What you are saying is true, if we aren't running deficits, increasing the national debt, and increasing the money supply unnaturally.
"...sometime between 2030 and 2040, mandatory spending (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt) will exceed tax revenue" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
The government wouldn't have $400 million per day if it stopped the Iraq war. It would just not have to borrow or print as much. Certainly it wouldn't be able to spend it on other things.
> just like business only pays on profit, actual humans pay taxes only on their > excess income, and the more money you make, the more actual excess income you have
Sir, I understand where you are coming from, because this is a common perspective, but my question to you is: what is "excess income"? The idea behind wages is that it is a fair exchange of labor for fee. There is no idea of a "gain". This has been held as the perspective of the courts, as well. So, in a fair exchange of labor for a fee, where does the idea of "excess income" come into play?
You seem to be approaching it from the perspective of "how much money do you need". This is a perspective I would expect to see in a socialistic society, but I fundamentally do not understand how it fits into a capitalistic society.
(As it is often not the case with these kinds of discussions, I feel I need to point out that the above is 100% genuine and I am putting forth my questions because I am interested in your response.)
The antibacterial stuff is a marketing ploy. It doesn't do anything, unless you are someone who scrubs your hands for 2+ minutes. It's the hot water and the pH of the soap that does the job.
1. Increase debt to foreign nations and/or print money out of thin air, devaluing the dollars saved by responsible Americans
2. Shuffle it though an inefficient bureaucracy .
3. Put what remains back into the economy.
4. ???
5. Economic recovery.
There, fixed that for you. There's no money for the government to take out. Remember, Obama is planning to cut taxes, which means the government has even less revenue than it does now (and we're already running large deficits). Less revenue, more spending. That's the formula for success, apparently.
He also said it is "unacceptable" that the US ranks 15th in broadband adoption.
Why, because it hurts our ego? How come he isn't asking why we are 15th in broadband adoption? Is there an untapped market out there where the broadband companies are too stupid to realize the cost-benefit analysis says they should expand?
And where are we getting the money for this, again?
If the process laid out by the Constitution doesn't "go over well", then there is a very clear process to change the rules. What is your objection to that?
CNN's statistics unit does not elect our president. Those are not the rules.
As a conservative, I wholeheartedly agree. I have never been able to reconcile the idea that the federal government should be limited in power and things not expressly given to the fed govt in the Constitution must be left to individuals and states... oh, except for homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, drug policy, and anything else I don't like.
How can you say: states and individuals should decide things, but then support the federal mandate of any social issue? It just doesn't make any sense. I have asked social conservatives to explain this to me and I never get a good answer.
(It cuts the other way, too, you know. Roe v Wade is unconstitutional for the same reason -- it's a federal mandate saying no state may determine that it doesn't want to allow abortion. I don't see the point in disallowing a more local level of government from aligning its social legislation with its own morality. If you don't like abortion laws of your state, there are 49 others.)
And where is it permitted by the Constitution to use my tax money to fund the transition of someone who has been determined by MSNBC's exit polling to have won the election to some statistical comfort level?
What a ridiculous comment, Roblimo. I really expected better.
You state that "rich white republicans" drove up home prices like it was some sort of huge conspiracy. What, pray tell, orchestrated this conspiracy? Why did thousands of "rich white republican" speculators suddenly decide that real estate was something they should direct their attention to? Was there a convention in Orlando that I didn't hear about?
I'd go further, but frankly it's so damned hard to read your post. It is so full of anger that it doesn't make any sense. Try eating your emotion for a few minutes and rethinking what you're trying to say; maybe take a stab at my questions above.
> The market is manipulated by interests to make investing in renewable energy > and electric vehicles infeasible
Absolutely. And this will continue to become more and more dominant the more the government intervenes in the market and picks winners and losers. If I owned a business, I would not want to lobby the government on principle, but I would HAVE to, or else I risk the government using its tax funds to aid my competitors and put me out of business.
You want to stop special interests? You cannot legislate it away. You cannot vote it away. You cannot wish it away. The only way is to GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARKET MANIPULATION.
What need is the government fulfilling? What justifies the additional bureaucratic overhead of tax-payer-funded, government-administered "free" wireless Internet? Why give the federal government control over one of the last remaining free media where control is inherently difficult?
To me it seems pretty obvious what Obama should be looking at cutting. He's probably wasting more money asking for a NASA cost analysis then he could conceivably save.
So it's just coincidence that he wants to do all this work when the economy is tanking, and he is not overinvesting or malinvesting in anything that would not otherwise need to be invested in under normal conditions? Not bloody likely.
> Oh and FDR fixed the econom, won a war, and pretty much created the > modern United States. We can only hope that Obama can achieve even > part of the success of FDR.
He fixed the economy in the short term and set us up for financial obligations we can never meet. I am not knocking FDR (although I could); I am pointing out that we cannot have another FDR in our current economic environment.
You cannot spend your way out of this problem, because the US has an individual savings rate hovering just barely above zero percent. Spending our way out of this problem, whether by infrastructure spending or other means, will be spending DEBT and that will only lead to longer term problems and the need to spend more debt and more debt.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are saying is true, if we aren't running deficits, increasing the national debt, and increasing the money supply unnaturally.
"...sometime between 2030 and 2040, mandatory spending (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt) will exceed tax revenue"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Budgetary_Treatment_of_Interest_Expense
The government wouldn't have $400 million per day if it stopped the Iraq war. It would just not have to borrow or print as much. Certainly it wouldn't be able to spend it on other things.
> just like business only pays on profit, actual humans pay taxes only on their
> excess income, and the more money you make, the more actual excess income you have
Sir, I understand where you are coming from, because this is a common perspective, but my question to you is: what is "excess income"? The idea behind wages is that it is a fair exchange of labor for fee. There is no idea of a "gain". This has been held as the perspective of the courts, as well. So, in a fair exchange of labor for a fee, where does the idea of "excess income" come into play?
You seem to be approaching it from the perspective of "how much money do you need". This is a perspective I would expect to see in a socialistic society, but I fundamentally do not understand how it fits into a capitalistic society.
(As it is often not the case with these kinds of discussions, I feel I need to point out that the above is 100% genuine and I am putting forth my questions because I am interested in your response.)
The antibacterial stuff is a marketing ploy. It doesn't do anything, unless you are someone who scrubs your hands for 2+ minutes. It's the hot water and the pH of the soap that does the job.
There, fixed that for you. There's no money for the government to take out. Remember, Obama is planning to cut taxes, which means the government has even less revenue than it does now (and we're already running large deficits). Less revenue, more spending. That's the formula for success, apparently.
He also said it is "unacceptable" that the US ranks 15th in broadband adoption.
Why, because it hurts our ego? How come he isn't asking why we are 15th in broadband adoption? Is there an untapped market out there where the broadband companies are too stupid to realize the cost-benefit analysis says they should expand?
And where are we getting the money for this, again?
So, you're okay with legislation that violates the Constitution. Cool.
If the process laid out by the Constitution doesn't "go over well", then there is a very clear process to change the rules. What is your objection to that?
CNN's statistics unit does not elect our president. Those are not the rules.
Large federal-government-run health care program misappropriates taxpayer funds. Film at 11.
Do you think you or your local government could do a better job of appropriating health care funds? I do.
That's an awesome question and does a great job of pointing out the potential unintended consequences of over-legislation.
As a conservative, I wholeheartedly agree. I have never been able to reconcile the idea that the federal government should be limited in power and things not expressly given to the fed govt in the Constitution must be left to individuals and states... oh, except for homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, drug policy, and anything else I don't like.
How can you say: states and individuals should decide things, but then support the federal mandate of any social issue? It just doesn't make any sense. I have asked social conservatives to explain this to me and I never get a good answer.
(It cuts the other way, too, you know. Roe v Wade is unconstitutional for the same reason -- it's a federal mandate saying no state may determine that it doesn't want to allow abortion. I don't see the point in disallowing a more local level of government from aligning its social legislation with its own morality. If you don't like abortion laws of your state, there are 49 others.)
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
And where is it permitted by the Constitution to use my tax money to fund the transition of someone who has been determined by MSNBC's exit polling to have won the election to some statistical comfort level?
(Ooooh, I'm such a buzz-kill!)
So, you are against anyone in government using big corporate giants like NBC to broadcast their messages as well? Shall we end televised debates?
MOD PARENT UP!!!
What a ridiculous comment, Roblimo. I really expected better.
You state that "rich white republicans" drove up home prices like it was some sort of huge conspiracy. What, pray tell, orchestrated this conspiracy? Why did thousands of "rich white republican" speculators suddenly decide that real estate was something they should direct their attention to? Was there a convention in Orlando that I didn't hear about?
I'd go further, but frankly it's so damned hard to read your post. It is so full of anger that it doesn't make any sense. Try eating your emotion for a few minutes and rethinking what you're trying to say; maybe take a stab at my questions above.
Seriously, dude.
> The market is manipulated by interests to make investing in renewable energy
> and electric vehicles infeasible
Absolutely. And this will continue to become more and more dominant the more the government intervenes in the market and picks winners and losers. If I owned a business, I would not want to lobby the government on principle, but I would HAVE to, or else I risk the government using its tax funds to aid my competitors and put me out of business.
You want to stop special interests? You cannot legislate it away. You cannot vote it away. You cannot wish it away. The only way is to GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARKET MANIPULATION.
Offering the loans to certain car companies and not others is more damaging than offering them to all players in the market.
They are both unconstitutional, of course.
Did anyone else think this had something to do with a Monty Python sketch? (We are the Knights Who Write Unintelligible Code?)
What need is the government fulfilling? What justifies the additional bureaucratic overhead of tax-payer-funded, government-administered "free" wireless Internet? Why give the federal government control over one of the last remaining free media where control is inherently difficult?
Makes. No. Sense.
You are right. Although, I am having trouble finding the pie slice called "NASA" in the US budget picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
To me it seems pretty obvious what Obama should be looking at cutting. He's probably wasting more money asking for a NASA cost analysis then he could conceivably save.
Do you think they are doing cost analysis of savings reaped from reducing Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? Doubt it.
The "conclusion" we are jumping to has to do with the Obama administration's implication of priorities here.
So it's just coincidence that he wants to do all this work when the economy is tanking, and he is not overinvesting or malinvesting in anything that would not otherwise need to be invested in under normal conditions? Not bloody likely.
> Oh and FDR fixed the econom, won a war, and pretty much created the
> modern United States. We can only hope that Obama can achieve even
> part of the success of FDR.
He fixed the economy in the short term and set us up for financial obligations we can never meet. I am not knocking FDR (although I could); I am pointing out that we cannot have another FDR in our current economic environment.
You cannot spend your way out of this problem, because the US has an individual savings rate hovering just barely above zero percent. Spending our way out of this problem, whether by infrastructure spending or other means, will be spending DEBT and that will only lead to longer term problems and the need to spend more debt and more debt.
> until the world is peopled by nothing but perfect trek-drones. Since that
> is unlikely to happen,
Shhhhh, Vermont can hear you!
There are benefits to being colorblind. For example, you have never had to suffer red font on a gray background.