Ok, not seeing any objection to this (and we're talking non-emergency times here), does that imply that everyone here, libs, conservatives, libertarians, independants, etc, are for the balanced budget amendment? btw, the balanced budget amendment also has provisions for limited circumstances, such as during a time of war, where congress can waive the balanced budget requirement with a 3/5 majority. And given that both dems and repubs seem to have a very hard time with this, a balanced budget amendment seems to be required right?

I believe most sain rashional people will aggree that a balanced budget is a most reguardless if they are to the left or the right or in the middle
But the idea of how to reach it is where everyone disagrees
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen

Granted, the method of balancing the budget is where it gets tricky. There's nothing empirical there and that's where ideologies come in. We'll see how many sane, rational people are in congress when the vote comes up for the balanced budget amendment. I'm not holding my breath...

This is the second time that you have posted TLB staff. Who are you referring to? The only staff of TLB is the site owner. If you are referring to one specific person then mention that person. Don't make blanket statements lumping several people into one group when you only intend to refer to one person.:frown:

By TLB staff I mean moderator. Not you though.

Thankyou, Tracy.

Name-calling would be calling Tracy Coxx a "political coward," but referring to the posture one adopts in which one is unwilling to defend one's position, but rather hides behind the anonymity of the Internet, and even now continues to do so rather than answer the reasonable, legitimate guestion that has been raised, is a "position ... of political cowardice." That is NOT name-calling.

But the most important point here is the smokescreen. My question is not about "converting conservative into a liberal or vice versa," but rather to reveal the hypocrisy of the position Tracy Coxx posits with the continual asking of the question about budget deficits and national emergencies. It's a fine position to take in the abstract, but Tracy Coxx refuses, over and over again, to take it in the concrete, i.e., to state what is and is not covered by a "national emergency" and to state what Tracy Coxx would cut from the budget.

What would you CUT, Tracy Coxx? Are you willing to take a position? I am.

I would cut the $5.274 billion the United States gave to other countries in "foreign military financing" in 2010, of which Israel got $2.775 billion and Egypt got $1.3 billion. I would cut the $2.341 the United States gave to "International Financial Institutions funding" in 2010, enabling the World Bank and IMF to destroy local economies while seeking to convert agriculture and industry in the developing world to produce for export rather than to take care of the people in their own countries. I would eliminate the $1.947 billion from 2010 used for "International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement funding." I would cut the Homeland Security Department's budget by at least 80 percent, from $42 billion to, say $10 billion, and I bet no one would notice that security has changed (except perhaps the most useless and asinine programs that the public sees). I would eliminate the overwhelming majority of the $671 billion that goes to the "Defense" Department (I put it in quotes because the name is a misnomer; when it was called the Department of War it was more accurate, and perhaps the "Offense" Department would be more appropriate today). And I would simply march out of Iraq and Afghanistan and stop the spending of $110 billion in the latter and $16 billion in the former.

There, budget crisis averted ... and not a single person, our American brothers and sisters, thrown into the streets in abject poverty, or having their school breakfasts taken away, or no longer getting the medical attention they need, or ... well, I think I've made my point.

You see, when the social safety net is dismantled, that really will be a "national emergency."

The idea of balancing the budget on the backs of working people rather than, say, General Electric -- which paid no taxes last year, or rather than raising taxes on the richest in the land, is an abomination, an indefensible abomination, of which a civilized country should be ashamed, and for which its apologists should be made to rot in hell.

SMC Very well said SMC.
I believe the country is beginning to wake up to the ongoing outrage of how conservatives want to spend our money and control our lives.

I'm glad someone wrote something like this, finally. Where Tracy and her ilk chip away at my faith in humanity as they go about destroying lives, this post from you smc accomplishes the reverse. Yet the question remains: how many others in the US believe as you do? How many are not selfish monsters who begrudge a good life and real freedom to their brothers?

Economically, you cannot slash Defence spending as it is a major employer, both in terms of military personel, and engineering, manufacturing and related industries. Defence is a 'clever' part of the economy as it requires extensive R&D, and the technology then flows into general use.

Remember that Germany grew her economy in the 1930s by two main methods: nation-building (infrastructure etc) and military expenditure. This gave them a massive advantage early in WWII.

What the USA needs to do is get the money-go-round happening again. And reduce the power of the states and adopt a small-government policy (as governments waste money). And just chisel away at all government expenditure, trying to find at least a 15% saving in every department. And cut subsidies for agriculture to make your farmers almost as efficient as us Australians...

Thanks for reminding me that I left off my list the ridiculous subsidies given to agri-business (not small family farmers so much as mega-corporations in the agricultural sector) either to grow things we don't really use or NOT to grow things we could use.

As for your point about slashing defense spending, I could not disagree more. The solution is simple: reemploy people in public works and human services, and watch the economy soar as the social benefits accrue to everyone, not just some rich military-industrial-complex fat cats and the politicians in their pockets.

I'm not sure how much of the $691 Billion in defense a 'majority' means, but let's say you guys want to cut all of it. All the cuts listed above total up to $797 billion. Guess what folks, the 2010 budget has a $1.342 trillion deficit. You've eliminated the entire frickin DoD, military operations/wars, and %80 of Homeland security. You still have over $545 billion left to go, just to balance the budget.

For the past week, despite attempts to sidetrack the discussion, I've been trying to see if we can at least arrive at one thing we can agree on: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

There has been no objection to this from any side of the debate. Yet you guys have declared a budget cut victory when there's still a deficit. There's obviously no military threat to the country or you wouldn't have tossed out the DoD (certainly no lives destroyed in that move are there Enoch Root. Those 4 million highly trained people and their families will be just fine in a job market where 15 million are already looking for work). So why do you guys think there should still be a deficit? What's the emergency?

I am in favor of a federal government running deficits, just as the founder intended, because revenues at a given time may not meet necessary social outlays. But Tracy Coxx dissembles, as usual, what I wrote. I included raising taxes on the corporations and the wealthy. Every economist acknowledges that simply restoring the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans to what it was before the so-called "Bush tax cuts" would eliminate the current problem. I would go much, much further, to eliminate every loophole that allows corporations such as GE to pay no taxes. And eliminate the oil subsidies.

You can try to be clever with your writing, Tracy Coxx, but cleverness works best when you use what people actually say, not what you wish they had because it works to your advantage.

By the way, I suggest you look up "sidetrack" in a dictionary. This accusation is being hurled against me (the "TLB staff" you previously referred to, but were finally told to use a name -- which you can't bring yourself to do for some reason). I have asked you to take this abstract discussion and make it concrete by defining what constitutes an "emergency" and what YOU would cut. If that is sidetracking, I'd like to know what it is you think that word means.

The only reason those people have those jobs is because of a perpetual war economy and as smc already said: "The solution is simple: reemploy people in public works and human services, and watch the economy soar as the social benefits accrue to everyone, not just some rich military-industrial-complex fat cats and the politicians in their pockets."

Sidetrack the discussion Tracy? That requires a discussion to begin with and it is clear that this thread was not started with the purpose of discussion.

How much do you think it would cost the government & tax payers to employ nearly 4 million people in public works and human services? How would the economy soar? Would America be producing more? No.

For god's sake Tracy those are SMC's words! Stop going after me because you can't address smc like an adult.

Yes, Enoch Root, those were my words.

And Tracy Coxx, since you asked: I will bet my right arm, which you, Tracy Coxx, may personally come and cut off with a dull blade if I'm wrong, that the overwhelming majority of the 15 million people who have been out of work would gladly take a good-paying, socially useful job and pay taxes as employed workers, and support the elimination of the giveaways to the rich and the corporations so that employing them will not do as you say.

The way out of the economic problems of this country is not to combine business as usual -- i.e., tax breaks for the wealthy, no taxes on corporations, and corporate welfare -- and busting the backs of working people, but to stimulate the economy with spending that is socially useful. Nearly every economist recognizes this, except for the pseudo-economists in the employ of the corporations and their legislative minions. And even they have a hard time when they put out their lies.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
smc got his own words used against him!

Hot Damn Tracy, you're good.

If stimulus is good, why didn't it work the first time?

I paid 25 cents in taxes and got 20 cents back in stimulus and I'm supposed to feel richer. I think that's the theory.

OMG! Fran has jumped into the hot tub!

Now I wonder when Ila is going to show up and dowse everyone with cold water. :lol:

As fran well knows, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.But it makes for a good post, I guess, when genuine, meaningful discussion is not the coin of the realm in a discussion thread.

The problem with that argument is that military industry jobs are 'clever' jobs - minimum of a bachelor-degree. And it is about new science and technology advancement. Public works and human services are generally not going to employ the intellectuals - there are only so many bridges that can be built! A school friend of mine here in Australia did a degree in electronic and mechanical engineering... 80% of his classmates work in military-related jobs, 15% in mining, 5% automotive. And there is a surprisingly large amount of technology transfer from the military engineering to mining and auto.

Granted, the USA does spend a heck of a lot of dough on military engagements though...

Oh, and why should small family farmers in the USA (or Europe) get subsidies? Australian and New Zealand farmers get no subsidies so we live by the manta "get bigger and cleverer or get out". That's why we run quad-roadtrains, 80ft wide airseeders and 150ft wide spray rigs so we can have big farms without employing labor. That's the joy of capitalism, minimal government help means minimal government interference and therefore maximum productivity.

By public works, I don't necessarily mean building bridges. There is no reason why public employment can't be "high-tech."

I wrote that I am against subsidies for farmers. Of course, if public funds were used to purchase foodstuffs from farmers to help feed the world, rather than public subsidies to prop up "markets," that would be a different thing altogether.

So we’re not going to get an answer from Tracy concerning spending cuts? I keep logging on in the vain hope that Tracy will stop ignoring reasonable requests.

Another benefit of the 2010 election:
US House Backs More Offshore Drilling Amid Gasoline-Price Debate

The measure requires the Obama administration to open up areas known to have the greatest oil and natural gas reserves and make them available for leasing. It represents the last of three bills, sponsored by Republicans, that are aimed at speeding up and expanding offshore drilling.

Obama's campaign office, I mean the media, was only able to protect him for so long as gas prices went from $1.83 to $4 over his term with the 2012 campaign coming and the House's bills to force him to end the moratorium on offshore drilling. Not that that will reverse high gas prices anytime soon, but it will definitely help in the future and probably does more for our economy than his other brilliant idea of funding Brazil's offshore oil industry.

And yet agian you forgot about how gas hit over $4 where W was in the White House but somehow i'll be you will blam it on the Dems

Now who ever believes that drill baby drill will bring the price of gas to under a dollar a gallon stand on your head and spin

Drilling more at best will reduce prices when hell freezes over we need more refinearies as we are at peak out put now
:yes:Jerseygirl Jen

Does what I've bolded above officially mean that "Fox News" is no longer part of the media? :lol:

Excellent post.:respect: You are right on the mark. The price of gas will come down when the oil companies get tired of raping and gouging the consumer and are no longer interested in making obscene profits.

Correct, there is no shortage of oil or refinery capacity.
The price is manipulated by the commodity traders in collusion with the oil companies. Oh by the way our Congress gives the oil companies big tax breaks. :censored:

We could beat this game by driving less and driving slower. It has been estimated that if everyone drove 55 mph, we would not need any oil from Saudi Arabia. Do you hear anybody in government promoting this? Now it's drill baby drill which is totally ludicrous, pure political BS. :frown:

Which will only happen when we are all dead and underwater. But what else can be expected from a system that does not cater to human needs but only caters to the rich and their sympathizers?

Oh I remember. Who could forget the way the press went on and on about it. But then, that was a republican president.

No spinning here. And yes, we need more refineries as well.

You can put up 55 mph speed limit signs [ptewwey] but honestly, would anyone drive 55? Would you drive 55? Or would you fear that you'd be rear ended? Back to reality now...

Huckabee: 'I Will Not Seek the Republican Nomination'

YES!

A working class man that votes for a Republican is like a chicken that votes for Colonel Sanders.

I drive 55 mph now, for your information. I haven't been rear ended yet.
You can save 15 to 20 % on gas by slowing down. At four plus dollars a gallon, that's significant.

Also, what exactly is that officer doing? :coupling: :lol:

Have to agree here, and my driving record has the tickets to prove it, and even with gas hitting $4 i refuse to buy a toy electric car i'm keeping my Mustang

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Why agree with Tracy when there is no need for it? Tracy's "reality" depends on thinking only of yourself in big and small ways. Why would you want to imitate Tracy?

gas burner
 

Remember Obama's cash-for-clunkers?
On average, peolple traded up to a heavier vehicle that burned more gas.

Is that you just speculating...Or do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

I was talking about driving 55 mph.

More significant than the speed is the car, engine (how big, diesel or petrol), transmission, and how you drive the car.
If you drive in the right gear for the demand, accelerate in short time at optimum rpm of the engine, and many other things. But you in the US use mostly automatic gear shifts I think, shifting manual is more fun, gives you more control and allows you to save fuel.

If you drive real efficient, with an efficient car, you can drive 80 mph (130 km/h) by using less then 47 mpg (5l/100km). Slower driving does less than efficient driving, and that can also be faster in some cases. That?s not average and not with every car but possible.

I don't own a car. I use ZipCar when I need one. Saves on EVERYTHING. Of course, it is not an option open to all, especially depending on where one lives.

I'm a mustang driver myself, so absolutely. And why shouldn't you keep your mustang? We have plenty of untapped oil here in the US. Let the good times roll :respect:

I don?t know what engine you have but it is very good for petrol and good for the diesel. If you have the petrol engine then you are nearly at the limit of fuel saving, else it could get you even more mpg, but your mpg is still good.

With my over 10 years old small petrol car I get about 47 mpg, all mixed a bit city, motorway and highway.

I mixed l/100km and mpg, I meant using less than 5l/100km and getting more than 47mpg.