So, if if cloning an extinct mammal uses very limited research dollars, isn't that still harming someone?
Not unless those dollars are taken from the people who would otherwise have them.
Since there are a finite amount of resources, both physically and financially, would it not be prudent to use them where they have the greatest impact on humanity?
Who decides what will have the greatest impact on humanity? Who can even know that, long-term? I very much doubt someone would have predicted the crucial inventions of the industrial age in advance.
Anyway, following your argument, you should spend every single dollar above what it takes to feed and clothe yourself on charity, since buying luxury goods and services (like, say, that Internet connection you're using to post to/.) while there are people somewhere in the world who cannot even afford food, is not prudent.
Actually, I didn't say that, but there are many who believe something to that effect. However, in the world of research, there is never enough money to fund all the projects. As for what will have the greatest impact on humanity, I'll leave that answer up to the philosophers, it doesn't change the argument, however.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
If something can be done, and someone wants to do it, and no-one is harmed in the process - why shouldn't it be done?
If you want to solve real world problems, go ahead. Don't ask other people to do it on your behalf instead of doing something they enjoy.
So, if if cloning an extinct mammal uses very limited research dollars, isn't that still harming someone? Put differently, if the funding this project keeps from funding a project that could improve crop yields and feed more starving people in third world countries, would not funding this project in effect be harming others?
Since there are a finite amount of resources, both physically and financially, would it not be prudent to use them where they have the greatest impact on humanity?
Our problem isn't too little revenue, it's too much spending. Adjusted for inflation (constant dollars), the Federal Government is bringing in the same number of dollars as it did with the Clinton surplus. It's just that spending has shot up 50% since that time. Trying to squeeze more dollars out won't help - we need to count the ones we're spending much more carefully.
And the cost of two wars since Clinton left office amounts to how much of that spending? And the wall street and corporate bailouts? Remove both of those and while not still in balance, things are significantly better and manageable.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. While resurrecting a long ago extinct species might be neat, think of all of the talent and research dollars going into it, when instead those resources could be used to help solve real world problems, like increased crop yields, alternative energy sources, finding cures, etc. None of those have the wow factor of producing another cloned mammal, particularly an extinct one, but all of them would be absolutely more meaningful to the human condition.
The short answer is no, it only appears to. Data shows that whatever is saved by outsourcing new development is made up for by increased maintenance costs. I worked for a large government agency that would outsource new development and have the existing programmers maintain legacy code. Very often, they even paid for the training for the outsource staff, which came out of a training budget and not the actual development budget. Then when the project was completed, it was turned over to the existing staff to maintain.
The problem with this approach is that the existing staff never comes up to speed, they don't know what went into the design decisions, etc. (yes, there is documentation, but it isn't the same as being part of the project). This approach is not unique to government entities, either. Many large businesses take this approach.
While I was employed there, we changed the process so consultants were used to maintain the legacy code and trained the internal staff on the new technologies needed for projects. We went from being habitually over budget and late to on budget and on time.
The blogger in the article went from a Macbook Air to an iPad. The Air is substantially more portable than your Pro. All things being equal, would the work you need to do be easier to do an a Macbook Air or on an iPad?
If you can do everything on a table that you were doing on a Macbook Air, then just maybe you didn't really need a full blown computer in the first place. One sees these stories/comments all the time, about how people are replacing their computer with an iPad. However, by the time you figure the price of the device plus the cost of the added keyboard, it seems more like they are trying to justifying paying a lot of money for not a lot of computing power.
When making these decisions,it should be based on what will the iPad allow me to do that I can't already? With the blogger this article is about, portability isn't an issue, a Macbook Air is easier to carry around than an iPad and a keyboard. Assuming he also has an iPhone or other smart phone, there doesn't seem to be an advantage of the iPad there, either.
If one believes that the netbook market is dead, buying an iPad plus keyboard to mimic a netbook doesn't seem the brightest move. If the netbook market isn't dead, then spending $700+ to mimic a $250 netbook doesn't seem to smart, either.
So if they're paying the same effective rates and share of taxes - what's the problem? Are they now not paying their fair share - but 30 years ago (at the same ratio) they were? If the system hasn't changed - why is it now bad, yet it was good before? You really have nothing other than simply "kill the rich" type rhetoric.
Nobody ever said it was good before. Under Reagan, massive changes to tax policy were put in place that created the problems that we are facing now. Dot com bubbles, oil bubbles, housing bubbles, etc., all came from those changes. Those changes also led to the demise of American business because it became cheaper for investors to buy a business and carve it up than to actually manufacture something. Likewise, while most business made money by producing a product or service, after the changes, that shifted to more and more revenue being made by investing activities.
Don't get me wrong, not all of the changes were bad and not all of them were from Reagan. Clinton did his fair share of damage, too, but nothing like the most recent Bush tax cuts that even the republican congress intended to be temporary when they were first past.
Obviously, the larger your income, the larger the tax you pay. However, as a proportion of income, the marginal tax rate is lower than it has ever been. What that means is that each dollar earned, the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of it than a poor person. It is no surprise that a millionaire, even at a marginal rate of 10% after deductions, the millionaire will pay more than the lower middle class who has a marginal tax rate of 15% with the standard deduction.
Median household income in the United States is right around $60,000 with half of all households earning above that and half below that. Of the half that is above, 99% of them earn less than $250,000.
As a percentage of income spent on taxes, the highest percentage is paid by those households below the median, which usually means they do not have the luxury of itemizing their deductions. The least percentage of income spent on taxes is in the group over $250,000, which are the top 2% of earners.
If one assumes that each human life is of the same value, then the protections that government provides is for the protection of goods. Should not those with the most goods, therefore pay the most taxes? Much like in those states with toll roads, those who drive the most pay the most?
"I'm not a mathematician, but your percentages total more than 100%"
I'm not saying the parent poster's numbers are correct but the poster did state: "top 6 (as a percentage of revenue, spending is about 160% of revenue)" so the percentages should be more than 100% (because the federal government spends more than it takes in).
The problem is that the statistics quoted aren't directly related to the revenues, so comparing them that way is misleading. The real measure to be concerned about is not the the expenses compared to government revenue, but the real deficit compared to real GDP. The greatest deficit to GDP ratio occurred during the 1950s which also saw the largest growth in the economy and standard of living.
For the record, I am not stating that there isn't a problem. However, as long as people frame the problem incorrectly, we will continue to get incorrect solutions. The real issue driving all of this is not the budget deficit in the United States, but the trade deficit. Solve that problem and the budget deficit will correct automatically.
That assumes that you think that revenues are where they should be. It is quite possible that the problem is not on the spending side of the equation, but the revenue side.
The problem is always on the spending side. In order to maintain financial health, private citizens and organizations are required to spend less money than they take in. For some reason, "economists" such as yourself think this principle magically does not apply to governments.
That could be because governments are not private citizens or organizations. If it did, there wouldn't be any highways, airports, public hospitals, etc. Besides, even private citizens and organizations take out debt to buy things, like houses, cars, equipment, etc. If they truly were required to spend less than they took in, they wouldn't be able to do that.
On the otherhand, there would never be a war, if the government had to save up ahead of time, before it could buy weapons and pay troops. But since day on of the US, even the Revolutionary War was debt financed. It is only the last two wars, that were not.
I hope you aren't really using "buying a house" as an example of reasonable and prudent money management right now! Or were you blind to the titanic malinvestment that was the housing bubble (and that I didn't see any economists besides Shiller warning about - thank goodness I believed him!)?
The problem with the housing bubble was not in people buying a house to live in, but buying a house as an investment. It was the speculation in the housing market that led to escalating prices. The same thing happens in the stock market and in oil prices. Speculation drives the prices up, creating a bubble which eventually bursts. Except in those markets we call it a correction.
The SSA effectively draws all it's money from the general fund at this point, as it has no sellable assets: just taxes, and bonds that can only be redeemed if there are taxes/other borrowing to cover them. It is no more or less solvent than the federal government. Is an organization that spends 160% of what it takes in, and has no reserves, solvent? Not by the definition you just gave.
The SSA is prohibited, by congress, from investing in anything other than treasuries, which in effect is the general fund when it cashes those in. As such, it is operating the way it was designed. The problem with SSA is not that there are more retirees than workers, but that the amount of income subject to the tax was never indexed to inflation, but the benefits were. In addition, medicare was added but medical costs far outstripped the capacity of the revenue generated.
Now, if you are proposing that the elderly and single mothers and their children (the two largest groups of medicare recipients) are simply put on an ice flow and pushed out to sea, that's one solution . However, most people would disagree, even the wealthy. But, if you want to cut medicare, that is in effect who you will be kicking off the roles.
Note that in common dialogue today, ending the tax break that the extremely wealthy currently enjoy translates into "higher taxes" on the wealthy.
Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history. Ending the so called tax cuts just sets the rate back to what it was when Bush took office, which was also the last time the US had a balanced budget. At that time, the wealthy paid the lowest taxes at any time in US history, too. The tax cuts passed under Bush lowered them further. Congress at the time knew it wasn't sustainable, which is why they had an expiration date.
Let's get rid of all government spending, federal, state and local. No food stamps, etc. Now as those without means start to plunder, as anarchy sets in, who has the most to lose? The poor, no, they don't have anything to start with. It is the wealthy. Government provides for the poor, not because it is the right thing to do, but because it protects the assets of those who have them. Same for military spending.
The purpose of the military is to a) protect property and to b) protect the interest of the people. Again, the poor don't have property to protect and the interest in question is the way of life the non-poor take for granted.
Take environmental spending. Pollution affects all, poor and rich alike. However, clean rivers and streams impact those of means who can take advantage of them instead of the poor.
How much would it cost to fly if private industry built airports, provided the functions the FAA does? It would be cost prohibitive. But again, the majority of people do not travel regularly by air, unless for business, so those expenditures subsidize businesses.
Similar cases can be made for spending on roads and other infrastructure. The more you have the more you benefit. This is not to say that the poor do not benefit also from many of these government expenditures, but that is only secondary. Most of that spending is to keep the masses docile, again, to protect the rest of us.
I agree that your hypothetical uncle Sam is living beyond his means. The problem is that it isn't the social welfare that causes it, but the corporate subsidies. Exactly why do we subsidize major oil companies and corporate farms?
Unless you are looking at all benefits provided by government, you cannot get a clear picture and cannot solve the underlying structural problems in the economy.
There are lots of places to either reduce expenditures or increase revenues, unfortunately, when looking at those that are truly discretionary, lobbyists get involved and cry that you are hurting the job creators. But, they are the same group that benefits the most from government. If we truly went to a pay as you go system as many people want, it will kill off most industries. So, instead, go after the low hanging fruit of the budget tree, particularly when there are no lobbyists involved.
The Nazis blamed the Jews for all of their problems. Today's equivalent to the Jews are the poor.
Actually, that isn't the budget, just a pie chart representing broad expense categories.
Welcome to how the US government does budgets. It worries about how to spend the money, not about how to get it.
. For instance, if social security is bringing in 22% of the revenue and only expending 20%, then the 20% expense is not a problem. For the record, I do not know what social security brings in, but it supposedly "solvent" for another 20 years, so even if it is deficit spending, it isn't impacting what current tax dollars are being used for.
There is no concept of "solvency" for Social Security. The bonds it supposedly holds are an accounting fiction (and wouldn't come close to covering its future obligations as you admit). It has no assets to speak of. And it is running a deficit now.
Do you own your house outright, or do you have a mortgage. If you have a mortgage, then you, too, just like the SSA, are deficit spending, by using debt to offset current needs.
Don't get me wrong, there are serious problems with revenues and expenditures of the federal government, but actual deficit spending is not the problem, but a symptom. As an example, the government collects fuel taxes that it then distributes. When the economy tanked in 2009, the government spent more on highway funding than it brought in. Was that a problem, no, because it came from previous reserves, or unspent fuel taxes, from prior years. In that case, a deficit is exactly what you would expect -- accumulated reserves are used to cover current costs or deficit spending.
The problem is that the government does not have the political strength to accumulate excess reserves in good times, so instead, it uses funds from other restricted sources, such as the SSA and those organizations hold the debt of the government. Or they sell debt to other countries, like China. Personally, I would much rather the debt of the US to be owned by its citizens then the Chinese, but that's not my call.
The SSA is solvent if its current revenues plus reserves cover its current expenditures, even if those reserves are held by the rest of the government. At that point where it does not, then it isn't solvent. Currently, it is solvent. At some point in the future, without an increase in revenues or a decrease in expenditures, it will become insolvent. The fact that they are running a deficit has nothing to do with it.
Quick summary of the top 6 (as a percentage of revenue, spending is about 160% of revenue): [snip]
I'm not a mathematician, but your percentages total more than 100% and don't include any spending for salaries and wages and all the other stuff the government spends money on.
Try that again - is it more clear now?
The SSA does purchase treasuries from the government, just like most pension funds do.
The SSA only has IOUs with no economic value these days. The "securities" it has can't be sold, and are only bookkeeping entries to remind us how much new tax revenue (or borrowing) will be needed to meet our promises. (Really - they're these unique bonds that exist nowhere else but the SSA, and the SSA can't sell them).
It's exactly as if you've borrowed all the money from your 401K. There's a fincancial instrument left in your 401K - your loan to yourself - but is has no ecoomnic value: every penny for your retirement has already been spent, and you now have to put a dollar in in order to get a dollar out! Yes, that's the kind of bastards our politicians are; I'm sure you're shocked.
Speaking as an actual economist, you are incorrect in too many ways to discuss on slashdot. You simply cannot compare things the way you are. The federal budget is much more complicated than a few statistics or pie charts. That is what congress tries to do, too and it is why the real underlying problem is never dealt with, because it isn't simple.
The first step is admitting that you have a spending problem. [usdebtclock.org]
That assumes that you think that revenues are where they should be. It is quite possible that the problem is not on the spending side of the equation, but the revenue side.
Arguing statistics that were pulled out of his butt is silly. This is a poster with a mission that you're responding to, not one with referential, cited facts. Of course this is/., where they're unnecessary. Carry on.
I know, I shouldn't have feed his troll, but there are so many people that spout stuff like this, that for the benefit of others I posted. It's amazing how people think that something as complicated as the federal budget can be explained away in just a few simple statements or a pie chart or two. Don't they realize that if it really was that simple, then something would have been done a long time ago?
As to Social Security, it is a con not a deserved benefit. There's no investment of the funds that went in ("pay as you go"), something that a few generations of US voters were willing to ignore. Nor is there an obligation to pay out a particular level of benefit.
A glance at the real budget shows defense comparable to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Any budget fixing process is going to have to shorten all the legs of the stool, not just defense.
Actually, that isn't the budget, just a pie chart representing broad expense categories. A true budget would also have revenues. For instance, if social security is bringing in 22% of the revenue and only expending 20%, then the 20% expense is not a problem. For the record, I do not know what social security brings in, but it supposedly "solvent" for another 20 years, so even if it is deficit spending, it isn't impacting what current tax dollars are being used for.
Likewise, how much of those expenditures are tied to highway funding, which has it's own funding source? Then there are things like the cost of congress and their staffing, which is included in the mandatory expenditures -- which is why, during the last budget debate, they were excluded from the cuts.
The federal deficit is much too complicated as to be explained by a simple pie chart. Because of this, you can make a pie chart "prove" whatever you want it to about the budget.
To paraphrase Samuel Clemons, There are lies, damn lies, and pie chart representations of the federal budget!
You're way off. Take a look at the link in my sig for the up-to-the-minute numbers. Also, I did say hand-out, I said money goven to the old and poor - the most favored political groups for spending, aside from corporations. Quick summary of the top 6 (as a percentage of revenue, spending is about 160% of revenue):
Medicare - 36%
Social Security - 31%
Defense and wars - 30%
Income Security - 18% (include a variety of programs for the poor, especially children)
Interest on the debt - 9%
Federal Pensions - 9%
Don't know why people think we spend the most on defense, it's less than 20% of the budget.
Another myth is that the social security you get is what paid for. The system completely doesn't work that way - your taxes pay for your parents and grandparents. Your kids and grandkids pay for you. Any "getting out what you paid in" in a comforting illusion - it's not a 401k, no money is saved or invested any more, the government spends every cent instantly these days (and would you ever expect them to do otherwise?!).
I'm not a mathematician, but your percentages total more than 100% and don't include any spending for salaries and wages and all the other stuff the government spends money on. It could be because you are comparing apples with oranges in figuring your revenues and expenditures. And of course if your are going to include social welfare, you should include corporate welfare, also, which far outweighs all of the TARP money that was spent on the banks.
And of course, spending is up on social programs. The government is paying extended unemployment benefits for just under 9% of the workforce. As for social security, the government doesn't spend every cent instantly in the way you suggest. The SSA does purchase treasuries from the government, just like most pension funds do. Eventually, those treasury securities come do and are swapped for new treasuries, but technically, the funds are invested.
From the summary, the problem is that most of the emails the employees get aren't useful and it takes too long for the employee to go through them. So, how does receiving all of those emails via facebook or twitter cut down on the time involved to determine what is useful or not. The summary states the employees are getting, on average, 200 emails a day. 200 FB posts seems even less efficient.
Besides, do you really want to discuss marketing strategies or contract negotiations on FB?
If this was 1995, I'd believe it. In 2011, Intel competes with itself. If they drive up CPU prices, they won't be able to make more and more profits because people do *NOT* need to upgrade. The vast majority of the population is doing fine on a dual core 4+ year old CPU running a browser and IM program and watching videos. Since people do not need to upgrade, but Intel has to sell more and more CPUs, their profits would collapse and then the stock and then... hilarity ensues.
Actually, the vast majority of people world wide don't even have access to a computer. For those who do, the vast majority probably don't even need a dual core cpu, for most of what is done. Engineers, graphic designers and gamers would be the exception to that statement.
If admissions are at an all time high, then why is Microsoft and Google still pushing for exceptions for more visas for foreign workers? Corporate officials keep complaining that there aren't enough CS grads and yet, the schools say otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if if cloning an extinct mammal uses very limited research dollars, isn't that still harming someone?
Not unless those dollars are taken from the people who would otherwise have them.
Since there are a finite amount of resources, both physically and financially, would it not be prudent to use them where they have the greatest impact on humanity?
Who decides what will have the greatest impact on humanity? Who can even know that, long-term? I very much doubt someone would have predicted the crucial inventions of the industrial age in advance.
Anyway, following your argument, you should spend every single dollar above what it takes to feed and clothe yourself on charity, since buying luxury goods and services (like, say, that Internet connection you're using to post to /.) while there are people somewhere in the world who cannot even afford food, is not prudent.
Actually, I didn't say that, but there are many who believe something to that effect. However, in the world of research, there is never enough money to fund all the projects. As for what will have the greatest impact on humanity, I'll leave that answer up to the philosophers, it doesn't change the argument, however.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.
If something can be done, and someone wants to do it, and no-one is harmed in the process - why shouldn't it be done?
If you want to solve real world problems, go ahead. Don't ask other people to do it on your behalf instead of doing something they enjoy.
So, if if cloning an extinct mammal uses very limited research dollars, isn't that still harming someone? Put differently, if the funding this project keeps from funding a project that could improve crop yields and feed more starving people in third world countries, would not funding this project in effect be harming others?
Since there are a finite amount of resources, both physically and financially, would it not be prudent to use them where they have the greatest impact on humanity?
Our problem isn't too little revenue, it's too much spending. Adjusted for inflation (constant dollars), the Federal Government is bringing in the same number of dollars as it did with the Clinton surplus. It's just that spending has shot up 50% since that time. Trying to squeeze more dollars out won't help - we need to count the ones we're spending much more carefully.
And the cost of two wars since Clinton left office amounts to how much of that spending? And the wall street and corporate bailouts? Remove both of those and while not still in balance, things are significantly better and manageable.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. While resurrecting a long ago extinct species might be neat, think of all of the talent and research dollars going into it, when instead those resources could be used to help solve real world problems, like increased crop yields, alternative energy sources, finding cures, etc. None of those have the wow factor of producing another cloned mammal, particularly an extinct one, but all of them would be absolutely more meaningful to the human condition.
You know, actually checking references is an excellent way to weed out those who are misrepresenting themselves.
The short answer is no, it only appears to. Data shows that whatever is saved by outsourcing new development is made up for by increased maintenance costs. I worked for a large government agency that would outsource new development and have the existing programmers maintain legacy code. Very often, they even paid for the training for the outsource staff, which came out of a training budget and not the actual development budget. Then when the project was completed, it was turned over to the existing staff to maintain.
The problem with this approach is that the existing staff never comes up to speed, they don't know what went into the design decisions, etc. (yes, there is documentation, but it isn't the same as being part of the project). This approach is not unique to government entities, either. Many large businesses take this approach.
While I was employed there, we changed the process so consultants were used to maintain the legacy code and trained the internal staff on the new technologies needed for projects. We went from being habitually over budget and late to on budget and on time.
I know all of the talk is on Firefox, but Thunderbird is part of Mozilla, too. How does this decision impact that?
The blogger in the article went from a Macbook Air to an iPad. The Air is substantially more portable than your Pro. All things being equal, would the work you need to do be easier to do an a Macbook Air or on an iPad?
If you can do everything on a table that you were doing on a Macbook Air, then just maybe you didn't really need a full blown computer in the first place. One sees these stories/comments all the time, about how people are replacing their computer with an iPad. However, by the time you figure the price of the device plus the cost of the added keyboard, it seems more like they are trying to justifying paying a lot of money for not a lot of computing power.
When making these decisions,it should be based on what will the iPad allow me to do that I can't already? With the blogger this article is about, portability isn't an issue, a Macbook Air is easier to carry around than an iPad and a keyboard. Assuming he also has an iPhone or other smart phone, there doesn't seem to be an advantage of the iPad there, either.
If one believes that the netbook market is dead, buying an iPad plus keyboard to mimic a netbook doesn't seem the brightest move. If the netbook market isn't dead, then spending $700+ to mimic a $250 netbook doesn't seem to smart, either.
So if they're paying the same effective rates and share of taxes - what's the problem? Are they now not paying their fair share - but 30 years ago (at the same ratio) they were? If the system hasn't changed - why is it now bad, yet it was good before? You really have nothing other than simply "kill the rich" type rhetoric.
Nobody ever said it was good before. Under Reagan, massive changes to tax policy were put in place that created the problems that we are facing now. Dot com bubbles, oil bubbles, housing bubbles, etc., all came from those changes. Those changes also led to the demise of American business because it became cheaper for investors to buy a business and carve it up than to actually manufacture something. Likewise, while most business made money by producing a product or service, after the changes, that shifted to more and more revenue being made by investing activities.
Don't get me wrong, not all of the changes were bad and not all of them were from Reagan. Clinton did his fair share of damage, too, but nothing like the most recent Bush tax cuts that even the republican congress intended to be temporary when they were first past.
Obviously, the larger your income, the larger the tax you pay. However, as a proportion of income, the marginal tax rate is lower than it has ever been. What that means is that each dollar earned, the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of it than a poor person. It is no surprise that a millionaire, even at a marginal rate of 10% after deductions, the millionaire will pay more than the lower middle class who has a marginal tax rate of 15% with the standard deduction.
Median household income in the United States is right around $60,000 with half of all households earning above that and half below that. Of the half that is above, 99% of them earn less than $250,000.
As a percentage of income spent on taxes, the highest percentage is paid by those households below the median, which usually means they do not have the luxury of itemizing their deductions. The least percentage of income spent on taxes is in the group over $250,000, which are the top 2% of earners.
If one assumes that each human life is of the same value, then the protections that government provides is for the protection of goods. Should not those with the most goods, therefore pay the most taxes? Much like in those states with toll roads, those who drive the most pay the most?
"I'm not a mathematician, but your percentages total more than 100%"
I'm not saying the parent poster's numbers are correct but the poster did state: "top 6 (as a percentage of revenue, spending is about 160% of revenue)" so the percentages should be more than 100% (because the federal government spends more than it takes in).
The problem is that the statistics quoted aren't directly related to the revenues, so comparing them that way is misleading. The real measure to be concerned about is not the the expenses compared to government revenue, but the real deficit compared to real GDP. The greatest deficit to GDP ratio occurred during the 1950s which also saw the largest growth in the economy and standard of living.
For the record, I am not stating that there isn't a problem. However, as long as people frame the problem incorrectly, we will continue to get incorrect solutions. The real issue driving all of this is not the budget deficit in the United States, but the trade deficit. Solve that problem and the budget deficit will correct automatically.
That assumes that you think that revenues are where they should be. It is quite possible that the problem is not on the spending side of the equation, but the revenue side.
The problem is always on the spending side. In order to maintain financial health, private citizens and organizations are required to spend less money than they take in. For some reason, "economists" such as yourself think this principle magically does not apply to governments.
That could be because governments are not private citizens or organizations. If it did, there wouldn't be any highways, airports, public hospitals, etc. Besides, even private citizens and organizations take out debt to buy things, like houses, cars, equipment, etc. If they truly were required to spend less than they took in, they wouldn't be able to do that.
On the otherhand, there would never be a war, if the government had to save up ahead of time, before it could buy weapons and pay troops. But since day on of the US, even the Revolutionary War was debt financed. It is only the last two wars, that were not.
I hope you aren't really using "buying a house" as an example of reasonable and prudent money management right now! Or were you blind to the titanic malinvestment that was the housing bubble (and that I didn't see any economists besides Shiller warning about - thank goodness I believed him!)?
The problem with the housing bubble was not in people buying a house to live in, but buying a house as an investment. It was the speculation in the housing market that led to escalating prices. The same thing happens in the stock market and in oil prices. Speculation drives the prices up, creating a bubble which eventually bursts. Except in those markets we call it a correction.
The SSA effectively draws all it's money from the general fund at this point, as it has no sellable assets: just taxes, and bonds that can only be redeemed if there are taxes/other borrowing to cover them. It is no more or less solvent than the federal government. Is an organization that spends 160% of what it takes in, and has no reserves, solvent? Not by the definition you just gave.
The SSA is prohibited, by congress, from investing in anything other than treasuries, which in effect is the general fund when it cashes those in. As such, it is operating the way it was designed. The problem with SSA is not that there are more retirees than workers, but that the amount of income subject to the tax was never indexed to inflation, but the benefits were. In addition, medicare was added but medical costs far outstripped the capacity of the revenue generated.
Now, if you are proposing that the elderly and single mothers and their children (the two largest groups of medicare recipients) are simply put on an ice flow and pushed out to sea, that's one solution . However, most people would disagree, even the wealthy. But, if you want to cut medicare, that is in effect who you will be kicking off the roles.
Note that in common dialogue today, ending the tax break that the extremely wealthy currently enjoy translates into "higher taxes" on the wealthy.
Today, the wealthy pay the lowest taxes than at any time in US history. Ending the so called tax cuts just sets the rate back to what it was when Bush took office, which was also the last time the US had a balanced budget. At that time, the wealthy paid the lowest taxes at any time in US history, too. The tax cuts passed under Bush lowered them further. Congress at the time knew it wasn't sustainable, which is why they had an expiration date.
I'll bite one more time.
Let's get rid of all government spending, federal, state and local. No food stamps, etc. Now as those without means start to plunder, as anarchy sets in, who has the most to lose? The poor, no, they don't have anything to start with. It is the wealthy. Government provides for the poor, not because it is the right thing to do, but because it protects the assets of those who have them. Same for military spending.
The purpose of the military is to a) protect property and to b) protect the interest of the people. Again, the poor don't have property to protect and the interest in question is the way of life the non-poor take for granted.
Take environmental spending. Pollution affects all, poor and rich alike. However, clean rivers and streams impact those of means who can take advantage of them instead of the poor.
How much would it cost to fly if private industry built airports, provided the functions the FAA does? It would be cost prohibitive. But again, the majority of people do not travel regularly by air, unless for business, so those expenditures subsidize businesses.
Similar cases can be made for spending on roads and other infrastructure. The more you have the more you benefit. This is not to say that the poor do not benefit also from many of these government expenditures, but that is only secondary. Most of that spending is to keep the masses docile, again, to protect the rest of us.
I agree that your hypothetical uncle Sam is living beyond his means. The problem is that it isn't the social welfare that causes it, but the corporate subsidies. Exactly why do we subsidize major oil companies and corporate farms?
Unless you are looking at all benefits provided by government, you cannot get a clear picture and cannot solve the underlying structural problems in the economy.
There are lots of places to either reduce expenditures or increase revenues, unfortunately, when looking at those that are truly discretionary, lobbyists get involved and cry that you are hurting the job creators. But, they are the same group that benefits the most from government. If we truly went to a pay as you go system as many people want, it will kill off most industries. So, instead, go after the low hanging fruit of the budget tree, particularly when there are no lobbyists involved.
The Nazis blamed the Jews for all of their problems. Today's equivalent to the Jews are the poor.
---Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War."
Love your sig.
Reminds me of what Pope Paul VI said: "If you want peace work for justice."
Actually, that isn't the budget, just a pie chart representing broad expense categories.
Welcome to how the US government does budgets. It worries about how to spend the money, not about how to get it.
. For instance, if social security is bringing in 22% of the revenue and only expending 20%, then the 20% expense is not a problem. For the record, I do not know what social security brings in, but it supposedly "solvent" for another 20 years, so even if it is deficit spending, it isn't impacting what current tax dollars are being used for.
There is no concept of "solvency" for Social Security. The bonds it supposedly holds are an accounting fiction (and wouldn't come close to covering its future obligations as you admit). It has no assets to speak of. And it is running a deficit now.
Do you own your house outright, or do you have a mortgage. If you have a mortgage, then you, too, just like the SSA, are deficit spending, by using debt to offset current needs.
Don't get me wrong, there are serious problems with revenues and expenditures of the federal government, but actual deficit spending is not the problem, but a symptom. As an example, the government collects fuel taxes that it then distributes. When the economy tanked in 2009, the government spent more on highway funding than it brought in. Was that a problem, no, because it came from previous reserves, or unspent fuel taxes, from prior years. In that case, a deficit is exactly what you would expect -- accumulated reserves are used to cover current costs or deficit spending.
The problem is that the government does not have the political strength to accumulate excess reserves in good times, so instead, it uses funds from other restricted sources, such as the SSA and those organizations hold the debt of the government. Or they sell debt to other countries, like China. Personally, I would much rather the debt of the US to be owned by its citizens then the Chinese, but that's not my call.
The SSA is solvent if its current revenues plus reserves cover its current expenditures, even if those reserves are held by the rest of the government. At that point where it does not, then it isn't solvent. Currently, it is solvent. At some point in the future, without an increase in revenues or a decrease in expenditures, it will become insolvent. The fact that they are running a deficit has nothing to do with it.
Quick summary of the top 6 (as a percentage of revenue, spending is about 160% of revenue): [snip]
I'm not a mathematician, but your percentages total more than 100% and don't include any spending for salaries and wages and all the other stuff the government spends money on.
Try that again - is it more clear now?
The SSA does purchase treasuries from the government, just like most pension funds do.
The SSA only has IOUs with no economic value these days. The "securities" it has can't be sold, and are only bookkeeping entries to remind us how much new tax revenue (or borrowing) will be needed to meet our promises. (Really - they're these unique bonds that exist nowhere else but the SSA, and the SSA can't sell them).
It's exactly as if you've borrowed all the money from your 401K. There's a fincancial instrument left in your 401K - your loan to yourself - but is has no ecoomnic value: every penny for your retirement has already been spent, and you now have to put a dollar in in order to get a dollar out! Yes, that's the kind of bastards our politicians are; I'm sure you're shocked.
Speaking as an actual economist, you are incorrect in too many ways to discuss on slashdot. You simply cannot compare things the way you are. The federal budget is much more complicated than a few statistics or pie charts. That is what congress tries to do, too and it is why the real underlying problem is never dealt with, because it isn't simple.
The first step is admitting that you have a spending problem. [usdebtclock.org]
That assumes that you think that revenues are where they should be. It is quite possible that the problem is not on the spending side of the equation, but the revenue side.
Arguing statistics that were pulled out of his butt is silly. This is a poster with a mission that you're responding to, not one with referential, cited facts. Of course this is /., where they're unnecessary. Carry on.
I know, I shouldn't have feed his troll, but there are so many people that spout stuff like this, that for the benefit of others I posted. It's amazing how people think that something as complicated as the federal budget can be explained away in just a few simple statements or a pie chart or two. Don't they realize that if it really was that simple, then something would have been done a long time ago?
And here is the real budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
As to Social Security, it is a con not a deserved benefit. There's no investment of the funds that went in ("pay as you go"), something that a few generations of US voters were willing to ignore. Nor is there an obligation to pay out a particular level of benefit.
A glance at the real budget shows defense comparable to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Any budget fixing process is going to have to shorten all the legs of the stool, not just defense.
Actually, that isn't the budget, just a pie chart representing broad expense categories. A true budget would also have revenues. For instance, if social security is bringing in 22% of the revenue and only expending 20%, then the 20% expense is not a problem. For the record, I do not know what social security brings in, but it supposedly "solvent" for another 20 years, so even if it is deficit spending, it isn't impacting what current tax dollars are being used for.
Likewise, how much of those expenditures are tied to highway funding, which has it's own funding source? Then there are things like the cost of congress and their staffing, which is included in the mandatory expenditures -- which is why, during the last budget debate, they were excluded from the cuts.
The federal deficit is much too complicated as to be explained by a simple pie chart. Because of this, you can make a pie chart "prove" whatever you want it to about the budget.
To paraphrase Samuel Clemons, There are lies, damn lies, and pie chart representations of the federal budget!
You're way off. Take a look at the link in my sig for the up-to-the-minute numbers. Also, I did say hand-out, I said money goven to the old and poor - the most favored political groups for spending, aside from corporations. Quick summary of the top 6 (as a percentage of revenue, spending is about 160% of revenue):
Don't know why people think we spend the most on defense, it's less than 20% of the budget.
Another myth is that the social security you get is what paid for. The system completely doesn't work that way - your taxes pay for your parents and grandparents. Your kids and grandkids pay for you. Any "getting out what you paid in" in a comforting illusion - it's not a 401k, no money is saved or invested any more, the government spends every cent instantly these days (and would you ever expect them to do otherwise?!).
I'm not a mathematician, but your percentages total more than 100% and don't include any spending for salaries and wages and all the other stuff the government spends money on. It could be because you are comparing apples with oranges in figuring your revenues and expenditures. And of course if your are going to include social welfare, you should include corporate welfare, also, which far outweighs all of the TARP money that was spent on the banks.
And of course, spending is up on social programs. The government is paying extended unemployment benefits for just under 9% of the workforce. As for social security, the government doesn't spend every cent instantly in the way you suggest. The SSA does purchase treasuries from the government, just like most pension funds do. Eventually, those treasury securities come do and are swapped for new treasuries, but technically, the funds are invested.
From the summary, the problem is that most of the emails the employees get aren't useful and it takes too long for the employee to go through them. So, how does receiving all of those emails via facebook or twitter cut down on the time involved to determine what is useful or not. The summary states the employees are getting, on average, 200 emails a day. 200 FB posts seems even less efficient.
Besides, do you really want to discuss marketing strategies or contract negotiations on FB?
I hope you like $500 celerons...
If this was 1995, I'd believe it. In 2011, Intel competes with itself. If they drive up CPU prices, they won't be able to make more and more profits because people do *NOT* need to upgrade. The vast majority of the population is doing fine on a dual core 4+ year old CPU running a browser and IM program and watching videos. Since people do not need to upgrade, but Intel has to sell more and more CPUs, their profits would collapse and then the stock and then ... hilarity ensues.
Actually, the vast majority of people world wide don't even have access to a computer. For those who do, the vast majority probably don't even need a dual core cpu, for most of what is done. Engineers, graphic designers and gamers would be the exception to that statement.
If admissions are at an all time high, then why is Microsoft and Google still pushing for exceptions for more visas for foreign workers? Corporate officials keep complaining that there aren't enough CS grads and yet, the schools say otherwise.