Slashdot Mirror
Obama Proposes 'Meaningful Progress' On Climate Change
astroengine writes "President Barack Obama called for 'meaningful progress' on tackling climate change in his State of the Union speech in Washington, DC on Tuesday night. While acknowledging that 'no single event makes a trend,' the President noted that the United States had been buffeted by extreme weather events that in many cases encapsulated the predictions of climate scientists. 'But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods — all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it's too late,' Obama added."
Other significant statements from Obama's speech: 34,000 troops coming back from Afghanistan over the next year; new gun regulations "deserve a vote"; rewards for schools that focus on STEM education; increases in tech research; a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9.00/hr and tie it to inflation; and a proposal to use oil and gas revenues to fund a move away from oil and gas,
Our Dear Leader has spoken: spend spend spend and don't argue about how to pay for it. Just keep spending and everything will work out ok.
along with the rest of the US government...
Best set of policies I've ever seen from an American President. Hope he manages to get some of them through.
GITMO will remain open, more spending - yep, hope and change.
Nonsense. Climate change is God's wrath for allowing a black (probably Muslim, possibly alien) Democratic President to come to power.
What part of the second amendment do these people not understand? We do not have people vote to infringe issues and rights that are inshrined in the Constitution and are a part of the history and fabric of this great nation.
This would be like saying that we should have a vote on limiting free speech. It cannot and should not happen.
Well, if he was a Republican... he'd do the same, then lower taxes. Maybe a hair different on what exactly he'd spend it on, but otherwise, very little difference.
There's so little actual difference left between the two parties' stances that the strife and "you people"-ing has long since ceased to make sense. Why then even do it? Clearly it's not about any actual issue, and hasn't been for a long, long time.
I've been reading Slashdot for over 10 years, and there has been politics ever since I remember. Nerds care about this stuff too.
So the US is ending their occupation of Afghanistan again? Like they did the last few times they announced a "full withdraw"? The only thing I find more amazing than official US propaganda is that most people seem to believe it.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
It strikes me that if you just let this man run the country for the remainder of his term without obstruction America could be the country that most people in the world have been told it is. And the whole world would be a better place.
Alternatively you can obstruct him at every turn and show that you are hypocrites that talk democracy and freedom, but are nothing more than corporate shrills doing the bidding of lobbyists, none of which are working for the American people, let alone the world.
And if you won't, for fuck sake let him run another country. Australia would love to have Obama as the leader. People of his mien come once a generation FFS.
Carbon Revenue. It's not a tax. It's Revenue for everyone.
Giving a nice speech doesn't really convince me of his intentions after sabotaging Kyoto.
Talk is cheap, and the State of the Union address is about pageantry and blowing hot air, not anything that will actually happen. Come back to me when you have a serious effort, which will probably involve legislation, a budget, an actual agency, probably some grant programs, and other tangible steps. Come back to me when thanks to some serious efforts and funding, we have solar or geothermal or hydro power that could handle the entire energy needs of the US. Come back to me when you have serious conservation efforts that make Americans not the most wasteful people on the planet.
You know, people made fun of Jimmy Carter suggesting things like turning down the thermostat and wearing a sweater, and for installing solar panels on the White House, but he was basically right about the necessary course of action.
I am officially gone from
You're right, Canute should have ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to stop the tides.
Or whatever his Danish equivalent was. Either that, or conquered the Netherlands to get their expertise.
Then he could have had the Thames Barrier constructed.
Sorry dude, but your apocryphal story which was about appealing to the divine doesn't even hold water.
Now, I'm no economics expert... But aren't minimum wage increases one of the (albeit small) contributors to inflation? And as such, wouldn't tying minimum wage increases to inflation create a circular reference of sorts?
Common Sense (+1)
There was a certain King Canute who went to the beach one day and ordered the tide to stop flowing. I can imagine Obama's ideas and efforts will have exactly the same effect.
Your analogy is terrible. History and other countries have shown that industry and consumers don't give a shit about the environment. And that goes for both capitalistic and socialistic societies. We've shown in the past that government regulation can fix things like CFCs and the pollution of drinking water so what's so batshit insane about proposing we fix this with regulations?
Your analogy would work if King Canute had previously ordered a lake to split in two and it had worked.
While he's at it he should make tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes illegal.
I don't know what this is? Some throwback to that bullshit logic about gun control? I guess people are still being murdered so we should revoke all the laws outlawing murders? I mean, when murdering is outlawed then only murderers will have the ability to murder people!
... is this some new parroted right-wing narrative you're getting from Facebook or something?
It's not about controlling the weather. The weather is a symptom of the problem of spewing tons and tons of carbon and greenhouse gases into the air and environment. So he's tackling the root cause of the problem, not making a symptom illegal
My work here is dung.
Umm..
Canute ordered the tide to stop flowing to show his followers that while the deeds of kings might appear great in the minds of men, they were nothing in the face of God's power.
Geez... At least get the old stories right before using them in an absurd analogy.
It works the other way around. Bring back US manufacturing jobs and there will be more demand for US engineers. Our jobs didn't get outsourced for lack of US skills. They got outsourced due to wage scales. How are you going to compete when some guy in China can do your job for less than the US poverty level?
So the US is ending their occupation of Afghanistan again?
Where on Earth did you read this? Are you confusing Afghanistan with Iraq?
Like they did the last few times they announced a "full withdraw"? The only thing I find more amazing than official US propaganda is that most people seem to believe it.
[citations needed] on the "last few times" and I'm almost certain that they never have announced a "full withdraw" (why do you even bother using quotes on that phrase). Actually, it's really hard but if you read the summary he announced the removal of 34,000 troops. Removing 34,000 != "full withdraw"
Seriously, are you ripping on him for something no one ever said? It's really hard to talk about "Official US propaganda" when you're muddying it up even further by imagining crap.
My work here is dung.
If that's the case, why vote Democrat instead of Republican?
This is indeed a good question.
Who the hell marked this as Insightful? This is a classic example of reading comprehension failure, poor analogies and excessive generalizations.
What was the drinking game trigger that caused Rubio to take a drink in the middle of his speech I wonder....
While he's at it he should make tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes illegal.
I don't understand how you can construe this out of what was written. He's not proposing "legislation against nature" yet you somehow managed to interpret it this way. Does '12 hottest years on record' not lead you to any kind of logical clarity?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
Because the trend is to turn us into either unemployed, or independent contractors, or temporary workers. An independent contractor can work for lower than minimum wage so the minimum wage doesn't matter when not everyone is paid in wages. Why not minimum income? Why not government guaranteed basic income? Watch this video for more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDBF_MbflY
And his "investment in clean energy" historically seems to just mean little more than handing out a billion dollars to businesses who had nothing but powerpoint slides. (And who had probably greased lobbyists palms with silver.)
He's no hero, he's just a businessman who's currently CEO of the biggest business in the world, one that answers to noone, and who's friendly with lots of other businessmen who only answer to him.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
So what about the people who get income not in the form of wages?
They should raise the basic income but there is no basic income yet unless you count welfare and welfare is hard to get and they want to make people pay a fee to get it in North Dakota, see: http://www.topix.com/forum/health/womens-health/TEII96LUBC3DL8UJJ
Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods — all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it's too late,' Obama added."
They *could* be just a freak coincidence...sure they probably aren't, but it's practically impossible to pin individual weather events, or even a pattern of weather events over the span of a decade or two, on global warming. If you toss around bullshit and FUD to support action on global warming you're becoming the enemy to beat the enemy, while simultaneously feeding into their conspiracy theories and jokes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I love that we have mountains of piled up cash sitting around everywhere to do all these great things. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually not against deficit spending, I'm just against the levels of deficit spending we're doing right now. Our current annual deficit spending is $901B. Yes, so if we eliminated the entire military defense budget. YES, all of it! Every single penny, not a single uniform or weapon in existence. This would still *NOT* cover the deficit gap. We'd still be over $200B short. If we contracted deficit spending now we'd undoubtedly make the economy implode. Let me rephrase that, if we reasonably spent within our means we'd be shambles. That reality should scare the heebeegeebees out of everyone. Yes we can continue spending in hopes it spurs economic development and all sorts of revival goodies. What if it doesn't work? When do we stop? We have some major concerns here, and we're taking some pretty damn big risks. More like a game of chicken with the country. At this point we should be throwing away things that don't directly spur economic development. $40B for school breakfast programs, the hell? Did we forget how to feed our children breakfast? Garbage like that has no place in our house right now.
How about setting spending levels back to what they were in the Reagan era too? Ooooh, not so interested in that, are you?
And 'climate change' is a meaningless term, because the climate is ALWAYS changing.
Here is a rebuttal of Obama's nonsense (not that he actually wrote any of it himself anyway):
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/19683/Obama-fails-climate-science-in-his-State-of-the-Union-address--Climate-Depots-pointbypoint-rebuttal-to-the-Presidents-global-warming-claims
How I laugh at the braindead Slashdot crowd who cling to this ridiculous myth of 'global warming' without looking at the facts.
The minimum wage may not be "tech news", however, it is stuff that matters since it affects the economy of the USA and thus the economy of the whole world. I'm not from USA but I appreciate knowing about it.
The pipeline is being bandied about as going ahead "for teh enegi indepedense!".
Makes zero sense.
Just like every other State of the Union, it doesn't tell us one damn thing we didn't already know. "The planet's getting warmer." "The poor don't have any money." "Rich people don't pay enough taxes." Zzzzz...
How about this:
"My fellow Americans: yes, the aliens are real. We used to keep them at Roswell, but that got a little too touristy, so Lyndon Johnson had them moved to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Ain't nobody gonna look there," he said, and he was right. Oh, and I really was born in Kenya - suck it."
Did he also proposes "an accurate progress bar" for the "Meaningful Progress"?
For me, voting Democrat came down to social issues and *where* the Democrats wish to 'spend spend spend' compared to the Republicans...
If that's the case, why vote Democrat instead of Republican?
bork bork bork!
Just prior to making his speech on live TV, he had recorded an 18 min session in Spanish. I suspect he might have, oh, I don't know, been thirsty.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
It seems to me that Obama is pushing initiatives that I'd expect from more socialist European countries but without embracing the much higher tax rates that naturally accompany this. Didn't the US recently back out of a serious commitment to raise taxes?
If the American tax payer isn't paying for all of this, who is?
I like Victor Davis Hanson's take:
He wrote that about the inaugural address, but frankly it also applies to the State of the Union, and pretty much every other public utterance by this President.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
1) Fix the Economy
or
2) Fix Global Warming
please choose one......
I don't get your point. The Danes did not try to outlaw the tides. They constructed protection against them. The tides are still there.
The argument here is that by and large climate change politics is about trying to outlaw the tides. It just won't work. Sure the science is indisputable. The climate is changing and humans affect the environment. However the still overlooked inconvenient truth is that it is just as certain that climate change cannot be reversed. To survive our society will have to adapt to accommodate the changing climate.
I am not saying we should stop paying heed to our rate of carbon consumption and release into the atmosphere or that measures to curtail the same would have no effect. However credible studies on the degree of effectiveness of carbon reduction measures is conspicuously absent. In the meantime history has shown that the climate can change enough to cause great strife even in times when we had far less impact on climate than we do now. From about 1100 AD when the world was about as warm as it has been in modern times to the 1600s when other was a mini ice age to the dust bowl of the great depression we have had to adapt to conditions beyond our control.
My biggest fear is that politics and science in this debate have been so conflated that humanity is not taking in the complete picture and instead governments tilt at windmills trying to do the equivalent of outlawing the laws of nature.
I agree, lets also trim government down to the same size as it was then. Oh wait - can't have that, can we?
How about setting spending levels back to what they were in the Reagan era too? Ooooh, not so interested in that, are you?
Spot on, AC, spot on.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Coming up on this last election, I made the mistake of thinking the appropriate question was really, "why vote for either of them". For this reason, among others.
But now I'm left wondering if I screwed up. Not that my vote matters more than anyone else, but I was listening to the Address and thinking, as much as I disliked Romney, would his Address have been, "spend billions, raise taxes, ban guns, spend billions more"? I don't think it would have been. His platform, for all the things I disagreed with, was more like, "curb spending, close tax loopholes, that's all." I mean, he wasn't going to get to shut down PBS, or any of the other hyperbole we ate up.
Honestly, I feel like a sucker.
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
If we can set spending levels there, too, it might just work. But if you're nervous about a 42% cut in federal spending, we could just go back to Clinton-era spending (when they actually came really close to balancing the budget), which would only be a 35% spending cut.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Can someone tell me what the temperature of the earth is supposed to be set at? Apparently it's not set right.
That's easy!
72 degrees in Summer, 68 degrees in Winter; just like the gummint says...
This '12 hottest years on record' thing kinda bothers me.
We know that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing and has been increasing for a few decades. So the long term trend is higher temperatures every decade as we move forward.
With that in mind it would only be a shock to have recent years NOT be in the group of hottest years. Because they are all near the end of a line with a generally increasing slope.
Its merely a truism of warming. It the past decade weren't getting warmer and 12 of the last 15 years were not among the hottest, we would in fact have no global warming issue.
It doesn't prove anything except that on an increasing trend line the highest values are the more recent ones....
Because they're not hypocrites about it?
Honestly, I feel like a sucker.
If you believed the math on his tax plan worked, you damn well should feel like a sucker.
Good news! We're nearly there. The average outlays for fiscal years FY82 through FY89 was 22.3 percent of GDP. The average for FY09 through FY11 has been 24.5 percent of GDP. Compare that to the receipts averages of 18.0 and 15.2 percent, respectively. I think most Democrats would be perfectly fine with outlays of 22.3 percent of GDP. The 2015 estimate is 22.3 percent, in fact.
Here's another way to look at it. The average deficit for FY82 through FY89 was 4.3% of GDP. The estimation of FY13 through FY16 is an average deficit of 4.1% of GDP.
Is that where all the climate change hot air is coming out or just your face?
Meaningful progress on climate change = more tax payers dollars going to coal and oil production Fix the economy = print more money and re-inflate the housing bubble. Gun control votes = stimulate the gun market Don't question the king = Executive action for everything that might not get votes
Actually...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/
Reagan's federal spending averaged about 22% of GDP. Obama in his first 4 years spent about 24% of GDP
So even returning spending to Reagan's levels isn't going to be the magical panacea
If that's the case, why vote Democrat instead of Republican?
Because fiscal irresponsibility has consequences?
Statistics. Use these data points, stated this way, and it will support your position.
"Shut up already. It's Science".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Why the flying fuck does it have to be one or the other? That is the real problem, here.
Insightful? In 1980, the top rate was 70%. It dropped to 50%, then 38.5 (already less than the current Dems want), then 28%. And the inexorable Slashdot race to the bottom continues...
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If that's the case, why vote Democrat instead of Republican?
I vote Green, or Libertarian or write in.
But Republicans can because they have no scruples.
[A]s much as I disliked Romney, would his Address have been, 'spend billions, raise taxes, ban guns, spend billions more'?"
Yeah, good to see you no longer fall for mindless hyperbole.
job based health insurance killed jobs and leads to older people not getting jobs.
In China and other places the state does the health care
Do you remember what happened when he actually tried to close it? Congress refused to let it happen. The only way he's going to get the detention camp closed is if he orders the release of all the prisoners.
Congress refused to let the DREAM Act happen, too. But he actually cared about that so he just said F Congress and made it happen by issuing an Executive Order: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-19/news/bs-ed-immigration-20120819_1_immigration-policy-legal-status-dream-act
So we punish the fiscal irresponsibility of Repubs by voting for even more irresponsible spending by Dems?
tech schools / apprenticeships to fix skill gaps and cut down the school loans by cutting down class time from 4-5+ years to some kind of a mixed 1-3 years class room apprenticeship for big parts of the IT field.
The budget was balanced and had a surplus in 1999 and 2000 (I think in 2001 too but I can't find the information). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_States_federal_budget and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
What a BS statement. The record only goes back 120 years. What's 120 years out of the 2 million+ years since our genus appeared; the 20+ million years since the great apes (hominidae sp?) have been around; or the 80,000,000 years since mammals have been around? Before someone tells me that we have records going back that far - we do. And the we know that the average temperature and average CO2 levels were FAR higher. Saying the "hottest on record" is tantamount to lying.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Insightful? In 1980, the top rate was 70%. It dropped to 50%, then 38.5 (already less than the current Dems want), then 28%.
Then it's reasonable to assume what the GP wants is closer to 50%, not 28% or less than what the current Dems want
Why cherry pick what other people meant just to fit your pet peeve, and to further promote the self fulfilling prophecy of slashdot racing to the bottom?
You do realize that during the Reagan Admin, the size of the government grew, right? Military spending and personnel was off the charts!
Since this is rather important in other areas of decision making, this would be a clincher.
Transparency?
We can't change or influence the weather in any way! That means doing anything is futility itself.
I love this shit! Of course we can change and influence the weather. But unfortunately, actually being informed of the world around you is not a requirement for public office. Cloud-seeding has been going on for a while. The Chinese used it to affect the weather during the Beijing Olympics. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/research/2008-02-29-china-weather_N.htm
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The budget was balanced and had a surplus in 1999 and 2000 (I think in 2001 too but I can't find the information). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_States_federal_budget and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget
Look a little closer. There was a claimed "surplus" for one year, yet there was also an increase in debt. How? Because it was kind of faked.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The last time a Republican budget was signed into law by a Republican president, it had a deficit of 165 billion dollars. So to claim there is no difference, is to embrace ignorance.
It may not have. We'll never know because the details will never be hammered out, aside from the fact that the president doesn't make the budget.
But either way, you've missed the point entirely.
No, he's not a businessman. Never has been. He's a 'Community Orginizer'...
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Hey, it's only 2%. Totally insignificant. Negligible. Not even worth considering. Just 2%...of 20 freaking TRILLION DOLLARS!
Of course, Bush grew the federal deficit by more than twice what Obama has... and if you look back at records of the increase/decrease in the federal deficit each year since the current federal debt began, you'll find that almost every year that the deficit has been decreased, a Democrat was President.
You do realize that during the Madison Admin, the size of government grew, right? It was huge!
Do all of that and we might have a shot.
... except for that whole part about promising a large increase in military spending, which is already more than half of the US government's discretionary (i.e., not required by law) spending. And he was also wanting to lower tax rates while supposedly closing loopholes, for what he claimed would be a net near-zero change to tax revenues.
As for the banning guns part, it's funny how the Republicans thought those gun bans were just fine when it was Reagan who proposed them.
Can you quote where he said that we should not invest in alternative energy companies "at all?"
I did a google search "rubio says not to invest in alternative energy" and couldn't any results that said that.
I know it is the rage to discredit people that disagree with you, but can't you find some real stuff to use?
He wanted to spend more on the military.
Actually this is posted on POLITICS.slashdot.org.
Which is a subforum for... you guessed it!
2% of 20 "freaking" trillion dollars is 400 billion
Now tell me how 400 billion will magically pay off a debt of 11 "freaking" trillion dollars?
Missing the forest for the trees, grasshopper
Or do both. But no, it's only one or the other and only doing one fixes nothing.
When even the left calls you on your claim of "transparency" you know that's a bogus argument...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The budget being balanced wasn't planned. It was an accident caused by the internet bubble, many people selling over priced stocks, and having to pay taxes on the profit.
The housing bubble was an attempt to keep things going, and while it resulted in increased revenues, the continued increases in planned increases, plus the new drug benefit, unfunded wars kept us well in the red during the last decade.
Basically, Regan, Clinton, both Bushes and Obama have all allowed spending to remain out of control as well as all members of Congress who don't actually propose to cut the actual amount of money being spent.
If I were the president, I'd propose a strong evaluation of military spending, keep the CIA, FBI, State Department, and the EPA, and turn almost everything else over to the states. That is, the government would concern itself with international relations and matters between the states, or that spill over state borders, and leave everything else to the states to figure out, especially medicare, social security and education.
But the number one reason to vote against Republicans and Libertarians is they want to eliminate the middle class. The Republicans are the party for the rich. IMO, anyone earning less than $300k/yr who votes Republican isn't thinking clearly.
That said, I vote Green party.
go ask why 20000 fraking wells are in colorado alone.....
no really
your mister hollywood is not tellin yo da twuth agin mister bwunny wabbit
There is never a good reason to vote Democrat - OR Republican.
My vote, this time and last, happened to be for the Democrat. But, I wasn't voting "for" the democrat, so much as I was voting "against" the other guy.
Give us some mainstream, centrist choices, who aren't bought and paid for by corporate interests, then I might vote for that choice. Until then, there is no difference between the parties. The single most important issue in America today, is that idiot "War on Terra". Has Obama attempted to have the Patriot Act repealed? Nope. Has he attempted to reign in Homeland Security? Nope. Has he renounced any of the special powers that the Bush administration pushed for? Nope. Has he fought for internet freedom? Well - sorta. Internet freedom was a great thing when the Arab Spring was blooming, but it's no longer a good political tool, so Obama follows Bush's lead now, pushing for more and more control.
The same corporations own both parties, so there is no reason to vote "for" either one.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I think it's telling how little many of the people commenting know about economics, especially with relation to minimum wage. Americans, compared with their neighbouring Canadians have lower minimum wages and higher unemployment. Obviously min wage isn't the only factor in unemployment, it it were then Canada would have more unemployed people than the USA.
It's intellectual laziness, and it frees those who claim there's "no difference" from guilt for having picked the worse of the two.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
"Why cherry pick what other people meant just to fit your pet peeve, and to further promote the self fulfilling prophecy of slashdot racing to the bottom?"
Well - someone's got to lead the way, or we might get lost falling downhill to the bottom!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
Tax revenue is more than just marginal tax rates - it also includes deductions. For example, consider the "hey day" of high marginal rates, the late 50s, back when the top marginal rates were 90%+ - and we ran an actual surplus (which has not happened since 1957).
In constant 2011 dollars, federal tax receipts in 1957 were $3200 per person.
Today, with the "much lower" marginal rates, federal tax receipts in 2011 were $6600 per person.
We're collecting over twice the revenue per capita - in constant dollars - now, with huge deficits, versus in 1957 when we had actual surpluses (and paid down the debt). We had many, many more deductions back in the high marginal tax rate days than we do today, allowing for a much lower level of actual taxation (less than 50% effective of what we pay today).
The problem is not - NOT - revenue. It is spending. The Federal Government is spending over 3 TIMES more per capita, in constant dollars, than it did back in those high-marginal rate days. We have a massive spending (and scope of activity) problem, NOT a revenue problem.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The budget was balanced and had a surplus in 1999 and 2000 (I think in 2001 too but I can't find the information). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_United_States_federal_budget and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_federal_budget
The last time we had a REAL surplus (not just something on paper) - a surplus where the Federal Government received more revenue than it spent - was in 1957. Source.
The referenced Wiki pages are for projected, on-budget spending surpluses - not overall. It's like you balance your own personal budget by ignoring your spending on your car, or mortgage interest... Take all Federal spending together, though, and we have not had a real, cash-basis surplus since 1957, in the Eisenhower Administration.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I dont see how he or anyone else can not understand this. There is nothing wrong with the climate. Everything that happens happens from natural and normal events.
Earth is a gigantic planet that has existed for trillions of years or more. And it has NEVER stayed the same, ever and we have proof of it. World wide fires, world wide floods, reversal of the poles, tectonic plate activity, sinking of land mass, major land mass shifts, the ice age, tornadoes, the seas heating and cooling and so on. Everything that is happening to our climate and planet has been happening for trillions of years.
All of those things have been happening way before man and will continue. Its idiotic and really damned stupid to think we can control the way earth works. We as humans do not effect the earth, oh we might by knocking down some trees or polluting some water but to honestly think we can be accident or on purpose actually control and change how the entire planet works is beyond stupid. You might as well send an ant colony to try and stop a hurricane.
Can we do minor things to improve our quality of life? Sure we can. But thats all we can do. We cant actually change things to suit our needs.
And all of this "science" is complete BS. I mean its purely just there to get more grant money for agencies, or for the president to justify spending money. Hell in the 1970's all of our sciencetists knew for a fact. They had 100% certanity and could prove with "science" we were heading into an ice age because nuclear energy messed up our enviornment. But guess what? It never happened.
Bottom line is you cant control nature, you cant control the planet, you cant control climate because they are complete chaos in that they have no order, and no rules. They simply just happen. Sure we can seed a few clouds but that isnt altering the climate at all, thats making it rain in a little tiny spot when specific conditions are met in rare instances.
This is all pointless to talk about. because like it or not we have no control or even influence on climate.
I have seen the Green Party is often shown as actually a lot less authoritarian than many mainstream parties. However, the question I have is how they intend to enforce stronger environmental regulations without asserting centralized control.
In short, I wonder what the overlap between Green and Libertarian is so that you could vote either one, or both. Seems to me that there is some disconnect between the two, even if you can argue that you can be an environmentalist libertarian.
Of course, Bush grew the federal deficit by more than twice what Obama has...
Citation needed. The last Bush deficit - FY2008 - was $461 billion. FY2009 was signed by President Obama and had a $1.4 trillion deficit. Since then, every year (not budget - there hasn't been one for 3+ years) has seen more than $1 trillion in deficit spending. The actual facts are that President Obama more than tripled the worst President Bush deficit - and has seen those deficits hold over his entire first term.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You bring up decent points, but I think you misstep when you blame the "corporations". The reason that different parties keep the powers that the other parties obtained is that they want to keep the power and the tools the other guy got them. Obama not returning those powers is all on Obama. If you blame external parties for the government's failures, they're going to keep using it as an excuse to keep doing what they want, while trying to sell you on their latest plan to deal with "evil corporations" at election time.
That's not to say that corporations cannot have an influence, even a large one, but elected officials could extract themselves from corporate control if they really wanted to. They don't, and that's all about them.
Why is it that most of the posters here seem to favor government solutions. What has the government ever done well? Private capital and private solutions to things that people find important will always be served and in the most efficient and effective fashion. Get a clue, get a job, pay taxes and you will soon realize that government IS the problem!
Mandating green jobs or any other politically correct project when demand, technology and economics don't already provide for it will always fail! See: USSR, Cuba, Venezuela ...
FFS someone please mod parent up for understanding this. Once the gold standard was cut we started doing all kinds of little accounting tricks that allowed us to claim we ran a surplus while simultaneously increasing our debt. It was done by spending money that wasn't budgeted. Doesn't much matter if your budget has a surplus if you spend more than you budget to spend, especially when you do it on purpose.
Thirty year bonds with astonishingly low interest rates?
The trick, of course, is to make sure that revenues exceed non debt related expenditures by at least 200 billion per year for thirty years. Then POOF. It's gone.
If you can't even spell it, maybe you shouldn't make snide remarks about it...
The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. And 2% matters if it is in the wrong direction. Don't think for a second that it doesn't.
That's not to downplay the fact that Obama and Bush are just the end of a train of administrations who have been expanding the government's bar tab, but if there is a problem, it isn't going to go away by pretending that it is too hard to overcome it. If that is the case, then you might as well vote against gun control and start stockpiling weaponry, because when governments become completely insolvent, bloody revolutions happen.
That would be a debt of 16.5 trillion dollars. It wouldn't. But it would at least be moving in the right direction.
It was a projected surplus. Been a while since I followed all this, but because government accounting is so tricky and projects go out sometimes 10 years in advance, the surplus wasn't money in the bank, it was projected savings. Of course, there was a loud "give us our money back" campaign on the right which gobbled that all up and then some.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Yeah, god forbid Congress set our tax levels back up to the high rates of the Ronald Reagan era. That Reagan dude was clearly a fucking socialist.
Back when Reagan was president, the highest tax rates were on the truly high income brackets for the time, the working man's income tax brackets were pretty low. For instance if you made $50K/yr then, you were considered quite well to do around here (north Texas), that was like having the buying power of around $250K/yr now, definitely upper-middle-class, if not lower-upper-class or considered downright "rich". ( a candy bar cost 25 cents then, it's $1.25 now... a gallon of gas cost 85 cents then, it's $4 now... a nice 2-bedroom apartment in a part of town where you would not get burglarized or mugged cost $175/month to rent back then, it's $900-1000 now... and yes I was around when Reagan was elected, I was a college freshman in 1980 and voted for Reagan in my first election I was old enough to vote).
The value and buying power of our dollar is but a small fraction of what it once was, yet still the income tax brackets have not been adjusted to fairly follow the diminishing buying power of our income levels. The Bush tax cuts were an attempt to compensate for this, and now the Democrats want to raise taxes back up to their previous simple bracket percentages, without any compensation for the diminished buying power of the dollar... which will only crush the holy fuck out of the middle class's financial position... and that seems to be exactly what the Democrats' intentional target is.
Which makes sense since Bush also decreased taxes. I'll grant you that it was a bonehead maneuver, but in the end, I am not going to vote for someone who promises to increase the expenditure of the government. The fact that the Democrats understand how to balance a checkbook is useful, but in the end, since they never propose to reduce spending, balancing the checkbook means always raising taxes to match. That's the thing I'm trying to avoid voting for.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Rights-Ronald-Reagan.htm The lone piece of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Reagan on May 19, 1986, the legislation amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional. The National Rifle Association and other pro gun groups lobbied for passage of the legislation, and it was generally considered favorable for gun owners. Among other things, the act made it easier to transport long rifles across the United States, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as the gun were properly stored. However, the act also contained a provision banning the ownership of any fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986. That provision was slipped into the legislation as an 11th hour amendment by Rep. William J. Hughes, a New Jersey Democrat. Reagan has been criticized by some gun owners for signing legislation containing the Hughes amendment.
If that means getting rid of TSA and DHS instead of cutting education spending, I'm all for it.
That is exactly how I feel the last election went.
Misremembered the citation - Bush grew federal spending by more than twice what Obama has, not the deficit. My apologies. Here's the citation: http://www.businessinsider.com/whos-responsible-for-budget-deficit-2012-8
Yep, all we'd need is another dot-com bubble. Surely there's another one of them around.
I'm not so sure about there being a necessary disconnect between Libertarian and Green. I think more than anything else the Libertarians want government to be run well according to the law. That means that if the constitution doesn't authorize the government to do something then it can't do it. That doesn't, however, preclude using the constitution properly and passing an amendment to it to legally cover new resposibilities.
I generally consider myself Libertarian in general but also realize that some issues need to be handled on the federal level. This is afterall why the constitution has clauses and a clear process on how to modify it. In my opinion basic environmental protections are one of those issues (unlike 95% of what the government currently handles on the federal level). As long as the proper processes detailed in the constitution are followed I really doubt most libertarians would have an issue with basic, carefully constructed and well-defined environmental regulation. Then again I don't think such regulation (or an amendment granting such regulation) is possible from the current mess of a system we have now. I also believe that most Libertarians would be very skeptical of making any change to the constitution currently. It's simply a question of trust and if you look at almost any poles you clearly see that most Americans (libertarian or not) do not trust our elected officials right now.
Yes, let's consign the poor in poor states to a more miserable existence since it must be their own fault.
You might want to read that article again. I didn't say that Reagan passed a ban. As the article you linked states, Reagan supported both the 1993 'Brady Bill' (aiming to create a national background check and mandatory waiting period) and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Indeed, the article you linked calls that a "180-degree turnaround" from his earlier stance on gun control.
Guess what the CC stands for.
Actually, it seems I misremembered my source; what Bush grew by more than twice as much as Obama has isn't the deficit, but rather, federal spending. The problem is that while Republicans like to talk about reducing government spending, they don't really seem to do it... but they still like to lower taxes.
And by the way, Democrats do propose reducing federal spending - namely, military spending, which is currently more than half of the discretionary federal budget. The US not only spends more on its military than every other country in the world - it spends more than the next seven top spenders combined.
Lastly, note that the biggest drop in federal spending since the US began the current debt happened under a Democrat - Bill Clinton.
Responding to multiple people as, being AC, my posting is limited. Plus, the same reply applies anyway...
But it would at least be moving in the right direction.
The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. And 2% matters if it is in the wrong direction. Don't think for a second that it doesn't.
Which has nothing to do with my point. My point to the other AC is that returning spending levels to *Reagan" levels isn't going to be, and I quote myself, "the magical panacea"
I mean...
Thirty year bonds with astonishingly low interest rates?
The trick, of course, is to make sure that revenues exceed non debt related expenditures by at least 200 billion per year for thirty years. Then POOF. It's gone.
... the trick here is easier said than done.
Some observations...
He starts out by saying that people should not rely on the government for everything then proceeds to lay out all sorts of objectives that ...guess what...set up government so that people rely on it. For example...
1) Universal Preschool education - nice idea...who's going to pay for it?
2) Build up the infrastructure - another nice idea but wasn't that what the Tarp funds were supposed to do, at least in part? What, exactly, did we get for all those billions of dollars that were supposed to be directed towards "shovel ready" projects?
3) Tax reform - let's make the rich pay again. When the Republicans agreed to the recent tax increases the Democrat part of the deal was to agree to reduce spending. I'm still waiting for the reduce spending part. I watched the entire speech and I don't recall a single word mentioned about cutting spending.
4) $9/hr minimum wage - Sounds good but it's a job killer. Companies will simply not hire people. They already have the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) to deal with.
5) Corporate Tax Reform - He wants to go after corporate profits offshore. Sounds good until you become an American expat. Then they will go after YOUR money too. Think you can escape taxes by living abroad? Think again. Currently the only legal way to do that is to renounce your US citizenship. The number of people taking this route has grown dramatically over the past few years. Laws passed that were intended to go after drug money are now being used to tax US citizens that no longer live or work in the US.
6) Immigration reform - He wants a "path to citizenship" for the estimated 13 million illegal immigrants (not "undocumented workers"...illegal immigrants - let's call a spade a spade). To his credit he did mention "securing the border" although there were no details to how that would be done. To me there is a very simple solution that is already in place: make the eVerify system mandatory. Currently it's optional. If you prevent people from working illegally in the US they will have no incentive to come here in the first place. No fences or "boots on the ground" are necessary beyond what is there now.
7) Gun Control - Very sticky issue since it flies in the face of the second amendment to the US constitution. And it's not just Republicans that will fight this. Democrats in pro gun states are that facing reelection (unlike Obama, in his last term) will have a tough sell. My prediction is that we get some sort of watered down assault weapon ban (similar to the one passed before that was allowed to lapse) that will contain all sorts of exclusions allowing some automatic weapons but not others. I admire him for trying but I just don't see anything with any real teeth coming from it.
And the Congress, who writes the budget, was controlled by Republicans.
When the president oversees all spening, your point will be valid, until then you are a shill.
Every other planet in our galaxy, despite the fact that we only live on one, is currently undergoing a warming cycle...
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Under Reagan, there were more federal employees, and spending was higher per capita.
You think that 600 ship Navy was crewed by ghosts or something?
Of course, we also need some sort of trade tariffs to keep jobs from going overseas to countries with slave-like working conditions.
There were other choices, there was a very good choice in the former Governor of New Mexico running on the Libertarian ticket. People scuff and think it's a joke, but their stance is incredibly mainstream. Fiscally conservation, socially liberal. They take out the two sides that divide us for each party.
And as long as you believe your vote should be for the guy that can beat the person you don't like, rather than FOR the person you do like .. things will never change.
You whoever beleives this rubbish or encourages it in anyway deserves whats on its way.
37million on food stamps in 2009, 47 million now. Need we know more?
30-50% percent of all Western economies are taxed and funded by Beaurocrats. They'r e a big enough blobk, now, to vote themselves an existance without resitance. The West is going to run out of tax payers to supply funding. The USA is $16 Trillion in the crapper, with no mathematical way of paying this off.
When something cannot possibly continue?.. IT WILL STOP!
You either choose to ignore it and have the maths stop it for you, or you control the "stopping".
The fromer is more likely.
Bu thats alright, at least we'll nice weather during the collapse, apparently Obama, along with other western leaders are going to save us from the weather. Great! Oh, BTW, they'll tax the rest of your productive hide to do that, too.
Wait, you're saying humans affect the environment, but then claim that it is certain climate change cannot be reversed?
I think you're failing to notice a failing in your logic. We can change, and we can change what is around us too.
Anyway, my point was that Dunbai's comment was flawed. Remarking about Canute's ordering the Tides is pointless, even aside from the error in interpretation (as mentioned, Canute knew ordering the Tides would be pointless, he was doing it as a demonstration). However, ordering other humans is another matter, and it turns out that we can deal with the tides. I mentioned the Thames Barrier to demonstrate just such. Perhaps we could even eliminate the tides. I certainly don't want to blow up the moon, but perhaps one day we could. Well, I suppose we could today, with the use of enough nuclear weapons.
I think that'd be a bit of an extreme option though. No need to do that, when dealing with the tides is much more reasonable. That's one thing, other things are entirely different, and will be handled in their own ways.
But actually, you mention the Dust Bowl. Human involvement in that was widely recognized, and yes, humans acted to deal with the consequences of their actions. Check the tree belt that was constructed, and all the changes in soil conservation and farm practices. My word, apparently you didn't realize that the adaption DID put things back under our control.
My biggest fear is people like you, who seem to think you know what you're saying, but just come across as rather blind and thoughtless in your pontifications.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be like a person who says "Lightning can cause a fire anytime" and using that as an argument against other measures to control accidental fires.
Whenever Republicans complain about how raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans will lead to economic collapse, I think of this table showing the historical rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates
From 1965 through 1980, if you made $200,000 (around $500,000 - $1.4 million in today's money) or more you paid 70% income tax. (Think that's bad? Check out how much people making $200,000 or more paid in the late 1940's.) Now, many people making $400,000 or more are complaining about going from 35% to 39.6%. I know that nobody likes taxes going up, but compared to the historical rate this is still very low.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Sometimes the point is merely that the trend line exists and that it is increasing.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Are you sure you got your "right wing" and "liberal" labels right? Let's review some simple definitions and connotations.
One point of view, is that the constitution is a "living document" and need not be strictly adhered to. Government's powers and responsibilties are flexible, and change with the times. Tradition is overrated. "Tried and True" strategies can become obsolete. Government leads. The vision shared by the many, outweighs the rights of a few. Be expedient and pragmatic, in the pursuit of performance and progress.
The other point of view, is that constitution is a strict limitation on powers and responsibilities, and if conditions change, the people can damn well pass an amendment. Government power should remain as limited as possible. When in doubt, do things like they've always been done. Some things change, but human nature doesn't change. Our basic relationship with the government, and the social contract itself, doesn't change. Government needs to get out of the way, much less lead. The rights of the few outweigh the desires of the many. Respect the rule of law, even if inconvenient or costly.
Let me ask you: which of the two above PoVs is conservative and which is liberal? (Each actually has its weak and strong points! but I'm not talking about which you agree with, just where you put each one on the spectrum.)
When I think of extra-judicial processes not authorized by the constitution, I think of FDR's Japanese internments. And I damn well know which side of the political spectrum we all put FDR on. But maybe that's just me. Is FDR considered "conservative" now? Am I all wrong about the right/left -ness of Gitmo (and by extension, Republicans vs Democrats on this issue), or are you? :-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Much of the deficit increase in 2009 was due to existing "safety net" programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance that kicked in in response to the depression, which was already underway when Obama took office. The rest was due to the financial bailout, in which Obama followed through on the bailout devised under the Bush administration. Obama brought an end to the growth in Federal spending
That's a strawman. They are talking about going back to Regan revenue levels, in percent, but going back to the same spending not accounting for inflation in dollars. Another post points out that we're moving back to similar spending relative to GDP, which tends to take inflation into account. So sure, go back to Reagan spending levels--as soon as we move paychecks and prices back to those levels too.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
What about third party candidates? Or are you one of those voters who actually thinks your vote is going to actually determine who wins as long as you vote for one of the two major parties?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Yes, but many Republican politicians have denied the the reality of that trend. The year to year increasing trend in average temperature is small compared to the random fluctuations of weather, so it is possible to convince people who are unfamiliar with the actual science that it is some kind of "liberal scientist" fabrication. But people do notice extreme weather events. So while the strongest evidence of the upward trend is in the measurements of day-to-day temperatures, the increase in weather disasters is something that the average person can perceive and relate to.
That's cute. You're upset at me doing something, yet can you find where Obama said the things Marco Rubio presented him as saying?
Let me quote an example:
"But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more."
No, you can't do that either. Will you hold it against Rubio? Rubio certainly doesn't feel he needs to hold himself to his own standards. Here's Rubio whining that he'd be misrepresented and misinterpreted, and insisted that it just wasn't true.
"But any time anyone opposes the President's agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives. "
"So Mr. President, I don't oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors. "
Which is exactly what any con-man will say to you, that he's honestly trying to do his best by you, so what does that mean? Well, the only thing it means to me is that he's a hypocrite who doesn't realize he just got done doing exactly what he complained others were doing to him. Of course, maybe he genuinely believes it's false, while his accusations are true...or does that strike you as arrogance? It does me.
But here's what he said about Solyndra:
"One of the best ways to encourage growth is through our energy industry. Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called "clean energy" companies like Solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. And let's reform our energy regulations so that they're reasonable and based on common sense. If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China. "
I'm sure you're going to argue that he's not explicitly disclaiming any investing at all, to try to weasel out on that technicality, but yeah, can you get *him* or any Republican politician to say they're fine with other investments, that the problem was specifically due to Solyndra? Nope. It's a rather hysterical response that is quite absolutist, and you know what, it's also incorrect, because Solyndra wasn't a failure of a company, no matter how dogmatically Republicans declare it was. Sorry, but that's a shibboleth. They keep repeating that lie on and on.
And here's what he said about the weather:
"When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air."
Didn't he fucking have a clue that Obama wasn't suggesting the government try to control the weather (though there's a comment above about doing that too), or will you just completely be oblivious to his conduct, while railing against me?
Tell you what, you get Republicans to commit to the idea of investment in clean-energy companies, or even to admit that the program was passed under the Bush Administration and written by a Republican committee, and I'll salute your ability to get honesty out of them. Or will you just weasel out and complain that the problem is with my interpretations, while completely ignoring their own tenuous interpretations of Obama's claims?
Let me guess his plan is to transfer funds from rich people who spend those funds on making jobs to his friends--like Jesse Jackson Jr and his Chicago Alderman wife ( who lives in DC--and Mike Royko thought there was no way to sink lower then alderman, she found a way--absentee alderman ).
We already lost a piece of cheese on our $1 burger, what's $9 going to do to it? Take off the pickles?
That might just stop rampant price gauging in its tracks, to bad it did not happen when it was say 4.25 better late than never.
every time the minimum wage has gone up so did prices causing the poor to only be more poor.
Retired and social security old people can not afford a 4.00 big mac now. this will only make it worse I am afraid.
...the overwhelming judgement of science! Convert or die!
Misremembered the citation - Bush grew federal spending by more than twice what Obama has, not the deficit. My apologies. Here's the citation: http://www.businessinsider.com/whos-responsible-for-budget-deficit-2012-8
Not quite... The facts are rather different. President Bush took Federal spending from $2.01 trillion to $2.98 trillion, a growth of $970 billion.
President Obama took spending from that $2.98 trillion to $3.8 trillion, a growth of $820 billion. And he did it in 5 years, versus the 7 of President Bush.
Your claim of double simply doesn't hold up. It's nearly equal right now, and - even if President Obama scales Federal spending back to just inflation - will out-pace President Bush dramatically, by several hundred billion dollars, by the time his 2nd term is over.
Is this an absolution of President Bush? Not at all. Rather, it is a condemnation of the squandering by BOTH Presidents. For, based on the facts, as bad as President Bush was (which was rather bad), President Obama is considerably, provably, worse.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Much of the deficit increase in 2009 was due to existing "safety net" programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance that kicked in in response to the depression, which was already underway when Obama took office. The rest was due to the financial bailout, in which Obama followed through on the bailout devised under the Bush administration. Obama brought an end to the growth in Federal spending
Ah, Krugman. Love that graph - on log scale! The absolute numbers are considerably different. Spending increased over the entire Bush Administration by about $900 billion; spending is up over $820 billion in just the first Obama term.
Assuming President Obama can restrain spending to just the rate of inflation (which would be a huge scale-back of his planned spending increases), he'd still end up close to twice the spending of President Bush, over his two terms.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's not a strawman...or, they both are strawmen.
The argument to go back to Reagan tax levels is just snarky advocacy for raising taxes and bring in more revenue.
History has proven that you cannot bring in enough revenue to satisfy the Feds thirst for cash and will never satiate their spending habit.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Sorry, but that doesn't prove we're spending too much. In fact, we may still be spending too little. The optimal amount is the amount where spending an additional dollar brings less than a dollar in economic benefits. Only when you can prove we're past that point will you be able to truthfully claim that we have a spending problem.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Are you seriously rolling out the much-debunked myth that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s that we were heading into an ice age? I was reading the scientific literature back then, and I can tell you that that is simply nonsense. This notion seems to date mostly from a sensationalistic article in Time magazine based on the views of a fringe scientist. All of that literature can be found in any major university library, and much of it is available online, so you can check for yourself. Even in the 1970s, scientists knew that there was the potential for CO2 from fossil fuels to cause warming. If you aren't industrious enough to read the literature for yourself, others have done it for you
The notion that climate is "complete chaos" is also wrong. Weather is chaotic over the short term, but over the long term there are indeed rules--climate is determined by the overall solar energy balance of the globe, in which CO2 plays a major role--in fact it is impossible to explain why the earth (or Mars, or Venus) is as warm as it is unless you accept the warming effect of CO2--and once you do that, global warming in response to fossil fuel releases of CO2 follows inexorably.
If you think anyone paid that rate, you're crazy.
I'd much rather have much lower rates, with no deductions.
Our Dear Leader has spoken: spend spend spend and don't argue about how to pay for it. Just keep spending and everything will work out ok.
No..., that's the Republican approach. History is quite clear on who's been writing most of the rubber checks. What's really amazing is that they continue to insist that their drunken-sailor economics approach is viable, while obstructing every effort to produce revenue that might spare our children from national bankruptcy.
The actual facts are that President Obama more than tripled the worst President Bush deficit - and has seen those deficits hold over his entire first term.
Well if the previous administration hadn't set the country on fire AND taken a dump on the world WHILE cutting taxes for the wealthy, maybe the problems that required deficits to solve wouldn't have happened.
And you infer that republicans all supported both the Brady Bill and the 94 "assault weapon" ban. Which, of course, is false.
Meanwhile, the brady bill and 94 awb both did fuck-all to prevent crime, at the expense of taking a magic marker to the constitution. But we'll try it again, banning guns that are never used for violent crime anyway, just for political points.
It's the textbook example of bullshit politics, framed and placed on a pedestal for all to see.
Your forgetting to account for inflation. If inflation is 3% and the debt increased 2% then you effectively have less debt.
Arguably, you can say the same thing with economic growth. And it's only Debt to GDP that you need to worry about, but that has other issues.
But, I wasn't voting "for" the democrat, so much as I was voting "against" the other guy.
That's the same reason I vote 3rd party.
In my state, every vote for the republican is equivalent to "throwing your vote away", because my state is a solidly-blue state.
But also because my state is solidly-blue, it means there are enough people who blindly vote democrat to make my voting for the democrat to also be equivalent to "throwing your vote away". Therefore, I am free to vote 3rd party.
It won't change who won and who lost, but if enough others vote like me, it just might cause the republican to drop from 2nd place to 3rd. And that would likely cause people to sit up and take notice.
Any citations to back up your statement? Or just tossing them out there as flamebait? The facts are the previous administration was terrible, fiscally; the facts are the current administration are more than doubling down on the terrible fiscal bet.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I've been waiting for someone to address the serious shit we're all about to find ourselves in, and I'm glad Obama did it. I'm shocked and appalled at the stupidity that's been modded up in this thread. Here we have slashdotters focusing more on government spending like a bunch of nutters instead of the fact that we're on the cusp of an environmental tipping point. What happened slashdot? When'd you get so short sighted?
There is no overlap between libertarian and green. Green is an altruistic philosophy, libertarian is a selfish one. If there's ever any overlap in policy between the two it's purely coincidence.
Both parties are about equally bad at irresponsible spending (though on different things), but the Democrats at least say they want to also increase revenue. So I guess they're the better choice as long as there is no third alternative.
Honestly, I feel like a sucker.
If you believed the math on his tax plan worked, you damn well should feel like a sucker.
Do you think that Obama's tax plan (whatever that is) is working? Trillion dollar deficits have become the normal under Obama even though he promised to cut our annual deficits in half. He even said that if he didn't get this accomplished that he should only be a one term President. I guess that makes two promises broken in this example.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Yes. You can fix the debt issue by MORE spending! (sarcasm)
Bob Heinlein once described the two types of politicians as "business politicians" and "reform politicians".
A "business politician" is one that stays bought.
A "reform politician" is one that changes his positions if someone can convince him that his change is "for the good of the People".
Not really sure which Obama is - most days he comes across as a business politician, some days he comes across as a reform politician.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The optimal amount is the amount where spending an additional dollar brings less than a dollar in economic benefits. Only when you can prove we're past that point will you be able to truthfully claim that we have a spending problem.
Your standard of evidence is backward. It's always safer to assume that spending is just consumption, not investment, unless there is evidence to support the position that it produces more in economic benefits (net present value, of course) than it costs. Those who claim that additional spending will result in a positive ROI are the ones with something to prove.
This is an impossible task, of course, as economic benefit is not something you can aggregate and measure across individuals in a non-voluntary system. Voluntary trade may not result in an ideal allocation of resource, but no non-voluntary system can objectively be said to produce a better allocation—just one more in line with the preferences of the few specific individuals in charge.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
That last sentence seem funny in light of the fact that the budget was pretty much balanced under that sleazebag Clinton and then thrown back out of whack again by GWB--by cutting taxes. If you look at some of the other comments, you'll see that if we went back to Regan-era tax rates and cut spending to the same GDP percentage levels, we'd be back to a Regan-era type budget. Of course, the Fed was running a deficit under Regan.
It's not *all* about how much the Feds spend, it's also income. We could cut spending in half, but if we also cut taxes by 2/3rds, we'd still run a deficit. Over the past three decades, we've cut taxes without equal spending cuts, and now people seem to think that we can get rid of the deficit with spending cuts alone. That's just wishful thinking.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Governments are not businesses. They print money, they don't trade for it. Citizens might be analogous to a "shareholder" but in point of fact it's an entirely different legal arrangement. You might consider it a natural monopoly on the use of force, but citizens can't exactly cancel their subscription to that.
Governments are bad enough without trying to drag in inapplicable concepts to mismanage them with. They are not businesses, they should not be run as businesses, and electing someone to the Presidency because of his business acumen is like appointing them to head General Motors because they're a good auto mechanic.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
> My vote, this time and last, happened to be for the Democrat. But, I wasn't voting "for" the democrat, so much as I was voting "against" the other guy.
Oh, that's a "brilliant" strategy -- except for one thing -- the system _itself_ doesn't work.
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Actually, it seems I misremembered my source; what Bush grew by more than twice as much as Obama has isn't the deficit, but rather, federal spending. The problem is that while Republicans like to talk about reducing government spending, they don't really seem to do it... but they still like to lower taxes.
Here's the thing. The Republicans have always been about more than reducing taxes, they're also very strong on national security. They believe that the job of the government is strictly to protect the country and enforce reasonable laws. So, while they definitely want to reduce spending, they aren't trying to reduce spending to zero, they're trying to reduce spending to the point where the Federal government is only spending money on "necessities", like the military.
Now, when you are fighting two wars, Republicans are going to feel that it is actually justified to spend the money for that purpose. It's sort of like making your mortgage payment, as opposed to spending the money on a new sports car.
The problem here is, at the same time that we are fighting a war, certain people are trying to push through "sports cars" like increased social/environmental spending on the Federal level. So there is now this irritating dynamic where they want to spend more money on the military, but they don't want to spend more money on programs. And I see what they are doing. They are trying to reduce government, and at the same time trying increase the percentage of the government that is used on the military. It's a very hardass way of going about it, and it's why they are very susceptible to being called the Party of No, because there is no compromise involved.
That said, I sympathize with them. If they did compromise with creating new entitlements, those entitlements will never go away. So it's a losing proposition to compromise, because who is going to vote to remove or even reform health care propositions once everyone becomes accustomed to them?
Long story short, not all spending is created equal. To the Republicans, military spending might be reduced, but it is a bedrock for the government, while social programs are considered either secondary, or even a problematic thing for a good government to spend money on.
And by the way, Democrats do propose reducing federal spending - namely, military spending, which is currently more than half of the discretionary federal budget. The US not only spends more on its military than every other country in the world - it spends more than the next seven top spenders combined.
As I pointed out above, the government exists to maintain it's military. The Republicans might argue that paying for the Army is the same as making your house payment. It is something you must do to maintain your existence. Reducing military spending is feasible in the sense of better efficiencies and better use of money, but if it means reducing capabilities, they would consider it equivalent to saying that the US should move from a nice house to a cardboard box just so they can buy a sports car.
Secondly, a lot is made out of the size of the budget in absolute terms, but the US spending per capita on the military as a part of it's GDP is not #1. We have the largest military because we have, by far, the largest economy to support one. And, we also have the largest global interests that are key to maintaining that economy. While the military is not a bargain, we are actually devoting less money per person to our military than other smaller countries.
Note that in 1988, we were using 5.7% of GDP for our military. In 2011, we used 4.8%... while fighting two wars. In 2011, that made us #7 on the GDP list, after Israel, Jordan, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, amongst others, and again, we're fighting two wars in that time period.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/17/military-spending-countries-list
Lastly,
Some of the the confusing lines above are from the failure to close all my quote tags. Good job to me.
I love this shit! Of course we can change and influence the weather. But unfortunately, actually being informed of the world around you is not a requirement for public office.
Nor for posting on slashdot. Rubio did not say that but you fell for it easily.
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x930798456/Alzheimers-explains-Reagan-support-for-gun-ban-son-says-in-Springfield Even though Reagan himself was shot in an assassination attempt in 1981, he didn’t seek additional gun control then, Michael Reagan said. (Reagan’s press secretary, Jim Brady, for whom the Brady bill was named, was shot in the head and disabled in the same attack.) “If anything had been in place, that tragic thing that happened in Connecticut still would have happened,” Reagan said, referring to the Newtown, Conn., school shootings and to proposed new controls on guns.
Not to nitpick, but the Republican COngress "balanced" the budget, dragging Clinton kicking and screaming into financial reality.
Spending remained someone what lever (Gad Damned Baseline Budgeting WILL be the downfall of the U.S.) until eth Dem took over in the last two years of Bush's term. Then, it was "Katey bar the door" on spending. They went apeshit. Bush didn't veto it either...to his determent.
And spending increases easily, embarrassingly outpaced any proposed tax increases and even swamped projected revenues had we not had the Bush tax cuts.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
If I were the president, I'd propose a strong evaluation of military spending, keep the CIA, FBI, State Department, and the EPA, and turn almost everything else over to the states. That is, the government would concern itself with international relations and matters between the states, or that spill over state borders, and leave everything else to the states to figure out, especially medicare, social security and education.
If only we had more people who understood federalism and how de-centralized gov't can be more responsive and effective.
The graph you link to shows the same thing as Krugman's (a flat line on a semilog plot is still flat on a linear plot): a jump in 2009 due to the impact of the depression on automatic safety net programs such as unemployment and food stamps (which continues, since employment has not recovered), and then nearly flat thereafter. Here's another one of Krugman's FRED plots (on a linear scale, if it makes you happier) showing federal spending as a fraction of potential GDP.
Surely any voluntary system can produce a better allocation than any non-voluntary system, once all market failures are corrected (monopolies, negative externalities, information asymmetries, etc.).
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
You have to factor in the fact that collections for Social Security in excess of need are required by law to be invested in federal bonds and so would increase the debt just by the fact that the SS trust fund increased. So how much of the increase in debt was due to that?
You might want to follow the cite I gave on to the article it cites. Here's the link for you: http://www.businessinsider.com/government-spending-2011-7
There, the breakdown is by quarter, and going by that, they have Bush taking the spending rate from $1.9 trillion to $3.2 trillion, while Obama takes it from $3.2 trillion to $3.8 trillion, and then it starts to go back down. That's a $1.3 trillion increase for Bush, but a $0.6 trillion increase for Obama.
Note too that while Obama inherited deficit spending, Bush started off with a surplus.
I can, however, point out that W. Bush and his father went a long way toward creating the security situation they were running the country under. Sure, the Republicans can argue that paying for the military is like making your house payment... but personally, I would argue that our current military setup is more akin to investing in a security system, panic room, and armed guards when you're living in a low-crime neighborhood. Not to mention providing those for some of your neighbors, and going around threatening people you don't like on weekends.
Yeah. About that. Report: China’s Health Care System Deeply Sick
And that is different from the other side...how exactly? look at how the debt exploded under Dubya and Reagan, the God of the right, is the one who said "deficits don't matter". in case you haven't noticed when it comes to spending we really only have two sides of the same coin, well with the exception the stiffie the right gets when they can fuck the poor, see Jindal trying to replace income taxes (which affect the wealthy more than the poor) with a massive sales tax (which will royally fuck the poor) which is as reverse robin hood as you can get.
As far as climate change I will happily vote against ANYBODY, no matter the side, if they support carbon credits without MASSIVE trade tariffs on China as without massive tariffs all you will do is send what few jobs there are left here to china which has already said they won't play our little carbon games. Also even those that are for fighting global warming should be against carbon credits as the same scum at the center of credit default swaps are writing the rules on carbon credits which means it'll have a million loopholes for the wealthy and be a leecher's paradise. for an example of how a parasite can scam the system look to rev Al Gore, the preacher for the AGW camp, who pays HIMSELF carbon credits from HIS OWN COMPANY which he then gets back in tax free capital gains and with this scam he says his Lear jet and gas sucking SUV (not to mention McMansion with indoor basketball court) are "carbon neutral". It would be like moving money from your left pocket to your while taking money from MY pocket to add to it and getting a tax break for it! What a fucking scam!
So if you want to cut down pollution? Hey I'm right there with ya, and I have several ideas that would serious cut down on pollution without giving leeches plenty of ways to scam, such as a "people's car/truck" made to run on diesel (so we can look at fuels like switchgrass and algae based) that gets a minimum of 40MPG and costs less than $25k. You could then offer incentives to the poor to switch which would more than double our average MPG (which is a pathetic 14MPG because of all the poor driving old clunkers) but of course we'll never see things like this because they would work without a billion ways for the rich to leech more money from the poor and middle class.
As it is the laws we pass might as well be called the "poison to the third world" laws, because there is zero penalty for simply closing your factory here and moving to Mexico or China and polluting all you want. All we are doing is exporting sickness and misery and I honestly wouldn't blame the Chinese for looking at us like the jihadists do now, after all their farmland is toxic from our factories.
But you can't fix the problem of toxins in a fishbowl by simply pushing those toxins to one side of the bowl, its a closed system and you haven't cleaned anything, just moved it. that is pretty much our environmental policies to date, just move everything nasty to the third world so lots of yellow and brown people can get sick and die, after all who gives a fuck about yellow and brown people?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
And his "investment in clean energy" historically seems to just mean little more than handing out a billion dollars to businesses who had nothing but powerpoint slides. (And who had probably greased lobbyists palms with silver.)
While I don't doubt that Solyndra had lobbyists, there is no doubt that they had a product, sold it, and built a factory to build more of their product.
Sorry, but they didn't just have Powerpoint, they had a product, and you could have bought it.
BI assigned FY2009 to President Bush; it was signed by President Obama. Seems a bit disingenuous to me... By the way, President Bush did not inherit a surplus; please see TreasuryDirect to verify this. The national debt has increased EVERY YEAR since 1957. Every year. That "Clinton surplus"? Never existed. Just a paper figment.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nearly flat... Yes, a bit different than Krugman's graph of flat. Logs have a great way of compressing things. Shallower increases are STILL increases. On a log graph, though, early increases always look a lot worse than later increases.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because Democrats at least spend some of that money on useful things.
But it was a net increase in debt. The treasury has bonds due on a daily, weekly, monthly, annual, etc. basis. They can buy and sell debt at any time (with the Federal Reserve). Since they still had a lot of debt external to internal accounting like SS, they could simply sell that off. It was a surplus on one set of books, but not in toto.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Obama is dealing with a major recession, two wars that were funded by the clever strategy of cutting taxes, a population with a higher average age, and much higher medical costs per person (even before Obamacare). Reagan's tax cuts took care of the recession when he entered office, but even after his early tax cuts the taxes were far higher than they are now.
George W Bush tried to repeat Reagan's magic with his 2002 tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but 2007 taught us that the economic stimulus we saw from 2002 until then was the result of a financial bubble, not his tax cuts. Raising taxes on the wealthy will have a temporary negative effect on the economy, but nobody has evidence that keeping taxes at this level or lowering them further will have a stimulating effect.
If the corporations control both sides, then a vote "against" is no different than a vote "for." You're helping them to win either way.
Going back to Clinton era spending, even after adjusting it for inflation, would net us about a $500 billion dollar surplus now.
We are coming out of a bigger recession than during the Reagan era, there are more Medicare recipients as a percentage of the population, medical costs per person are dramatically higher (and that was the case even before Obamacare), and we're wrapping up two wars that were funded by the clever tactic of cutting taxes.
So costs are higher to provide the same levels of services - not more - as were provided under Reagan. None of that is Obama's fault.
But more importantly, I'm sick to death of this whining over socialism and unfair taxation. The biggest factor in economic success is luck, always has been, always will be. You're lucky enough not to die of cancer, or be born retarded. You're lucky if you inherit wealth. You're lucky if someone else - your teacher, your parents, your guardian, your uncle, your sister, your priest, your boss, your wrestling coach, or the guy who wrote the book you read at the library - taught you what you needed to learn about hard work and social networking (in the non-Facebook sense) to succeed. Throw Bill Gates and Warren Buffett into Uganda as children and then look at the fortune they would have today -- zero. It is absolutely fair to demand the people most able to afford it carry the largest financial burden for maintaining the roads, the police, the fire departments, the military, the courts, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, safe food to eat, and yes the social safety net for citizens less lucky than they are.
The conservatives have pulled the world's greatest con, fooling most of the country into thinking they earned every cent they own and it would be immoral to ask them to share for any reason. I'm not advocating socialism - Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, and Tim Cook would still be billionaires. And I'm not advocating waste, obviously we should be monitoring our agencies better and ruthlessly consolidating or flat out shutting down the ones that aren't serving the voters properly. (Note, however, that proper auditing costs money. The EPA screwed the pooch monitoring Hyundai's fuel economy because Congress doesn't give them the resources they would need to test the fuel economy of every vehicle properly.) But refusing to increase the budget for food stamps or unemployment compensation while these guys can buy more units of yachts than the average American can buy units of socks is unforgiveable.
And today the long term capital gains tax is 15%, which is quite a ways under 28%.
In the 1950s, Social Security and Medicare didn't exist and inflation-adjusted medical costs per person were a fraction of what they are today. The after-effects of the education subsidies from the GI Bill (an inflationary effect on college tuition costs) weren't felt yet.
Then in the 1960s Social Security and Medicare were created, and they were great except the politicans were too stupid or too indifferent to two problem that would only affect future generations. First, they failed to set up the programs so that the beneficiary age automatically increased in step with the average American lifespan. Second, they didn't take into account the inevitable fact that the population of the United States could not continue increasing at a growing rate forever.
Then in the 1980s and especially the 1990s and 2000s medical costs started increasing in the neighborhood of 10% per year, every year.
Some of the partial solutions are obvious - Social Security and Medicare need to have a rapid, if not immediate, transition towards raising the eligibility age to the average lifespan in the country. That solves half the problem, but it still doesn't address the fact that the rate of population growth slowed. Controlling medical costs is coming, it's inevitable unless you want to tell anyone not in the top 10% of income earners that gets sick to just fuck off and die.
But that 90% cap is also a ways off from the 15% capital gains tax rate we have now. We have an awful lot to raise it before we reach 1950s levels.
Consumption, not investment? Nonsense. The government doesn't take money from citizens and then bury it in boxes, it spends it on roads, schools, police, courts, food regulation, air quality, water quality, waste removal, research grants, etc... and a lot of that spending is in salary, which gets circulated back into the economy in a way very similar to money that might be spent on candy bars or invested in stocks if it hadn't been taken by taxation.
The question of whether the government does a more or less useful thing with the money is very complex. If the revenue comes from raising taxes on gas, that has a different effect than raising income taxes, or real estate taxes, or whatever. And if the spending is on roads, that has a different effect than spending on the "War on Drugs", and they both have a different effect than spending the money on more suicide prevention resources for veterans.
But you can't blankly assume the government is less efficient with its spending. The market has its own inefficiencies, all of the time.
The number to watch today is the highest bracket for the long term capital gains tax, which is capped at 15%. If you have a good job with a salary in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range, you're paying that 35% tax on most of your income. But if you're truly wealthy and you have millions or billions of dollars in investments, your actual tax rate is 15% - that's what you pay when you sell some of your stocks.
Under Reagan, at its lowest the highest bracket for the long term capital gains tax was 28%. That wouldn't affect people earning a salary, even a good salary, but for really wealthy people that meant their tax burden was far higher.
tech schools / apprenticeships to fix skill gaps and cut down the school loans by cutting down class time from 4-5+ years to some kind of a mixed 1-3 years class room apprenticeship for big parts of the IT field.
Won't help. The jobs have to be there and they're not.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You are seriously going to claim that Reagan, in his deteriorated mental state (i don't recall), supporting something makes your argument look good? You might as well say it was supported by all the batshit crazy and senile old people. I mean he was suspected of having issues when he was president in his second term. And a decade later, he supports something that seems counter to what he has done throughout his career.
How exactly do they plan to do that?
Oh, you must have posted AC for a reason.
It doesn't matter. It is the system we have and it won't be changed other then to make it easier for gerymandered districts to exploited for the win
Um... Social Security was created by FDR back in the 1930's. It was Medicare started by LBJ in the mid 1960's.
fairy dust and it'll run on unicorn farts!!!!! Yeeeeeehaw!
Obama is a moron who never MADE anything and never RAN any productive enterprise and never HIRED anybody before being elected to public office. He swaggers like the cool star athlete in the local high school or college and seems to think his speeches alone will cause policies to succeed. His fanboys are even dumber than he is; he has been making claims that all his wild spending would not raise costs by "one single dime" nearly every month of every year since 2007 when he got to running for president... and so far he has driven us $6,000,000,000,000 further into debt. He claims to have "created or saved" millions of jobs (and knows his stupid fanboys will not notice the facts) when the truth is that by his administration's own numbers fewer people are working full-time now than were working the day he was sworn-in. He gets his claims on jobs by only counting the new jobs and NOT counting the lost jobs... he knows people who get their news from late-night comics will not learn this. He promised repeatedly that taxes would not go up (by "one dime") on anybody earning under $250K per year.... looked at your paystubs lately???? Every American taxpayer got a tax hike weeks ago. Oh and he added all sorts of taxes to things like "medical devices" .... so when your parents need hearing aids or new hip joints or if your kid needs braces those companies will have to charge you more.... Obama knows you are so stupid you'll blame the "evil" medical companies for the price hikes and not him for the taxes. NEWS FLASH FOR IDIOTS: All taxes on businesses are EXPENSES on the balance sheet that get passed-on to the customer as increased prices!!!!!!!!! No matter ho good it makes you feel to tax a business, it's actually impossible.... each tax is an expense that increases the cost of the product or service (or if the market cannot bear the price hikes, the cost leads to fired employees)
Now the man has looked the people straight in the eye and announced spending program after spending program and new tax upon new tax and yet his supporters are such morons they did not even notice. He gets credit for arrogance and guts, but zero for honesty. I nearly fell out of my chair when he proclaimed that all his new programs would be at no cost. Next week he will proclaim that he has used an executive order to reduce the force of gravity
There is an entire industry of global-warming advocates funded by governments and dedicated to producing reports and studies that say the planet s being destroyed so we must all give more money and more power to .... governments. The amazing thing is that they have actually managed to indoctrinate young people (who generally want to rebel against authority) into mindless robots supporting massive government. As the leaked East Anglia emails demonstrate rather clearly, these people will say anything, do anything, manipulate the peer review process, manipulate scientific panels and publications, etc in their desperate bid serve their big-government pay masters.
They have a new theme: Ignore all that global cooling propaganda we tried before.... it wasn't a large enough effort backed by enough money and a big enough bunch of researchers who suckle on the government teet. As an argument, they point to the small number of writings and the few people involved in those writings relative to global cooling.......... BUT ........ they hope we do not notice that there were very few "climate scientists" back then, so the advocates were actually a higher percent than they now pretend.... one might have even been able to claim some sort of "consensus" among the "experts" back then.....
It's not just that Joe the janitor or sue cleaning lady gets another dollar-an-hour (for example). It's that bob, the technician who crimps connectors on a wire then comes to the boss and asks why he's now making minimum wage (his wage was previously higher than the janitor's wage) .... so bob's wage has to go up. Then Fred in IT complains that his wages are not that much more than the less-skilled Bob .... so Fred's wages go up Then Jane the engineer complains that her wages are not rising as fast as the wages of the IT guy..... so her wages go up. Then the company needs to pay for all the extra money going to Joe and Sue and Bob and Fred and Jane ..... so prices for their products must go up. And this happens in all the companies.
Then one day, Joe the janitor goes into the store to buy something and the prices are higher..... so his paycheck won't buy as much.... so some politician comes along and tries to get his voting loyalty by promising to help him with that by "raising the minimum wage". Joe would be better-off supporting a politician that would have policies that helped him move-up to a better job and leave the low-wage job open for a young guy with no job experience to step into as a starter job.
Round-and-round it goes.... all minimum wage increases actually buy is [1] very temporary bump in low-wage worker buying ability [2] inflation [3] demand for illegal workers to do low-value jobs that can no longer be done legally (and politicians who look the other way as borders are violated and waves of illegal workers perform millions of jobs that must be done, but cannot be done at the artificially-pumped wages) this in-turn leads to political corruption and corruption of the legal system as people at all levels start playing the game of picking-and-choosing which laws to enforce....
You should know that the program that Solyndra got the money from is budgeted for a default rate over 10% as approved by Congress. So far with Solyndra and the one other one I know about the default rate is still under 5%. Much of the investment was in wind and solar power plants that are paying off their loans on schedule.
First, EVERY Obama deficit has been two to three times the size of Bush's WORST deficit.
Second, plenty of Republicans and/or conservatives (NOT the same thing, but with big overlap) were mad at Bush over the spending (the anger started to really grow with his massive Medicare drug program... a Carl Rove-driven attempt to buy the votes of seniors the way the Democrats always have but which many saw as a compete sell-out on principles). The TEA Party started-up in large-part in response to TARP (the approx $700Billion Bush bank bail-out) AND the initial Bush auto bail-out that was done as a courtesy to the newly-elected Obama (essentially a mini-bail-out to freeze the status quo in autos so Obama would have more policy options than if bush either [a] locked-in a big plan or [b] let it all collapse in the Nov-Jan months)
Additionally, your comment is un-tethered from history... Clinton TRIED to balloon the deficit (including trying national health care) but was stopped by congress. Clinton further benefitted from [a] the internet bubble [b] a home construction bubble fueled by all those new sub-prime mortgages his regulators were strong-arming banks into making (what could possibly go wrong?) [c] a public willing to let him slash the military (the cold war was "over"). Reagan, on the other hand, needed to do a massive defense increase because Jimmy Carter had gutted the military post-Vietnam (I was in uniform in the Carter/Reagan years and saw both first-hand... half the US Navy was sailing round w/o ammo and spare parts and the Soviets were moving all around the globe when Reagan got in). Additionally, Reagan had a Democrat congress who were willing to provide the military funds but entirely unwilling to reduce any social spending. (Democrats frequently are "obstructionists" when they have congress and there's a Republican in the White House). GW Bush inherited the recession that occurred when the internet bubble burst and then 9-11 hit (so he HAD to run big deficits both to run the military actions and also because the economy had taken a severe double-hit). Remember: Bush had to buy lots of bombs and missiles and body armor and new armored vehicles (like MRAPS) because Clinton had left him a military not ready nor equipped for a middle-east war (remember Rumsfeld's line about fighting a war with the army you have rather than the one you wish you had? ... he was talking about the equipment Clinton left Bush, like un-armored Hummers which don't hold-up well against IEDs). Obama, on the other hand, inherited a LOT of new systems (like MRAPS, armed drones, some new ships and subs, new aircraft, new types of bunker busting bombs and extremely accurate guided ordnance) and an extremely experienced military from Bush.
Context matters.
Obama's biggest-in-the-history-of-planet-Earth deficits are not justified. He's been reducing military activity. The GW Bush deficits included the costs of the 2008 bank bail-outs, post-911 airline bailouts, and part of the auto bailouts. Obama is simply a wild and crazy spender who is out to fulfill all the wet dreams of every liberal dreamer. Anybody college age or younger will pay a terrible price for all of this... many thousands of dollars, reduce opportunities, reduced freedoms, etc for the rest of his/her life. Very sad and tragic; no generation of Americans in history has ever been so mislead and so set-up by their parents.
Oh, and in case you plan to rely on the "progressive" talking-point that the huge 2008 budget deficit was Bush's and was bigger than Obama's 2009 deficit.... forget it; that only works on morons. In 2006 the Democrats took over congress by such a massive landslide that in Nov 2006 the Democrats declared the 2007 budget "dead" and refused to negotiate with Republicans on a 2007 budget. The Fiscal 2007 and 2008 budgets were the Democrat budgets negotiated between Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid. Bush, as a "lame duck", simply accepted and signed those two massive deficit pork-laden budgets and went back to his focus on the wars.
"rights" that they "need" and only if the collective decides to allow them.
Obama breaking the law? here are some
Obama lying?
There are MANY MANY more examples of his law breaking and lies.... if you do not kno about them then you are either willfully ignorant or you get your news from late night comedians and are therefore super-stupid
You probably thought you were an individual human being with guaranteed constitutional rights. Progressivism has never supported these concepts. Young people with poor history educations are easily fooled into thinking that the "progressive" ideology has something to do with "progress". Progressivism actually got rolling under Teddy Roosevelt and included a bunch of historical characters many Americans think fondly of.... and many of those characters thought they were bringing about "progress" ..... but there were some VERY warped ideas and it all went rather horribly wrong; so much so that for decades, no American would admit to being a "progressive" (leftists all wanted to be called "liberals" instead). Early 20th century progressives pushed euthenasia (some even openly saying that the government should decide if your life has value and get rid of you if you are not valuable enough) .... word of some of this reached certain ears in Europe and it led to some rather "unfortunate" effects a few years later. Other progressives pushed an outfit they called "Planned Parenthood" to help in the effort clean-up society (by eliminating little brown people they dd not like, and little poor people, and little disabled people...) Other progressives pushed big increases in government control over individuals and businesses and education and healthcare..... all with only the purest of motives, of course (wink).
Now we have, arguably, the single most-"progressive" president in U.S. history and the leftist extremists, having made the public hate the name "liberal" have now reverted back to the name "progressive". Now our progressive president, acting perfectly consistently with traditional progressivism, has d
Anybody with a good education knows that George Washington wrote about the fact that individuals had an absolute right to have pistols AND rifles, the Ben Franklin, and others among the founders, wrote that the "militia" was every able-bodied adult male who did not hold religious objections. (they did not exclude females from the definition as an anti-woman thing, but rather, because they did not want to say women had to be dragged into combat on a moment's notice... many women had guns and some even fought in the revolutionary war). Further, the founder who penned the 2nd amendment (name slips my mind at the moment) actually explained it in independent writings as an individual right to have military firearms. Thomas Jefferson actually ridiculed the idea that the 2nd amendment was anything other than an individual right.
The modern question was never whether it was an individual right, but rather whether a modern court tainted by the idea of a "living document" would use whacko-thinking like it used in Roe-v-Wade (look-up "eminations" and "penumbras" and notice a lack of references to the actual text of the constitution in that warped ruling which even many pro-choice lawyers think is a joke, as a legal argument, even as they support the result) to do something completely un-anchored to all of the history, writings, and actual text.
Try not to make the mistake many journalists make of saying that the supreme court decides what the constitution says. The truth is that the Constitution says what it says and every citizen can read it; it's meaning does not change except by amendment. The supreme court is one of three co-equal branches whose primary job is to interpret the constitution for the lower courts; this helps resolve situations where one lower court rules something "constitutional" and another court in another district rules it "unconstitutional" (thus raising the spectre on "unequal justice" where you get the result you want by choosing a district for your court case). This makes the supreme court the final arbiter in any generation, but they can be wrong and they can reverse themselves (see "Dred Scott")
Social Security started in 1935. Medicare started in 1965. And you mention the inflationary effect on tuition from the GI Bill? Maybe Medicare has had an inflationary effect on medical care as well...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Neither party has a stellar record when they control Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png
The debt ceiling increased under all but Bush's first year, even when Congress was Republican controlled or split. Of course, Bush and Obama have war expenses that previous administrations, starting with Reagan, didn't have. And Obama takes the hit for significantly reduced tax receipts due to the recession. It's more complicated than "[insert the party you don't like] sucks!"
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
In this week's 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama announced his energy policy initiatives for 2013. He signaled new directions on issues ranging from transportation fuel economy to promoting low-cost natural gas to investing in energy efficiency, clean energy and infrastructure. These policies could have significant impacts on those in the energy sector as well as any others who consume electricity, oil, or natural gas in their operations. I wrote a brief summary of President Obama’s remarks on energy issues: http://energypolicyupdate.blogspot.com/2013/02/2013-state-of-the-union-on-energy.html
This appeared in the email right after "Why Is It So Hard To Make An Accurate Progress Bar?"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Whoops! Thanks for the correction.
I'm sure Medicare has had an inflationary effect on medical costs.
But the thing is, I see the college education market as something loaded with excess and ready for disruption. There are high quality free online learning resources, the schools that are not prestigious but still charge $40,000 or more per year in tuition deserve to collapse. I don't need to go to college to learn.
Medical care is different - I do think it's a basic right in any first world nation in the 21st century. But other countries have much better cost controls than we do.
Honestly, I feel like a sucker.
If you believed the math on his tax plan worked, you damn well should feel like a sucker.
Do you think that Obama's tax plan (whatever that is) is working? Trillion dollar deficits have become the normal under Obama even though he promised to cut our annual deficits in half. He even said that if he didn't get this accomplished that he should only be a one term President. I guess that makes two promises broken in this example.
You mean the deficit which was maximum during Obama's first year, the budget for which was written under the Bush administration, and which has been going down every year since? http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/7/26/60302364-7d87-4258-916b-64dbf67d7fcb.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-asCDUk24jRE/TmFuQXObXyI/AAAAAAAAAlA/3bN1fjT3dXE/s1600/deficit%2Bbush%2Bvs%2Bobama.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QlTEkX7iyFY/TMcZsPI1RaI/AAAAAAAAA0c/KMgwo7QM1gU/s1600/Bush-Obama-Deficits.jpg
Yeah. those dang tax and spend Democrats, we were doing so well under Reagan then the next morning, there's a Kenyan socialist in office who took the Reagan Surplus and gave it away to his army of black drug addicts and illegal Hispanic gangsters, then had to raise taxes sky high to finance some stupid war in Iraq he started over the strenuous objections of the Republican party, only because he confiscated their firearms to prevent their armed rebellion against said madness.
That about it?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Nonsense for two reasons: McDonalds can't hire Bob as an independent contractor, pay him less than minimum wage, and then tell him what to wear and when to work. Because then he's not an independent contractor, he's an employee.
So McDonalds hires a burger-flipping staffing agency to be Bob's direct employer...well the agency still has to pay Bob a minimum wage. And you can only use such temporary labor for so long until you run into problems with the Department of Labor. Because then you're again treating your temp as an employee.
Obviously, by cutting every program and area of public spending that doesn't directly enrich Goldman Sachs.
Public education, public health care, minimum wage, labor laws....
In some alternate universe where Reagan didn't invent the trillion-dollar national debt, where Dubbya didn't pass budget busting tax cuts while waging two illegal wars of choice, and where Dubbya didn't hand an economy in the grips of a depression into the hands of his Democratic successor?
That Obama has chosen to continue the Republican mess of wars and tax cuts for the rich does nothing to change the fact that those problems were created by Republicans in the first place.
Citations? Citations? You need citations that pushing massive tax cuts for the rich while starting an illegal, unnecessary War of Terror had a weeee bit of a negative impact on the nations finances?
From your own citation, the parts you left out:
"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began."
So, a budget was written by Bush, and had the final spending bills - not total - signed by his successor means Bush had nothing to do with the 2009 deficit because....why?