citizenship by birth to serve as President. They foresaw the possibility that a foreign agent could immigrate and attain citizenship, then run for political office and, if elected, use their political offices to sabotage our government. They considered that the houses of the Congress would always have enough members to make it unlikely that such infiltrators could gain a majority, but the office of President lacks this check because it is vested in one person. While I have no doubt that many naturalized citizens would serve admirably as President, I think we need to weigh this risk very seriously before considering an amendment that would change this provision of our constitution.
Splitting hairs, the Constitution does not require that one be born in the United States. Rather, it requires that one be a "citizen by birth" (or a citizen at the time of the ratification of the constitution, but that option is moot now). Thus, any person born in a foreign country of parents who are U. S. citizens, documented by a "consular report of birth abroad," is a "citizen by birth" who becomes eligible to serve as President on his or her thirty-fifth birthday in the same manner as a person born on U. S. soil.
FWIW, our nation's founders had a very compelling reason for requiring citizenship by birth to serve as President. They foresaw the possibility that a foreign agent could immigrate and attain citizenship, then run for political office and, if elected, use their political offices to sabotage our government. They considered that the houses of the Congress would always have enough members to make it unlikely that such infiltrators could gain a majority, but the office of President lacks this check because it is vested in one person. While I have no doubt that many naturalized citizens would serve admirably as President, I think we need to weigh this risk very seriously before considering an amendment that would change this provision of our constitution.
You can count on vociferous opposition to that proposal from the United States Marine Corps.
During one of the fiercest battles in the Pacific Theater in World War II, Japanese forces captured the colors of the Fourth Marine Regiment ("Fourth Marines"). The Fourth Marines immediately realized what had happened, redoubled their efforts, and recaptured their colors -- but it did not matter. Having disgraced the United States Marine Corps, the only Marine unit ever to lose its colors in battle has NEVER returned home. The Fourth Marine Regiment remains based on Okinawa to this day -- and EVERY marine to this day knows why!
You may rest assured that the Corps will object, in the fiercest terms, to any proposal that would move the Fourth Marines to any U. S. soil.
Norm.
I have personally spoken to many veterans including marines who are in agreement with Manuel and I.
Whoever commissioned this debt needs to be committed. Or commissioned by committee to indentured commiseration (in the commissary cleaning common condiments from cutlery) until the commitment is commensurate to cleared.
How about bringing back many, not all, of the troops positioned on foreign soil and putting a bunch of them on the Mexican border? How about cutting back on foreign aid, since they all hate us anyway.
Like everyone else, aren't you borrowing to fund those "resources"? These days, Governments use money presses like consumers use Visa and Mastercard. Sooner or later "purchases" will have to be declined.
To use a CruiseMates analogy; Governments have been "Cruising on Credit" for far too long now, and are addicted to easy credit, just like the average consumer. Debt servicing has become the single largest expense in EVERY country's budget. Not wars, not government waste, not fraud or corruption, but plain simple Interest is killing all of our economies.
There is no easy fix. We ALL (Governments included) need to quit spending like sailors, pay back our debts and learn to live within our means. If that means going without the latest cool stuff, then so be it. We will all adapt to the new reality.
How about bringing back many, not all, of the troops positioned on foreign soil and putting a bunch of them on the Mexican border? How about cutting back on foreign aid, since they all hate us anyway.
I agree with that 100%. When our troops are statione overseas, they are spending their money where they are. If you bring them back, they will spend their money over here.
Foreign aid needs to end.
TM
__________________
CRUISES
Century 4/1998
Mercury 4/2000+4/2006+7/2007
Sensation 4/2002
Infinity 4/2003
Summit 4/2004+4/2005
Carnival Liberty New Year's Eve 2007
Liberty of the Seas 5/2008+11/2009
Solstice 4/2009
Oasis 4/2010+4/13/2013
Allure 1/16/ 2011
Equinox 4/11/2011
Connect with Facebook
The Debt Commission
, many of us have been saying this since 2002, but only recently can do it without being called the most vile names by the "opposition".
I would remove our soldiers from that country starting right now, as fast as possible.
Linear Mode
