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.

You guys are forgetting a few factors on engines
I do all the proper maintence to my Mustang i keep her tuned up i change filters i keep my tires at the proper inflation and a lot of people don't so there gas friendly cars probalily get less gas mileage then my v8 Mustang
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Hey Jen, I love Mustangs and had one years ago.
My first car was a 1935 Dodge coupe. I learned how to do everything from the brakes on up. I even painted and reupholstered it.
Now I have a VW Jetta diesel that requires service every ten thousand miles. I wouldn't touch anything under the hood other than the dipstick. So much for personal car maintenance.
I miss the good old days when a car was almost like a lover, something that needed lots of tinkering. ;)

parr
 

I did my own work years ago, but now you have to be a genius
with a computer plugged into it.:confused:

I have a Honda Civic I got with the cash for clunkers program $12,700 out the door. I miss my 383 cu. in. Plymouth, but times change, adjust or rust. These damn gas companies will charge us an arm and a leg for gas no matter where it comes from, they don't care. Way past time to ween ourselves off gas.

Most cars now are computers with a car built around it. I remember when fixing a starter motor was 35 bucks and two bolts. Now...800 bucks!
PS '35 coupe-very cool:turnon:

Like Pelosi says, We'll find out what is in the Health Care bill after we pass the Health Care bill.

President Barack Obama?s health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

That?s because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility.

Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.

?I don?t generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn?t make sense,? Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.

It?s almost like allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps, he suggested.

?This is a situation that got no attention at all,? added Foster. ?And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ? we need to do something about this.?

Obama - "Republicans support tax breaks for corporate jets at the expense of children and the elderly."

Who's paying for your jet Mr. President? Last year you flew Air Force One 172 times - almost every other day, at a cost of $181,757 per flight hour. Not to mention your 196 helicopter trips. And this year and next, the tax payers will pay for him to fly even more as he campaigns.

And if corporate jets are such a problem, WHY DID HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE INCLUDE TAX BREAKS FOR BUSINESSES TO BUY THEIR OWN PLANES?

He needs to STFU, and stop trying to spend us into oblivion and work with republicans to cut spending. The House has already voted not to raise the debt ceiling while continuing to do business as usual. So get over it BO. You're not going to raise the debt ceiling without big spending cuts.

facts
 

Dear Tracy Coxx
Have you not learned yet that stating facts is so infuriating to those that can't see them?:respect:

( I gotta find a jet that will get me to Texas.:yes:)

hehe, there's got to be a tax break for that :turnon:

There is an assumption in this thread and elsewhere that political positions are somehow binary; in other words, you either support Obama or you support the Republicans. This may be the case for some, but I have made clear time and again that I do not support Obama and I do not support the Republicans.

1. Obama's stimulus plan had some good elements, but it was mostly a sham. Tax breaks were included in it, but there is little to no evidence over the long history of capitalism that they stimulate an economy in crisis -- as every economist without a political agenda knows. The corporate jet bullshit shouldn't have been there, but look back in the history of the debate over the stimulus and see from whence that proposal came.

2. The executive branch wastes huge amounts of taxpayer money on perks for the president. This waste is shameful, and any president -- Democrat or Republican -- who takes advantage of these perks and hides behind the Secret Service insisting it is necessary is stealing from the American people. Why should a president or his family get a taxpayer-funded vacation?

Of course, every president is stealing from the American people. The fact is that there is no Republican that is better than any Democrat on this issue. They are all crooks in this regard.

3. The debt ceiling has nothing to do with any spending that will happen in the minute after it is raised or in the next fifty years after it is raised. Every grownup politician knows this. Like it or not, there has been a bipartisan consensus to keep the United States from defaulting on money it owes. The debt ceiling was raised 17 times during the Reagan presidency, and the amount of the ceiling tripled. In a November 16, 1983 letter to Sen. Howard Baker, the Republican leader, Reagan wrote to ask for his help in getting the debt ceiling raised:

"The full consequences of a default?or even the serious prospect of default?by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns."

The debt ceiling was raised 4 times during Clinton's presidency, mostly because the United States enjoyed a surplus during much of his two terms. Under George W. Bush, the debt ceiling was raised at least 7 times.

All these increases happened with bipartisan support. The standard practice is to posture and then make sure it is raised when the vote comes.

These are indisputable facts. The current debate is more political posturing by people who are simply making stuff up. The debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with future spending levels. NOT A SINGLE THING. That is why the talking heads on all sides refer to those who behind the scenes are expected not to let the debt ceiling increase fail are spoken of as "the adults in the room." They may even posture, but with the door closed and out of the light of day they don't make up their own facts.

Exactly smc. The notion that they want to raise the debt ceiling so they can increase the pace of spending is completely bogus. We do not make enough in tax receipts to cover our EXISTING obligations. These obligations were made by past Congresses-- Republican and Democrat.

As I mentioned in the other thread, there is a notion that we can simply use tax receipts to pay the interest on the debt. While this may not lead to a default to creditors...It most certainly leads us to default on some other obligation. I pointed out that if we follow this strategy we'll be canceling payment to some of our Social Security and Medicare recipients. Tracy said nobody was proposing this...But in fact, anyone who is arguing against raising the debt ceiling-- this is exactly what they are proposing. Because we don't make enough in tax receipts to pay obligations that were accrued in the past (and not by this administration). If you only spend the existing tax receipts-- you've got to pick what obligation you're not going to honor (interest on the debt, federal and veteran pensions, Medicare benefits, Social Security benefits, etc.).

Interestingly, there has been talk recently that the debt ceiling isn't even Constitutional. There is a clause in 14th Amendment which essentially says that the obligations of the government shall not be questioned-- and an arbitrary mechanism which prevents the honoring of the obligations would likely not be Constitutional.

I see your bluff and call
 

OK here we go the tea party and most of the reg GOP are screaming goverment is to big and we need to end the evil goverment emplyees
Now while some may agree i say lets call there bluff and start cutting from the top on down
Smaller goverment my way
1] cut the sen down to 50, 1 sen per state
2] cut the house down to 100 reps 2 per state
3] since the GOP love says everyone sould buy there own health ins and goverment ran ins is commieism the the sen ands house must give up the free goverment ins and buy and pay for there own ins
4]Tea party budgets cuts should start at the top by cutting the sen and house members over inflated paychecks
so how many yes votes will be coming from the GOP and tea partyers?
i bet there won't be any
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Unfortunately, we are "governed" primarily by wealthy people, especially in the Senate, so cutting the paychecks of these useless sycophants (Republicans and Democrats alike) and forcing them to buy their own healthcare will not make an ideological dent in their thinking.

parr
 

Uh, let me quess,"we are".:rolleyes:

The Sunday LA Times has an article about the BMW parts supply warehouse in Ontario California. Management announced that most of their employees would be laid off and a management company would take over hiring employees. Most of the workers have spent many years working there at reasonable middle class wages. They are buying houses, cars and trying to send their kids to college. They will be replaced with minimum wage unskilled workers!
The US taxpayers loaned BMW over three billion dollars during the crash to keep them afloat. BMW could never get away with this in Germany. This is Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman at their best. Teapartiers wake up, your corporate buddies (Kock brothers, ect) are systematically destroying what the founding fathers created, a revolution to escape tyranny. We now have the tyranny of the corporation, far more egregious than the King of England. Happy Fourth of July.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/...spend-and-how/

I heard Rush Limbaugh babbling about how there's no debt crisis because we have enough money to pay the interest on the debt. But he was not disputing (he even quoted) the fact that Timothy Geithner has said that not raising the debt ceiling will result in a 44% reduction in spending.

The link above details how the federal budget is allocated. If you were to entirely cut every dollar that goes to Discretionary/Other, Education, and Social Safety Net programs...You'd have only cut spending by 26%. So if we're going to bear a 44% reduction in spending...Where are you going to cut the other 18%? Well, the pie chart doesn't leave a lot of other attractive options. You'd have to cut benefits to today's Social Security or Medicare recipients...Or the hallowed department of defense. This is why it's disingenious for people to act like we have enough tax receipts to cover our obligations.

I suspect he meant 44% cut in discretionary spending, which includes lots of military spending (over half of discretionary spending is military). The party is over and the hangover is not going away.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf

I'm not sure where the 44% was originally quoted from. It could be that Geithner was using annualized data. But I just tallied up tax receipts versus outlays for the period between January 2011 to May 2011. Based on the data for these months, if we were living SOLELY on tax receipts, spending would have to be reduced by 36%. An no, that is NOT limited just to discretionary spending...That's total federal expenditures.

So my point stands, albeit perhaps not so pessimistically as the original 44% assumption that Rush was quoting (and it is entirely possible that this number could be arrived at depending on how you treat the data). If we axe EVERY dollar of discretionary, education, and social safety net programs...How are we going to make up the difference without defaulting on our pension/Social Security/Medicare/defense obligations?

I'd like to see one of these "we can pay the interest on the debt with tax receipts" advocates address this issue.

The Teanderthals don't care to seriously look at actual data, Flush Limbob provides all the information they want to continue their delusions.

Obviously. But the DECISION to raise the debt ceiling should have something to do with how we manage the budget afterwards. If you're having to continuously raise the debt ceiling something is wrong, and the country (well at least the grownups) is finally waking up to this.

And how has it been working out so far to just keep raising the debt limit? We've got a debt of over $14 trillion. So we've got the standard posturing this time. But I think it's a bit more than that. The House just had a vote to raise the debt ceiling. No strings attached - yes or no. It failed 318 to 97 with 82 of the democrats voting against it. Do 318 republicans and democrats really want the country to default on their debt? Of course not. But what they're saying is that they aren't going to raise the debt ceiling without at least a balanced budget amendment.

But this is merely a speed bump for a president who has a history of telling the other branches of government to fuck off. A proposal has been presented to Obama by Geithner and other democrats to have Obama raise the debt limit all by his dictator self. It sounds pretty stunning to me, but then I remember who Obama is.

Argentina
 

A Tracy Coxx specialty: call Obama names without making any substantive contribution to real discourse. George W. Bush added more "signing statements" to legislation than nearly all presidents before him combined, indicating that the executive branch did not have to do what the legislative branch established in laws. When did you refer to him as "his dictator self"?

Hyperbole of this sort is the way around real discussion.

Be prepared, all Forum members, for the next post where Tracy either a) tries to change the subject, or b) claims I have put words in Tracy's mouth, or c) both. Or perhaps the other approach Tracy takes comes next: just pretend no answer was given, or say "I wasn't talking to you, smc" -- as if Tracy has personal threads in the discussion section of this forum.

David Brooks

Randolph, it seems to me it would be worthwhile to explain who David Brooks is, lest he be mischaracterized by others in this thread. I will leave that to you, assuming you agree.

Sorry. Surely it's completely obvious and I'm missing it, but could you please highlight or just post the part where you answered my question to you about raising the debt ceiling?

I already answered in earlier posts. I stated that default is not an option, and I expressed my opposition to the kind of government spending that gets us into this situation. But nice dodge, Tracy ... a little more artful than usual.

Here's are three questions for you, Tracy Coxx. Are you for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases, or only budget cuts? If revenue increases, by what means (please be specific)? If only budget cuts, what specifically would you cut, and by how much?

David Brooks is a conservative writer and commentator.

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...0000001&lidx=1

Yet another article pointing out that the deficit we imagine isn't the deficit that we actually have. We can't cut our way out of the deficit by reducing "waste, fraud, and abuse." Even if all discretionary spending were cut, we'd still have to make cuts to defense and entitlements.

LOL
smc: oh well uh, I already answered that in previous posts. Yeah, it's there somewhere, but jolly good one there Tracy. So uh let's move on now. Here's some questions for you...
:lol:

And I see you're taking the democrats strategy of not proposing any real cuts of your own and letting someone else be the bad guy. No, I am not for a budget agreement that includes revenue increases. I do like Paul Ryan's plan to reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Repeal Obamacare, even if it takes money to do it, it would be nothing compared to the drain it will have on our economy in the future. I would also support Trump's plan of putting a tax on Chinese imports in order to pay back the debt and also encourage domestic production. Social Security also needs to be reformed. For people 45 and up there would be no change; for the rest, the younger you are, the more you would pay into your own retirement plans instead of Social Security. That would be a good start...

Any reasonable person, regardless of political positions, who reads the full record of our back-and-forth posts can easily see that I long ago proposed cuts. Your positions on these questions, Tracy Coxx, are worthy of honest, respectful discussion. Your method, though, is -- as always -- bankrupt, lying, and reprehensible.

My starting point for budget cuts would be to remember that it is not working people who caused the deficit, and therefore it is not working people who should be punished. This country can afford every single "entitlement" that is the norm in most of the industrialized world. The reason we don't have them is that we subsidize the wealthiest Americans and their corporations, whether directly or indirectly.

I would cut the so-called "defense budget" by nearly everything, until someone can prove that it is defense and not offense. I would cut every subsidy to the oil companies and other mega-corporations. I would eliminate the tax loopholes that make the United States have the most regressive taxation in the industrialized world and that make the United States have the largest income disparity in the developed or developing world, including China.

Here are some specifics:

- eliminate at least $10 billion in "non-defense discretionary" spending by cutting programs that benefit large corporations that are making record profits and need no "assistance"

- nearly $110 billion could be cut from the 2015 defense budget without taking as radical a step as I propose above; this would include savings through efficiency measures, reducing troop levels, eliminating unneeded weapons systems, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military. To this I would add an immediate, 100% withdrawal from Afghanistan. (Did you know that, all told, the United States spends in excess of $20 billion each year to provide air-conditioning to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? That includes all the ancillary costs.)

- leave Medicare benefits alone, but implement all the well-known cost-savings measures (e.g., allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices)

- cut agriculture subsidies by at least half, saving nearly $8 billion; most of this goes to mega-agribusiness concerns.

- eliminate 100% of tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas, which would increase revenue by more than $132 billion.

Anyone who thinks cuts without revenue increases will solve the budget problem is either a deliberate liar or delusional. So, let's:

- treat capital gains and dividends as regular income in the tax code; reform the estate tax; and enact cap-and-trade with protections against price increases for low-income people. These measures will raise close to $150 billion in revenue.

- eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top two tax brackets and return to 2009 estate tax levels

- address every loophole that allows for underpayment of taxes by the private sector, estimated to account for $7 billion.

This is a start. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, but its wealth is concentrated in an unsustainable way that will provoke social unrest and class warfare as time goes on. History is clear. We can either have an equitable nation, or we can have a nation that kowtows to the interests of a wealthy few. That is the nation Tracy Coxx wants, assumedly because Tracy Coxx buys into the uniquely American social lie that this is a land of opportunity in which everyone has an equal chance to rise to the top.

Is rising to the top at the expense of humanity worth it, even if it were possible?

I like that you put the word "entitlement" in quotation marks. This is such a politically charged word. Funny how things like basic income and health care for senior citizens is considered an "entitlement"-- despite the fact that these citizens have paid into the system for their benefits.

However, things like corporate tax loopholes and tax cuts are not called "entitlements." Funny, anytime there's a mention of taking these things away, there is such moaning and gnashing of teeth that you'd think the recipients of these give-aways feel "entitled" to them.

"Entitlement" is just one more way the right wages class warfare on the middle and lower class. They call these social programs (which smc has correctly identified as being the norm in any developed country) a negatively charged word which evokes emotion. I think it's high time we start calling tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations the "entitlements" that they actually are.

In the above post, SMC says it very well.
We pledge alligence to a country that is supposed to provide liberty and justice for all. Our history tells a different story. Slavery and the struggles of working people to gain justice and a living wage have been with us since the beginning. The rich have always wanted to grasp more power and wealth and the politicians have usually been more than willing to facilitate their desires.
Massive protests like the teamsters strike on the West coast in the 1930s awakened the public and forced the politicians to listen to the working classes, albeit temporarily.
The current BMW case in California where they are firing their long term workers and contracting out their employment hiring is a recent example of disregard for basic justice. The American public loaned BMW billions to keep them going and this is the thanks we get. Where is the justice?
Take away healthcare insurance - where is the justice?
Take away the safety net of social security - where is the justice?
Take away a living wage - where is the justice?
Saddle the public with massive debt for the benefit of the rich - where is the justice?
What will it take to gain some justice in this country, the land of the free and home of the brave???

I didn't know there was a demonstration from BMW workers, randolph. Was this on the news?

From The Los Angeles Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnis...1881029.column

The last paragraph of the column is worth including here:

"On Monday, the Fourth of July, Americans will gather to celebrate the overthrow of tyranny. But the ease with which we allow corporate employers to impoverish their loyal workers should make us pause under the fireworks and think about how over the ensuing 235 years we've simply substituted one set of tyrants for another, the new ones immeasurably more heartless and bloodthirsty than the ones we shed."

That quote is morbidly heartening. I never thought such a thing would be written in an American newspaper.

I just finished reading the article smc. The comments at the bottom are golden. BMW lays off thousands of workers and the posters at the bottom of the page blame the union! It always amazes me. I wonder how they would feel if they had been the ones laid off, with a family to feed and health conditions to manage on top. It's absurd and disgusting.

I have never understood people's desire to harm others economically, to bring people down and then revel in it. Perhaps it is an American phenomenon to desire the destitution of your fellow man.

You mean that movement that didn't exist when Bush was rump riding the US taxpayers and piling up the debts?

Oh but Anna don't you see that my dear sweet Tracy does not believe the economic troubles were caused by Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What else could have caused it I cannot say. Perhaps liberal poltergeists setting screwing with computers. Or liberal shadowbinders taking control of the mighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market.

I used the term teamsters in this post, I should have used the term ILWU, the International longshoreman workers union. They are related but the teamsters are mainly truck drivers. Sorry

Yup, the land of the free and home of the brave and it began with the murder and displacement of Indians and the enslavement of Africans. An august beginning if ever I heard one for a free country. How people reconcile the idea of the founding of America as a watershed in freedom with the slave economy--even though the textbooks do not lie about the chattel slavery; mine didn't anyway--is beyond me. I don't think justice had anything to do with it. And the people in power and those who support them care not a whit for justice either. George Carlin has a routine about that but I've no idea what the rules are for posting links. Neither can I find them.

To paraphrase him: the US was founded by a bunch of slave owners who wanted to be free!

Actually it didn't begin with the enslavement of Africans. It started with people leaving England due to religious reasons. Also don't forget about the complicity of the Africans themselves in the slave trade. If it wasn't for Africans capturing and selling other Africans then there would not have been the slave trade to the Americas.

The slave trade also did not start with Europeans buying slaves from Africans. The slave trade dates back thousands of years.

As for the murder part of your statement, do not forget that for millenia humans have been on the move throughout the world taking over lands which others were already occupying with the inevitable battles and killing that followed.

Oh I'm not. History is written in blood. This I sadly know.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Let me see if I can. I was speaking about the colonies themselves, not the Pilgrims, and the hypocrisy inherent in the founding of a free nation...with the institution of slavery. I did know that Africans would enslave one another frequently and they provided quite a few (most?) of the slaves for the colonies. As for the last paragraph: yep, can't and won't deny it. People have funny horrifying tribal inclinations.

I understand now what you were saying.

This is all so very true.

I could have sworn I've seen a longer version with better audiovisual quality, sadly I can't find such a thing and my patience does not seem to hold out for such things.

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

He used to be so alive back then.

I should have written: I was not clear.

I fail to see what the GOP is bitching about
Every time they have made deals with this president they gave up nothing and walked away with just about everything they wanted
Like the extension of the Bush taxcuts
And yet agian today he is putting everything on the table and the GOP are taking and not giving
Cuts to medicare social security making the poor and elderly suffer and pay all the defecit while tax breaks for the top two percent and corpate welfare conitues untouched and may be increased
I wish i saved my nuts so i could give em to the president as he really needs a set
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

It should be noted that with respect to social security, it has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the U.S. federal deficit. Social Security is paid for by payroll taxes and employer contributions. There is sufficient money in the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits for the next 25 years. There are changes that could be made (most specifically, means testing so that the wealthy pay into it differently or take nothing out) that would make the Trust Fund secure for twice or three times as long. But making ANY change to Social Security right now will have absolutely NO IMPACT on the federal deficit. NONE WHATSOEVER.

^ Just to clarify, Social Security IS part of the federal deficit in the following way. Part of the federal debt is actually owed to Social Security, because Congress has borrowed from the Trust Fund over the past 20 years whenever it has been in surplus ... and has done so rather prodigiously.