Are you sure about that? Isn't Aljazeera (how do you write this?) ex-BBC people?

You won't find any unbiased news reporting there.

Is that sarcasm?

Enoch Root, is yours a rhetorical question?

I think it behooves Westerners to watch the English-language broadcasts of al-Jazeera. Forget what the reporters say (and, by the way, they are very highly regarded by their peers in the Western press). What al-Jazeera offers that is next to impossible to find in the United States and, to only a somewhat lesser extent, Canadian press is the perspective of regular people in the countries of the Middle East, unfiltered by American talking heads on the left and right. For instance, if you watch al-Jazeera, you will learn that the only people who thought the Egyptian uprising was aptly called a "Twitter and Facebook revolution" are American journalists and pundits who love (even if subconsciously) to find a way for America to take credit for everything, even if it's just via inventions by Americans.

Still, in that there is hardly any unbiased reporting anywhere in the world, ila is correct.

The news and especially TV news is filtered through the owners of the TV station. TV stations are very sensitive to the corporations that provide TV advertising. Fox news is in my opinion the worst news station in the US. Murdock is only interested in making money by appealing to the lowest denominator of the US public. For non TV news, NPR is very good.

FOX news should really rename themselves as GOP news or the gossipal accord to Palin news, all kidding aside FOX news is geared for those who listen to the tub of lard Rush all day so perhaps they could rename themselve the Ditto news for and by ditto heads
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

No it was not rhetorical question. I have trouble with sarcasm when speaking to people and in cyberspace there is no inflection which makes it more difficult.

How accurate is the accusation that pundits always try to find a way to give credit to America for everything? Either way it seems like an odd thing for them to say or think--didn't the US support Mubarak for decades?

Yes, there are some rich who find so many tax breaks that they don't have to pay taxes at all. Like GE.

BTW, have you seen how close GE is with the BO administration? First, there?s the policy overlap: Obama wants cap-and-trade, GE wants cap-and-trade. Obama subsidizes embryonic stem-cell research, GE launches an embryonic stem-cell business. Obama calls for rail subsidies, GE hires Linda Daschle as a rail lobbyist. Obama gives a speeech, GE employee Chris Matthews feels a thrill up his leg.

And then, none other than GE's CEO Jeff Immelt sits on the President?s Economic Recovery Advisory board.

But I digress... About the rich, and this is from FactCheck.
"The top 1 percent of all households got 18 percent of all personal income and paid nearly 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The top 1 percent now pay a significantly larger share of taxes than before President Bush's tax cuts, and also have a larger share of income."

Do you see that Jen? Comprehend that. The top 1% paid 28% of all federal taxes. How much percent of all federal taxes is your tax bracket paying Jen?

And another question. The US debt is a result of the government digging itself into a hole. Tell me, why is it the rich's responsibility to bail them out? The government didn't have to budget more than they bring in, but yet they did. Why is that? The government didn't have to take us off the gold standard in exchange for importing goods from China, Japan and other countries, and yet they did (which took business away from US companies, aka 'the rich'). Why is that? It is one stupid move by the government after another that put us in debt like we are. Tell me: WHAT RIGHT DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE RICH, OR ANYONE ELSE TO FIX THE MESS THEY MADE?

Fox is slanted, but not nearly as much as other news outlets. And at least they are not this bad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFJvlzDpey4

Chris Matthews: I want to do everything I can to make this thing work. This new presidency work.

Interviewer: Is that your job?

Chris Matthews: Yeah, that's my job.

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're saying. Yes, our bombs are better, in that they are much more targeted. Yes it therefore costs more money, but are you saying that's a bad thing? Isn't it worth it not to blow up just whatever happens to be nearby and to target your attacks?

I am being sarcastic. The Republicans hate taking care of people who need help and love bombing people who don't cooperate with us.
The military/ industrial complex is alive and well and fully supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.
When are we going to get serious about our future energy supply? Is building more and more sophisticated weaponry that is mind boggling expensive going to solve anything? :frown:

We'll get serious about future energy once we have a viable alternative. Mr Fusion would be nice. I also hear the engineers are having problems with hydrogen powered cars, but then I think I heard Norway is already running them? Either way, our energy supplier goes from the MidEast to Russia since they seem to have most of the hydrogen resources.

And of course sophisticated weaponry will solve things. Haven't you seen Iron Man? Seriously though, it's worked ever since our ancestors threw rocks.

Tracy Well, We lobbed $500,000,000 dollars worth of missals into Libya. We wiped out Quaddafi's airforce (which probably wasn't worth shit) which was supposed to force him to capitulate, but he fights on. Now NATO is bombing the rebels tanks, what a fuck up! :frown:

Oh! for the glory days of Teddy Roosevelt and his great white fleet sailing around the world letting every one know how great we are.

Good old Tracy, I can always depend on you for a loaf of halfbaked bullshit and imperialist entitlement. I find it amazing how you vacillate from pro-business bullshit to trying to sound like a reasonable person about GE's business and their tax debacle but it does implicate Obama so I guess it's easier for you to do that. And I love how you portray the victimizers (ie, the rich) as the poor victims of government policies, never mind that it is the rich who make laws to suit their own selfish ends, never mind that there is no real delineation between government and the private sector, never mind that it is deregulation that is to blame for so many problems, never mind that the economic system you love so much is a slave system.

Criminals should pay for their crimes. But I guess I'm just a parasite so what do I know?

I do agree with BO on one thing. Militarily, we are spread thin. So yes, we should have had command at the beginning like we did. NATO should have the capability of carrying on from there. What I don't like is that it hardly seemed planned. No one could agree on what exactly the goal was. Also, BO was barely committed to seeing it through. And they took their time getting it going. You don't commit our troops to battle if you don't really give a shit one way or another what happens.

mmmm hmmm. If you say so.

Who said you're a parasite?

Boner fucked up last night. He seemed to have forgotten two of his pledges: Defund Obamacare, and cut spending $100 billion. I'm tired of republicans who put pleasing democrats over pleasing their own constituents.

Actually the current cost, to the US is 500,000,000. That would include the cost of the missiles as well as the all other operational costs such as fuel for the aircraft, parts replacements, all munitions, and the cost of operating the ships involved.

The US is a signatory to NATO so why do the two of you try to make it look like NATO and the US are separate entities when it comes to military alliances and actions.

I disagree that the US should have retained command. Other countries are more than capable of taking command of military operations.

I do agree that no politician thought about what goal is to be achieved. It seems that the only thought was to destroy Libya's military capability and maybe hope that Qadhafi would leave of his own accord or maybe be overthrown. Beyond that the politicians don't have a clue as to what to do because no plan was ever made.

When you've nothing to say I guess you can always resort to onomatopoeia and condescension.

The briefest glance at the world shows it to be shackled by the American empire: sweatshops to make Nike shoes and garden-variety exploited workers in South America making your Cocacola--who are sometimes murdered by their government, a government that is in cahoots with the US to provide them cheap slave labor. Chinese workers are exploited every day to make all manner of crap that is summarily bought by Americans in thrall by your greedy, materialistic consumerist culture. The list goes on and on. And let us not forget this is because these American companies believe it natural to exploit people, just like the aristocracy of old. Let us not forget either that the use of slave labor is the real reason why jobs have been "offshored." You have to put the hoi polloi in their place after all. You have to put them to work, make them useful, show them who's boss. This is what I mean by slaves.

The point about parasites should be well known to you. Libertarians love that word don't they? "Burden us not with your chaff" and other such authoritarian garbage. These exploited workers are the "parasites" and so am I since I'm Puertorican. I'm just a moocher, a freeloader and so are the Indonesians in sweatshops and so are Mexican immigrants and so are the average US workers. It's what authoritarians always do: they exploit people and then they scapegoat them. That should sound familiar: teachers and unions are blamed for the financial troubles even though they were caused by tax cuts for the rich and two wars which have yet to end.

This issue of "parasite" or some other similar labeling of victims is at the heart of your absurd sociopolitical beliefs--you look down on the smallfolk, but pander to the rich and powerful.

Ila Are they really? NATO planes bombed insurgent tanks because they didn't "know" that they had tanks. :frown:

Are you aware that the Republicans voted overwhelmingly to continue a 147 million dollar annual subsidy to Brazilian cotton growers in order to protect Monsanto's sale of cotton seed in Brazil?
Meanwhile they want to defund family planning in the US.
If the Reagan and Bush taxcuts were eliminated, we would have a budget surplus and we could begin to pay off the debt.

Is that going to happen?
Not while the rest of us allow to be :coupling:

Would you like me to produce a list of times and places that US planes bombed and strafed their allies? I could start with recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan and then start working back in time.

And BTW the only planes that NATO owns are AWACS. All other countries participating in the Libyan conflict are owned by their respective countries and that includes countries that don't belong to NATO.

I am not arguing with you on the errors US planes have made in the past.

The accidental attacks on insurgent tanks were apparently by planes flying under the NATO flag. I don't know who the planes belong to.
The point I was making is that there seems to be a serious lack of communication among the NATO participants.

How did you reach the conclusion that there is a serious lack of communication among NATO participants? I will also remind you that there are more countries than NATO participating in enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya.

Well, the pilot didn't know that the insurgents had tanks! So he attacked them assuming they were Quaddafi tanks. Also, NATO expressed "regret" about the incident.

None of this indicates a lack of communication among the coalition.

NATO is in charge of running the no-fly zone. Therefore any statements coming from the coalition will be statements originating from NATO.

You should get your facts straight. The majority of oil imported by the US comes from Canada. The second most imports by the US are from Mexico.

Some latest news on the Libya situation. Pink tanks!

i have to laugh at all of the GOP who are now pissing and moaning about the budget and are demanding cuts and are so worried about the sea of red ink when for eight years they said not a word when W was run up the credit card with his massive tax cuts for the rich and two unfunded wars
So now that a DEM is in the white house all of a sudden you are worried about it and yet you still want all of W's tax cuts left alone and in fact you want them made bigger
So if you were serious Bush's tax cuts would be the first to go then end both wars and not start a third like John Macain wants and the GOP are banging the war drum for and end corpate wellfare
But no the GOP wants just the poor to suffer from the cuts and pay for sea of red ink while the rich party on and get even more tax cuts
Don't cut planned parent hood do away with Bush's tax cuts and it's time the rich started paying there share
GEORGE W BUSH created this mess with his trickle down BS and two wars put on credit so F:censored: rich and make them start paying there share
Trickle down does not create jobs and the world will not end if the taxes for the rich went back to pre 2001 amounts
The GOP wants to end entitlements then the first to go should be the rich should pass less then everyone else
:eek:Jerseygirl Jen

No, you've just made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. I could get all worked up over it, or just recognize that that's your thing and let it go.

China is doing very well off our nickle. I would like very much for that to end, and for that work to come back over to the US. If the Chinese are exploited they have their government to thank. There's no reason for them to be living in the conditions they are. China is a very wealthy nation.

Parasite is your word not mine. I'm not going to say it does or does not apply to you. I don't know you and you don't know me. You don't know who I look down on or who I pander to. And I've never heard the phrase "Burden us not with your chaff". I even googled it... nothing. It's catchy though. You should make a t-shirt with that written on it and sell it.

My apologies to Canada. But are you sure the US gets more oil from Mexico than the Mid East?

wait wait... I have really not read the rest yet, but I sense some good ol fashioned George Bush bashing coming on....
hahaaaaa there it is. Jen, who is it that's pressuring Boner to make real cuts in spending?

Hey, tell it to your Obama :lol:

But even he knows that ending Bush's tax cuts would tank the economy. So you really don't think it's possible that we might be over spending somewhere? There was one congressman I saw on the news yesterday who came up with several hundred million to cut for a particular item in defense. It passed without any no votes at all. Are you sure you wouldn't concede that it's possible we're spending too much?

I'm not sure about the total quantities coming from Mexico and the Middle East. I do know that Mexico is ranked second as the country that supplies the US with oil, however all the countries of the Middle East combined may supply more oil than Mexico.

Dear ol Teddy was the most progressive Republican president we have ever had. Such as, minimum wage, workman's comp, child labor, retirements, trust busting, etc.
He was the peoples Republican president. Most of the programs put in place by FDR were initiated by TR.
Republicans today want to do away with all the progressive programs that he started and return the country to the time when a few very rich men ruled the country (J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, et. al.). When children worked in the coal mines for six dollars a month. No minimum wage, no workers comp, no retirement, no health care. :frown:

Ah yes, we have so much to look forward to with Republicans in control of the government. :eek:

The oil output of Mexico is declining. The sale of oil is what sustains the Mexican government. In the near future Mexico will no longer have oil to sell and will likely descend into chaos. The people of US border states better get prepared. :eek:
Egypt and Libya are contained by desert. We have a wadeable river!

"lie" What do you think Tracy? Do we start counting now?

Well Fran, your support (Tracy, Ila) are off line. The liberals (Jen, Enoch) are also off line. So I guess we need to have a cup of coffee and wait for reinforcements. ;)

Prove it.:frown:

I hope this is the first and last time I have to say this: I am not a liberal.

Well, I guess that means you want to stay out of the discussion?

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;181030]:

But even he knows that ending Bush's tax cuts would tank the economy[QUOTE]


Ah yes the same BS we have heard from the GOP sine Ronnie R it's doom and gloom if the rich have to pay there fair share of taxes
The GOP cry goverment is to big ok then first lets end Bush's expanded goverment and do away with his homeland defence agency after all it's nothing but a make you feel a false sense of safty
second end corpate wellfare the oil companies need no help
third defense spending lets shut down some of our overseas bases and keep only the truely needed ones open
fourth end the BUSH BS tax cuts for the rich and go back to the 2000 tax rates and the world would not end
fifth do away with the tax welfare for big bussness and stop these tax agreements where the end up paying almost nothing talking about the tv ads that ask have you past due taxes and owe more then 10 grand call us and you'll pay pennies on the dollar
sixth cut the payroll of the house senate and whitehouse all three are way over paid and all deserve a 30% pay cut
seventh cut out taxpayers from have to pay for all former presidents to have a office and all expanes paid for from taxpayers,if BUSH CLINTON BUSH wants an office and staff well fine make them pay for it themselves
edightth end all aid to other countries the GOP claim we are broke so end aid for for outside countries
tenth stop paying illegals collage healthcare food housing school and all other goodies the leetch one too they don't belong here and these funds should go to US born citizens who need the help
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

:respect:A paycut is good idea for politicians everywhere. But when has any politician ever taken a pay cut. They all prefer to oink at the public trough.

I like the way the Athenians selected their legislators. Eligible candidates names from representative segments of the society were put in a hat and then selected by drawing for one term. Oh by the way, they paid there own way. No campains, no politics, no huge campaign funds, no bull shit. They just served their country as a citizen for a period of time.

Here is an example.

"I hope you realize that my post is intended to stimulate the discussion, "stir the pot" so to speak.
R"

Now is this a stir to the right or left? Or does it just boil?

Well, I think SMC and all the moderators would agree that publishing PMs is not a good thing to do. Our own "Wikileaks" so to speak.

Am I boiling? YES
The behavior of our government, Republicans and Democrats alike are threatening our way of life by ignoring the real issues facing the country and the world.
birth control food supply energy supply climate change

Gosh! you include both? Are we making progress here? :yes: I didn't ever think I see you print that. Now, how can we get those in power to understand that THEY are the problem?
I wonder how many politicians read this forum for it's POLITICAL content?
(No doubt some come here for ,,,,research. :rolleyes: )
I think if I wanted to make a serious political statement I'd be on a political forum.

Fran, keep out of politics. These guys don't "get your drift".
They certainly don't like getting burned by the fiesty bitch.
Do what you do best. Now if you want to tease them 'til they play with themselves, get into another thread/s,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and maybe out of yours?;)

Hey, being flamed by Fran is what keeps things interesting around here.
What's the name of that song "Baby it hurts so good"? :yes:

Posted on a political forum. :respect:

"Evolution produced liberals and conservatives ..."

What a steaming crock of shit!

rarely does a political forum or discussion bring extreem laughter but that did.
:lol::lol::lol:
SMC, I couldn't agree more. and so simply said.:respect:

More likely on the men's room wall at Berkley.:rolleyes:

... by someone who doesn't know what the word "evolution" means.

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who politically disagrees with you? I have spent days arguing with a Libertarian to no avail. And the Ayn Rand bunch are like religious fanatics locked into their internal paradigms.

I've always fancied calling such religious/authoritarian strains, "insulated." Nothing gets in.

More evidence that its not a "steaming crock of shit"

Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults


Ryota Kanai1, http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidiri...ties/REcor.gif, http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidiri...es/REemail.gif, Tom Feilden2, Colin Firth2 and Geraint Rees1, 3
1 University College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK
2 BBC Radio 4, Television Centre, Wood Lane, London W12 7RJ, UK
3 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, 12 Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK


Received 11 January 2011;
revised 10 February 2011;
accepted 4 March 2011.
Published online: April 7, 2011.
Available online 7 April 2011.

Summary

Substantial differences exist in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychological measures [1]. Variability in political attitudes reflects genetic influences and their interaction with environmental factors [[2] and [3]]. Recent work has shown a correlation between liberalism and conflict-related activity measured by event-related potentials originating in the anterior cingulate cortex [4]. Here we show that this functional correlate of political attitudes has a counterpart in brain structure. In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. These results were replicated in an independent sample of additional participants. Our findings extend previous observations that political attitudes reflect differences in self-regulatory conflict monitoring [4] and recognition of emotional faces [5] by showing that such attitudes are reflected in human brain structure. Although our data do not determine whether these regions play a causal role in the formation of political attitudes, they converge with previous work [[4] and [6]] to suggest a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.


Highlights

► Political liberalism and conservatism were correlated with brain structure ► Liberalism was associated with the gray matter volume of anterior cingulate cortex ► Conservatism was associated with increased right amygdala size ► Results offer possible accounts for cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives

Your example is proof of nothing. It is just an opinion.

I asked you to provide proof of this:

Where have the Republicans stated that they only want a few very rich men to rule your country, that want childeren to work in coal mines for $6 a month, that they don't want a minimum wage, that they don't want worker's comp, they don't want retirement? (Sorry, but I won't get into the healthcare debate here. It deserves a thread of its own.)

Don't just give opinions for proof of this. Provide real concrete proof. Innuendo is not proof.

Aw come on Ila you know I was not referring to the past literaly. I am simply refering whats been said ever since Reagan, what is the ultimate objective of the conservatives movement. It is to dismantle the social welfare programs in the US. The Tea Party Congressmen are saying it right now.

Conservatives, like liberals, come in many shades and flavours. So although there is no doubt some conservatives that want to make radical changes and regressions there will be many others who like the status quo and still more falling into various positions along that line between the two ends.

I live in a very conservative area, most of my neighbors are conservative. I am friends with all of them. We don't talk about politics, however.
I can get easily riled up over the California bureaucracy, the excessive permitting requirements and the local politics. So I am part liberal and part conservative.
By the way I am leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an Independent. I am fed up with Obama and the Democrats, ditto Republicans.

Of course, I have. I do so every day. Remember, I teach at a university, where open discourse is a regular part of each day. And, notably, where the kind of arguing that is practiced by some members of this Forum, in this thread, would quickly get someone put on academic probation -- not for the positions taken, but the manner in which the discussion is carried out.

and on the outside of academia, life goes on.
amazing!:rolleyes:

The implicit anti-intellectualism aside, there's a reason people are trained for discourse in school, whether it's in kindergarten or a PhD program. It's about the "civil" in "civilization." :yes:

Perhaps a similar system should be put into place here on this forum. It would certainly curtail Tracy's juvenile diversionary tactics.

I would like to point out that I did not mention any posters in particular.

That's fine. But I would like to point out that I did.

It would be filled with posts containing actual information and this information would be presented without tricks and without the condescension Tracy is so good at. Like the Middle East thread which is blessedly devoid of Tracy's poison.

I am rather fond of the idea of not having to listen to any more of Tracy's--or anyone else's--vapid, entitled, self-satisfied garbage.

I disagree. This site is open to anyone that wants to join and abide by the rules. Everyone is allowed to have and state opinions, no matter what others think of those opinions. And members are allowed to state their opinions in whatever manner they choose, provided they do not break the rules. Each member has his or her own unique way of giving opinions and it is not the intention of this site to censor the manner in which opinions are written.

Feel free to put anyone on your ignore list with whom you disagree and do not wish to read their posts.

ila is correct. It doesn't change the fact, though, that independent of the actual positions expressed, the "manner" is almost always a reflection of something important to the discussion. One learns a lot by paying attention to how, for instance (and especially), some in a discussion ignore points brought up in the discourse as rebuttal, and even more important, how some employ debating tricks to deflect attention away from those rebuttals.

I would like to suggest that this forum is primarily for entertainment purposes.
We are here to chat about tgirls and other issues of interest. If someone makes outrageous egregious statements, they can be ignored. For me it's interesting to see how other people think and how they put it into words.
I don't think we are here to present carefully crafted well documented presentations.
Just imagine we are friends at a local bar having a pint, ok? :)

That doesn't change anything I wrote. Regardless of why people express opinions in the way that they do, it is still the case that how they do so is quite revealing. That goes for a discussion over a pint no more or less than one here, the primary difference being that at the bar no one can hide from what she or he says or how she or he says it.

Fun or fanaticism ?
 

I would prefer to see things Randolph's way, that is this as a Forum for fun, entertainment and fantasy / sexual stimulation. But he seems to shift stance too readily - one minute he takes a cynically Conservative position, next he views the Forum as having ideally a 'fun-factory' role.

But we have the additional arena available for hot debate. I can take it or leave it, can't I ? I do not have to be drawn into political polarisation or arguing about about the minutiae of contentious issues, do I?

But have fun, anyway, fellers if it makes you feel good ! Fran certainly likes to stir things up !
:respect:

1. No
2. Yes - and get out of their way when it comes to drilling in the gulf of mex
3. Yes - of course, the definition of 'truly needed' is up for debate
4. No, the government is too big because it's too big, not because we're not paying enough
5. No
6. I don't know what they make. Many of them don't deserve any kind of compensation. But as far as our debt, I'm sure whatever they make is far less than a drop in the bucket.
7. hmmm, it kind of makes sense to do this. We are not a country who just gives our former presidents the boot and sends them out on the street. Might not be such a bad idea for the current president though
8. Yes
10. Absolutely

scary... we actually agree on some things

Ok, let's see if there are any empirical truths. Possibly this: It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency."

No matter what your party, is this ever false?

They are atheists, yet paradoxically, you are correct. I tried to argue with some of them that free will is an illusion using scientific observations. They pride themselves on being rational, so they should have considered the scientific evidence. Yet they also pride themselves on having free will. They couldn't get beyond the assertion that they have free will because well... they just do. Even though they acknowledged everything else non-living in the universe does not have free will. So evidently these atheists believed there was something supernatural going in within our brains.

Attention all: this is a trap. Tracy Coxx wants you to believe that a national deficit, and borrowing, is the same as household debt and borrowing. In fact, the differences are profound.

Oh, and just to preempt it, Tracy Coxx will likely write: "Where did I write that?"

BS. All we ask for is a little personal responsibility from the public, and fiscal responsibility from the government.

Cheers to that buddy :respect: And let's all buy another round for Fran :yes:

The TLB staff can place words in my mouth and change the meaning of what I wrote, then state the obvious that I would say didn't say it. It is obvious so I won't.

So anyway, is the statement above in quotes an empirical statement, or does it depend on one's point of view? If it does depend on a viewpoint, can someone please explain what viewpoint, and within that viewpoint how it's rational to continuously operate in a deficit?

Well, I agree, the government deficit is different from private debt for one simple reason, the government can print money! By printing money the government inflates the value of the money and thus reduces the actual debt. The government can get away with this for extended periods of time as long as the inflation does not become excessive (ie late 1970s). By printing money and borrowing more money the government can provide the populace with the services it desires and conduct the wars it desires.
Sooner or later there is a day of reckoning and the government either has to cut expenses or raise taxes or both. The Clinton administration succeeded in balancing the budget and the deficit could have been reduced to reasonable levels. Then Bush came along and went on a wild spending spree and irresponsible tax cuts, The deficit soared as the economy collapsed. Obama inherited a massive financial mess.
According to Keynsian theory, the way to recover from an economic downturn is for the government to spend lots of money, which is what Obama did. Did it work? Well, not very well because much of the money went into the stock market instead of into the economy. :innocent:

Were the United States never to incur debt as a nation except during a "national emergency," nearly everything -- including things Tracy Coxx probably would like to continue to have provided -- would disappear, unless:

a. "national emergency" were defined to include all those things
b. taxes were raised to their highest levels ever

Even the founders expected the United States to run a deficit. Read Alexander Hamilton. Countries operate this way; the argument that seeks to make it equivalent to continuing to use your personal credit care, whether that argument is stated explicitly or ghosted, is a diversion from the real discussion.

So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?

It's more than theory; it has, to use Tracy Coxx's word, been proven empirically. You can't use the Obama stimulus plan as a measure precisely because not that much was actually spent. A massive public works program, like that during the Great Depression, would do exactly what Keynes "theorized," and put the United States in a better competitive position with respect to the emerging economies that are dealing with twenty-first century problems (while this country argues over Planned Parenthood).

Today, our corporate masters don't want to invest in creating jobs here when they can get the work done in China for a fraction of the cost. Instead of pouring billions into the banks, what if we had invested in energy efficient infrastructure and companies here in the US that make solar panels, wind machines and hydrothermal. Instead, China is taking over the solar panel industry and little Denmark is making the wind machines.
Oh well, our problems will be solved when Donald Trump is President. :rolleyes:

Donald Trump isn't running for president. It's a publicity stunt to build ratings for his asinine show on NBC.

I dunno man. He seems serious to me. Although he is himself asinine what with all this birther bullshit.

January 29, 2011 | From an article in Alternet.org



Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, “In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.”
Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.” :rolleyes:

Also--- http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shriek...n-rands-heart/

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

fixed it for you.

The tax cuts should have been followed by spending cuts, so you're making my point. Whether by over spending or undertaxing, it is not rational to operate in a deficit.

A couple of days ago, I posted the following:

"So, Tracy Coxx, as you've been asked before: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?"

We're still waiting for your answer.

The debt can be paid back in cheaper dollars.

Tracy,

Quote:

Printing money deflates the value of our money, and the dollar amount of the debt goes up. But regardless, the debt to other countries in non-funnymoney values remains the same.

The dollar amount of the debt does not go up, the "value" of the debt goes down by printing more money.

"Deflates the value of our money" True, what I meant to say is that printing more money can cause inflation. That is, a rise in the price of goods, which is happening right now while we are still in a recession. All the money poured into the economy is being negated by rising prices. Here in California, gas is over four dollars a gallon.

Moral philosophy? Absurd. Unless impoverishing the working people is moral.

Democratic capitalism? That is an oxymoron.

Yes, the debt would have to be paid back in 'cheaper' dollars. But that doesn't mean the debt is smaller now. I don't have time to look up the actual numbers, but let me try and illustrate where I'm coming from. Let's define the dollar as 2008$ and 2009$. For this example, let's assume we have a balanced budget and the debt remains constant at 10 trillion 2008$.

So then in 2009 the treasury prints a trillion dollars. Is America suddenly richer? No.

11 2009$ = 10 2008$ (again, not real numbers, just an example)

So in 2009 the debt, which remained constant, is now 11 trillion 2009$. Yes the dollars are now cheaper dollars. i.e. 1 2009$ = .91 2008$. But all that means is we have to pay more cheaper dollars to pay off the debt.

So the dollar amount of the debt DOES go up (in the new value of the dollar). But the value of the debt remains the same. (assuming a balanced budget). The value of the dollar drops, so in turn we owe other countries more, so the overall value (in terms of what we owe other countries) remains the same.

The money poured into the economy is not negated by rising prices. Like you said in the same quote, it causes rising prices.

So anyway, where does this leave us on this?
It's never good practice to routinely run a deficit unless it's a national emergency.

And the wait continues. Tracy Coxx logs back on, reposts this statement about national emergencies, but won't tell us what Tracy Coxx would actually cut of substance from the federal budget. It's political cowardice, no different from the ideologues who Tracy Coxx defends either implicitly or explicitly.

Tracy During the great depression, the Republicans were very resistant to increase debt in order to stimulate the economy. Consequently many banks failed and millions of people lost their savings (no FDIC). FDR finally did get a modest stimulus going but it was inadequate to really get recovery. It took WWII to get the country back on its feet with a four trillion dollar war debt!
We managed that huge debt and the economy grew rapidly at the same time the maximum tax rate for the rich was seventy percent! During those years we were rebuilding the free world including Japan and Germany. Times were good and the middle class prospered.
Now days the cost of an aging population, exploding retirement costs, obscene military expenses and the loss of working class jobs is threatening the country with bankruptcy. The government keeps borrowing more and more money to cover expenses and stimulate the economy. Why? Because we have a highly distorted tax system. The rich are not paying their fair share, if they did we would not have these massive deficits.
Capitalism is based on economic growth. Growth depends on a populace that can afford to buy what the capital investment produces. If we screw the populace with a distorted tax system that favors the rich then capitalism will fail.

FYI for all those who follow this thread: Tracy Coxx was on four hours ago (I write this at 10:38 pm EDT in the United States) and has yet to answer the pressing question. Perhaps Tracy Coxx has been delayed by some kind of "national emergency"?

Tracy It appears that Tracy is posing the question to other followers of the thread. Is it necessary for her to answer her own question?

I asked a different question of Tracy. But seriously, Randolph, I know you could figure that out. Don't you want to know what Tracy would cut instead of simply listening to the repetition of this ideological "national emergency" tripe?

At issue here is intellectual honesty. It is simple to throw out a question such as that which Tracy Coxx has now posed multiple times, especiall when done so demagogically. But the question begs an answer to my question from the person who poses it; otherwise, it is nothing but dissembling rhetoric.

Those who now sit in the federal legislature and argue against spending without taking real positions on real spending cuts, and who pretend that there is some kind of magical mathematics that wizards like Harry Potter can somehow make work that allows all the problems of the budget to be solved without raising a single cent of new revenue, are intellectually dishonest. So, too, are their acolytes.

Tracy Coxx, answer the question: Let's assume the United States ceases all deficit spending. List here what you're willing to see disappear. National defense? Federal highway maintenance? Air traffic control? What? Or will you list the teensy little ideological budget cuts like the Republicans in Congress like to pretend really make a difference in the overall level of spending?

$4 trillion war debt? Where did you get that? Besides, during the Great Depression, various political sides will have different approaches to the problem. Democrats will want to spend ourselves out of debt. Republicans will want to cut spending and tighten our belt. A Great Depression is a national emergency though, and contrary to what TLB staff will have you believe I'm not talking about national emergencies. I'm talking about the word you bolded in my quote in your post: routinely. So again, in normal times, is it ever a good practice to routinely run a deficit? That is the pressing question.

btw, in the attached image, you'll see that the debt didn't reach $4 trillion until about 1990.

The WWII cost has been estimated to be about five trillion dollars, most of it borrowed dollars (bonds). The war debt exceeded the GDP, the current debt has yet to exceed the GDP.
Its important to keep in mind that we have a far larger economy now than we had in 1945. The skyrocketing debt after Clinton has been the result of irresponsible management of the country by our government. Free-market ideology and endless wars is destroying our country.