Posts
A plurality (43%) of voters nationwide believes a group of people randomly selected from a telephone book would do a better job than the current legislators. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree, while another 19% are not sure.
Rasmussen
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
What Were They Thinking?!?
You just have to wonder. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), is a mandate that requires a certain
amount of ethanol be blended into gasoline every year at increasingly
greater amounts.
Under the RFS, 15.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel must be blended into transportation fuel in 2012, eventually ramping up to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Of that 36 billion number, the United States must produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, 15 billion gallons of traditional corn-based ethanol, 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel.
You first have to wonder about those product-specific targets. The EPA doesn't just want ethanol, they want cellulosic ethanol. The idea behind cellulosic ethanol is to turn municipal and farm waste into fuel. I certainly am no proponent of corn-based ethanol. It is really one of the dumbest ideas we've cooked up since it takes as much (or more) energy to produce as it provides, and from all the wrong sources (e.g., coal). But where does the cellulosic ethanol come from? The target for 2010 was 5 million gallons. The amount actually made was less than 1 million. The target for 2011 was 6.6 million and that was significantly lowered by EPA below the law's requirements. How many commercial sources for the product? Zero.
How they are going to get from 1 million gallons to 36 BILLION gallons, an increase of 36,000%, is unknown. DoE and EPA just figure if they say so, you will build it. While I think manufacturing (e.g., value added activity) is the way out of the economic mess we are in, I am certainly not convinced that we can ramp up for this requirement, and besides, the product isn't for export anyway. We just become our own energy hostages.
Next you have to wonder what happens if the fuel blenders cannot meet the targets? The are required to purchase cellulosic biofuel waiver credits. Ummmhumm, a tax or penalty for not buying what doesn't exist. So much for turning shit to shinola. Let me flog your wallet for failing to buy enough of my non-existent crap-carbs.
NY Times
What about that life-cycle formula for arriving and a carbon index? Sounds reasonable on the face of it, but when you dig into the life cycle factors and how they are weighted, you find many opportunities for political and economic corruption. CARB’s life-cycle analysis “calibrates CI scores so that they regulate, among other things, deforestation in South America, how Midwest farmers use their land, and how ethanol plants in the Midwest produce animal nutrients.” For example, CARB “imposes a substantial penalty — more than 30% of the CI score for corn ethanol — for ‘indirect land use.’ That penalty is used to discourage farmers around the world from converting nonagricultural land into farmland to enter the corn market.”
You can see how this "model" can be arbitrarily used to discriminate against any particular source, government, economic factor or simply to collect money for carbon credits where a target is impossible to achieve. One can only hope that the result would be manufacturers outside of CA would simply sell their products elsewhere and leave CA to its own resources. Of course, CA has neither the agriculturally viable land, surplus electricity nor water to fend for itself. You can also see how trying this on a state-by-state or regional basis is just going to create a carbon credit bubble much like playing commodity futures, default credit swaps and all the other ways that government can force money to exchage hands with no value added.
Global Warming Org article
I am providing both the current like to Gary Harwick's presentation on this and the cache version since I keep getting a 504.
Low Carbon Fuels Policy
Low Carbon Fuels Policy - cached
WSJ Editorial
Amen.
I always think I can just write a short blurb and then end up with an essay. If you made it this far, thanks for listening.
Under the RFS, 15.2 billion gallons of renewable fuel must be blended into transportation fuel in 2012, eventually ramping up to 36 billion gallons in 2022. Of that 36 billion number, the United States must produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, 15 billion gallons of traditional corn-based ethanol, 4 billion gallons of advanced biofuels and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel.
You first have to wonder about those product-specific targets. The EPA doesn't just want ethanol, they want cellulosic ethanol. The idea behind cellulosic ethanol is to turn municipal and farm waste into fuel. I certainly am no proponent of corn-based ethanol. It is really one of the dumbest ideas we've cooked up since it takes as much (or more) energy to produce as it provides, and from all the wrong sources (e.g., coal). But where does the cellulosic ethanol come from? The target for 2010 was 5 million gallons. The amount actually made was less than 1 million. The target for 2011 was 6.6 million and that was significantly lowered by EPA below the law's requirements. How many commercial sources for the product? Zero.
How they are going to get from 1 million gallons to 36 BILLION gallons, an increase of 36,000%, is unknown. DoE and EPA just figure if they say so, you will build it. While I think manufacturing (e.g., value added activity) is the way out of the economic mess we are in, I am certainly not convinced that we can ramp up for this requirement, and besides, the product isn't for export anyway. We just become our own energy hostages.
Next you have to wonder what happens if the fuel blenders cannot meet the targets? The are required to purchase cellulosic biofuel waiver credits. Ummmhumm, a tax or penalty for not buying what doesn't exist. So much for turning shit to shinola. Let me flog your wallet for failing to buy enough of my non-existent crap-carbs.
NY Times
Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy (2011)
BioEnergy Wiki
And for my next example of "what were they thinking," I offer California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which has been enjoined by the U.S. District Court in Fresno. This collection of CARB rules establishes a cap and trade policy, establishes fuel economy standards and renewable energy requirements. The rules are based on life-cycle analysis, which considers factors such as land use, transportation and manufacturing costs and the carbon contribution of the energy used to create the renewable energy. These are summed to come up with a carbon intensity score. Which is pretty much why the judge threw it out - it treats electricity produced in the mid-west differently than electricity produced in California and penalizes producers based on their distance from the consumer, which of course discriminates against interstate commerce. So, chemically identical biofuel from Iowa has a carbon index higher than biofuel from Fresno. What is a biofuel manufacturer to do in order to have a competitive CI? Well of course, buy surplus low-carbon fuel credits.What about that life-cycle formula for arriving and a carbon index? Sounds reasonable on the face of it, but when you dig into the life cycle factors and how they are weighted, you find many opportunities for political and economic corruption. CARB’s life-cycle analysis “calibrates CI scores so that they regulate, among other things, deforestation in South America, how Midwest farmers use their land, and how ethanol plants in the Midwest produce animal nutrients.” For example, CARB “imposes a substantial penalty — more than 30% of the CI score for corn ethanol — for ‘indirect land use.’ That penalty is used to discourage farmers around the world from converting nonagricultural land into farmland to enter the corn market.”
You can see how this "model" can be arbitrarily used to discriminate against any particular source, government, economic factor or simply to collect money for carbon credits where a target is impossible to achieve. One can only hope that the result would be manufacturers outside of CA would simply sell their products elsewhere and leave CA to its own resources. Of course, CA has neither the agriculturally viable land, surplus electricity nor water to fend for itself. You can also see how trying this on a state-by-state or regional basis is just going to create a carbon credit bubble much like playing commodity futures, default credit swaps and all the other ways that government can force money to exchage hands with no value added.
Global Warming Org article
I am providing both the current like to Gary Harwick's presentation on this and the cache version since I keep getting a 504.
Low Carbon Fuels Policy
Low Carbon Fuels Policy - cached
WSJ Editorial
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.16 international scientists who dare to show their skepticism publicly.
Amen.
I always think I can just write a short blurb and then end up with an essay. If you made it this far, thanks for listening.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Republican presidential candidates
From Captain and Commander:
I've been in Washington a looong time. According to Emmett Tyrrell Newt has more skeletons than a body snatcher. I don't know how many that is, but I'm sure they won't all fit in his closets.
Huckster, shill, scheister, carney, do these sound any better than what they call Romney?
So, if those two aren't workin for ya, you are left with Santorum and Paul. How terribly pathetic.
And just to complement how tacky I think Newt is, let me add this:
and 
and 
Dr. Stephen Maturin: ...I would choose the right hand weevil; it has... significant advantage in both length and breadth.
[the captain thumps his fist in the table]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: There, I have you! You're completely dished! Do you not know that in the service...
[pauses]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: ...one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.
I've been in Washington a looong time. According to Emmett Tyrrell Newt has more skeletons than a body snatcher. I don't know how many that is, but I'm sure they won't all fit in his closets.
Huckster, shill, scheister, carney, do these sound any better than what they call Romney?
So, if those two aren't workin for ya, you are left with Santorum and Paul. How terribly pathetic.
And just to complement how tacky I think Newt is, let me add this:
and and Thursday, December 22, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Federal budget illustration
. U.S. Tax revenue:
$2,170,000,000,000
. Fed budget:
$3,820,000,000,000
. New debt: $
1,650,000,000,000
. National debt:
$14,271,000,000,000
. Recent budget cut: $
38,500,000,000
Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a
household budget.
. Annual family income:
$21,700
. Money the family spent:
$38,200
. New debt on the credit card:
$16,500
. Outstanding balance on credit card:
$142,710.
. Total budget cuts:
$385
Sort of brings the issue "home" doesn't
it?
Yahyah, I hear it. "You can't compare the national budget to a family budget. Unexpected things come up and the country has to invest in the things that will drive the economy in the future (like broadband)." So, when is enough enough? Eventually we will be one disaster over the amount some far east country is willing to lend. Maybe it's time to start charging premiums for disaster relief, since everyone seems to think it means "just like it never happened." Since when did we start expecting the government to kiss the calamity booboo and make it all better?
H/T DougH
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
OMG! Did you hear? The top 20% have more money than the bottom 20%!!!
Well, duh. And if the top 20% had the same amount of money as the bottom 20%, they wouldn't be on top, would they?
Let's say you have $100 and you are in the bottom 1/5.
Let's say the next 1/5 has 20% (1/5) more and so on.
Top 1/5 $207
2nd 1/5 $173
3rd 1/5 $144
4th 1/5 $120
You $100
That top bastich has twice as much as you!
Remember, the top 1% already pay 36% of the tax burden.
And nearly 50% don't pay income tax at all.
Well, duh. And if the top 20% had the same amount of money as the bottom 20%, they wouldn't be on top, would they?
Let's say you have $100 and you are in the bottom 1/5.
Let's say the next 1/5 has 20% (1/5) more and so on.
Top 1/5 $207
2nd 1/5 $173
3rd 1/5 $144
4th 1/5 $120
You $100
That top bastich has twice as much as you!
Remember, the top 1% already pay 36% of the tax burden.
And nearly 50% don't pay income tax at all.
Bad banks, or bad attitude?
I remain astounded that a groundswell of public angst would arise because BoA decided to add a $5 fee for using your debit card. I mean, you DO use it, and it is a cost to the bank, duh. Every transaction requires a series of actions from crediting the merchant to debiting your account and all of the banks changing money in between. You don't work for free, why should they? So, why do people think that it should be free? It wasn't free before, someone else was paying for it -- merchants.
This is the essential problem with entitlement society. It isn't what people do or don't do that leads them to some expectation. It is what everyone else does or doesn't do that is viewed through the lens of personal desire. I want it, you aren't giving it to me, therefore you are a bad actor.
When did this change-up occur? More importantly, how do we undo it?
This is the essential problem with entitlement society. It isn't what people do or don't do that leads them to some expectation. It is what everyone else does or doesn't do that is viewed through the lens of personal desire. I want it, you aren't giving it to me, therefore you are a bad actor.
When did this change-up occur? More importantly, how do we undo it?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
There has been discussion about entitlement society and how government leads to dependence - that individuals learn to rely on government to solve their personal problems. Personal benefits such as food stamps, seemingly endless unemployment insurance, healthcare and retirement income actually do allow (in some cases enforce) dependence on state and federal government on a month to month basis. It's like you can't get away from it, and many/most people can't afford to pay for both the entitlement and an alternative that doesn't manage and control their day-to-day lives.
But wait, there's more. States are in the same pickle. The stimulus gave states untold billions to shore up unemployment, supposedly. And like others, I asked what happens when this faucet/firehose of funds get's shut off?
Well the answer is that states cry woe, we will have to lay off teachers, police and emergency responders because the mean old government didn't send us their paychecks. Forget we spent all our money on their benefits. And not like states are hiring most of these people anyway, local government is.
But why is local government relying on the federal government to cough up the money for their employees? Isn't that kind of careless? Did they really think the gravy train has no caboose? Look people, as long as the teachers and the county sheriffs are working for federal programs, they aren't working for you. Do you really want to give up control like that? Because the federal government will come calling with those "conditions." The money is never free.
But wait, there's more. States are in the same pickle. The stimulus gave states untold billions to shore up unemployment, supposedly. And like others, I asked what happens when this faucet/firehose of funds get's shut off?
Well the answer is that states cry woe, we will have to lay off teachers, police and emergency responders because the mean old government didn't send us their paychecks. Forget we spent all our money on their benefits. And not like states are hiring most of these people anyway, local government is.
But why is local government relying on the federal government to cough up the money for their employees? Isn't that kind of careless? Did they really think the gravy train has no caboose? Look people, as long as the teachers and the county sheriffs are working for federal programs, they aren't working for you. Do you really want to give up control like that? Because the federal government will come calling with those "conditions." The money is never free.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Putting the National Debt in Perspective - another analogy
These numbers change pretty quickly, but they are close enough for government work, anyway.
• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
.............
Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
Sorta brings the issue "home" doesn't it ?
• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
.............
Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
Sorta brings the issue "home" doesn't it ?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Let's talk energy
Climate change is a close relative, I don't want to go there. I just want to lay out some thoughts on energy.
According to Pickens, in 2009, the US imported 63% of our oil at a cost of $265 billion. And that was fairly cheap oil. Let's assume in 5 years, we could decrease our imported oil costs by 20%. That is a potential value of $53 billion, assuming oil in constant dollars. That is $53 billion more circulating in our own economy. Over 10 years, we should be able to bring nuclear power stations online, reducing dependence on oil and natural gas for electricity. Is another 30% reduction in oil imports reasonable in a second five year period? That's another $80 billion for a total of $186 billion over 10 years. That's money circulating in our economy instead of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.
If I am missing something please correct me.
We have a lot of natural gas reserves - 100 years if you believe Pickens.
Compressed natural gas vehicles have been around for years. I have seen them in Wash DC for at least the last 6 years, passenger cars, taxis and buses.
Many people have natural gas to their house.
Delivering CNG to main highways wouldn't be any more costly than replacing all the existing gas storage tanks (that has been going on for years because the tanks leak).
We should be able to turn over 20% of the passenger vehicles, municipal buses, taxis and light delivery trucks in 5-7 years, about the time we will need to ramp up CNG delivery infrastructure.
It seems like a reasonable goal then to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports by both increasing our own output, converting to CNG and at least in the short term rely on coal.
How many jobs would that $186 billion create?
According to Pickens, in 2009, the US imported 63% of our oil at a cost of $265 billion. And that was fairly cheap oil. Let's assume in 5 years, we could decrease our imported oil costs by 20%. That is a potential value of $53 billion, assuming oil in constant dollars. That is $53 billion more circulating in our own economy. Over 10 years, we should be able to bring nuclear power stations online, reducing dependence on oil and natural gas for electricity. Is another 30% reduction in oil imports reasonable in a second five year period? That's another $80 billion for a total of $186 billion over 10 years. That's money circulating in our economy instead of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.
If I am missing something please correct me.
We have a lot of natural gas reserves - 100 years if you believe Pickens.
Compressed natural gas vehicles have been around for years. I have seen them in Wash DC for at least the last 6 years, passenger cars, taxis and buses.
Many people have natural gas to their house.
Delivering CNG to main highways wouldn't be any more costly than replacing all the existing gas storage tanks (that has been going on for years because the tanks leak).
We should be able to turn over 20% of the passenger vehicles, municipal buses, taxis and light delivery trucks in 5-7 years, about the time we will need to ramp up CNG delivery infrastructure.
It seems like a reasonable goal then to reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports by both increasing our own output, converting to CNG and at least in the short term rely on coal.
How many jobs would that $186 billion create?
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Selling your foot to spite your nose.
OK, that is such a mixed metaphor it is non-sense.
But then so is this: USA companies are selling refineries???
Global oil companies are building them elsewhere? And then what, ship it to the US?
OMG, please, someone stop the madness!
If some other country is out there buying refinery products, should we not be all about selling it to them?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/02/news/companies/oil_refinery_gas_prices.fortune/index.htm
But then so is this: USA companies are selling refineries???
Global oil companies are building them elsewhere? And then what, ship it to the US?
OMG, please, someone stop the madness!
If some other country is out there buying refinery products, should we not be all about selling it to them?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/02/news/companies/oil_refinery_gas_prices.fortune/index.htm
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Forget race, sex, religion and disability as reasons for bigotry
We have a new (yet old) act in town this year (2011).
Economic Inequality
Somehow, the prosperous seem to be the root of all evil. And all along, I thought it was envy. Oh wait, it's still envy.
The dialog this year has been ever-more frequently decrying the disparity between them that have and those who have not. Define that however you like; and that is the problem - any definition seems to work in this scheme. This is more than class warfare. Frankly, I find the concept a pointless waste of emotional energy, but that has yet to stop a progressive from bleating in the dark of economic night.
Look, if you are going to beat this sorry drum from centuries past, try pointing out the disparity between oil-rich middle east theocratic oligarchies and just about everyone else in the world. We give them our money because we want their product. It's that simple.
The fact that some people in this country are well-off and some aren't is just a fact of life. The price of stuff is set by the amount of money people who want the stuff are willing to pay. What have our efforts to increase access to home ownership, education and health care by lower income citizens accomplished? Raised the price of homes, education and health care to even higher absurd levels. Taking money away from those with more and giving it to people with less does increase demand - but it also increases cost and results in the same net effect -- the same people are at the bottom. You would think that the number of people with the wealth would decrease, and perhaps it has. But also note that the people with the wealth now have more of the wealth. Conclusion: wealth redistribution has the effect of trickling up, not down. So theoretically, we can perpetuate hate for this minority (the top 1, 2, 5 percent) as long as we like.
If this country wishes to make demons of the well-to-do and rob the rich to pay the poor, it will find the rich departing to more welcoming countries. This applies to corporations as well as individuals. Face it, one doesn't need America to be rich, one needs product. One doesn't need money to develop product, one needs energy and a tolerant environment. Given the means and the venue, the money will follow.
This zero-sum game of wealth-envy and piss on the prosperous is being played out every where from the environmentalists (we'll save the planet when YOU buy/use less) to a spiritual message.
Links to a sample the progressive poor me messages du jour:
Eliminating Inequality is Good for the Soul (or you have lies, damn lies and then there are statistics)
The Upward Mobility Gap Bipartisanship in 2011? No Chance
Economic Inequality
Somehow, the prosperous seem to be the root of all evil. And all along, I thought it was envy. Oh wait, it's still envy.
The dialog this year has been ever-more frequently decrying the disparity between them that have and those who have not. Define that however you like; and that is the problem - any definition seems to work in this scheme. This is more than class warfare. Frankly, I find the concept a pointless waste of emotional energy, but that has yet to stop a progressive from bleating in the dark of economic night.
Look, if you are going to beat this sorry drum from centuries past, try pointing out the disparity between oil-rich middle east theocratic oligarchies and just about everyone else in the world. We give them our money because we want their product. It's that simple.
The fact that some people in this country are well-off and some aren't is just a fact of life. The price of stuff is set by the amount of money people who want the stuff are willing to pay. What have our efforts to increase access to home ownership, education and health care by lower income citizens accomplished? Raised the price of homes, education and health care to even higher absurd levels. Taking money away from those with more and giving it to people with less does increase demand - but it also increases cost and results in the same net effect -- the same people are at the bottom. You would think that the number of people with the wealth would decrease, and perhaps it has. But also note that the people with the wealth now have more of the wealth. Conclusion: wealth redistribution has the effect of trickling up, not down. So theoretically, we can perpetuate hate for this minority (the top 1, 2, 5 percent) as long as we like.
If this country wishes to make demons of the well-to-do and rob the rich to pay the poor, it will find the rich departing to more welcoming countries. This applies to corporations as well as individuals. Face it, one doesn't need America to be rich, one needs product. One doesn't need money to develop product, one needs energy and a tolerant environment. Given the means and the venue, the money will follow.
This zero-sum game of wealth-envy and piss on the prosperous is being played out every where from the environmentalists (we'll save the planet when YOU buy/use less) to a spiritual message.
Links to a sample the progressive poor me messages du jour:
Eliminating Inequality is Good for the Soul (or you have lies, damn lies and then there are statistics)
The Upward Mobility Gap Bipartisanship in 2011? No Chance
A paradigm shift in commodity prices
That means energy, food, minerals and therefore all the stuff that is thereby derived
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/28/the-coming-commodity-price-nightmare/
What the price of gas is doing to American consumers and therefore to the economy
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/05/news/economy/gas_prices_income_spending/index.htm?section=money_topstories
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/28/the-coming-commodity-price-nightmare/
What the price of gas is doing to American consumers and therefore to the economy
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/05/news/economy/gas_prices_income_spending/index.htm?section=money_topstories
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Suddenly economics is entertainment
This is well produced and entertaining video. Which should start a whole new discussion about education, but I'm not going there.
Fight of the Century at econstories
Fight of the Century at econstories
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Can we solve this problem with more taxes?
Um. NO.
You would have to confiscate every dollar from every person who earns $200,000 or more. Imagine what that would do for the economy? But in any event, what would you do next year? Because obviously, those people would not be working those jobs and making those investments anymore. Let's see, work at 7-11 for $30K or work at Goldman-Sachs for nuthin. No brainer.
Tax Foundation
IT'S NOT A TAX PROBLEM, IT'S A SPENDING PROBLEM!
Fix the spending problem first. Then use additional revenue to PAY DOWN THE DEBT!
Maybe we should have a tax revolt instead of a tea party. Reduce your withholding as much as you can without incurring a penalty. Send the IRS a notice that you are taking the additional amount you owe off of the nation's tab. Too bad we can't send money to the treasury earmarked for debt reduction (not deficit reduction, the debt we already owe). No, you can't keep it, you would have to put it in an escrow account. But hey, interest rates are going up so at least you will be earning some money for the government, right?
Why worry about the debt? Because we are paying interest on it. And the interest, if we keep spending like drunken sailors, will consume the entire annual federal revenue in just a few short years, not decades (somewhere between 2021 and 2041 depending on interest rates).
In 2010, we spent more in interest than we did on Health and Human Services (medicare/medicaid) More than Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, Justice, DHS, Commerce, Labor, Small Business Admin, Treasury. Combined. In the last 20 years, we have spent $8 trillion just on interest - nice income for other countries.
If Congress stopped all spending today and paid $100 million per day, it would take 389 years to pay off the national debt. And that was in 2010, so it is closer to 500 years now.
Government Gone Wild
You would have to confiscate every dollar from every person who earns $200,000 or more. Imagine what that would do for the economy? But in any event, what would you do next year? Because obviously, those people would not be working those jobs and making those investments anymore. Let's see, work at 7-11 for $30K or work at Goldman-Sachs for nuthin. No brainer.
Tax Foundation
IT'S NOT A TAX PROBLEM, IT'S A SPENDING PROBLEM!
Fix the spending problem first. Then use additional revenue to PAY DOWN THE DEBT!
Maybe we should have a tax revolt instead of a tea party. Reduce your withholding as much as you can without incurring a penalty. Send the IRS a notice that you are taking the additional amount you owe off of the nation's tab. Too bad we can't send money to the treasury earmarked for debt reduction (not deficit reduction, the debt we already owe). No, you can't keep it, you would have to put it in an escrow account. But hey, interest rates are going up so at least you will be earning some money for the government, right?
Why worry about the debt? Because we are paying interest on it. And the interest, if we keep spending like drunken sailors, will consume the entire annual federal revenue in just a few short years, not decades (somewhere between 2021 and 2041 depending on interest rates).
In 2010, we spent more in interest than we did on Health and Human Services (medicare/medicaid) More than Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, Justice, DHS, Commerce, Labor, Small Business Admin, Treasury. Combined. In the last 20 years, we have spent $8 trillion just on interest - nice income for other countries.
If Congress stopped all spending today and paid $100 million per day, it would take 389 years to pay off the national debt. And that was in 2010, so it is closer to 500 years now.
Government Gone Wild
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
A debt analogy
So, instead of amassing another $10 trillion in debt over the next decade, we will amass only $7.5 trillion more? As Ron Paul said, whoopee.
My son's analogy: So instead of crashing the plane into the tarmac at a 90 degree angle, we will just crash it at a 70 degree angle instead.
And instead of addressing the spending problem that adds another $trillion to the debt every year, we will whine and threaten and demagogue to no end tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for the richest corporations (picking winners and losers again) which, if we went ahead and did what is suggested, would result in only several billion more in revenue. Why? Because the really wealthy people that are constantly being demonized don't earn the money from income. Therefore income tax increases don't increase affect them. And most people who would be affected aren't pulling wages in the $200,000+ brackets, they are business owners. If the government isn't taking their income (not wages), then it is available to reinvest in the business, thereby improving the economy, increasing the number of wage-earners and therefore income tax revenue. The millionaires and billionaires are not going to be paying any more in income tax - it isn't earned income to begin with. So much for fair share, so much for the "protecting the wealthy" argument, they are all protecting the wealthy by keeping capital gains taxes low and keeping capital expensing and amortization periods favorable. No one pays attention to how the rich are taxed except for the rich, so no one knows it is a completely different system.
Loved these articles from Reason spending-cuts, taxes and revenue
Page 2, taxes and spending
Percent of taxes by income share
My son's analogy: So instead of crashing the plane into the tarmac at a 90 degree angle, we will just crash it at a 70 degree angle instead.
And instead of addressing the spending problem that adds another $trillion to the debt every year, we will whine and threaten and demagogue to no end tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for the richest corporations (picking winners and losers again) which, if we went ahead and did what is suggested, would result in only several billion more in revenue. Why? Because the really wealthy people that are constantly being demonized don't earn the money from income. Therefore income tax increases don't increase affect them. And most people who would be affected aren't pulling wages in the $200,000+ brackets, they are business owners. If the government isn't taking their income (not wages), then it is available to reinvest in the business, thereby improving the economy, increasing the number of wage-earners and therefore income tax revenue. The millionaires and billionaires are not going to be paying any more in income tax - it isn't earned income to begin with. So much for fair share, so much for the "protecting the wealthy" argument, they are all protecting the wealthy by keeping capital gains taxes low and keeping capital expensing and amortization periods favorable. No one pays attention to how the rich are taxed except for the rich, so no one knows it is a completely different system.
Loved these articles from Reason spending-cuts, taxes and revenue
Page 2, taxes and spending
Percent of taxes by income share
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The gap between wealthy and everyone else
Here's a thought:
Find out how the rich guy made the money. And do the same. Study the wealthy for how they got there, not because they have things you don't. We don't get anywhere by blaming the wealthy for what we don't have.
Honestly, I am not disparaging those who have less than the average bear. And I'm not saying that no one needs a helping hand - for all those people who are out of a job and lost their wealth when the value of their house was cut in half - you really are at a disadvantage. A family can probably lose their equity, a job or their health, but losing more than one is darned difficult to get through and the older you are, the more difficult to overcome. Still, it is not the wealthy person's job to take care of you. There is a difference between a charitable obligation and government confiscation.
I'm just saying that what made America in the past were people who said "I want that and I'm going to find out how to get it," and not "I deserve that and I'm going to find out how to take it."
It used to be that wealth was accumulated through wages, savings, home equity and retirement investments. Not great wealth but comfortable wealth. No more. I don't have the answers, I just can plainly see that what worked in the past is not part of the paradigm we live in now.
Find out how the rich guy made the money. And do the same. Study the wealthy for how they got there, not because they have things you don't. We don't get anywhere by blaming the wealthy for what we don't have.
Honestly, I am not disparaging those who have less than the average bear. And I'm not saying that no one needs a helping hand - for all those people who are out of a job and lost their wealth when the value of their house was cut in half - you really are at a disadvantage. A family can probably lose their equity, a job or their health, but losing more than one is darned difficult to get through and the older you are, the more difficult to overcome. Still, it is not the wealthy person's job to take care of you. There is a difference between a charitable obligation and government confiscation.
I'm just saying that what made America in the past were people who said "I want that and I'm going to find out how to get it," and not "I deserve that and I'm going to find out how to take it."
It used to be that wealth was accumulated through wages, savings, home equity and retirement investments. Not great wealth but comfortable wealth. No more. I don't have the answers, I just can plainly see that what worked in the past is not part of the paradigm we live in now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
