Only Nixon could go to China / Only Obama can get B.B. Amend

Perhaps what we need for a balanced budget is to generate ideas here. When we find ones we like, we can put them up on YouBook or TwitFace so the politicians will see them and believe in them (since there is only true stuff on line).

Here's my first suggestion:

We have military bases around the world that were established to strategically position US forces to counter the Warsaw Pact, which is now gone. If we close those bases, we get the following benefits:

1. We spend money maintaining military facilities in the US, putting dollars into our own economy instead of other countries.

2. We greatly reduce travel costs for military personnel, equipment and supplies.

3. With no long overseas tours for our troops, the armed forces will find it easier to recruit and retain people.

What are your ideas?

Ensign Re-read wrote:

KNick wrote:Using social media, bombard your congressmen (both houses). If they don't have at least the start of the amendment process in 18 months, start a recall. Make it loud and make it stick. Recall enough politicians and the rest will get the message.

Sorry, but by then it will be too late, as it'll then be election season all over again. If anything is going to be done, it has to be (almost) now. The timing is such that it needs to be the first or almost first thing on their collective minds AFTER the "Fiscal Cliff" issue has been dealt with (or not).

Well, if you think 18 months is to long, just give them 6 before the recall petition is filed. Prehaps, hopefully, just knowing that the people in his/her district feel that strongly about it will make your Congressman rethink his position on that topic. Anything to get our representives in both houses to use their brains will be a plus. Of course, my assumption that politicians have a brain may be in error. In that case all bets are off and they will just keep their noses in the trough. Come to think of it, that is an insult to pigs. They are actually very smart.

dscott8 wrote:Perhaps what we need for a balanced budget is to generate ideas here. When we find ones we like, we can put them up on YouBook or TwitFace so the politicians will see them and believe in them (since there is only true stuff on line).

Here's my first suggestion:

We have military bases around the world that were established to strategically position US forces to counter the Warsaw Pact, which is now gone. If we close those bases, we get the following benefits:

1. We spend money maintaining military facilities in the US, putting dollars into our own economy instead of other countries.

2. We greatly reduce travel costs for military personnel, equipment and supplies.

3. With no long overseas tours for our troops, the armed forces will find it easier to recruit and retain people.

What are your ideas?

Yeah... I just recently came back to the continental United States from back-to-back overseas assignments following a sandbox trip. One was the longest time I've lived in one place in my life because I requested an extension. Maybe I'll put in for England or Italy next time. Spain's good if you can get it and so's Japan, but those are hard. Everyone needs to make sacrifices and all, but you take those possibilities away and I'll be a mite bit annoyed at you.

Also, ya'll got *weird* around here in the last decade or so. I didn't think hipsters were anything but an internet joke.

Regarding the purpose of those overseas bases, I'm curious about how you'd solve the issues of reduced operational flexibility, reduced coordination and cross-training with NATO and other coalition allies, and lack of staging points for overseas missions.

As far as the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution goes, how do you feel that will or should impact wartime emergency spending, or Keynesian (or Austrian, if you'd prefer) economic responses during times like the Great Depression?

Budgets need to be balanced over time on average. In times of economic slowdown the Government should run a deficit (to boost the economy), and in boom times a surplus (to put the brakes on gently). It would be folly to mandate that every financial year it should exactly balance.
You get a problem when it continues to be a deficit all the time, but putting on the brakes too quickly would be even worse.
I have a personal view that part of the problem across many countries is the feeling of entitlement regardless of situation. Someone working in a low paid job 30 years ago would not have believed that it would be appropriate for them to have a big house with a swimming pool and a couple of new SUVs. They would have accepted that if they wanted those things they had to hustle by part time study, working hard and going up the promotion ladder first. You wouldn't simply use credit to buy unessential luxuries.

Budgets need to be balanced over time on average. In times of economic slowdown the Government should run a deficit (to boost the economy), and in boom times a surplus (to put the brakes on gently). It would be folly to mandate that every financial year it should exactly balance.

This works better in theory rather than in practice. The problem is that in a democracy, politicians are always focused on the next election. Therefore when times are good, instead of running a surplus and saving for bad times, they use the money on projects designed to curry votes with core constituencies. Then when times are bad there is nothing left, the deficits are already too large to be further increased.

“Democ­racy is the worst form of gov­ern­ment, except for all the oth­ers” Winston Churchhill.

Daryl wrote:I have a personal view that part of the problem across many countries is the feeling of entitlement regardless of situation. Someone working in a low paid job 30 years ago would not have believed that it would be appropriate for them to have a big house with a swimming pool and a couple of new SUVs. They would have accepted that if they wanted those things they had to hustle by part time study, working hard and going up the promotion ladder first. You wouldn't simply use credit to buy unessential luxuries.

Agreed. my dad works in a not so well off area, and even though they may be earning only above min wage ($14 an hour out here, so a wee bit better then it sounds), they still have a bigger tv and better car then we oen, and will have a flash sound system, a ps3 or xbox 360 with dozens of games, ipods and iphones, all the must haves. and all probably bought on credit or hire purchase. My family is reasonably well off, and could probably do that if we wanted, because we could afford to, but we dont. although we have a 50' tv, it was 2nd hand off someone who was moving and didnt need it, so got it for $100 and a crate of beer. our computer is a mac that was bought at a charity auction to raise some funds for a school in samoa. our sound system is my grandparents old one, from when they had a record player and tapes, and my brother has just changed the section that everything plugs into so we can plug our tv and dvd sounds through it. dads car is worth less then mine, and mums is only as good as it is, (a 2006 model) as shes a midwife, and needs a good big reliable car, and it was part paid for by her work. we pay our bills on time, our credit limit is about a quarter of what the max the bank has offered us is, and as a consequence, the only real debt we have is the house loan, which should be gone in about 10 to 13 years, leaving us with no debt, a modest lifestyle, and a good bank balance. we know our limits, we know credit is not our money, and so we are alright no matter what really.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~