Finally, even some Democrats are starting to wake up and weigh in on the "seriousness" and "factuality" of the debt crisis.
Some Dems join with Republicans on the threat to hold up Debt Ceiling Vote Without Spending Cuts attached.
Here is what Sen. Mark Pryor, Democrat from-Ark. said:
"the debt ceiling vote would have to coincide with a plan that includes spending cuts, major tax code changes and efforts to grow the nation's economy.
He said EVERY program will have to experience some cuts.
"'EVERYBODY'S going to have a cut, no matter how worthy your program is or how much wise you'll be with the money or the great things you'll do.
Get ready, because everything's going to get cut,"
And then these Dems cut in with this:
Reps. Mike Ross, Democrat-Ark., and Dan Boren, Democrat-Okla., leaders of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition in the House,
also suggested in an interview two months ago that members of their group would balk at the vote unless they see "significant cuts."
These guys are Democrats?,...
Well Hallelujah and pass the oil drilling rig!
There just might be some hope for some wakeboarding if "this crap" keeps up!!!
"Nice try Jeremy,.. you know what it is and so does everybody else."
Maybe "everyone else" does, but I have no clue to what you are referring.
"Well Hallelujah and pass the oil drilling rig!"
Maybe they'll break ground right in your living room.
Oh poor Jeremy,..
I doubt few people would be surprised about you not having a clue
Bring on the oil rigs and refineries,.. in my living room,.. front yard,.. back yard,.. drive way,.. whatever it takes.
Supply and demand is not the only factor involved in the price of oil/gas but it is without
question the major player in the price.
The more we have/exploit the better off we are period.
Every president including Barrack Husein Obama contemplates or in fact does release oil
from our strategic reserves to help lower prices when spikes like these occur.
If putting more oil on the market like that was not a viable option to help temporarily lower prices
they would not do it or even consider it.
So saying more supply has no impact on lowering prices is,... well,... STRANGE at the very best!
I'm going to agree with Dennie about the point of releasing oil from the reserves with a very specific intent. If the govt doesn't want to regulate speculation then it should monitor it and release oil to drive down the price at the specific point that speculation is driving it up. I have serious doubts about speculation causing any long term price point in oil, but it's a financial weapon to reap profits at the expense of the American people. We should use our weapon of strategic reserves to inflict financial damage on the speculators.
"Supply and demand is not the only factor involved in the price of oil/gas but it is without
question the major player in the price."
When the oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico last April, 5.5 million barrels of oil were spilled. Yet, no effect on the price. So the supply was effected, yet no price increase (demand certainly didn't subside).
"The more we have/exploit the better off we are period."
Who do you think will own these new wells on every block? Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, etc.? So do you think there will be a lower rate for this "American oil"? Most of our oil comes from Canada, so why isn't it priced differently than oil that comes from the Middle East, Africa, etc? Why isn't the oil we get from the US now not cheaper?
I might not have a clue, but I am not so naive that I will listen to a few politicians (all with economic interests in oil) to believe the "Drill, Baby, Drill" rhetoric. (Ponder why we don't pay different prices for where oil originates).
John, tapping the reserves at this point will artificially alter the price. We will see a difference, but what happens when the reserves are drained? 5.00 a gallon, 6.00 a gallon gas? Any bargaining leverage would be gone.
Jeremy, it seems that you've missed my point. You tap into the reserves to counter speculation. IMO speculation can only have a short term price effect. The point is to make speculation as dangerous as possible.
"Oil industry analysts agree with the Obama administration that tapping into the strategic oil reserve now would have virtually no effect on oil and gas prices, and it would validate the fear that is driving up prices. Those who oppose tapping the reserve believe that rather than an oil supply shortage, a shortage in surplus production capacity is the real problem. Speculators are betting that spreading Middle East unrest will reduce surplus oil production capacity. If surplus oil production capacity in the future were significantly diminished, or perhaps even erased, the real oil price nightmare would begin. Adding the capacity to produce more oil, rather than a temporary infusion from the strategic oil reserve, will put the international oil markets at ease."
Jeremy, that quote has nothing to do with price flucuations related to speculation. I'm not talking about price changes due to supply and demand. The issue is whether or not speculation results in short term price flucuations and whether people are making money off of speculating on oil prices. It seems to me that this is a highly debateable topic that can't be resolved by quoting an industry analyst, who for all we know could be a speculator.
The fallacy that we import the majority of our oil from Canada versus other sources is widely held by the uninformed
for reasons even less understood by those relying on factual data to form opinion and make rational/logical judgments
regarding the price of oil on the world market.
Using government EIA data (Energy Information Administration) we see that the annual total amount of imported oil, from all countries to the United States
for the year 2010 was 4,289,772 (in thousands of barrels of oil).
The EIA data shows that we imported 1,783,170 from OPEC countries and only 924,285 from Canada,
with imports of 1,582,317 from other NON-OPEC countries.
Plainly put the math does not lie and it shows that we import 858,885 more oil per year from OPEC
than we do from Canada which is almost twice the amount.
If you include the other NON-OPEC countries (excluding Canada of course) it is in the neighborhood of 3,365,487
which is over 3.6 times the amount imported from Canada.
These are the facts: Canada is a major source of U.S. oil imports but it is not the largest source of these imports according to government EIA sources.
Over the years we have made attempts to reduce imports from OPEC but most of our oil still comes from that
region and that is just one of many reasons why we need more domestic drilling.
As I have shown the bulk of our imported oil comes from OPEC countries.
The oil embargo of 1973-74 which was imposed by OPEC (not Canada) is what generated the need/requirement for America to have a 60 to 90 day “emergency” supply of oil.
The purpose of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is to provide the United States with a supply of oil in times of a “severe interruption” in foreign oil supplies (not price fluctuation).
It is NOT meant nor was it designed to be used to keep oil prices low for "normal" consumer demand or as an experiment in an
attempt to ferret out the evil “oil speculators”, as attractive as that may seem right now.
A depleted SPR (strategic petroleum reserve), if there is an emergency down the road, would be nothing less than catastrophic.
If Jeremy is saying using the SPR would have little effect on the price of oil “long term”, then I would have to agree with that specific statement.
Part of a quote Jeremy used was this;
“Adding the capacity to produce more oil, rather than a temporary infusion from the
strategic oil reserve, will put the international oil markets at ease.”
That assessment is absolutely correct and is exactly what needs to happen!
Of all the factors causing the increased price of oil in the U.S. (and world wide for that matter)
the major factor remains the supply of oil and “who” supplies it (them or us).
History has shown, and it should be painfully obvious by now, that “any serious disruption” in supply,
to any country that is an importer of oil, regardless of the reason for that disruption, will generally drive up the price of oil.
That is a very compelling reason to be as self-sustainable as is possible, in other words;
anytime you have to rely on someone else to supply your needs, you place your fate in somebody else’s hands instead of your own.
If oil was plentiful enough, then oil speculators would not be that big of an issue.
The primary, overriding factor is, and continues to be, the fact that we need more domestic supply of oil
and we need to use more of the other very plentiful energy resources that America possess like coal and natural gas.
More domestic “proven” sources of oil are available but go untapped due to Government EPA policies and other factors,
in places like ANWAR, the Gulf and the east/west coast.
The argument of the environmentalist carries little logical weight when one considers just some of the facts:
The U.S. government subsidizes (in the billions of dollars) foreign countries in the Gulf of Mexico to
drill/explore/pump oil while we leave huge “proven” oil reserves untapped.
Is the environmental risk due to oil spill decreased by us paying foreign countries like
Brazil billions of dollars so they can drill in the Gulf, versus us?
In addition, consider that the transportation of foreign oil from OPEC and other countries
by ship tanker poses as much environmental risk or more than is caused by domestic drilling.
Consider still the risk to our security/economy/oil prices if supply from OPEC is severely cut off
or drastically reduced even further, due to ever more unrest and increased instability of oil exporting countries in the Middle East.
If that happens, even $20 a gallon for gas will seem like a bargain!
The time for talk by both political parties should be over; the supply of oil has been and
continues to be a national security issue of the highest order.
According to the USGS, America has more energy resources than any other country in the world.
It is way passed time we started acting like it by tapping those resources in an environmentally responsible way,
instead of being held hostage by OPEC and weird “Earth Worship” religious-like over-extreme environmental ideology.
How am I missing the point? Canada supplies 23% of our imports. That means other imports total 3.3x what Canada supplies. I just put it in an easier to read form. Same source as you provided.
Dennie, what I set is fact. OPEC is not a country and OPEC does not charge one rate (the price varies from country to country).
"The time for talk by both political parties should be over; the supply of oil has been and
continues to be a national security issue of the highest order.
According to the USGS, America has more energy resources than any other country in the world.
It is way passed time we started acting like it by tapping those resources in an environmentally responsible way,
instead of being held hostage by OPEC and weird “Earth Worship” religious-like over-extreme environmental ideology."
That is an archaic way of thinking. Instead of investing more time and resources (ie MONEY!!) into new oil exploration, why not a dedication to completely waning ourselves off oil. We have split the atom, put satellites into other galaxies, walked on the moon, etc, etc, etc, yet we cannot find a sustainable alternative to non-renewable energy sources? Instead, oil companies buy politicians, the politicians spin the issue, and nine times out of ten the commoners buy into the spin. That is why Planned Parenthood played such a crucial role in the 2012 budget. Politicians have to tie morals into agendas to win support. The same thing has happened with the oil issue.
And if protecting the only planet we have, is "weird....environmental ideology", I don't see how that can be classified as negative. Less than 100 years ago, we thought it was no big deal to dump massive amounts of pollutants into our water supply.
Jeremy,
Let me get this straight; you are advocating for no longer using oil, natural gas or coal and developing some other fuel source. Is that correct?
I kept asking you how it saves the environment by not pumping oil here in the US and doing it in other countries because the environment is global, and not isolated to one country. So your answer is that we should stop all together, everywhere?
HOW? Did you not see the chart I previously posted? We get a miniscule amount of energy from "green" sources in comparison to fossil based resources.
Are you proposing that we make the switch through an artificially forced shortage or emergency inflicted on us by the government through bureaucracy? While we suffer and try develop another source, other countries like China do what ever they want and trample us economically.
I guess you don't believe in the free market either... you must believe in intervention...
How did we develop the gas engine and why?
Was it because the government told Alphonse Eugène Beau de Rochas that we needed to burn fossil fuels?
Or was it the government that Nikolaus August Otto that we needed a replacement for the horse?
Or did the government tell Smokey Yunick that we needed the big block Chevy or the Hot Vapor Engine?
NO! Someone determined that there was a demand and then through intellectual and physical work they came up with something to meet the demand.
I am guessing that you agree with Vice President Biden that "Every single great idea that has marked the 21st. Century, the 20th. Century and the 19th. Century has required government vision and government incentive."
"Jeremy,
Let me get this straight; you are advocating for no longer using oil, natural gas or coal and developing some other fuel source. Is that correct?"
Yes for no longer using oil, yes for no longer using coal, and yes to no longer using natural gas. No to developing some other fuel source.
Does that mean stop use immediately? No, it means developing the alternative, then ending the reliance.
"HOW? Did you not see the chart I previously posted? We get a miniscule amount of energy from "green" sources in comparison to fossil based resources."
I think this validates my point even more. Why can't we switch Sam? Oil kickbacks to politicians too high? "Green" energy has been vilified because it breaks away from the norm. And I am not saying the alternative has to be wind, solar, or geothermal. Why not some sort of synthetic fuel that is not petroleum based?
"How did we develop the gas engine and why?"
What does that matter? Do you want to stay handcuffed to something over 100 years old?
"Are you proposing that we make the switch through an artificially forced shortage or emergency inflicted on us by the government through bureaucracy? While we suffer and try develop another source, other countries like China do what ever they want and trample us economically.
I guess you don't believe in the free market either... you must believe in intervention... "
I don't know how you got any of this out of my post. Sam, where did I say the government is the answer? I said, WE, as in Americans. Aren't you American?
Sam, you like history. Don't you recall what the space race did for this country in the 50 and 60's?
You are advocating taking 20 years to drill through a mountain, when we have the technology and knowhow to get us over the same mountain in a few minutes.
It seems like you are looking for a silver bullet and none exist! A new viable "synthetic fuel" would be a huge leap forward. The current automobile took over a century to get where it is today.
In the mean time we need to start using OUR oil not relying on other countries. We can get our own oil at a much lower expense to the environment. People talk about the oil spill in the gulf, but no one really talks about this:
What else do they do in the middle east that we don't know about? How is this good for the environment?
You talk about the environment and it seems to relate to a quality of life issue. What do you think has provided our quality of life so far? Fossil fuels did!
"What do you think has provided our quality of life so far? Fossil fuels did!"
So the gas powered engine, which came around in the late 1800's provides us "our quality of life"? What about the thousands and thousands of years prior to that? Did people not have "quality lives"?
"It seems like you are looking for a silver bullet and none exist!"
I guess if you ignore electric and the guys that have cars running on used vegetable oil and the breakthroughs in using sugar for fuel you may be correct. But again, you are simply validating my point. Just because we don't have a "silver bullet" today, doesn't mean there won't be a "silver bullet" tomorrow. Had anyone walked on the moon prior to Neil Armstrong? Was it even imaginable 50, 20, 10 years prior to that? Could most people imagine the amount of energy released by splitting an atom?
Sam, are you totally against American ingenuity? America could set the example of a country not dependent on fossil fuels and then photos such as the one you posted become less and less common. America drilling for oil does nothing, nothing to advance this country nor the planet.
I was able to fill up my boat, two trucks, wife's car, and three gas cans last week at $2.59/gal because the Arab guy running the store is an idiot. Gas prices in my area are $3.70 so I ended up saving about $125.
It felt great to stick it the man for once. I'll at least be able to ride for a couple of weekends!
HAH! American ingenuity is our only hope... again didn't you see my post about Harry Stamper? Thousands and thousands of years prior to 1800's people were living in grass huts, going through famine, and following animals around to eat...
You still haven't proposed even an idea for an answer to our current problems. You advocate shutting down oil and paying $5+ for a gallon of gas, all while developing some sort of synthetic fuel. You give examples of vegatable oil and sugar... why not bring up ethanol and what its usage has done to our food costs...
I advocate for using our own oil, becoming independent of foreign oil, bringing jobs and prosperity (similar to North Dakota). The impact on the economy would be huge. Gas would be super cheap and unemployment would be very, very low. Liberals bring up the talking point that it would take ten years before it had any impact which is BS. We have productive wells that have been shut down and are just sitting there, fire them up! That same argument was used 10 years ago, if we took action then we would have the oil now... BTW, that good American ingenuity would bring it sooner.
With all the new money in the economy genius "Green Entrepreneurs" like yourself could get investors to pay for research to develop a "synthetic fuel"...
When you let foreigners dictate fuel supplies you mostly hurt poor people, the people who are living paycheck to paycheck...
Jeremy,
If you didn't see this video in the Gary Johnson thread you should check it out. If you don't watch the entire thing I think you should look at the 12 minute mark.
How am I missing the point? Canada supplies 23% of our imports. That means other imports total 3.3x what Canada supplies. I just put it in an easier to read form. Same source as you provided.
Sorry John, my mistake, you are right.
I sometimes hate being old with extra long nose hair.
Take care John
"Thousands and thousands of years prior to 1800's people were living in grass huts, going through famine, and following animals around to eat..."
I understand. But if people would have followed your logic, we would still be in the same place. Instead of finding a replacement to the horse and buggy, you would advocate waning ourselves off foreign horses and that only using American horses, even though they are owned by foreign entities, would somehow make horses cheaper.
"Gas would be super cheap"
Sam, that is a nonfactual statement. You base this solely on political slant. And what is your definition of "super cheap"? We pay close to a dollar in taxes and fees on every gallon of gas.
I'm kind of lost on the fact that Obama is a Socialist and that our taxes are so high. My federal tax burden has not been lower than it is right now than at any other time in my life.
Dennie,
The real problem is that people will fight you tooth and nail, to the death over what Socialism, Fascism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, or Kohortyism actually is. They think we don't have any of that here in the US. IMO we fit the description very well, and a large majority of young people in this country believe they deserve things that they clearly have not earned.
As shown above, magicr doesn't have a clue... Just because your taxes don't fall into line yet, don't think we are going down the road of socialism. Our individual rights have never been less, the Federal Government has never had greater power, and the police state has never been greater. The Federal Code is larger than it ever has been before!
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
– Norman Thomas, American socialist
Some people will bring up the issues of taxes and gun rights to show how anti-socialist we are, but every form of socialism happens following different paths. Just because your taxes are low now doesn't mean they will be tomorrow.
As Margaret Thatcher said on Feb. 5, 1976 "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
Well, we are running out of money... what will happen next?
I'm sure everyone has heard Thatcher's above quote, but has anyone actually read the context of it? Follow the above link and check it out. They were going through what we are going through now in 1976 it seems...
I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we're having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have. Look at the William Tyndall School—an example where the parents finally rebelled. Of course they did. These schools are financed by taxpayers' money, but the choice to parents is being reduced.
Look at the large numbers of people who live on council estates. Many of them would like to buy their own homes. Oh, but that's not approved of by a Socialist government … . oh no! But that's absurd. Why shouldn't they? Well over thirty per cent of our houses are council houses. Why shouldn't those people purchase their own homes if they can?
I'm kind of lost on the fact that Obama is a Socialist and that our taxes are so high. My federal tax burden has not been lower than it is right now than at any other time in my life.
Socialism:
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and "control" of the means of production and "distribution", of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole through the central government.
Obama has done as much as he can to ensure as much central control by the government as possible over :
Health care industry
Auto industry
Oil industry
Student loans etc ant the list goes on.
Obama was dragged kicking and screaming over the extending previous tax cut, then took credit for it when it passed and now in just the last week is threatening to raise taxes again.
A large portion of Americans pay little to no federal income tax (perhaps you fall into this category or maybe not) while a smaller portion of Americans pay the lions share and that money is then used/redistributed for "SOCIAL" programs which is "INCOME REDISTRIBUTION"
If he is not a socialist then he deserves an academy award for playing one.
Dennie, why not tell us what you think needs to happen to fix the issues with govt. How would you balance the budget?
It is not Dennie's responsibility to develop the plan to fix things, it his responsibility to recognize the problem, point it out to others, and try to push dialog in the correct direction. That is the main tool that used against conservatives. Liberals will try to single out a vocal conservative and make them come up with a plan on their own. When they can't they think they have the correct ideal and that they are smarter than the rest of us. When liberals clearly lose the debate they then spin it, change it, do what ever they can to shift the discussion from a meaningful one to a nonsense one.
I will tell you what needs to happen though; the Federal Government needs to get out of my life and and the takers in society need to get off the government teet.
This discussion has already been done and Barry Goldwater pretty much kicked Norman's butt.
"Obama has done as much as he can to ensure as much central control by the government as possible over:"
"Auto industry": How? They saved GM and then allowed them to take back control. Now, I may be mistaken, but I don't think the government owns another auto company.
"Oil industry": How?
"Student loans" Weren't these backed by the Feds (for the most part) long before Obama ever stepped into office?
"Some people will bring up the issues of taxes and gun rights to show how anti-socialist we are, but every form of socialism happens following different paths. Just because your taxes are low now doesn't mean they will be tomorrow."
So I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't thing". Taxes raised...we are socialists, taxes not raised...we are going to be socialists. Sam, can you look into your crystal ball and tell me what the winning Powerball numbers are for tomorrow's drawing? You guys crack me up.
"However the best thing about the truth is, is that it really can SET YOU FREE even guys like you Jeremy."
I guess the government brainwashed me Geez. Probably during my 6-year stint in the Navy, when I was defending guys like you that call me a socialist and anti-American.
Just as I thought. A lot of squealing and no substance. There is no such thing as zero socialism in govt. There are only degrees of it. The Constitution even alludes to the fact that there will be socialism in govt when it provides for the common welfare. The problem that you aren't recognizing that a govt by the people needs people who know what they expect govt to do. If you can't say what you expect govt to do then there can be no consensus on what govt should be doing.
You are disrepecting yourself by expressing your political views in such an unintelligent way. I'm not expecting anyone to devise a solid plan because I know none of us are experts in all matters of govt. But there are fundamental issues that we should all have some kind of opinion on as to where govt is going wrong.
Dennie is not directing the discussion anywhere because he isn't saying anything. He hasn't indicated a single govt policy that needs to be changed. Many of the private industry bailouts occured or were started before Obama was elected or took office. So all he has accomplished is he's exposed himself as either uninformed or a liar.
Dennie you should consider letting the truth set you free.
Dennie, why not tell us what you think needs to happen to fix the issues with govt. How would you balance the budget?
Actually, I find you likeable John and I don’t mean to be rude.
If you had been paying any attention at all John, you should have been able to glean from this thread I created, as to exactly what I think we should do about it.
It really is very simple John, and I think you know it in your heart, because you are a smart guy.
Like most things in life we have a tendency to over complicate things, making it much harder than it really needs to be.
Let’s take a team game analogy if you will (not a socialistic one). If our basketball team/wake team has been doing relatively well and then begins to struggle, a good coach/player/rider who has had passed success, will go back to what originally made him/her successful.
They are compelled to re-evaluate themselves, figure out how they got away from what they were previously doing right, that in the past made them so good at what they do.
This is called going back to the basics.
I outlined some of those basics and painted that analogy in the first post of this thread, rather extensively.
Going back and creating the mistakes of the past, that history has clearly shown us to be folly, is not the answer in terms of a communistic, socialistic, anti-capitalistic anti-freedom approach.
Here is just one “classic” example (I believe I have already mentioned this but maybe not):
The war on poverty was declared by President Johnson back in the 1960’s with “TRILLIONS” of dollars spent on social program, after social program, after social program.
This was done in the interest of creating “social justice” and eliminating poverty.
It was called by many liberal socialists and by those in the media as, “THE GREAT SOCIETY”.
What happened to that so-called great society John?
A tremendous re-distribution of wealth ensued, however the main thing it created was a GREAT/HUGE WELFARE STATE that addicted millions upon millions of people to government assistance and this occurred in many cases
“FOR GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES” to this present day.
The so-called liberal war on poverty did little to end it and the liberal socialists continue to claim that we need just one more social program, just one more way to re-distribute income to the poor in order to fix it.
We have seen country after country go economically, belly up, under the social weight of these kinds of programs, requiring bail outs from the IMF.
There won’t be enough money in the world to bail us out when we go belly up John.
Greece, Ireland, Portugal are some examples with warnings that Spain and others in Europe are not far behind.
We have seen “social democratic” (as they like to be called) countries like England and France, trying desperately to cut back these programs with astir measures to prevent catastrophic failures of there governments.
There efforts in an attempt to save their governments have been met with violence and anarchy from unions and others who are addicted to government assistance.
These people have been taken care of from cradle to grave by there governments for so long, that now that the money to sustain this is running out, many people resort to radical violence because they do not know what else to do.
Population wise, those countries are small potatoes as compared to the United States and we are attempting many of the same massive social programs that have failed in there countries but because of our size, it is being done on a scale that has never ever been seen before.
The money is just not there, no matter how high you raise taxes, no matter how much you cut defense spending, no matter how much fraud waste and abuse you think government can get rid of, it cannot be sustained.
Obama’s own bi-partisan debt commission essentially reported that out or words to that affect but up until recently their warnings and recommendations have been largely ignored.
Many predictions made by liberals for there social programs viability have been based on future continued growth in GDP out to 10 or 20 years.
Recent forecasts in just the last several months for GDP have been negatively revised;
News that our credit is in danger of being downgraded has been reported because of our over-spending and massive debt.
Well John, we are finally just about out of money now and maybe even more important, time to do anything about it.
Although most rationally thinking people can easily see the debt/over-spending problem looming, our leaders continue to vacillate, some insanely, questioning if even such a debt crisis exists, as do some in this forum.
So what would I do John?
Exactly this,… exactly what I have tried to do by creating this thread John,…
Sam said it right, when he said it.
It’s a war of hearts and minds, it’s a choice,.. socialism or freedom, Communism or Capitalism, Government central control or private control.
We make that decision every day, we do it by what we say and how we conduct ourselves as Americans.
We have lost our way John, we have forgotten what has made us great;
I’m trying to get the team to re-evaluate themselves, to get back to basics,… before it’s too late,.. for all of us, including you John.
So you want us to change by talking like a politician? Making grandious claims without really saying anything specific? How's that been working for you? Because it hasn't been working for me. Obama was the last straw. He was an outsider making vague claims about transparency in govt and how he was against the war. Yet after becoming POTUS, he didn't stand for any of that.
I'm done with all the bombastic speech. Now is the time for specifics. If you can't make specific claims and find a consensus then you're no good to me. I want to know who I making an allegiance with in terms of exactly what they believe in.
I find it interesting that you say all the cut in defense won't do it. WIll all the cuts in social programs do it?
We don't need to cut our military spending at all?
U.S. Military Spending vs. The World
U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.
These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, however the U.S.’s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.
What's to know? That it took trillions of dollars to catch OBL because we had detour to Iraq? The puppet masters aways have the same line... That us commoners aren't smart enough to understand. Therefore you handle over your money and your faith and STFU. Hmmm sounds like religion too. God loves us but we are too ignorant to understand why he murders children.
John, it seems pretty simple in concept to me. Government should:
Create the laws of the land
Enforce the laws of the land
Protect the shores\borders
Infrastructure oversight (roads, rails, etc)
Global trade management (keep american jobs competitive)
Tax money should be spent on these things. Everything else is cut instantly and turned over to the private sector. Welfare gone. Citizens can give to charity if they want to give handouts. SS gone, people can save for themselves and face the consequences if they do not. Foreign aid, gone. Again charity can handle that.
Cutting the outright waste, abuse, and things against capitalism would be a great start. its hard to consider cutting spending on things the government should actually be doing when you have all these things we know the government SHOULD NOT be doing.
Jason, what you think is pretty simple is just your opinion. Unfortunately for you and everyone else with an opinion, your opinion is only worth 1 vote out of a couple hundred million. That means we all need to come to an agreement about what govt should be doing.
SS is a debt that this country owes to me. If the USA wants to default on SS then it should default on the entire 14 trillion. It's not a handout. 20 years ago I calculated the future value of my contribution when I hit 65 and it was nearly a million dollars. I couldn't give a damn if anyone thinks the word entitlement means welfare, because it doesn't. I'm entitled because I was forced to pay into it and was told what I would receive back.
I wonder if Dennie receives govt entitlements. I don't know how long his career in the Navy was, but I'm curious if he feels that entitlements to veterans or retired military should be abolished as well. Since all career military people volunteered for their contribution vs being forced to contribute as with working individuals wrt SS, maybe they should be the first to lose their entitlements. The same with people buying treasury bonds. They did it voluntarily so they should lose their contributions as well. Then maybe the govt could raid IRAs and 401Ks. The bottom line is the only contribution that no one is under the illusion that they get something back is income tax. Do you want the govt to feel free to take anything that we contributed to and are "entitled" to get something in return?
BTW, cutting excessive spending and waste is a good thing. However, just because you think the govt should be doing something, it doesn't mean spending *any* amount without justification. Maybe we should start a public military fund for fear mongered people like yourself. I personally have never been afraid of Saddam Hussain coming to get me. Yet somehow I was forced to participate in a war that will ultimately cost a couple of trillion.
Dennie, I have contributed over my lifetime. Not only a substantual amount in tax payments, but I've also developed training simulators for our miltiary to enhance the effectiveness and safety of miltiary personel. In addition many products I've developed are in use by our govt providing security across the US. I've been in the basement of the Capital building in DC where our products have been in use providing security.
The equipment I've been instrumental in developing, both military and civilian, have been exported and help offset the trade deficit that is so deterimental to our economy.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us about your contributions and if you receive any entitlements.
Dennie, I have contributed over my lifetime. Not only a substantual amount in tax payments, but I've also developed training simulators for our miltiary to enhance the effectiveness and safety of miltiary personel. In addition many products I've developed are in use by our govt providing security across the US. I've been in the basement of the Capital building in DC where our products have been in use providing security.
The equipment I've been instrumental in developing, both military and civilian, have been exported and help offset the trade deficit that is so deterimental to our economy.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us about your contributions and if you receive any entitlements.
Thanks for clearing that all up John.
I'm glad we got that straight.
John, it seems pretty simple in concept to me. Government should:
Create the laws of the land
Enforce the laws of the land
Protect the shores\borders
Infrastructure oversight (roads, rails, etc)
Global trade management (keep american jobs competitive)
Tax money should be spent on these things. Everything else is cut instantly and turned over to the private sector. Welfare gone. Citizens can give to charity if they want to give handouts. SS gone, people can save for themselves and face the consequences if they do not. Foreign aid, gone. Again charity can handle that.
Cutting the outright waste, abuse, and things against capitalism would be a great start. its hard to consider cutting spending on things the government should actually be doing when you have all these things we know the government SHOULD NOT be doing.
Jason;
Some of your points are very well taken, as there are definitely things the Government should do and NOT DO.
The list of things they should do is short.
The list of things that they are doing that they should not, is long.
When I started this thread I pointed out the deep divisions among the American people and some of the problems we are facing.
As you can see by some of the comments posted here, many people are hypersensitive, and very emotional about “how they feel” in regards to the topic.
Many are very eager to lash out violently because their ideology is threatened or simply because you don’t agree with them.
“America is divided and dying”
All you have to do is read some of these irrational comments or turn on the news to see that.
One problem with cutting out Social Security immediately is that this was something government promised a long time ago and many old people depend on it as their only source of income. Many people have paid into this program and “their money” should not continue to be wasted.
As I am sure you probably know, back when it was first instituted there were 40 people paying into SS for every person drawing it. Now that ratio is 3 to 1 and in the relatively near future it will be 2 to 1. The other issue is people are living much longer and this increases the number of folks who draw Social Security compounding an already difficult fiscal situation.
Bottom line, social security in its current form is not sustainable.
Government has always had a tendency to over promise and under deliver, that’s just one of many reasons why we should rely more on ourselves and much less on the Federal, State, and City governments.
The reason we are in such dire fiscal straights across the board and not just SS is because of (as you correctly point out) over borrowing and over spending and the fact that nobody envisioned the ratio problem that currently exists with social security.
Social Security will go broke if something is not done to fix it.
Numerous ideas have been proposed in the past in an attempt to make it viable again but we don’t seem to have the courage to act.
One Democrat proposed things like: Raising the retirement age for those 55 and under while those already drawing it or over 55 remain in the current system. The Presidents own bi-partisan debt commission made a somewhat similar proposal but it fell on deaf ears.
It would seem that everybody’s program in Washington is a “SACRED COW” and cannot and must not be cut for any reason,… ever.
If we do nothing, those currently relying on SS will loose it and those hoping to take advantage of it in the future will not.
Your point regarding fraud waste and abuse is a very good one; unfortunately the government is incredibly inefficient and has a very dismal record in this regard.
Our debt crisis is so acute now that unfortunately we have to look at cuts across the board, and that includes pretty much everything.
Some suggestions might include but are not limited to things like:
Non-essential programs have to go, that list is voluminous!
Entitlement programs have to be restructured to prevent total default.
We need to get away from “government solutions/takeovers” to our problems and enhance private enterprise and Capitalism
We have to STOP THE SPENDING of money we do not have and STOP BORROWING from places like communist China
We have to develop more of our own energy resources in Anwar, the Gulf, and on the East and West coasts.
We have to cut back on foreign aid
We have to cut back on subsidies
We need to restructure Federal employee pensions and benefits similar to what has been done to the military
We need to work on cultural and moral issues, peoples hearts and minds; for example, people taking out loans they can’t afford and then walking away from the debt they owe; banks making loans under government duress that they know they should not be making to people who they know can’t afford the house.
This can be very dangerous but national defense spending has to be very carefully looked at to eliminate non-essential program/spending etc
Government is way too large and expensive and because of its size; it needs to be much much smaller and more efficient
Much more needs to be done than I have suggested here but our track record would indicate little if anything truly constructive will occur.
We are in a position to do something about our massive debt today but we have to act soon, time is running out.
If we wait, like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal did, then the bottom will simply fall out one day on all these programs.
Although I'm not sure about Social Security being listed here for reasons John already mentioned. That is funded specifically by people making contributions into it. You can expect to cut it and have people keep making those contributions. I don't think SS is going anywhere, though. We'll end up doing things like raising the retirement age more, raising the income cap where SS contributions currently cut off, cut SS payments, etc.
As much as this topic enrages me, any attempt to add further support to the arguments proposed by Dennie, Sam, and other fiscally and rationally minded individuals on this board will just fall on deaf ears. I will say this though, my left wing roommate just read the topic and stated, "John and Jeremy are making complete fools out of themselves. Thank God it's just a wakeboard forum."
Cole, if you think I'm making a fool of myself then tell me what you would cut? All those who you support here are afraid to say. I've posted several times things that I think should be done. I'm all for balancing the budget. Maybe your lefty friend would think I'm foolish because I want to cut seriously govt and balance the budget.
What seems to be the problem is that there are many cuts that can be made in defense, numerous large govt agencies, payments to foreign govt, and subsidies to corps that are significant. While I tend to focus on that I see others target welfare and poor people while defending or ignoring much of the above.
I also believe that per capita healthcare costs can be significantly cut. Other modern countries pay much less per capita than us. It can't be a huge secret. I've never supported giving welfare indiscriminately. The only thing that makes people think I'm liberal is because i dont rail on welfare as the demise of America. I know there is far more than that.
John, I'd be happy to offer my suggestions; Nonetheless I'm a bit time constrained due to some last minute studying for a final exam I have tomorrow so give me a day or two. If the thread has progressed much further I'll just pm you. I just don't have the time right now to write a short novel.
As much as this topic enrages me, any attempt to add further support to the arguments proposed by Dennie, Sam, and other fiscally and rationally minded individuals on this board will just fall on deaf ears. I will say this though, my left wing roommate just read the topic and stated, "John and Jeremy are making complete fools out of themselves. Thank God it's just a wakeboard forum."
WOW Mr. Cole
YOU SANK MY BATTLESHIP!
That is an absolutely astonishingly accurate observation by you, with a hall of fame assist by your left wing roommate!
Slam and Dunk!
YOU WIN by a wide margin!
Match, Set and Point GAME OVER in favor of MR. COLE!!
I love it Mr. Cole!
I used to have Shaun Murray as my #1 rider but as soon as I get done with this I'm logging
into my profile and changing it to "MR. COLE" (I kid you not)
John, I never said that you werent entitled to SS money. I dont see it as welfare. The government made an agreement with you and it should be honored. I do see it as a mathmatically flaws system that provides a service that the government should not be in the business of providing. How do we unring that bell? This is my point on government involvement in things such as this. It is scary to try new things even with the best intentions (Obamacare) because if it doesnt work we cant undo it. I believe SS was started with the best intentions but it wasnt thought through.
What is RIGHT is for SS to be disolved. Pick a magic number for people of a certain age or certain number of years of contribution, and honor the commitment. Those young enough to recoup, or start saving on their own are just out of luck. Add some net worth caps (if your total benefit is less than X percent of your total net worth then you do not qualify). Those who are not eligible to receive benefit stop contributing. Yes, some will be getting screwed, but youre only screwing those who can unscrew themselves or who dont need the help anyway. Obviously there will be a negative balance, so it will need to be made whole from some of the other cuts, but once our generation dies, I will be done with and future generations wont be burdened with it. Ive been contributing for 20+ years and I would gladly walk away from it today if I didnt have to contribute.
I can't disagree with anything you said Jason. If I did I would be contradicting myself when I wrote a paper 20 years ago (at age 35) talking about how SS was a bad deal. Twenty years later it's too late for me to let it go, and I consider my SS a debt that the US owes just like any other debt. However, if you transition SS to something else there are some very important considerations that people need to acknowledge. People need to understand that those who are transitioned out of it have been footing a bill that should be considered an income tax and not a contribution to their retirement. If you have to walk away from your contributions, then there needs to be a recognition that income that wasn't taxed for SS wasn't taxed enough. Things like royalties, higher incomes, and captital gains were never contributing to what ultimately was their shared responsibility.
It isn't enough to balance the budget. We must generate a annual surplus of probably 100 billion to start our country on the course of repaying it's debt and fiscal responsibility. IMO there are many double edged swords in balancing the budget. The world has relied on our currency, our generousity, and our consumerism to both thrive and improve their standard of living. This is even to the point of welcoming us printing money. If we make the cuts necessary to be fiscally responsible the ramifications could be significant.
I think that one point people miss when they talk about cuts and where they should occur is that they don't distinguish between cuts that inject money into the domestic economy and money sent/spent overseas. A dollar that stays in the economy creates/maintain jobs and continues to generate tax revenue each time it changes hand. A dollar sent overseas no longer works for our economy. In essence, it's gone. This IMO should be a high priority consideration when establishing a new budget.
"I will say this though, my left wing roommate just read the topic and stated, "John and Jeremy are making complete fools out of themselves. Thank God it's just a wakeboard forum."
OMG, did your roommate really just say that? OMG, what can I do to get back into his good graces?
OR
Maybe your roommate is just a douche. What have I said that has made me a "complete fool"? I would love to hear you or your roommate's view on how I am not "as fiscally responsible" as you two.
Hell A quick glance at that and I can see an easy 37.11% cut...
Unemployment/Welfare/Other
Madicare
Medicaid
A change in foreign policy to a sensible one of peace and nonintervention (i.e. protect out boarders, don't station our troops in other countries, don't fight unconstitutional wars, etc.) and the DoD budget could probable be scales down to 1/4 of what it is there, maybe less.
I could go on about the under 5% ones and how they could be significantly reduced and which should be eliminated altogether but I won't in the context of this post. On the scale of this budget deficit, that's nitpicking. It's necessary, but we have a huge deficit and the big cuts need to be made first, then work down to the smaller savings.
Liberals/socialists/fascists or wahtever you want to call yourselves... What would you cut? Or where would you raise taxes? With a goal of balancing the budget in the next fiscal year.
SS and Medicare don't even belong in that chart because they are funded independantly. If a portion of those have to be taken from the budget to cover shortfalls then that should be in the chart. That would significantly change the pie distribution. Also the debt owed to the SS and Medicare trust funds would probably significantly increase the 4.3% interest on national debt. I'd like to know what "other mandatory spending" means.
During this discussion it should, by now be sadly apparent that the socialistic, liberal leftist mindset is based on their religion, not on facts or statistics.
Even with some of its flaws, Capitalism (along with the fundamental freedoms laid down by our founding fathers in our declaration of Independence and Constitution) is the best economic system hands down, if for any other reason it is the only system based in reality.
The leftist’s ideology, whatever the strain, is not based in reality; it is based in a belief.
Socialistic, progressive, leftism is a belief that they want to believe in.
There is no empirical evidence; there is no rational thought or intellectual honesty or rigor involved.
It is simply something for the masses to opiate themselves on and feel good about.
Socialism, leftism, liberalism, progressivism, rabid environmentalism is a religion.
It is more important to them to adhere and subscribe to their religion than it is to adhere to anything as noble and honorable as the truth.
You can’t debate with fundamentalists; it’s akin to arguing with radical Muslims that want to blow you up because you're not a radical Muslim. Yes, they have no basis, yes they ignore the empirical evidence but that is the whole point of a religion. You ignore reality because you choose to believe in what you want to believe in.
Eventually reality will set in and that is the only thing that defeats this kind of religion, this kind of warped mindset.
Just like the radical Muslim who might have second thoughts about blowing himself up.
Just like the burnt out hippie who is now approaching 70 years of age, always childishly wanting the last word, who still wears the pony tail and can point at nothing but, "sticking it to the man" back in '68 as his most memorable achievement.
Just like the millions of aging Russian Communists who were all for the Bolshevik revolution.
Wasn't the past 90 years of their lives fun and fruitful?
Reality, reality, reality, that’s the only thing that will inevitably prove them wrong and leftists getting what they want and waking up one day finally realizing they've pissed their lives away.
The main problem with that though, is we are all on the same sinking ship with them, and that is what makes discussions like these so important.
Aint going to be much more wakeboarding if th!s liberal crap keeps up!
Heck, I'm still waiting for a new FEMA trailer, my old one is about six years old now and the trash is really starting to smell. I just hope the new trailer that they give me is one of those extended height jobs. That way I won't have to lean my 64" LCD against the wall anymore, I can mount it high enough that the trash doesn't block my view.
Cole, if you think I'm making a fool of myself then tell me what you would cut? All those who you support here are afraid to say. I've posted several times things that I think should be done. I'm all for balancing the budget. Maybe your lefty friend would think I'm foolish because I want to cut seriously govt and balance the budget.
What seems to be the problem is that there are many cuts that can be made in defense, numerous large govt agencies, payments to foreign govt, and subsidies to corps that are significant. While I tend to focus on that I see others target welfare and poor people while defending or ignoring much of the above.
John,
First things first, I want to explain that I feel recovering the budget deficit will occur not simply by providing a budget with the largest cuts, but by policy change that will allow for market and job growth in order to boost GDP. To further emphasize what I mean I will use Brazil's biofuel industry as an example. I will then move on to the specific cuts I would feel would contribute the most to decreasing our debt. I am not basing this off of what will provide the largest monetary recovery over a couple of fiscal years, rather what I think would encourage long run recovery to obtaining control over our budget.
I'm still taking finals so this post will only cover Alternative Energy Cuts, I will add more as I have time this week.
Brazil is currently the worlds second largest producer of Biofuels in the world. Brazil, a military controlled nation at the time, was motivated to wean the country of their reliance on foreign oil in the 1970's (hmm...sound familiar). As a result, large subsidies were enacted to provide incentive for biofuel research and production, and government policies mandated gas stations and automobile manufactures solely provide ethanol fuel and ethanol powered vehicles. Additionally, there was a resurgence of domestic drilling. By the end of the decade, the country had essentially accomplished the task of becoming self sufficient and no longer dependent on foreign oil. However, the 1980's brought about a change in government as Brazil switched to a democracy. As a result private oil conglomerates had further incentive to spend on exploration in Brazil and Oil prices dropped drastically. Additionally, the subsidies for Biofuel production and research were eliminated. As a result the Biofuel market came to a grinding halt because it was simply not efficient enough to compete with oil. Producers of sugar for ethanol, found it was more profitable to sell the sugarcane for consumption than fuel purposes. I want to emphasize the damaging impact this had on Brazil at the time, and how their economy was severely distressed. However, as oil prices began to rise towards the end of the 80's , a surge in private sector spending within Brazil found ways of reducing the price of ethanol fuel from 60 cents to 20 cents. This provided further incentive for private investment to build the Brazilian Biofuel industry to what it is today.
My point: Large Government Alternative Energy spending programs for Brazil temporarily encouraged energy independence, but only artificially. The lack of infrastructure exploited the inefficiencies of Biofuel production when the subsidies were taken away and only when existing biofuel participants were forced to innovate did they actually provide the technology that has made Brazil successful today.
The parallel. The United States can't expect spending large amounts of Government (Tax Payer) dollars on Alternative Energy Research and Subsidies will result in immediate energy efficiency. It provides an industry to rely on a crutch in order to remain profitable therefore the industry will never be truly independent nor efficient. Innovation comes from the private sector as market participants are forced to find new ways to maintain their presence in a given industry. Currently we have an abundance of untapped oil reserves which need to be utilized to encourage job growth. Successful alternative energy sources will evolve when the current infrastructure allows them to become efficient not when our government thinks its the right time.
Last edited by rclester89; 05-09-2011 at 4:13 PM.
Reason: spelling
Linear Mode
