How the US can get out of debt

[glockmail]

How the US can get out of debt 1. Stop spending like a drunken sailor. Just take spending back to 2006 levels and freeze it there for a while.
2. Drill baby drill. Lets make a serious effort to become energy independent. Stop the war on coal and fracking. There's lots of revenue in drilling rights and of course more revenue and jobs by exploiting our own energy.
3. Sell land. The feds own huge swaths of land in western states. For instance central Oregon is like little islands of private land in a huge sea of federal property, and it's not all national parks and pristine wilderness.
4. Legalize marijuana and tax it. This would create a lot of revenue and save billions on the stupid war on drugs. Anyone involved in the current illegal drug trade would be forever forbidden from the legal one. This would have the added benefit of destroying drug cartels.

[fj1200]

How the US can get out of debt 1. Stop spending like a drunken sailor. Just take spending back to 2006 levels and freeze it there for a while.
2. Drill baby drill. Lets make a serious effort to become energy independent. Stop the war on coal and fracking. There's lots of revenue in drilling rights and of course more revenue and jobs by exploiting our own energy.
3. Sell land. The feds own huge swaths of land in western states. For instance central Oregon is like little islands of private land in a huge sea of federal property, and it's not all national parks and pristine wilderness.
4. Legalize marijuana and tax it. This would create a lot of revenue and save billions on the stupid war on drugs. Anyone involved in the current illegal drug trade would be forever forbidden from the legal one. This would have the added benefit of destroying drug cartels.

1. Never happen. The citizens won't stand for it and they'll blame Republicans; They'll be a minority party for decades. Better to elect the 1994 Republicans again in '16 with any kind of reasonable POTUS so they can restrain spending growth and implement new growth friendly policies.
2. We'll never be energy independent but we should do what we can to create high value jobs.
3. How much money can that reasonably raise?
4. Your pothead conservatism is showing. ;)

Overall I think the Republicans need to educate on the real issues and not get caught into any knee-jerk responses that can easily be demonized to the low-information crowd. For example informing the populace that the real driver of deficits is not low tax rates but rather high unemployment. And of course entitlement reform; SS and Medicare of the major deficit drivers into the future.

[Jeff]

How the US can get out of debt 1. Stop spending like a drunken sailor. Just take spending back to 2006 levels and freeze it there for a while.
2. Drill baby drill. Lets make a serious effort to become energy independent. Stop the war on coal and fracking. There's lots of revenue in drilling rights and of course more revenue and jobs by exploiting our own energy.
3. Sell land. The feds own huge swaths of land in western states. For instance central Oregon is like little islands of private land in a huge sea of federal property, and it's not all national parks and pristine wilderness.
4. Legalize marijuana and tax it. This would create a lot of revenue and save billions on the stupid war on drugs. Anyone involved in the current illegal drug trade would be forever forbidden from the legal one. This would have the added benefit of destroying drug cartels.

Glock I agree with it all but #4 would bring money in so fast it would make your head spin , if you told people they where going to pay 20 bucks more for a half once but it would be legal and make it high quality stuff they couldn't keep enough in stock it would sell so fast

[glockmail]

1. Never happen. The citizens won't stand for it and they'll blame Republicans; They'll be a minority party for decades. Better to elect the 1994 Republicans again in '16 with any kind of reasonable POTUS so they can restrain spending growth and implement new growth friendly policies.
2. We'll never be energy independent but we should do what we can to create high value jobs.
3. How much money can that reasonably raise?
4. Your pothead conservatism is showing. ;)

Overall I think the Republicans need to educate on the real issues and not get caught into any knee-jerk responses that can easily be demonized to the low-information crowd. For example informing the populace that the real driver of deficits is not low tax rates but rather high unemployment. And of course entitlement reform; SS and Medicare of the major deficit drivers into the future.

1. I'm not sure why you say that. This massive spending that's going on now is "stimulus" that started just before Bush left office. Folks weren't dying in the streets before then.
2. There's no basis for you to say that. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and coal. And we need to expand our nuke base. We should have solar farms on top of every highway.
3. I've been told that the value of land held by the feds is worth around 60 trillion dollars.
4. I like scotch.

[DragonStryk72]

1. Never happen. The citizens won't stand for it and they'll blame Republicans; They'll be a minority party for decades. Better to elect the 1994 Republicans again in '16 with any kind of reasonable POTUS so they can restrain spending growth and implement new growth friendly policies.
2. We'll never be energy independent but we should do what we can to create high value jobs.
3. How much money can that reasonably raise?
4. Your pothead conservatism is showing. ;)

Overall I think the Republicans need to educate on the real issues and not get caught into any knee-jerk responses that can easily be demonized to the low-information crowd. For example informing the populace that the real driver of deficits is not low tax rates but rather high unemployment. And of course entitlement reform; SS and Medicare of the major deficit drivers into the future.

1. And they'll never ban soda in NYC, and they'll never pass an act that directly shits on the fourth amendment. I do my level best to not say that something would "never" happen, as it seems to invite it.
2. We can and will eventually be energy independent. We just have to do the work involved along all fronts, and it's not just a matter of coal/oil, but wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources as well.
3. Well, it might not initially raise too much money, at least compared to the debt, but with new businesses and residents being built up on the land, it would expand the tax base quite nicely, so technically infinite over time.
4. Meh, pot's just fine, I figure. It's no worse than cigs or beer.

SS and Medicare do need serious overhaul, as neither systems works in any way like it's supposed to.

[aboutime]

As long as there is a DEMOCRAT in the White House, and Democrats control the U.S. Senate.

WE WILL NEVER, NEVER, EVER GET OUT OF DEBT!

It has been proven. Raising taxes to increase Revenue...DOES NOT WORK.

The One, and only way to lower, or eliminate the DEBT is.....STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE.

If Congress, and the President easily find ways to PRINT MORE MONEY without anything to BACK IT UP.

Nobody will ever be able to explain to our Children, their Children, and their Children's children...What the U.S.A. was.

[fj1200]

1. I'm not sure why you say that. This massive spending that's going on now is "stimulus" that started just before Bush left office. Folks weren't dying in the streets before then.
2. There's no basis for you to say that. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and coal. And we need to expand our nuke base. We should have solar farms on top of every highway.
3. I've been told that the value of land held by the feds is worth around 60 trillion dollars.
4. I like scotch.

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 (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012). 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. :slap: Clearly.

[fj1200]

1. And they'll never ban soda in NYC, and they'll never pass an act that directly shits on the fourth amendment. I do my level best to not say that something would "never" happen, as it seems to invite it.
2. We can and will eventually be energy independent. We just have to do the work involved along all fronts, and it's not just a matter of coal/oil, but wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources as well.
3. Well, it might not initially raise too much money, at least compared to the debt, but with new businesses and residents being built up on the land, it would expand the tax base quite nicely, so technically infinite over time.
4. Meh, pot's just fine, I figure. It's no worse than cigs or beer.

SS and Medicare do need serious overhaul, as neither systems works in any way like it's supposed to.

1. Then you should agree with my never statement to hasten its arrival. Nevertheless, it'll never happen.
2. Disagree. Oil is the cheapest store of energy.
3. We are in no shortage of land that opening up half of Oregon will make much difference. Besides, the regulations involved in something like that would be so onerous that it would only give Richard Ellison another place to park a few billion.
4. Pot = welfare; silly boy. :slap:

SS and Medicare are the key to it all. And as long as we have citizens who demand what they put in we'll never get a fix.

[gabosaurus]

How the US can get out of debt 1. Stop spending like a drunken sailor. Just take spending back to 2006 levels and freeze it there for a while.
2. Drill baby drill. Lets make a serious effort to become energy independent. Stop the war on coal and fracking. There's lots of revenue in drilling rights and of course more revenue and jobs by exploiting our own energy.
3. Sell land. The feds own huge swaths of land in western states. For instance central Oregon is like little islands of private land in a huge sea of federal property, and it's not all national parks and pristine wilderness.
4. Legalize marijuana and tax it. This would create a lot of revenue and save billions on the stupid war on drugs. Anyone involved in the current illegal drug trade would be forever forbidden from the legal one. This would have the added benefit of destroying drug cartels.

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.
3. Who do want to see the land to? How about if the government decides to sell a large portion of Central Oregon to rich Arabs for a gigantic price? They could build an American Holy Land.
4. Totally in favor of this. It would be a win-win situation for everyone except tobacco growers. Who would suddenly lose a huge part of their profits. The Joe Camel types would send their lobbyists to DC and it would never happen.

[Jeff]

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.
3. Who do want to see the land to? How about if the government decides to sell a large portion of Central Oregon to rich Arabs for a gigantic price? They could build an American Holy Land.
4. Totally in favor of this. It would be a win-win situation for everyone except tobacco growers. Who would suddenly lose a huge part of their profits. The Joe Camel types would send their lobbyists to DC and it would never happen.

Gaby I disagree with #4 I smoke and if they made refer legal I would smoke it as many of the smokers would , ya could never smoke pot like you do cigarettes ya couldn't afford it , no one could , on average when I did get high a joint was a dollar so if you realize there are 20cigareetes in a pack a two pack a day smoker would have to spend 40 bucks a day to use pot instead of cigarettes and lets not forget if it becomes legal they will tax it ( that's where they will make there money ) so it would be more than 40 a day

[gabosaurus]

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.

[fj1200]

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.
3. Who do want to see the land to? How about if the government decides to sell a large portion of Central Oregon to rich Arabs for a gigantic price? They could build an American Holy Land.
4. Totally in favor of this. It would be a win-win situation for everyone except tobacco growers. Who would suddenly lose a huge part of their profits. The Joe Camel types would send their lobbyists to DC and it would never happen.

1. You do understand that the increase in spending as far outstripped the inflation increases don't you? But you'll be OK with it if we adjust for inflation and population increases then?
2. How much oil do you think we export anyway? And I'm all for selling as much gas to China and Japan as they'll take. It's called value added and they are generally high paying jobs. You are for good jobs aren't you?
3. :slap: I'm sure we could have a law against that or something.
4. I knew it. Pothead conservatism run amok here at DP.

[Jeff]

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.

I hate to say it because i am one of the dopes but people smoking dont look at the consequences yes we know they are there but we ignore thewm , and I am only speaking for myself if pot became legal I wouldnt smoke but a couple of hits here and there ( its all I did when I was smoking ) just enough to relax , people that smoke will simply do both

[Jeff]

1. You do understand that the increase in spending as far outstripped the inflation increases don't you? But you'll be OK with it if we adjust for inflation and population increases then?
2. How much oil do you think we export anyway? And I'm all for selling as much gas to China and Japan as they'll take. It's called value added and they are generally high paying jobs. You are for good jobs aren't you?
3. :slap: I'm sure we could have a law against that or something.
4. I knew it. Pothead conservatism run amok here at DP.

In our generation FJ most smoked it and if ya ever had ( not saying you have or haven't ) you would realize just a couple hits and the relaxation you get is fantastic , take a couple of puffs and get in front of a good movie , nothing better ( well that may be exaggerated LOL )

[gabosaurus]

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.

[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 (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012). 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. :slap: 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. :lame2:

[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. :lame2:
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 5248goes 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.:laugh:

[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.:laugh:

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 (http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-1992-2012)).

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?

[avatar4321]

You really think the government will collect taxes on marijuana when people could grow it in their basement?

[Jeff]

You really think the government will collect taxes on marijuana when people could grow it in their basement?

I do avatar , down here in the south the quality is nothing like you get up north and although you will have those doing just what you are saying I think many would jump at the chance to pay a little extra for it, be completely legal and have a much higher quality

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nobody ever got out of debt that did not stop their overspending. Always the first step is to cut back on wasteful and unnecessary spending. Here is the insanity we see from our government now-- lets get out of this massive debt by spending ever increasing amounts on more government!!! Which is like a junkie claiming wonderful new way to kick the habit. Just keep doing ever increasing amounts each time he shoots up. Sure it'll cure him when it finally kills him (OD)!! MAYBE THATS THE PLAN , HAVING A NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY. Problem with that is its likely to trigger a world wide collapse of the current system and what about foreign debts ,will China just say o'well, too bad for us? They got nukes folks and a much ,much bigger population. They could lose in a war twice the number of our total population and it'll only benefit them by having done so. Think about that.. -Tyr

[glockmail]

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 (http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-1992-2012)).

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.

1. Look at the spending levels. In effect there have been six, one for each year.
2. As the world's largest oil consumer if we increase our output to make a dent in reducing our imports it will also make a dent in global prices. Simple, the law of supply and demand.
3. That's hilarious, you thinking there's not enough personal wealth to help buy out the debt. Just totaling household, non-profit, and non-farm business works out to $105 trillion (http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us-economy-188-trillion-134xgdp/). That's about 8 times the national debt.

[glockmail]

You really think the government will collect taxes on marijuana when people could grow it in their basement?

Yes. People can grow tobacco and roll their own smokes. How many do?

[Robert A Whit]

I do avatar , down here in the south the quality is nothing like you get up north and although you will have those doing just what you are saying I think many would jump at the chance to pay a little extra for it, be completely legal and have a much higher quality

Jeff, I know nothing about pot except way back when I smoked some, I liked Panama Red and flat hated the rest. (only those I tried of course)

In CA, the sellers who sell legally per CA law do pay taxes. Oakland CA loves pot sellers. It is Obama that stops them.

So, even if your state approves it, you will then deal with Obama.

As far as I am concerned, all the illegals can come in yet if you look at the numbers, Obama orders most of them to be allowed to remain in the state. But when it comes to MJ, he is all over that.

[fj1200]

1. Look at the spending levels. In effect there have been six, one for each year.
2. As the world's largest oil consumer if we increase our output to make a dent in reducing our imports it will also make a dent in global prices. Simple, the law of supply and demand.
3. That's hilarious, you thinking there's not enough personal wealth to help buy out the debt. Just totaling household, non-profit, and non-farm business works out to $105 trillion (http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us-economy-188-trillion-134xgdp/). That's about 8 times the national debt.

1. I did and as I said it falls under generally crappy government spending. You are however ignoring that revenues are still below the '07 peak and much of the spending increase falls under entitlement spending which you already poo-pooed.
2. Did you also take into account elasticity of supply and demand, actions by small actors such as cartels, etc. etc.? Nevertheless, we already had a rousing discussion on the topic:
And You Thought Gas Prices Were High Now (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39993-And-You-Thought-Gas-Prices-Were-High-Now)3. Yes, hilarious. Do you always ignore liabilities when looking at net worth or only when you need a little boost to your argument? If the former you might want to set up an appointment with your financial adviser. I'm not sure your plan of moving assets from one productive sector to another possibly productive sector is really a plan to fall back on. Of course your plan would depend on Congress not spending new found monies on whatever struck their fancy come vote time.

[aboutime]

fj's back. Now he will never lose another argument here. With himself.

[glockmail]

1. I did and as I said it falls under generally crappy government spending. You are however ignoring that revenues are still below the '07 peak and much of the spending increase falls under entitlement spending which you already poo-pooed.
2. Did you also take into account elasticity of supply and demand, actions by small actors such as cartels, etc. etc.? Nevertheless, we already had a rousing discussion on the topic:
And You Thought Gas Prices Were High Now (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39993-And-You-Thought-Gas-Prices-Were-High-Now)

3. Yes, hilarious. Do you always ignore liabilities when looking at net worth or only when you need a little boost to your argument? If the former you might want to set up an appointment with your financial adviser. I'm not sure your plan of moving assets from one productive sector to another possibly productive sector is really a plan to fall back on. Of course your plan would depend on Congress not spending new found monies on whatever struck their fancy come vote time.

Yeah look who's back with more nonsense. LOL!

1. Of course it's crappy spending. The "stimulus" spending is simply all the bullshit projects that were rejected over the years, tossed into a file to fester a bit and now those files are opened and the shit projects are getting money thrown at them. You ignore the fact that entitlement spending is only a small part of all this crap.

2. No, because I don't have to. The law of supply and demand states that when the supply is increased the price goes down. Cartels and bullshit players can only stave of the inevitable for so long forever the law destroys them.

3. Hilarious that you think vacant government land is productive, while a private enterprise that risks capital to buy it wouldn't be productive.

[fj1200]

Yeah look who's back with more nonsense. LOL!

1. Of course it's crappy spending. The "stimulus" spending is simply all the bullshit projects that were rejected over the years, tossed into a file to fester a bit and now those files are opened and the shit projects are getting money thrown at them. You ignore the fact that entitlement spending is only a small part of all this crap.

2. No, because I don't have to. The law of supply and demand states that when the supply is increased the price goes down. Cartels and bullshit players can only stave of the inevitable for so long forever the law destroys them.

3. Hilarious that you think vacant government land is productive, while a private enterprise that risks capital to buy it wouldn't be productive.

Nonsense? I guess you would see it that way since you ignore the obvious and see what you want.

1. I'm glad we agree that government spending is largely crappy but now I see that you claim $2TT dollars of entitlement spending is only "a small part;" hint: It's more than half. I guess you still want to be ignorant of the fall in revenues from the '07 peak and that discretionary spending is only up $200BB in the last 6 years (http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-1992-2012); such is your right I guess.

2. You don't have to take into account the factors of economics? I'll throw that into your "ignore" pile too then. Only you would call the rest of the world that produces ~90% of the world's oil as "cartels and bulls* players." :rolleyes:

3. Where did I state government land was productive (I called it "possibly" productive ;) )? That is the entire basis for your argument is it not? That once government land becomes private land that it will magically become more productive than the assets from where the monies were taken?

[glockmail]

Nonsense? I guess you would see it that way since you ignore the obvious and see what you want.

1. I'm glad we agree that government spending is largely crappy but now I see that you claim $2TT dollars of entitlement spending is only "a small part;" hint: It's more than half. I guess you still want to be ignorant of the fall in revenues from the '07 peak and that discretionary spending is only up $200BB in the last 6 years (http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-1992-2012); such is your right I guess.

2. You don't have to take into account the factors of economics? I'll throw that into your "ignore" pile too then. Only you would call the rest of the world that produces ~90% of the world's oil as "cartels and bulls* players." :rolleyes:

3. Where did I state government land was productive (I called it "possibly" productive ;) )? That is the entire basis for your argument is it not? That once government land becomes private land that it will magically become more productive than the assets from where the monies were taken?

1. Prove it.
2. The only "factors" that matter are supply and demand.
3. You stated that my plan of moving assets from public to private was: "moving assets from one productive sector to another possibly productive sector".

[fj1200]

1. Prove it.
2. The only "factors" that matter are supply and demand.
3. You stated that my plan of moving assets from public to private was: "moving assets from one productive sector to another possibly productive sector".

1. Already done; links provided.
2. :laugh: :kneeslapper:
3. I did state that and it was referencing flow of funds. "... moving assets from one productive sector (equities, bonds, capital assets, etc.) to another possibly productive sector (land currently held by government)." Your underlying assumption there is that the expected return of formerly government land is greater than the expected return of private assets.

[glockmail]

1. Didn't do it for me.
2. :laugh:.
3. You're getting confused. It's very simple. We have $60T in land assets doing nothing. A small portion could be sold to private individuals. The transfer of capital helps pay off the debt. The increase in productivity increases the GDP and tax revenue...

[fj1200]

1. Didn't do it for me.
2. :laugh:.
3. You're getting confused. It's very simple. We have $60T in land assets doing nothing. A small portion could be sold to private individuals. The transfer of capital helps pay off the debt. The increase in productivity increases the GDP and tax revenue...

1. :shrug: You can lead a horse to water...
2. I find your knowledge of economics simplistic as well.
3. I'm confused yet you think the outcomes of actions taken in a global/national economy will not be impacted by the actions of any other party. :eek: Assumptions; $60T in assets would actually be worth $60T when sold where household net worth is ~$70T and business net worth adds another ~$26T, selling government land would increase productivity, and that our esteemed Congress folk would actually use the funds to pay down debt in an environment where we are still running deficits. As I said before:

Sounds like a good plan on paper but I don't see it working out in reality.

These would be the same folks who should have been saving our excess SS contributions for the past 30 years.

[glockmail]

1. :shrug: You can lead a horse to water...
2. I find your knowledge of economics simplistic as well.
3. I'm confused yet you think the outcomes of actions taken in a global/national economy will not be impacted by the actions of any other party. :eek: Assumptions; $60T in assets would actually be worth $60T when sold where household net worth is ~$70T and business net worth adds another ~$26T, selling government land would increase productivity, and that our esteemed Congress folk would actually use the funds to pay down debt in an environment where we are still running deficits. As I said before:


These would be the same folks who should have been saving our excess SS contributions for the past 30 years.
1, 2. :laugh:
3. Hilarious that you think that my position is that all $16T debt has to be paid for by selling land, and that all $60T in land assets would have to be sold to pay it.

[aboutime]

1, 2. :laugh:
3. Hilarious that you think that my position is that all $16T debt has to be paid for by selling land, and that all $60T in land assets would have to be sold to pay it.


glockmail. Guess you haven't noticed, but. I tend to believe. fj has become an alter-ego of our friend Robert.

Just keep in mind. fj will not settle, or stop until he get's the absolute....last5301.

[fj1200]

1, 2. :laugh:
3. Hilarious that you think that my position is that all $16T debt has to be paid for by selling land, and that all $60T in land assets would have to be sold to pay it.

1. You asked me to "prove it." Everything in that post was true and sourced. I'm not sure where your problem is.
2. Whatever.
3. Point out where I think that. And not your inference either.

[fj1200]

glockmail. Guess you haven't noticed, but. I tend to believe. fj has become an alter-ego of our friend Robert.

Just keep in mind. fj will not settle, or stop until he get's the absolute....last.

It's sad that you are unable to engage in even the most basic of debates.

[aboutime]

It's sad that you are unable to engage in even the most basic of debates.


Yeah. How sad? Feel better now?

[glockmail]

3. Point out where I think that. And not your inference either.

You claimed to know what I think so I returned the favor.

[fj1200]

You claimed to know what I think so I returned the favor.

Identifying underlying assumptions is not claiming to know what you think.

[glockmail]

Identifying underlying assumptions is not claiming to know what you think.


...you think the outcomes of actions taken in a global/national economy will not be impacted by the actions of any other party....

:laugh:

[fj1200]

:laugh:

My apologies but I only know what you think by what you tell me.


1. Didn't do it for me.


Cartels and bullshit players...


2. The only "factors" that matter are supply and demand.

Where you ignore factors not convenient to your argument.

[glockmail]

Oh the irony...

[fj1200]

Oh the irony...

Would that be the same irony involved when facts "didn't do it for you"?

[aboutime]

Oh the irony...



glockmail. This is the time, and place where 'fj' stops, picks up his ball, and runs home screaming to Mommy!