How the US can get out of debt

[glockmail]

1. Truth. Not all of the spending is stimulus but either way much of the deficit is because Federal revenues are still way down from their peak in '07. Entitlements are continuing their march higher too. IMO we'll alienate more than we'll attract with the slash and burn than with educating the populace. The 90's approach is still the key.
2. The most efficient store of energy are dead dinosaurs and they are taken from the ground more cheaply in the ME than anywhere else. Should we pay more for energy just because we can get it locally? But I agree on your concept.
3. There's cash in the bank and value in the land; two different things.
4. Clearly your a pothead conservative who's dying wish is to sell out to the welfare state to get your next fix. Clearly.

1. Bring back spending to previous levels ain't no way "slash and burn". The only ones to be alienated are "takers".
2. In case you haven't heard, modern technologies to get the dino out of the ground have made it cost-effective. Government restrictions of where we can drill and how we transport it (Keystone pipeline) increases costs. Remove those impediments and transporting ME oil half way around the world will no longer be as cost-effective.
3. True, and I'm not suggesting a fire sale, but where there is an obvious need by the public for land FedCo should be willing to sell it. I suggest that if an offer is made by a private party that is fair and reasonable and no case can be made that the public use is more important, that the land must be sold. Sort of like how eminent domain works, but with The People taking it away from GovCo, not the other way around.
4. That's really a stupid thing to say, which is why I ignored it the first time that you said it. The fact is that we spend an incredible amount of blood and treasure fighting a war on drugs. Hundreds of thousands of people in jail for getting high on a safe, natural plant product, who would otherwise be relatively productive members of society, paying taxes. I think this war is necessary for hard drugs but including weed in it is incredibly stupid. Prosecute abusers like we do abusers of alcohol and be done with it. Additionally an abundance of cheap, safe, and high-taxed weed would destroy the markets for hard drugs. It's really a win-win-win.

[glockmail]

We can further reduce our debt by withdrawing every member of the U.S. military from the Middle East and Afghanistan and refusing to send any more foreign aid into that region. There is not a single country in that area that deserves our aid or support. Let them settle things amongst themselves.

In other words, screw Israel, and any other allies that we may have in that region.

[glockmail]

From what I understand, pretty much anyone can grow pot. Which means it would be easy for people to set up operations. I think a lot of tobacco smokers would switch because pot has fewer known side effects. Decreasing sales of tobacco products would be devastating to states that depend on it. Plus the majority of Republicans are still hung up on myths about pot being a "gateway drug." Conveniently forgetting that tobacco is a gateway to early death.

This is one of the dumbest posts ever. All the stupidity of liberalism rolled up into a single post: economic ignorance, compete misunderstanding of human nature, the desire to control the behavior of others, all the while blaming evil Republicans.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[

QUOTE=gabosaurus;651920]1. You can't "roll back" anything to 2006 levels. Inflation has made everything more expensive.

2. We will never be energy independent. If we keep all our oil and gas for our own use instead of selling so much of it to China and Japan, our gas prices would go down. The truth is, Big Oil likes it the way it is. Drilling more would give them more product to sell overseas for inflated prices.
QUOTE]

So very often the first step to insure failure(or fail to fix a problem) is to say , "We can't do that" !! Government can do anything or did your liberal ideology suddenly fail you Gabby? We damn sure can roll back spending back to the 2006 levels.. Its called tightening the purse and its always a hard choice. American families do it often and very, very, very damn often now that the ffing scum in charge has deliberately made things worse. Go ahead deny reality in favor of the liberal/leftist propaganda! For an intelligent person you are so often posting stupid propaganda. I guess the damn Kool-Aid is stronger than logical reasoning in your case. A pity too , as you are obviously an intelligent person. I know that statement is gonna piss off some here but it's true. If ever you do finally see the light you will likely say exactly what my cousin did back in 2003. When he said, "Damn , how the hell could I have been such a dumbass fool"? I replied, "Easy, you relied on Mainstream media/Democrat propaganda instead of using the brain God gave you." His answer to that was, "you are dead right" .. I replied to that, "Arent I always"?-----Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In other words, screw Israel, and any other allies that we may have in that region.

Exact same attitude Obama the traitor has !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Not shocking to read Gabby posting mainstream media propaganda as she obviously enjoys a few glasses of dem/leftist Kool-aid every day. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Exact same attitude Obama the traitor has !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Not shocking to read Gabby posting mainstream media propaganda as she obviously enjoys a few glasses of dem/leftist Kool-aid every day. -Tyr

Tyr. Even the DNC offices in Washington offer GABBY-JUICE when their daily supply of GRAPE koolobama.jpggoes down the Pool Drain, after the Democrat Congress-critters pretend to swim, and pee in the wading pool when they have no room to swim in the toilets.

[fj1200]

1. Bring back spending to previous levels ain't no way "slash and burn". The only ones to be alienated are "takers".
2. In case you haven't heard, modern technologies to get the dino out of the ground have made it cost-effective. Government restrictions of where we can drill and how we transport it (Keystone pipeline) increases costs. Remove those impediments and transporting ME oil half way around the world will no longer be as cost-effective.
3. True, and I'm not suggesting a fire sale, but where there is an obvious need by the public for land FedCo should be willing to sell it. I suggest that if an offer is made by a private party that is fair and reasonable and no case can be made that the public use is more important, that the land must be sold. Sort of like how eminent domain works, but with The People taking it away from GovCo, not the other way around.
4. That's really a stupid thing to say, which is why I ignored it the first time that you said it. The fact is that we spend an incredible amount of blood and treasure fighting a war on drugs. Hundreds of thousands of people in jail for getting high on a safe, natural plant product, who would otherwise be relatively productive members of society, paying taxes. I think this war is necessary for hard drugs but including weed in it is incredibly stupid. Prosecute abusers like we do abusers of alcohol and be done with it. Additionally an abundance of cheap, safe, and high-taxed weed would destroy the markets for hard drugs. It's really a win-win-win.

1. It kind of is. You'd have many ticked off old people. Besides if you do the slashing without Fiscal stimulus you have the worst kind of austerity... which brings me back to my first post here iirc.
2. The ME still holds a large price advantage over getting it out of the ground. Not that I don't think we should develop our resources we just shouldn't do it our detriment.
3. And who should build and maintain those roads to the middle of nowhere? I still maintain the regulations that would be imposed would be onerous.
4. I agree, I'm just stunned that Taft's lasting legacy here has faded so quickly. Happy, but stunned.

[glockmail]

1. It kind of is. You'd have many ticked off old people. Besides if you do the slashing without Fiscal stimulus you have the worst kind of austerity... which brings me back to my first post here iirc.
2. The ME still holds a large price advantage over getting it out of the ground. Not that I don't think we should develop our resources we just shouldn't do it our detriment.
3. And who should build and maintain those roads to the middle of nowhere? I still maintain the regulations that would be imposed would be onerous.
4. I agree, I'm just stunned that Taft's lasting legacy here has faded so quickly. Happy, but stunned.

1. Gee in 2006 there were no cuts to social security. And I really can't believe that you're still insisting on more stimulus. It hasn't worked in 6 years, yet you still want more? That's unmitigated insanity.
2. So what? I'm not the one saying we should stop using their oil, just drill for our own and force the market price down.
3. You're apparently unfamiliar with the development process. Developers pay for the roads, which the state then takes possession of, then maintains with the added tax revenue.

[aboutime]

1. Gee in 2006 there were no cuts to social security. And I really can't believe that you're still insisting on more stimulus. It hasn't worked in 6 years, yet you still want more? That's unmitigated insanity.
2. So what? I'm not the one saying we should stop using their oil, just drill for our own and force the market price down.
3. You're apparently unfamiliar with the development process. Developers pay for the roads, which the state then takes possession of, then maintains with the added tax revenue.

glockmail. Anything fj says here IS, and Always MUST be the only answer since fj knows everything about Nothing, in reality. But it makes him feel good to say things that make no sense. Then he can declare everyone else in the same manner. That's how being the smartest person in the room works. Just ask fj. He's convinced, everyone else is always wrong.

Ask him!

[fj1200]

1. Gee in 2006 there were no cuts to social security. And I really can't believe that you're still insisting on more stimulus. It hasn't worked in 6 years, yet you still want more? That's unmitigated insanity.
2. So what? I'm not the one saying we should stop using their oil, just drill for our own and force the market price down.
3. You're apparently unfamiliar with the development process. Developers pay for the roads, which the state then takes possession of, then maintains with the added tax revenue.

1. I never said that there were cuts to SS but there certainly has been growth in SS and you've just proposed hacking them back to levels of 7 years ago; You honestly think there will be no kickback there? You could also point out where I advocated stimulus here, then, or otherwise. I'm saying that merely hacking it back with no fiscal stimulus would have a horrible effect on the economy.
2. So what? It's the heart of the matter. And drilling here would have almost no effect on the price of oil regardless. And like I said, I'm not opposed; I just don't expect miracles.
3. Actually fairly familiar. We're not talking about cutting a road into a, relatively, small development off of a major road, you want to tap millions of acres in the middle of nowhere that you heard was valued at $60 trillion in a country where the entire net worth is $70 trillion. Sounds like a good plan on paper but I don't see it working out in reailty.

[fj1200]

glockmail. Anything fj says here IS, and Always MUST be the only answer since fj knows everything about Nothing, in reality. But it makes him feel good to say things that make no sense. Then he can declare everyone else in the same manner. That's how being the smartest person in the room works. Just ask fj. He's convinced, everyone else is always wrong.

Ask him!

Prove it. Then when you cannot you will either be wrong or a liar; which shall it be?

[glockmail]

1. I never said that there were cuts to SS but there certainly has been growth in SS and you've just proposed hacking them back to levels of 7 years ago; You honestly think there will be no kickback there? You could also point out where I advocated stimulus here, then, or otherwise. I'm saying that merely hacking it back with no fiscal stimulus would have a horrible effect on the economy.
2. So what? It's the heart of the matter. And drilling here would have almost no effect on the price of oil regardless. And like I said, I'm not opposed; I just don't expect miracles.
3. Actually fairly familiar. We're not talking about cutting a road into a, relatively, small development off of a major road, you want to tap millions of acres in the middle of nowhere that you heard was valued at $60 trillion in a country where the entire net worth is $70 trillion. Sounds like a good plan on paper but I don't see it working out in reailty.

1. The tiny impact on SS increase in that short of a time span is inconsequential, so have your crumbs there. What matters is the massive trillions in stimulus that was spent and didn't work. Again, doing things over and over again thinking that the outcome will be different is the very definition of insanity.
2. No it's not. What matters is that more money stays in the US, earned by US companies who pay taxes and royalties to US GovCo instead of a few kings in the Mideast. And of course it will reduce global prices. To think otherwise ignores the simple laws of supply and demand.
3. Oh is that what I want to do? Show me where I dictated what developers must do. Instead I advocated the free market system, where developers would propose the purchases of property, where they see a potential for profit. If that land is 500 miles from the nearest public road then they must want it bad to build 500 miles of two lane road to state standards to get to it.

[aboutime]

Prove it. Then when you cannot you will either be wrong or a liar; which shall it be?

No need to prove it. You responded. That's all we needed. Known liars must always find some reason to defend what they lied about. DEFEND IT NOW.

[fj1200]

1. The tiny impact on SS increase in that short of a time span is inconsequential, so have your crumbs there. What matters is the massive trillions in stimulus that was spent and didn't work. Again, doing things over and over again thinking that the outcome will be different is the very definition of insanity.
2. No it's not. What matters is that more money stays in the US, earned by US companies who pay taxes and royalties to US GovCo instead of a few kings in the Mideast. And of course it will reduce global prices. To think otherwise ignores the simple laws of supply and demand.
3. Oh is that what I want to do? Show me where I dictated what developers must do. Instead I advocated the free market system, where developers would propose the purchases of property, where they see a potential for profit. If that land is 500 miles from the nearest public road then they must want it bad to build 500 miles of two lane road to state standards to get to it.

1. As I recall there was one crappy stimulus bill, the rest has been generally crappy government spending. Nevertheless you've got entitlements going up $500 milliion and discretionary speding going up $150 million and current revenues still below the '06 spending levels by $500 million+. Our current nightmare is not just rampant spending it's also sad fiscal policies that keep our un/under emmployment rate so high; the real driver of deficits (chart here).

2. Oil prices are set globally and the impact that we would have is not large enough to significantly impact global prices. Even our largest oil companies are mere specks in the global markets. Simple laws of supply and demand; funny.

3. I never said you wanted to dictate what developers must do. I restated your position that you want to "tap," i.e. sell, millions of acres of land and you said that developers pay for roads; I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I'm saying that there is not enough domestic money to make a significant impact on debt reduction; which is the point of this thread of course.

[fj1200]

No need to prove it.

I knew you couldn't. So have you made your choice?