AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Obama is attempting to take away our freedoms. He is attempting to take away our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a solely Executive Government. He is attempting to take away our Capitalist Economy and replace it with a Redistributionist Economy.

Multiple examples of Obama advocating that which constitutes his attempting to take away our Constitutional Republic and replace it with an Executive Government, and to take away our Capitalist Economy and replace it with a Redistributionist Economy, have been posted here. Continuation of Stimulus, proposed 2nd Stimulus, extension of TARP, extension of Fannie and Freddie, advocating Cap & Trade, elimination of charter schools, and extension of federal healthcare, are a few examples.

The current status of these attempts by Obama is an acceleration of the decline of less than 3 million jobs in 2008, from total USA employment of more than 146 million in 2007, to a decline of more than 5 million jobs in 2009.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Selling $1.2 trillion in US property doesn't cut future deficits by 1.2 trillion.

Selling $1.2 trillion in US property DOES cut the current deficit by $1.2 trillion. Future deficits will therefore be $1.2 trillion less than they would otherwise become.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

LOL.. You are TOO funny ican..

So if you are spending $100 a month for food and you sell your plane for $100 this month does that mean you won't have to buy food ever again?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I think you need to rethink your statement.
If the govt did sell their excess property, yes it would add money to the federal coffers.
But it wouldnt reduce the deficit any, because they would still spend that money on something else.
All it would do is create a temporary bulge in the govt wallet, one that wouldnt last 5 seconds before they spent the money on something else.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Oh my...

It seems you guys don't know the difference between deficit and debt.

By the way, selling an asset, while it may help your debt doesn't help your balance sheet. If it did, then the argument you guys make about the estate tax would be completely false.

2 Replies

@parados,

Dont jump on me, I'm agreeing with you.

1 Reply

@parados,

I haven't participated in this argument over selling property, but having read the last few posts, I would like to point a couple of things out.

Selling assets does in fact reduce the national debt, as tiny as it may be, but it would also reduce future deficits by doing a couple of things, it would reduce the cost of management of the assets, and it would stimulate property tax and income tax revenues, primarily for local governments, but also ultimately for the federal government in the case of income tax.

Selling assets is not the principal answer for solving the government's budgetary problems however, it is rather the reduction of spending, principally in the area of entitlement spending, which has grown exponentially and will continue to do so as time goes on. By the way, most of those entitlements were started by liberal socialistic Democratic politicians, example FDR. One program by the name of social security, which has helped countless numbers of people in the short term, can be likened to a Ponzi scheme, which by definition has to be funded by the payments of future particicpants, not by the people's own investments, because the people's own investments have been fraudulantly wasted and mis-spent by the corrupt politicians in Washington D.C. Any private retirement insurance fund that had been managed the way the government has managed it, the managers would now be sitting in prison.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

I know you were agreeing with me.

I was only pointing out that deficit is not the same as debt. Your argument that they might well spend the money elsewhere is valid.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Selling assets does in fact reduce the national debt, as tiny as it may be, but it would also reduce future deficits by doing a couple of things, it would reduce the cost of management of the assets, and it would stimulate property tax and income tax revenues, primarily for local governments, but also ultimately for the federal government in the case of income tax.

That is a lot of assumptions there okie.
1. It assumes none of the property would go to state, local governments or non profits who would then have to pay for upkeep.
2. It assumes the value is 1.2 trillion as it was appraised PRIOR to the recession. I would bet the value is off by at least 30% like all real estate.
3. It assumes that dumping 1.2 trillion of property on the market would actually get fair value. That much property would drive down prices and reduce the value even more. Property equal to 1/10 of the GDP could not be sold without affecting prices dramatically. (This would be in addition to the normal property sales. Simple supply and demand here okie. You understand that, don't you?)
4. It assumes the property is getting no revenue now BUT it would get revenue once it sold. A rather odd assumption, don't you think okie?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Selling assets does in fact reduce the national debt, as tiny as it may be, but it would also reduce future deficits by doing a couple of things, it would reduce the cost of management of the assets, and it would stimulate property tax and income tax revenues, primarily for local governments, but also ultimately for the federal government in the case of income tax.

That is a lot of assumptions there okie.
1. It assumes none of the property would go to state, local governments or non profits who would then have to pay for upkeep.
2. It assumes the value is 1.2 trillion as it was appraised PRIOR to the recession. I would bet the value is off by at least 30% like all real estate.
3. It assumes that dumping 1.2 trillion of property on the market would actually get fair value. That much property would drive down prices and reduce the value even more. Property equal to 1/10 of the GDP could not be sold without affecting prices dramatically. (This would be in addition to the normal property sales. Simple supply and demand here okie. You understand that, don't you?)
4. It assumes the property is getting no revenue now BUT it would get revenue once it sold. A rather odd assumption, don't you think okie?

Good wrap-up.

I would add that the tanking of the commercial real estate market isn't going to be helped by this at all - there already exists a vast overstock of buildings available for companies to buy if they want them, why would old government buildings be any more attractive then what already exists?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I said that I do not believe selling property should be the primary method of getting out of debt. However, it is only common sense that too much property being managed by the federal government is detimental in a couple of ways, it increased management cost, and it removes the property from local tax roles. The BLM or Forest Service spends a ton of money to supposedly manage their lands, and unfortunately most of the managers are sitting in offices pushing paper, while they contract out the actual management. If you go camping in forest service campgrounds, you would know this, many are managed and maintained by contractors or camp hosts. Forest rangers nowadays sit around in their offices most of the time, they don't even know what is going on out in the field very well. It is a drastic difference in style of management from the old days.

I have also seen examples of the government creating alot more parks and acquiring land that they do not need, one example I am aware of in Colorado where the lottery monies go to land and park acquisition. All this does is increase the monies needed to manage more parks, and it removes the land from more productive things like farming, ranching, etc., which produce revenue for the tax base of cities and counties. This is only one reason why the State of Colorado is now in financial hard times, but they are simply joining the ranks of many states being managed by liberal Democrats that are clueless about the economy, thus they are running their states into the ground, just as the Democrats have done with the federal government.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

All this does is increase the monies needed to manage more parks, and it removes the land from more productive things like farming, ranching, etc., which produce revenue for the tax base of cities and counties.

Perhaps you don't seem to realize that the people of CO like parks and the outdoors. It's a big part of their life and ethos. Not everyone thinks that maximum revenue is the ideal way to go in life; land should be preserved in order to be enjoyed by future generations.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You speak the language of liberal feel goodism, but it does not translate into responsible management of government. Some people would want the entire state of Colorado to be a park, but not sensible. This is a matter of where is the sensible point to draw the line. Park bureaucrats will always welcome a new park, but is it needed and will it be used efficiently. Some areas not turned into parks are already being used. Another aspect, wildlife actually abounds and prospers on private land better than it does in parks, so the argument of protecting nature and wildlife is not always a sound argument when used to push for a new park. Also, some of the parks are not properly managed, they are full of litter and they can become a place for crime activities.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

You speak the language of liberal feel goodism, but it does not translate into responsible management of government.

Bullshit. The purpose of government is not to ensure that the maximum amount of land produces the maximum revenues; it is to ensure that the will of the people is done to the maximum amount while still preserving the state.

Quote:

Some people would want the entire state of Colorado to be a park, but not sensible. This is a matter of where is the sensible point to draw the line.

This is you Appealing to Extremes.

Quote:

Park bureaucrats will always welcome a new park, but is it needed and will it be used efficiently. Some areas not turned into parks are already being used.

It was not park buerecrats who decided this, but duly elected officials who carry out the wishes of their constituents.

Quote:

Another aspect, wildlife actually abounds and prospers on private land better than it does in parks, so the argument of protecting nature and wildlife is not always a sound argument when used to push for a new park.

Bullshit. Maybe it does if the land is private and unused. But how long does it stay that way? Not very long. Plus, who gets to enjoy the private land? Only a select few.

Public lands stay enjoyable in perpetuity, by all. A much better solution than yours.

Quote:

Also, some of the parks are not properly managed, they are full of litter and they can become a place for crime activities.

As opposed to private enterprise, which is ALWAY properly managed? C'mon.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I think okie and ican are proof that public education doesn't work. We should contract it out to Hannity and Limbaugh. At least then no one would need to look at facts.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Another aspect, wildlife actually abounds and prospers on private land better than it does in parks, so the argument of protecting nature and wildlife is not always a sound argument when used to push for a new park.

Bullshit. Maybe it does if the land is private and unused. But how long does it stay that way? Not very long. Plus, who gets to enjoy the private land? Only a select few.

Public lands stay enjoyable in perpetuity, by all. A much better solution than yours.Cycloptichorn

Talk to any hunter in Colorado, cyclops, and they could tell you a few things.

1 Reply

@parados,

okie's one-dimension perception on all things should be a warning that his opinions are based on bull wiki (he has no source other than FOX News). He sees outcomes from a completely different view, and has never provided facts or evidence in support of his claims. He uses "fear" as his primary message, but lacks the balls to produce anything that resembles facts or the proper definition for words he uses.

The guys a complete loser.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I think okie and ican are proof that public education doesn't work. We should contract it out to Hannity and Limbaugh.

Best idea I've heard yet, Parados, and then maybe we would not have the uneducated liberal dolts as we do now. And we could balance the budget for a change, both nationally and by state.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Another aspect, wildlife actually abounds and prospers on private land better than it does in parks, so the argument of protecting nature and wildlife is not always a sound argument when used to push for a new park.

Bullshit. Maybe it does if the land is private and unused. But how long does it stay that way? Not very long. Plus, who gets to enjoy the private land? Only a select few.

Public lands stay enjoyable in perpetuity, by all. A much better solution than yours.Cycloptichorn

Talk to any hunter in Colorado, cyclops, and they could tell you a few things.

You are supporting my argument, Okie. Hunters who hunt on private land are select in number and few. The land is not available for public enjoyment. How does this provide a benefit for the public? The answer is that it doesn't.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

parados wrote:

Quote:

I think okie and ican are proof that public education doesn't work. We should contract it out to Hannity and Limbaugh.

okie wrote:

Quote:

Best idea I've heard yet, Parados, and then maybe we would not have the uneducated liberal dolts as we do now. And we could balance the budget for a change, both nationally and by state.

okie just confirmed what Parados claimed; public education doesn't work. okie believes he's better educated than Obama and the members of congress. Now, who wants to believe that? LOL

From Wiki:

Quote:

Education

The Congressional Research Service notes that the vast majority of Members (95 percent) had an academic degrees:

* 168 Representatives and 57 Senators have a law degree. Of these, five (Representative and two Senators) also hold a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree.
* 83 Representatives and 16 Senators earned a master's degree -- often a Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) - as their highest educational degree
* 27 Representatives and one Senator (Mark Begich) have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma.
* 23 Representatives (but no Senators) have a Ph.D
* 17 Representatives and three Senators have a medical degree (this number includes one Senator with a veterinary medicine degree and one Representative with a dental degree).
* Five Representatives but not Senators have an associate's degree as their highest degree. One House Member has an licensed practical nurse (L.P.N.) degree

Three Representatives (John Shimkus, Geoff Davis, Brett Guthrie) and one Senator (Jack Reed) are graduates of the United States Military Academy, while two Senators (John McCain, Jim Webb) and two Representatives (Eric Massa, Joe Sestak) are graduates of the United States Naval Academy. Three Senators (including Russ Feingold and Richard Lugar) and two Representatives were Rhodes Scholars, three Representatives were Fulbright Scholars, and one Representative (John M. Spratt, Jr.) was a Marshall Scholar.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know