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.
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.
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.
Yes, it can happen, and it should. If our democracy and constitution fails due to tyranny from the hands of our power hungry usurpers then we get what we deserve. "Those who would sacrifice some of their liberty for safety deserve neither." - loose quote. There comes a point where our constitution must be tested, and let it stand the test of trial.
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
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.
So the US is ending their occupation of Afghanistan again? Like they did the last few times they announced a "full withdraw"?
Could you provide some links to these previous announcements about Afghanistan, and when they would occur?
The only thing I find more amazing than official US propaganda is that most people seem to believe it.
Indeed. By the way, where do you get your info from? A "trustworthy" party organ?
Last US troops withdraw from Iraq
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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?
That and internalizing a formerly externalized cost.
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?
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
When did the definition of tyranny become "Government doing something I don't like"? Because that sure seems to be what people are meaning by the word these days.
If you think Obama is breaking the law, give solid examples. If you think he is lying, give facts that attempt to prove your case. If and when your facts are shown to be lacking, acknowledge the fact and come up with a different argument. At the moment the people that don't like Obama are throwing words around like rocks but I never, EVER see any facts coming about.
I hate what is going on with the drones, but the absolute lack of rationality in Obama's opposition right now keeps driving me to make comments. Get some rational leaders and get some good arguments with honest to goodness FACTS that aren't simply word twisting and I'm sure people will listen to your side, but right now you're no better than the loud, drunk redneck in a saloon.
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 why do Obama supporters automatically assume that when someone talks about government tyranny that we're speaking in regards to their dear leader? I'm actually talking about the part of government that proposes and passes laws - because ultimately that's where everything is going to go down in regards to gun control legislation.
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.
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."
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
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.
You don't believe that when thousands of military personnel and contractors are given diplomatic immunity that they suddenly stop being part of the military, do you? There are still thousands of US military in Iraq, most of them stationed, sorry "being diplomatic", in the US embassy complex (which is almost the size of the entire Vatican City State).
Citation needed? Would you believe the Governemnt's own Accountability Office in the Department of State? Try http://iraq.usembassy.gov/political-military-affairs.html and http://iraq.usembassy.gov/security-office.html for a start, found in about 10 seconds of googling.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
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.
The definition of tyranny was and remains a government that does not protect the natural rights of its people. The fact that people don't like a government which, like ours, routinely abrogates those rights does not mean that the abrogation is not tyrannical. So just to give one example, the President asserts the right to kill Americans without due process if he deems them to be a terrorist threat, even in America, on the theory that "the battlefield is everywhere." Is that, the utter abrogation of the right to life, not to be taken without due process of law (which doesn't simply mean making a law, or worse a regulation, or worst an executive order), not tyranny? And before you stalk off about this, yes, Bush was tyrannical, too, as witness the Padilla case.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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....
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.
People confusing breaking the law with abuse of power.
You don't call not submitting a budget on time or at all, thereby breaking the law tyranny. You can call Executive Orders that are in clear violation of the Constitution the beginnings of tyranny. Tyranny is not something that suddenly appears unless it's backed by an army. More often, it is the slow perversion of the legitimate government.
Hell, even the Star Wars writers know that.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The President is required BY LAW to present a budget to Congress "On or after the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in February of each year..."
He has failed to submit a budget on time four out of the last five years.
From the same article, above: "The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, states clearly, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
He clearly is not abiding by either of those requirements.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
My car is well regulated. Not by State officials, but by my mechanic.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Is that where all the climate change hot air is coming out or just your face?
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
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.
[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
He didn't say the war would be won, only that it would end. He also only promised 34,000 troops would come home, which would set the troop levels in Afghanistan to about the same level they were at when Bush was in office.
"U.S. troops" is a specific term that does not include "private security" (read: mercenaries), contractors, DoD "consultants", State Department, CIA, etc., etc. What's left in Iraq is the largest embassy in the world (they call it a "complex"), with tons of military equipment like Apache attack copters, tanks, rocket launching platforms, and of course facilities for launching drones (although most of the drones in the region are actually launched and controlled from Djibouti). So, yea, the "war" is "over" there, too.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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
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.
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.
My car is well regulated. Not by State officials, but by my mechanic.
Actually, your car is regulated by State officials.
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?
Oh yes. Because arresting someone as they get off an international flight at the border, is totally equivalent to firing a missile into someone's eye socket.
Don't you mean read the entire second amendment, and then focus on a three word phrase and take it entirely out of context?
Actually this is posted on POLITICS.slashdot.org.
Which is a subforum for... you guessed it!
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.
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
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!
You don't understand what "well regulated" means.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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 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!
If you are trying to suggest that I am a hypocrite, then you are doing so without any supporting information other than what you make up in your tiny little brain.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Please read the entire second amendment. It mentions the need for a "well regulated militia"
Please read the Supreme Court ruling DC v Heller, and their ruling in McDonald v Chicago. The right to bear arms is for the individual, and is incorporated to the individual. It is not about a militia, but personal firearm ownership.
Unless, of course, you know more about case law and the Constitution than the US Supreme Court...
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.
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.
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!
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.
The Supreme Court routinely ignores the Constitution, and issues very bad rulings based on some of the worst logic. Their legitimacy as an arbiter of justice is in serious doubt.
Good-bye
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.
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.
The need for a well regulated militia is one of the many reasons for the right to bear arms, it is not the only reason nor is it given as a qualification for the right to bear arms. That comma is there for a reason.
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 here we have the essential essence of the Left: What we don't agree with must be illegitimate.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Actually, no, gun regulations do deserve a vote, over and over again, until when the gun grabbers finally achieve a slim majority, and then die by the thousands trying to enforce it.
Only then will the morons understand that political equality is predicated on having an equal capacity for violence. That is, things we consider rights, like free speech or private property or privacy, can only exist so long as the people who believe in them can kill those who attempt to deny them.
Of course, we also need some sort of trade tariffs to keep jobs from going overseas to countries with slave-like working conditions.
No, but holding someone for more than a year without access to legal counsel and without filing formal charges is as much of a due process violation.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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.
What's really amusing about this comment is that it presents no logic or facts, merely strong beliefs. No good arguments are made, merely name-calling. And further, rather than attempt to engage any argument, or even admit that one is available to be engaged, the poster instead accuses (by redirection to "psychological studies of conservatives) all conservatives of being insane, or at least mentally unbalanced. If only there were a psychological term for when one projects their own internal feelings and faults onto others....
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I agree with him that the Supreme Court often issues decisions clearly at odds with what the Constitution plainly says, and that its legitimacy as an arbiter of Constitutionality (probably not justice overall, though) is in serious doubt. But I suspect he and I would disagree on which decisions the Court has been wrong about.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Actually, legitimacy is usually of greater concern to conservatives than liberals. Liberals tend to care more about whether something is harmful than legitimate. One of the reasons the birther movement keeps going is because it deligitimizes Barrack Obama in the eyes of some conservatives and makes him less than the rightful president. That's not to say that liberals don't care about legitimacy, but rather that they care less about it than conservatives do.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
Minimum wage is only a factor in unemployment when it is higher than the market wage would have been. When it is higher, mostly what it does is encourage employers to be pickier about who they hire. At higher wages they can afford to hire people with more impressive job histories, with more experience. So for people like me in the lowest income bracket it is a mixed blessing. It means that if I can get a job I will make a bit more money than I would have otherwise, but it also means that I will be even less likely to get hired for one. For me, getting hired for any job is already practically impossible.
So it's a very mixed blessing. Perhaps a minimum wage could be combined with some sort of enforced hiring as well. Or you could rotate the jobs so everyone gets a chance to do some work. I guess that would mean forcing the employer to fire people, hehe. Or you could force employers to keep the same number of employees as before the minimum wage hike so they don't just downsize their workforce when the higher wages reduce executive and share holder profits.
In my area one of the biggest practical problems to even getting a job is the local immigrant population from Brazil. It's like a kind of reverse racism. The immigrants are often preferred because they are seen as hard workers and frankly a bit desperate. American citizens are considered a bit more hit and miss. We are considered less likely to make washing dishes or working as a cashier at a gas station a life-long career.
There's also the issue that many have worked their way up to manager and then have a preference for hiring other Brazilians. I don't want to get rid of such immigrants like some people. Immigrants are what this country is supposed to be about. Nevertheless it has been a practical problem for me. I can't do anything about the fact that I wasn't born in Brazil no matter how hard I am willing to work.
I don't support any sort of political solution to this problem. The point is just that actually getting a minimum wage job can be a bigger problem than what the wage is. The minimum wage here is $8/hour. That isn't much especially after all the 'quantitative easing' and higher prices we've seen in the past few years, but it is better than having no money at all. I was going to say that it was better than $0/hr but even volunteer jobs are difficult to get around here. They still at least contribute to your work history so that it is easier to get a real job eventually.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
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.
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 ).
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!
No, it's not. To imply that assasinating Jose Padilla as he stepped off a plane is the moral equivalent same as holding him for a year as an enemy combatant, is repugnant.
ack, need and edit function.
crap.
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!
And yet that is the system we have, and for better or worse - they are the legal, final arbiters of what IS Constitutional. ACs and spire3661 notwithstanding.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
You should read more carefully. I did not say that killing someone is equivalent to imprisoning them. I said that not granting them due process (ability to contest their guilt before being punished) is equivalent to not granting them due process (ability to contest their guilt before being punished).
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
When did the definition of tyranny become "Government doing something I don't like"?
Whenever Democrats are in charge, Republicans suddenly start screaming about tyranny.
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.
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.
I have engaged in plenty of arguments with conservatives, on the Wall Street Journal comments pages and elsewhere.
I started out thinking, "They read the Wall Street Journal, how stupid can they be." Boy, was I wrong. I picked out people who seemed to be more intelligent. It was hopeless.
In the area that I know a lot about, health policy, they were repeating Republican and conservative talking points over and over again. I used to link to peer-reviewed journals. They would just dismiss it. ("Hah! The New England Journal of Medicine! That liberal rag!" "Science magazine! ...") There have been a lot of studies about conservative thinking in the peer-reviewed literature, and they found that, with conservatives, giving them more evidence merely makes them argue their beliefs more strongly. Conservatives and liberals are not symmetrical. Liberals do that, but significantly less.
The other thing I did on the Wall Street Journal comments pages was to track down their sources and see what they actually said. I was really surprised to see how often their facts didn't hold up. You'd think they'd be concerned about their credibility. Boy, was I wrong.
And for supporting evidence, I repeat that a Google search Chris Mooney is a good place to start.
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.
When did the definition of tyranny become "Government doing something I don't like"?
Whenever Democrats are in charge, Republicans suddenly start screaming about tyranny.
And vice-versa.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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.
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.
And yet that same Supreme Court decision also states that the right to keep and bear arms is not unrestricted and can be reasonably regulated. So it absolutely can and should be debated in the Congress, as is the due process for enacting laws in a democratic society. If and when they come up with a law, we can review it for constitutional issues, and refer it to SCOTUS if its provisions seem to be overreaching.
(all that said, I very much hope that AWB and hi-cap mag bans do not pass)
There are some SCOTUS rulings which can be reasonably argued to be contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the Constitution, but I'm not aware of any rational argument along the same lines pertaining specifically to their decision in Heller or McDonald. Their analysis of the original scope and meaning of the 2nd Amendment in Heller was very detailed and substantiated by a lot of evidence. If you have any particular issues with it, why not point them out specifically?
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.
I've seen plenty of Democrats propose that the income tax and especially capital gains tax only be raised to Clinton-era levels for people earning a million dollars a year or more. It's the Republicans who are intentionally putting the line at $250,000, for the express purpose of drawing the middle class into the fight on their side.
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.
I would submit, sir, that you haven't really been paying attention if you've "never EVER" seen any facts that disparage Obama.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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 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.
Ah... now that meme has been taken to the ultimate, "every planet". [citation needed]
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.
That doesn't seem possible in the US unless maybe you own property that's totally out of whack with your income level.
Dead people don't have due process.
Murder is murder, but war is not murder. So yes, it matters whether a person is killed by their own government or another. It matters whether a person is killed on a battlefield or in an area without any combat occurring. It may not matter much to the person killed, but it matters a lot to the ones not yet killed, but at risk.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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.
That's a feature, not a bug.
All prices are already set to maximize revenue.
Question: why doesn't this Concern ever arise over ever-increasing executive pay and compensation? Does the pay for Wal-Mart's boss - who earns more in a month than a Wal-Mart employee does in his entire lifetime - not mean higher prices at the till? Why is it only the working stiffs, the base of the pyramid, have to "take one for the team"?
The minimum wage is about establishing a minimum standard of living. If you're against that, then you're for turning America into a dystopia straight out of a Charles Dickens' novel.
LOL. Your post is the boilerplate Faux News Hatorade, whereas the above AC rattles of a list of real-world shit that actually matters.
Proving once again that the only honest criticism of Obama comes from the left and anti-imperialist Libertarians.
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?