What's the best way to reduce the deficit?

Catawba said:

Any solution that ignores ecology is short sighted and unsustainable.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps the ecologist should start using real science instead of incomplete data and half-truths (some are not even that valid). Destroy economics for the sake of ecology makes no more sense than destroying the ecology for the sake of economy, there has to be a balance based upon affordable, practical solutions that are scientifically achievable. But no, liberals don't want real science, they want to prove their pet theories are correct regardless of what science says and then the want to ban and restrict things while there are no viable alternatives available instead of spending all that lobying and other monies to build an alternative to sell to us. Give us a practical, affordable alternative and we will buy it, otherwise, I think you know what anatomical area the liberals can shove all their useless bs.

DVSentinel said:

Then perhaps the ecologist should start using real science instead of incomplete data and half-truths (some are not even that valid). Destroy economics for the sake of ecology makes no more sense than destroying the ecology for the sake of economy, there has to be a balance based upon affordable, practical solutions that are scientifically achievable. But no, liberals don't want real science, they want to prove their pet theories are correct regardless of what science says and then the want to ban and restrict things while there are no viable alternatives available instead of spending all that lobying and other monies to build an alternative to sell to us. Give us a practical, affordable alternative and we will buy it, otherwise, I think you know what anatomical area the liberals can shove all their useless bs.

Click to expand...

Real science is the research over the last 30 years that have the majority of climate experts from all over the world endorsing AGW. At this point in time it is predominately white conservative males that deny AGW.

Karl said:

The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal prior to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Bush refused. At that point we had no further legal claim on the man. Bush was certainly not interested in him.

Click to expand...

that's a nice strawman. but seriously how do you account for the fact that your idiotic plan leaves us no ability to engage in foreign affairs outside of ICBMs? Obama finds out that Osama is in Abottobad, but uh-oh, we followed the Karl plan and now we have no army, no presence in afghanistan, and no ability to get him other than to flatten significant sections of the city.

your play kills civilians. just wanted to point that out to you .

Karl said:

That you don't know the answer is depressing. Not a Ron Paul fan? (he's elaborated on that issue, much to the displeasure of the neocons).

Click to expand...

No, I am not a fan of Ron Paul. His foreign policy, like yours, is naive beyond all measuring. It's Kellog-Briand level naive.

But no, we did not invade Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom asked us to come defend them after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and they have sought our assistance ever since as a bulwark against Iran.

Catawba said:

Real science is the research over the last 30 years that have the majority of climate experts from all over the world endorsing AGW. At this point in time it is predominately white conservative males that deny AGW.

Click to expand...

If CO2 causes the climate's temperature to increase and it is the one driving factor that overpowers all else, this should be an easy proposition to prove.

Do so.

Catawba said:

Any solution that ignores ecology is short sighted and unsustainable.

Click to expand...

Ignoring something and being absolutely enslaved by it are two very different things.

Do you find it at ironic that people in New York City who have paved a pretty sizable part of the world with concrete and pollute it daily with chemicals, waste, garbage and soot are dead set against drilling for oil in an area of Alaska that is about the size of a good size football stadium and adjacent parking? They can somehow justify the absolute rape and brutal murder of their own part of the world and cannot tolerate the comparative scratch in another part of the world.

Anyway, your individual share of the national debt is about $51,000 and rising like a rocket on the 4th of July. The policies of our national government is to increase this and not pay for it.

How much fun do you want to charge in the national credit card that your children and grandchildren will have to pay back from their own suffering?

Right now, this country has the cleanest air and water that it has enjoyed since WW2. Just how clean is clean enough?

U.S. National Debt Clock

MarineTpartier said:

For every good purpose you can show for the POTUS having line item veto power I could show 5 that would show why it wouldn't be good. Line item veto would swing the power to the Executive Branch and make what is an already power heavy branch even more powerful. Imagine President Obama with the power to veto out of every bill what he doesn't like, write these "Executive Orders", and make recess appointments whenever he wants. Imagine ANY POTUS with that power! Sadly, he already has executed his privilege on two of those. I don't agree with any POTUS being able to write the type of Executive Orders he and President Bush have written.

Click to expand...

Opposing the Imperial Presidency is the first step in being a Conservative.

Relinquishing your freedoms and rights is the first step in becoming a Liberal.

code1211 said:

Ignoring something and being absolutely enslaved by it are two very different things.

Click to expand...

What policy enslaves to take care of the environment we all depend on for our livelihood?

Do you find it at ironic that people in New York City who have paved a pretty sizable part of the world with concrete and pollute it daily with chemicals, waste, garbage and soot are dead set against drilling for oil in an area of Alaska that is about the size of a good size football stadium and adjacent parking? They can somehow justify the absolute rape and brutal murder of their own part of the world and cannot tolerate the comparative scratch in another part of the world.

Click to expand...

It is not just NYC that thinks despoiling a national treasure for an insignificant amount of oil is stupid. See McCain's comments when he voted against drilling in ANWR.

Anyway, your individual share of the national debt is about $51,000 and rising like a rocket on the 4th of July. The policies of our national government is to increase this and not pay for it.

Click to expand...

One party has suggested cutting spending $2.50 for every $1 increase in revenue. The other party has proposed increasing military spending and tax cuts for the rich. We each get to decide which plan will create more debt.

How much fun do you want to charge in the national credit card that your children and grandchildren will have to pay back from their own suffering?

Click to expand...

That's why I'm proud that the majority of my party voted against the optional war in Iraq.

Right now, this country has the cleanest air and water that it has enjoyed since WW2.

Click to expand...

Because of health and environmental regulations that the GOP wants to undo.

code1211 said:

If CO2 causes the climate's temperature to increase and it is the one driving factor that overpowers all else, this should be an easy proposition to prove.

Do so.

Click to expand...

A consensus in science is reached when a scientific theory is no longer challenged scientifically. In that regard, there has not been a single science academy in the world that has held a dissenting view of AGW since 2007.

cpwill said:

Karl said:

The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal prior to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Bush refused. At that point we had no further legal claim on the man. Bush was certainly not interested in him.

Click to expand...

that's a nice strawman. [...]

Click to expand...

How so?

cpwill said:

but seriously how do you account for the fact that your idiotic plan leaves us no ability to engage in foreign affairs outside of ICBMs?

Click to expand...

Interesting... you think that foreign policy (foreign affairs) involves weapons? Would the cpwill State Department negotiate international issues with the decree -- 'do what we tell you to, or we'll kill you'? :shock:

cpwill said:

No, I am not a fan of Ron Paul. His foreign policy, like yours, is naive beyond all measuring. It's Kellog-Briand level naive.

But no, we did not invade Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom asked us to come defend them after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and they have sought our assistance ever since as a bulwark against Iran.

Click to expand...

Actually the despotic rulers of 'The Kingdom' asked us. If you asked the people there, they might have a different invitation for us (like, GTFO). If Saddam Hussein had asked us to defend them after Iran invaded them, would we have helped?

Oh -- never mind... we did :doh

However, the question was rhetorical... I didn't really care if you knew the answer, for informed people did, and those are who my posts are most often directed at. Your answer only served to magnify the duplicity of your argument (you know bin Laden's main gripe -- U.S. troops in Muslim lands -- but pretended not to, and now still pretend not to, since it undermines your position). You shouldn't have taken the bait . . . . .

code1211 said:

Relinquishing your freedoms and rights is the first step in becoming a Liberal.

Click to expand...

Is that why so many liberals popped up after Patriot Acts I & II were signed by GWB???

Catawba said:

Any solution that ignores ecology is short sighted and unsustainable.

Click to expand...

I realize you are just one person but do you think you could convince the rest of your liberal friends that nuclear power is the best way to meet our energy and ecological needs at the same time? We have only had 3 nuclear disasters in 40 years of the industry, and two of them lead to no loss of life. Chernobyl on the other hand, was handled by idiots who did not put a containment structure around the reactor. All reactors now have containment structures. Sure waste is a problem when it comes to nuclear power, but building containment facilities is still an enormous improvement over green house gas emissions. Not to mention the unlimited amount of cheap electricity we could generate from a large expansion of nuclear power could be an enormous catalyst for a booming electrical car industry, further reducing oil consumption.

We need to return to gayer, happier times...the euphoria of winning the war (1945)...but what since ???
Is it any wonder ??
I do not think the libs nor the cons have the answer...
An answer, IMO, is NOT war, but peace.
Building, not destroying.
Yes to true football (soccor), No to NASCAR.
No to the KKK and NRA.
Yes to our nation "growing up", learning respect and tolerance..

ReformCollege said:

I realize you are just one person but do you think you could convince the rest of your liberal friends that nuclear power is the best way to meet our energy and ecological needs at the same time? We have only had 3 nuclear disasters in 40 years of the industry, and two of them lead to no loss of life. Chernobyl on the other hand, was handled by idiots who did not put a containment structure around the reactor. All reactors now have containment structures. Sure waste is a problem when it comes to nuclear power, but building containment facilities is still an enormous improvement over green house gas emissions. Not to mention the unlimited amount of cheap electricity we could generate from a large expansion of nuclear power could be an enormous catalyst for a booming electrical car industry, further reducing oil consumption.

Click to expand...

A year ago, I'd fully agree..... now I have doubts....
Our nation needs honesty, the truth...I do not know if nuclear is in fact the best way to go...all kinds of conflicts....does anyone "tell the truth" ?
Did they ever ???
And I do NOT see what "liberal" or "conservative" policys have to do with a choice of power generation ....
I favor coal, but can the pollution be controlled ?
I'd like to think that it can..

earthworm said:

A year ago, I'd fully agree..... now I have doubts....
Our nation needs honesty, the truth...I do not know if nuclear is in fact the best way to go...all kinds of conflicts....does anyone "tell the truth" ?
Did they ever ???
And I do NOT see what "liberal" or "conservative" policys have to do with a choice of power generation ....
I favor coal, but can the pollution be controlled ?
I'd like to think that it can..

Click to expand...

I understand the gravity of the Japan situation, but lets be practical. They got hit by a record setting earthquake followed by a record setting tsunami, and still no one has died from the nuclear disaster. To me, that is quite an accomplishment.
The U.S. has seen a clean nuclear record since Three Mile Island, and many heavily nuclear countries such as France and Germany also have clean nuclear records.
Perhaps Japan simply isn't the best place to put a nuclear reactor due to geography, but we do not have that sort of problem here in the United States.

And you are right about truth and honesty. The "anti-nuclear" propaganda in this country has been so overwhelming that it is incredibly difficult to get any sort of nuclear legislation done. The term "nuclear power" for many decades was, well, quite nuclear. But I think with a rational cost benefit analysis, one will determine that nuclear has unlimited potential to met our energy and ecological needs.

earthworm said:

A year ago, I'd fully agree..... now I have doubts....
Our nation needs honesty, the truth...I do not know if nuclear is in fact the best way to go...all kinds of conflicts....does anyone "tell the truth" ?
Did they ever ???
And I do NOT see what "liberal" or "conservative" policys have to do with a choice of power generation ....
I favor coal, but can the pollution be controlled ?
I'd like to think that it can..

Click to expand...

I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy. Even some producers of "green" products and technology outsource because they are either not profitable or suffer major loss of profits by working under the EPA here in America.

Nuclear is currently the most enviromentally friendly way of mass power generation. Around 1969, someone did design a coal plant that was actually more efficient than nuke and was able to remove particals from emissions. But, alas, building these plants was too expensive, so other than a test plant, none were built. Also, while it was clean for many particles that fall out of coal emmissions, it was not "clean" for others, such as CO2, the big boogyman of current enviromentalist. Nuke plants are also very expensive and have to built to very exacting standards, not to mention they don't go well in Geologically unstable areas.

Geo-thermal is nice also, but you have to have volcanic like ativity in the area to tap it. Would be really nice if we had more of these areas, but alas, we don't have enough. I am all for building what we can though. One possibly bad thing is that if the area actually becomes volcanically active, a volcano might wipe out your plant. But, like the yellowstone area, if it has a full scale eruption, it will wipe out most life on earth, so we won't need those power plants afterwards anyways. Oh, almost forgot, geological venting usually comes with a fair amount of that nasty CO2 also. This is the best option for places like Iceland, Hawaii, etc. Why someone near to a place like Hot Springs Arkansas is building a coal plant instead of a Geo-Thermal plant is a mystery to me, unless they just don't have enough venting to run a plant.

What does "conservative"/"liberal" have to do with it? Well, most of the enviromentalist and anti-nuke people are also liberals. They don't want nuke, they don't want coal. They want wind, which is unreliable at best, cannot and will not ever be able to meet our needs or solar, which sometime down the road in the future will supposedly meet our needs, at least during the day. Never mind the leftovers of chemical processess to build solar panels and batteries to store it for nighttime use.

cpwill said:

No, I am not a fan of Ron Paul. His foreign policy, like yours, is naive beyond all measuring. It's Kellog-Briand level naive.

But no, we did not invade Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom asked us to come defend them after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and they have sought our assistance ever since as a bulwark against Iran.

Click to expand...

Only suckers would defend a country that charges us 20 times what the oil costs them. Let's take the oil back first; we built those oilwells. Then dare Iran to try to take it. A real man only defends his own property.

ReformCollege said:

I realize you are just one person but do you think you could convince the rest of your liberal friends that nuclear power is the best way to meet our energy and ecological needs at the same time? We have only had 3 nuclear disasters in 40 years of the industry, and two of them lead to no loss of life. Chernobyl on the other hand, was handled by idiots who did not put a containment structure around the reactor. All reactors now have containment structures. Sure waste is a problem when it comes to nuclear power, but building containment facilities is still an enormous improvement over green house gas emissions. Not to mention the unlimited amount of cheap electricity we could generate from a large expansion of nuclear power could be an enormous catalyst for a booming electrical car industry, further reducing oil consumption.

Click to expand...

Do you mean like the liberal president and congress who provided more funding for nuclear construction than any administration in history?

Catawba said:

Real science is the research over the last 30 years that have the majority of climate experts from all over the world endorsing AGW. At this point in time it is predominately white conservative males that deny AGW.

Click to expand...

Politically motivated scientists. Such escapist freaks also believe in something as silly as the Butterfly Effect. That is like saying that if I kick some dirt, it may be taken by the wind to the local baseball park and add enough there to cause a game-winning bad-hop single, so it's all my fault if the home team loses.

PrometheusBound said:

Politically motivated scientists. Such escapist freaks also believe in something as silly as the Butterfly Effect. That is like saying that if I kick some dirt, it may be taken by the wind to the local baseball park and add enough there to cause a game-winning bad-hop single, so it's all my fault if the home team loses.

Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the majority of scientists in the world are politically motivated. You might try the conspiracy forum. Its down the hall and to the right.

Catawba said:

Do you mean like the liberal president and congress who provided more funding for nuclear construction than any administration in history?

Click to expand...

Well, Obama isn't really liberal, he's center left. But he shut down Yucca Mountain, which puts the future of nuclear energy very much in doubt. Not to mention, environmentalists hate nuclear because they see it as taking away resources from solar and wind power.

Daktoria said:

Stop graduating adult children and actually demand that people behave maturely once adults.

That way, demand for social services goes down since people don't need them anymore.

Click to expand...

IF there are enough jobs.....IF...

code1211 said:

Economically, the best energy is the least expensive energy. Are you suggesting discarding the cheapest energy production and most prevalent availability of cheap energy in the history of civilization in favor of a system that is untested, untried and undeveloped for the purpose of being stylish?

Click to expand...

Cheap energy that severely pollutes isn't cheap, you have to take into account the entire process, from mining and refining to burning and hauling away the waste products, and the pollution, of course. Coal is not cheap...

Karl said:

That would only work in the long term. For an immediate solution, substitute rich people for old people in your formula

Click to expand...

with a 99% estate tax rate for all over 1 million dollars...