Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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?

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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?

Tracy Coxx, your refusal to state what YOU would cut from the budget reveals that your position is one of political cowardice. Only here, where you don't have to face anyone, can you be asked a question in a political discussion, over and over, and simply ignore it.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Tracy Coxx, your refusal to state what YOU would cut from the budget reveals that your position is one of political cowardice. Only here, where you don't have to face anyone, can you be asked a question in a political discussion, over and over, and simply ignore it.

I presume this thread is an informal political discussion. Ideas, statements, opinions are readily accepted for discussion. Positions are bounced back and forth without much expectation of converting conservatives into liberals or vice versa. The arguments can get heated, however, the management frowns on name calling. Posters, at their option, can respond to challenges or not, at their discretion. Accusing someone of "political cowardice" may not be considered name calling but it's getting pretty close.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

I presume this thread is an informal political discussion. Ideas, statements, opinions are readily accepted for discussion. Positions are bounced back and forth without much expectation of converting conservatives into liberals or vice versa. The arguments can get heated, however, the management frowns on name calling. Posters, at their option, can respond to challenges or not, at their discretion. Accusing someone of "political cowardice" may not be considered name calling but it's getting pretty close.

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.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

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
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...

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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...

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.

[randolph]

SMC

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.

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.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

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?

[Sissy Maid Lucy]

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...

[smc]

Originally Posted by Sissy Maid Lucy

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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

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?

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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 people and their families will be just fine). 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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... 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. ...

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.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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?

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."