Infrastructure is expensive, which is why it was publicly financed in much of the country. It was then turned over to private enterprise.
Huh... I didn't realize it was the Government that trenched and installed all that FiOS fiber in my neighborhood, or the Government that pulled all the cable wire on the telephone poles...
The line providers (Comcast and the like) are actually highly regulated. Their rates are set by local or State regulatory agencies and boards. The company can petition for an increase in subscription prices, but it is Government that basically determines if the price increase is allowed. Since it's already screwed up, I'm not sure how turning everything over to Government would make it better...
That is actually how it's done in the US - it's regulated by a local (or State) utilities rate body. The company argues for a new rate, the body decides what the rate should really be, and that's that. Somehow I don't think giving it all to Government would work in the US, since rates are already set by Government in the first place...
Oh, I agree - Federal Government spending really shouldn't qualify as part of the GDP since it's 100% funded by taxation in the first place. It's kind of double-reporting expenditures. In terms of the private GDP - the reported GDP minus the Federal Government's spending - we're slowly shrinking. That's probably why most people still believe we never left the recession and that it actually got worse - contrary to official reporting.
Take your 10 truck, 50 man supply convoy. Eliminate the 10 drivers, and increase the security detachment by 5. I just reduced manpower by 10%, and upped security by 12%. Lower costs, more secure - seems like a win-win all around.
Damn upstart kids with their "acoustic couplers" and 300 baud... We used to have to put out tongues on the telegraph wires and rebuild our porn from the shocks we got!
Yeah, I saw what you wrote - and it's not correct. You need a lot more than what you listed. A LOT more. Your list is about $500 billion ($75 billion Medicare part D, $250 billion Bush tax cuts, $125 billion corporate welfare, $100 billion wars). You still come up $1.2 trillion short...
My insurance company cut my policy not because they were losing money on the policy; because the Obamacare act defined my policy as non-grandfathered because it was deemed to not be a "responsible" plan - because of the high deductible. This is a case of two entities having a decade long relationship that both sides were happy with, and a 3rd party coming in and demanding that it end because the 3rd party didn't like it. My insurer was happy, I was happy - but the Obama Administration wasn't.
In the long term yes, but tax receipts are way down due to the recession. We're not going to get out of the recession by cutting spending.
When has spending ever ended a recession?
Ultimately, we're going to need to make the rich start paying their fair share.
Define rich, and define "fair share". The top 25% of income earners in the US pay 60% of ALL Federal tax receipts - with just their income and social security payments alone (not including capital gains, excise taxes, tariffs, etc). Literally 6 out of 10 Federal dollars comes from those payroll deductions - income tax withholding, social security and FICA - from the top 25%. How much more is needed to be "fair"?
Cut the entire DOD budget and the VA budget and corporate subsidies - we still have a deficit - and that's with a zero-line DOD (NO military at all - nothing). Medicare and social spending is what needs to be addressed as well, but as long as we have a party committed to zero cuts or even modifications to such, we're basically screwed. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and income security (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, subsidized housing) accounts for every dollar of Federal tax revenue - everything else (including the DOD and the VA and Justice and DOEs and EPA, etc) is funded with borrowed dollars.
Redistribution will have to go up as labour becomes less valuable, medical costs increase and society ages if we want to maintain the median standard of living... given increases in productivity from automation this could be perfectly possible, the rich would get richer a little slower is all
Do you make more than $67K per year? Then you're part of 'the rich' - those who pay 60% of ALL Federal tax receipts. Your money needs to apparently be redistributed as well...
Operative phrase "under the budget". Include the off-budget spending and there was no surplus. Which is why the debt increased every year under President Clinton. I'd like to move my mortgage to off-budget as well - it would certainly help my cash flow and savings account, but I feel that it would not be an accurate reflection of my real spending.
Sorry, the taxpolicycenter.org data is for budgetary data; it shows the correct revenue and on-budget expenditures. Actual debt numbers (which includes off-budget items - basically a full record of spending) shows the debt always increased.
Business is booming actually - note the prices of stocks, the amount of cash reserves on hand, etc.
Factor the fall of the USD in to the stock prices as well; you'll find a hefty chunk of those increases is gone. Add in real inflation, and stock prices are nearly flat for the last 4 years.
Second of all, the President didn't increase the debt single-handedly. You cannot point out any amount of programs that he himself pushed for that led to a deficit of $3 trillion since his first budget (the 2010 budget, since the 2009 budget was Bush's).
The 2009 budget was finally introduced in the House and Senate after President Obama was sworn in, and was signed into law by President Obama. Source. The 2009 budget - and its associated deficit - is President Obama's budget, and the result of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - not President Bush or the Democrats. President Bush wasn't even in office when it was pushed through Congress.
"Raising the national debt" is a play on words that doesn't actually reflect Obama's actions. "Raising" makes it sound like he spent an extra $3T. What happened was our income dropped substantially (and we spent extra on stimulus).
Our income is down - now - about $500 billion annually over what it would be, in terms of historical average of GDP. All tolled, President Obama has seen ~$1.1 trillion in reduced tax receipts as compared to the historical 18.5% of GDP average. The vast majority (65%) of his debt is from excessive spending - now at well-above historical levels the current stratospheric rate of 27% of GDP. Literally 1 out of every 4 dollars spent in the US is spent by the Federal Government.
President Clinton and James Carville were 100% right when they coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid". Now we can add to that phrase and say - legitimately - that "it's the economy and the spending, stupid".
I am self-employed, and have bought my own, personal insurance plan for 12 years. I have a high deductible ($10,000 annual) plan - I pay 100% of the first $10,000 in annual expenses (except for a $20 co-pay for two annual physicals), and insurance covers 100% of everything after that.
I received notice earlier this year that my plan will NOT be grandfathered in to the new health care options; it does not qualify as it has too high a deductible.
So, as a 43 year old male, I have the option of going to the next lowest-cost plan that will take my current $114/month premium up to $315/month. I get the privilege of paying $2400/year more for insurance. Not because I am irresponsible (I have built a small savings account to cover 2 years of 100% of my deductible), but because the Federal Government arbitrarily decided that my plan is not suitable or reasonable or responsible for individuals.
I lose my plan, I lose my choice, and I am forced to pay more. Not good for anyone involved - except the insurance companies who will now make more money off of me.
I doubt it, as long as the GOP refuses to allow taxes to rise high enough to pay for essential spending and pay off our debts it's not likely to happen.
Currently we're collecting about 14.5% of the GDP as Federal tax revenue; historical post-WWII average is around 18.5%. So go ahead and bump up that 4% of GDP, to the historical average. That's another $560 billion in revenues. We still have a ~$1.2 trillion deficit.
The position of "low taxes/low revenues" accounts for at most 1/3rd of our deficit; the other 2/3rds is excess spending. We simply need to get spending under control. Past Congresses have always been quick to promise spending cuts in exchange for tax increases, and loathe to ever implement the cuts - but quick to increase taxes.
Perhaps it's time to address the vast majority of our deficit - the spending - rather than trying once again to solve it on the small share called revenues.
Slashdot Mirror
In WA, OR, CA and NV (the four States I've lived in) cable and phone and DSL rates are regulated...
Infrastructure is expensive, which is why it was publicly financed in much of the country. It was then turned over to private enterprise.
Huh... I didn't realize it was the Government that trenched and installed all that FiOS fiber in my neighborhood, or the Government that pulled all the cable wire on the telephone poles...
The line providers (Comcast and the like) are actually highly regulated. Their rates are set by local or State regulatory agencies and boards. The company can petition for an increase in subscription prices, but it is Government that basically determines if the price increase is allowed. Since it's already screwed up, I'm not sure how turning everything over to Government would make it better...
That is actually how it's done in the US - it's regulated by a local (or State) utilities rate body. The company argues for a new rate, the body decides what the rate should really be, and that's that. Somehow I don't think giving it all to Government would work in the US, since rates are already set by Government in the first place...
Actually, there are 29 letters in the Norwegian alphabet - therefore there are 28 more manifestos to concern ourselves with.
Oh, I agree - Federal Government spending really shouldn't qualify as part of the GDP since it's 100% funded by taxation in the first place. It's kind of double-reporting expenditures. In terms of the private GDP - the reported GDP minus the Federal Government's spending - we're slowly shrinking. That's probably why most people still believe we never left the recession and that it actually got worse - contrary to official reporting.
Take your 10 truck, 50 man supply convoy. Eliminate the 10 drivers, and increase the security detachment by 5. I just reduced manpower by 10%, and upped security by 12%. Lower costs, more secure - seems like a win-win all around.
My experience too... It's great for my C++ programming needs - VS2010 is a fabulous C++ editor.
I do remember that all web pages were grey and left-justified, though.
They still are.
Damn upstart kids with their "acoustic couplers" and 300 baud... We used to have to put out tongues on the telegraph wires and rebuild our porn from the shocks we got!
Yeah, I saw what you wrote - and it's not correct. You need a lot more than what you listed. A LOT more. Your list is about $500 billion ($75 billion Medicare part D, $250 billion Bush tax cuts, $125 billion corporate welfare, $100 billion wars). You still come up $1.2 trillion short...
Citation needed.
My insurance company cut my policy not because they were losing money on the policy; because the Obamacare act defined my policy as non-grandfathered because it was deemed to not be a "responsible" plan - because of the high deductible. This is a case of two entities having a decade long relationship that both sides were happy with, and a 3rd party coming in and demanding that it end because the 3rd party didn't like it. My insurer was happy, I was happy - but the Obama Administration wasn't.
In the long term yes, but tax receipts are way down due to the recession. We're not going to get out of the recession by cutting spending.
When has spending ever ended a recession?
Ultimately, we're going to need to make the rich start paying their fair share.
Define rich, and define "fair share". The top 25% of income earners in the US pay 60% of ALL Federal tax receipts - with just their income and social security payments alone (not including capital gains, excise taxes, tariffs, etc). Literally 6 out of 10 Federal dollars comes from those payroll deductions - income tax withholding, social security and FICA - from the top 25%. How much more is needed to be "fair"?
Cut the entire DOD budget and the VA budget and corporate subsidies - we still have a deficit - and that's with a zero-line DOD (NO military at all - nothing). Medicare and social spending is what needs to be addressed as well, but as long as we have a party committed to zero cuts or even modifications to such, we're basically screwed. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and income security (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, subsidized housing) accounts for every dollar of Federal tax revenue - everything else (including the DOD and the VA and Justice and DOEs and EPA, etc) is funded with borrowed dollars.
Redistribution will have to go up as labour becomes less valuable, medical costs increase and society ages if we want to maintain the median standard of living ... given increases in productivity from automation this could be perfectly possible, the rich would get richer a little slower is all
Do you make more than $67K per year? Then you're part of 'the rich' - those who pay 60% of ALL Federal tax receipts. Your money needs to apparently be redistributed as well...
Operative phrase "under the budget". Include the off-budget spending and there was no surplus. Which is why the debt increased every year under President Clinton. I'd like to move my mortgage to off-budget as well - it would certainly help my cash flow and savings account, but I feel that it would not be an accurate reflection of my real spending.
Sorry, the taxpolicycenter.org data is for budgetary data; it shows the correct revenue and on-budget expenditures. Actual debt numbers (which includes off-budget items - basically a full record of spending) shows the debt always increased.
Why you should not always trust Wikipedia. Actual debt dropped in 1957 under President Eisenhower, and has increased every year since then. Per the US Treasury.
Business is booming actually - note the prices of stocks, the amount of cash reserves on hand, etc.
Factor the fall of the USD in to the stock prices as well; you'll find a hefty chunk of those increases is gone. Add in real inflation, and stock prices are nearly flat for the last 4 years.
Second of all, the President didn't increase the debt single-handedly. You cannot point out any amount of programs that he himself pushed for that led to a deficit of $3 trillion since his first budget (the 2010 budget, since the 2009 budget was Bush's).
The 2009 budget was finally introduced in the House and Senate after President Obama was sworn in, and was signed into law by President Obama. Source. The 2009 budget - and its associated deficit - is President Obama's budget, and the result of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - not President Bush or the Democrats. President Bush wasn't even in office when it was pushed through Congress.
Under Obama, the major accomplishment in the military is what? Ordering all the troops home? No .. repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Don't forget getting us involved in a "kinetic military action" in Libya, in which we are taking an ever-increasing role...
"Raising the national debt" is a play on words that doesn't actually reflect Obama's actions. "Raising" makes it sound like he spent an extra $3T. What happened was our income dropped substantially (and we spent extra on stimulus).
Our income is down - now - about $500 billion annually over what it would be, in terms of historical average of GDP. All tolled, President Obama has seen ~$1.1 trillion in reduced tax receipts as compared to the historical 18.5% of GDP average. The vast majority (65%) of his debt is from excessive spending - now at well-above historical levels the current stratospheric rate of 27% of GDP. Literally 1 out of every 4 dollars spent in the US is spent by the Federal Government.
President Clinton and James Carville were 100% right when they coined the phrase "it's the economy, stupid". Now we can add to that phrase and say - legitimately - that "it's the economy and the spending, stupid".
Here's a problem with the new system.
Here's another problem.
I am self-employed, and have bought my own, personal insurance plan for 12 years. I have a high deductible ($10,000 annual) plan - I pay 100% of the first $10,000 in annual expenses (except for a $20 co-pay for two annual physicals), and insurance covers 100% of everything after that.
I received notice earlier this year that my plan will NOT be grandfathered in to the new health care options; it does not qualify as it has too high a deductible.
So, as a 43 year old male, I have the option of going to the next lowest-cost plan that will take my current $114/month premium up to $315/month. I get the privilege of paying $2400/year more for insurance. Not because I am irresponsible (I have built a small savings account to cover 2 years of 100% of my deductible), but because the Federal Government arbitrarily decided that my plan is not suitable or reasonable or responsible for individuals.
I lose my plan, I lose my choice, and I am forced to pay more. Not good for anyone involved - except the insurance companies who will now make more money off of me.
I doubt it, as long as the GOP refuses to allow taxes to rise high enough to pay for essential spending and pay off our debts it's not likely to happen.
Currently we're collecting about 14.5% of the GDP as Federal tax revenue; historical post-WWII average is around 18.5%. So go ahead and bump up that 4% of GDP, to the historical average. That's another $560 billion in revenues. We still have a ~$1.2 trillion deficit.
The position of "low taxes/low revenues" accounts for at most 1/3rd of our deficit; the other 2/3rds is excess spending. We simply need to get spending under control. Past Congresses have always been quick to promise spending cuts in exchange for tax increases, and loathe to ever implement the cuts - but quick to increase taxes.
Perhaps it's time to address the vast majority of our deficit - the spending - rather than trying once again to solve it on the small share called revenues.