Mission Accomplished!!!

PrintSmith wrote: [The only issue I have with that thought is that we couldn't transport the resources during an active war given the technology that exists today - which nullifies any argument for going to war for that purpose. Taking over Libya, for instance, in order to appropriate their oil would only provide oil for the war in that region until hostilities ended.

That's why the wars are happening NOW, instead of 10 years from now. If you've got an established and permanent military presence throughout the oil producing region, when shortgages become critical in the next decade or two you won't have to try to fight your way in during a time when material and fuel shortages are already critical. Please note that I do not necessarily agree with this strategy, but it is clearly the one that has been and continue to be pursued by our nation's leaders.

If you are correct, then it would be a good idea to start developing the resources we have in our own back yard instead on continuing to erect governmental blockades to stop that development. It would make sense to start building the GTL and CTL plants to refine liquid fuels regardless of what a barrel of oil costs.

That would be one strategy. Another would be to let our resources lie fallow while we can still get relatively cheap and abundant oil overseas and build up our military presence in oil producing regions before we have to tap out the last of our own reserves.

As to the GTL plants, are you suggesting government subsidy? Because private industry isn't going to go in this direction until they see the numbers.

We should slashing federal spending to eliminate the deficit so that our current trade imbalance means an increased investment in the industry of the nation instead of that excess capital being spent to fund our glut of federal spending. The worst possible investment a potentially hostile nation can make is in the physical assets of another nation. If our debtors are helping us build the factories we will need to sustain a war, they would lose access to those assets if/when hostilities broke out while we would retain them. We can't convert factories from cars to planes or tanks if there are no factories to begin with. That is why we need to encourage the use of the funds from the trade imbalance to be spent on something other than the largess of the federal government. It will help our economy, put more of us back to work and enhance our national security. That is why it is better to lower taxes on companies instead of raising them. If you raise the taxes the incentive is to build elsewhere. If you lower, or eliminate, those taxes, the incentive is to build here.

Can I get back to you on this? I am running out for an appointment soon. There is too much here to respond quickly to.

One of the many reasons that I feel the current executive's policies run contrary to providing for the common defense and general welfare of the union. People might vote for him because they will personally benefit, but the federal government was charged with ensuring the general, not the individual, welfare. Attempting to provide individual welfare is why we find ourselves $14 Trillion in the hole with over $100 Trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities.

I agree that current policies are dangerous. But I'd hardly agree that they began under the current President. I can't even begin to count the number of people I know who voted for Bush mostly because he promised them a tax cut. In other words, because they would "personally benefit". I'm afraid the entitlement mentaility goes back a lot farther than 2007 - and it's far from being limited to only one side of the political debate.

There is no politician on the national stage who has the cojones to fully address what the economic and political consequences of a stalemate between rising global population and finite resources is going to be. Let alone of going into that era of history with a catastrophic debt load as the hangover of the wild party we threw on borrowed money for the past decade or two.

towermonkey wrote: If cutting taxes worked, where are the damned jobs? The tax rates have been low for over ten years now. I call BS PS.

How can you possibly judge tax policy without addressing the problems that sent the economy into a freefall? Do you think there would be more jobs if taxes were not cut by Bush? How would that have worked given the problem of easy credit and the housing meltdown? How exactly would we have more jobs today if taxes were much higher?

I'm trying to think of a scenario where tax increases would inspire employers to hire more but I can't come up with anything logical, especially when this country has been bloated with unearned credit.

What about NAFTA? Free trade agreements have sent hordes of jobs fleeing this country, but it is much easier to blame the "housing meltdown" than something that all the neocons agree is good policy.

CriticalBill wrote:

towermonkey wrote: If cutting taxes worked, where are the damned jobs? The tax rates have been low for over ten years now. I call BS PS.

How can you possibly judge tax policy without addressing the problems that sent the economy into a freefall?

Ok, let's talk about the problems that sent the economy into a freefall. I say that the whole stupid economic policy nightmare starting with Reagonamics and continued right up through Bush Jr, (yes including through the Clinton years as far as that goes, since he sucked right up to the disasterous Alan Greenspan nutcase ideas) have caused the problems. In other words, the whole freaking Neocon Ayn Randian economic nightmare that has been wrought on this country brought us to the mess we're in today.

And you're telling us all we need is MORE of that sh*t?

AspenValley wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: [The only issue I have with that thought is that we couldn't transport the resources during an active war given the technology that exists today - which nullifies any argument for going to war for that purpose. Taking over Libya, for instance, in order to appropriate their oil would only provide oil for the war in that region until hostilities ended.

That's why the wars are happening NOW, instead of 10 years from now. If you've got an established and permanent military presence throughout the oil producing region, when shortgages become critical in the next decade or two you won't have to try to fight your way in during a time when material and fuel shortages are already critical. Please note that I do not necessarily agree with this strategy, but it is clearly the one that has been and continue to be pursued by our nation's leaders.

You won't have to fight your way in, but neither will you be able to ship the stuff out when open hostilities start. There is simply no way to protect a supertanker from a submarine, or even a surface ship armed with ship-to-ship missiles. They are too large, too slow. The only thing a military presence could accomplish is to retard the date that hostilities start. Once they do, the flow of the oil from that region to this one stops completely because every tanker could easily be destroyed before making port here even if we had convoys of supertankers escorted by carrier battle groups.

AspenValley wrote:

If you are correct, then it would be a good idea to start developing the resources we have in our own back yard instead on continuing to erect governmental blockades to stop that development. It would make sense to start building the GTL and CTL plants to refine liquid fuels regardless of what a barrel of oil costs.

That would be one strategy. Another would be to let our resources lie fallow while we can still get relatively cheap and abundant oil overseas and build up our military presence in oil producing regions before we have to tap out the last of our own reserves.

Which is what we are doing now - holding our own close and using up the supplies of others. If it is truly going to take 10 years to get them producing, however, we should at least be drilling and capping so that we know what we have in reserve and we have it readily available.

AspenValley wrote: As to the GTL plants, are you suggesting government subsidy? Because private industry isn't going to go in this direction until they see the numbers.

Subsidies, direct payments from the government, no. Tax exemption, letting investors keep more of the reward for their willingness to risk capital, yes. I would also think that government contracts for the fuel they produce would be worthwhile. Fuel for the nation's jets, tanks and the federal fleet of vehicles. A contracted purchaser lowers the risk of constructing the facility. We can continue to purchase fuel for deployed units where they are deployed, but we could certainly purchase that fuel for domestic training from domestic refiners alone - especially if the refineries were built inland on existing abandoned, and polluted, military bases.

AspenValley wrote:

We should slashing federal spending to eliminate the deficit so that our current trade imbalance means an increased investment in the industry of the nation instead of that excess capital being spent to fund our glut of federal spending. The worst possible investment a potentially hostile nation can make is in the physical assets of another nation. If our debtors are helping us build the factories we will need to sustain a war, they would lose access to those assets if/when hostilities broke out while we would retain them. We can't convert factories from cars to planes or tanks if there are no factories to begin with. That is why we need to encourage the use of the funds from the trade imbalance to be spent on something other than the largess of the federal government. It will help our economy, put more of us back to work and enhance our national security. That is why it is better to lower taxes on companies instead of raising them. If you raise the taxes the incentive is to build elsewhere. If you lower, or eliminate, those taxes, the incentive is to build here.

Can I get back to you on this? I am running out for an appointment soon. There is too much here to respond quickly to.

No worries - get back to it when you can.

AspenValley wrote:

One of the many reasons that I feel the current executive's policies run contrary to providing for the common defense and general welfare of the union. People might vote for him because they will personally benefit, but the federal government was charged with ensuring the general, not the individual, welfare. Attempting to provide individual welfare is why we find ourselves $14 Trillion in the hole with over $100 Trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities.

I agree that current policies are dangerous. But I'd hardly agree that they began under the current President. I can't even begin to count the number of people I know who voted for Bush mostly because he promised them a tax cut. In other words, because they would "personally benefit". I'm afraid the entitlement mentaility goes back a lot farther than 2007 - and it's far from being limited to only one side of the political debate.

There is no politician on the national stage who has the cojones to fully address what the economic and political consequences of a stalemate between rising global population and finite resources is going to be. Let alone of going into that era of history with a catastrophic debt load as the hangover of the wild party we threw on borrowed money for the past decade or two.

I'd agree with you regarding the cojones, but the problem we have now was sowed long before Reagan - it has it roots in the administrations of FDR and LBJ. It was already a problem by the time that Reagan was elected to his first term, and what he was able to accomplish was a bandaid, not a cure, for the existing problem. He was able to shore it up some, kind of like patching a pothole, but at some point you still have to fix the underlying problem. In this case, the federal deficit, the underlying problem is that the federal government has involved itself in the individual welfare of each and every citizen in each and every state. That's the problem with the federal budget that needs to be fixed and the only way to fix it is to stop letting the federal government have anything to do with it. We can fill in the potholes the problem creates by borrowing more money, raising the privilege to be employed/have employees taxes and reducing the benefits, but the underlying problem remains and will only continue to create more and more potholes that need to be filled in the future.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011 ... poll_n.htm

WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden's demise may have shifted not only the military prospects for al-Qaeda abroad, but also the political landscape for President Obama at home.

The death of the terror network's leader and an intensified debate about how to cut federal spending are fueling calls to accelerate the promised troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, declare victory and get out.

So with bin Laden finally gone, is it time for America's longest war to end?

Nearly six in 10 Americans think so, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend. Assessments of how the decade-long war is going have improved a bit, compared with six weeks ago, and a broad swath of Americans now agrees with the statement that the United States "has accomplished its mission in Afghanistan and should bring its troops home."