Off-Topic DiscussionsThis is the area for general banter/chat. There are rules for this section, please read the sticky post in the section before participating. Enter at your own risk as some posts in here may be NSFW
Here's an interesting factoid I picked off the TV the other day...
If you could go back to the year of the birth of Christ...that's 2008 years ago, and, from that time to this, spend a million dollars every day, by the time you got to March 4th, 2009 you still would not have spent as much as President Obama has proposed in his new budget for government spending.
Thought you'd wanna know
__________________
100% Disabled Viet Nam Veteran (Agent Orange and its' complications)
SOMETIMES I'M ALL CAPS...BECAUSE OF MY DIABETIC EYE DEGENERATION
Pic under name is record holder high mileage vehicle. 3469.6 MPG. Built by UNLV Mechanical Engineering students.
2009 Mitsubusi Outlander SE - (24 MPG in town)
2004 VW Golf TDI - (42 MPG in town)
... picked off the TV ... you still would not have spent as much as President Obama has proposed in his new budget for government spending.
What does that actually mean?
There are a third of a billion people in the United States.
A Billion dollars in the Federal budget represents three dollars per capita.
Comparisons between 2,008 years and the budget for a population of 333,000,000 people are probably designed to deliberately confuse you.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell, P.E.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles.
- Hella headlights (highly recommended)
- DOT C-2 back end (also recommended)
- R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. Saved ozone and money
- 4.1:1 final drive converted to 3.4:1. Quieter, better mileage but it's a good thing I live in the flat Midwest.
- 9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation, due to body & frame rust.
Last edited by drcampbell; 03-10-2009 at 04:23 PM.
He was trying to make it clear just how much money we are talking about with these bailouts. I think that some folks have trouble getting their minds around millions and billions, let alone, trillions.
Hey, I'll admit it, I was impressed! I guessed that these figures were flawed. Imagine, a million dollars a day, every day for two thousand years! And we've done that twice in the last six months, in addition to our normal federal budget of over $3,000,000,000,000. Wow, so our federal budget is like spending a million dollars a day for ... 8000 years! I hope you find this analogy helpful.
For what it's worth, his numbers are accurate.
I multiplied $1,000,000 times 365 (days per year) times 2008 (years) for a grand total of $732,920,000,000 ($733B). That's roughly equal to TARP 1.0, from six months ago, and less than STIMULUS 1.0 which we're getting ready for now. I hope this is the end, but I betcha it isn't.
Quote:
There are a third of a billion people in the United States.
A Billion dollars in the Federal budget represents three dollars per capita.
Comparisons between 2,008 years and a population of 333,000,000 people are probably designed to deliberately confuse you.
He didn't compare 2008 years and 333,000,000 people.
He was trying to make it clear just how much money we are talking about with these bailouts. I think that some folks have trouble getting their minds around millions and billions, let alone, trillions.
Sure, but what do they mean? A million dollars in the Federal budget means $0.003 per person, which is pretty meaningless.
Quote:
He didn't compare 2008 years and 333,000,000 people.
You did.
Were you trying to deliberately confuse us?
Sorry, should have said, " ... the budget for a population of 333,000,000 people ... " My bad.
I think the best way to get your mind around Federal budget items is to put them on a per capita or per household basis.
So the $700-billion TARP budget item is equivalent to $2,100 per person, or $8,400 per family.
A $2,100 pile of cash - your personal share of the bailout - is much easier to comprehend.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell, P.E.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles.
- Hella headlights (highly recommended)
- DOT C-2 back end (also recommended)
- R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. Saved ozone and money
- 4.1:1 final drive converted to 3.4:1. Quieter, better mileage but it's a good thing I live in the flat Midwest.
- 9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation, due to body & frame rust.
... BTW the city I am currently living in is listed in the spending. What ever that means....
IT MEANS YOUR GOVT REP HAS MORE PULL THAN OURS. THERE'S NOTHING WITHIN 30 MILES OF MY AREA.
JM
__________________
100% Disabled Viet Nam Veteran (Agent Orange and its' complications)
SOMETIMES I'M ALL CAPS...BECAUSE OF MY DIABETIC EYE DEGENERATION
Pic under name is record holder high mileage vehicle. 3469.6 MPG. Built by UNLV Mechanical Engineering students.
2009 Mitsubusi Outlander SE - (24 MPG in town)
2004 VW Golf TDI - (42 MPG in town)
I think the best way to get your mind around Federal budget items is to put them on a per capita or per household basis.
So the $700-billion TARP budget item is equivalent to $2,100 per person, or $8,400 per family.
A $2,100 pile of cash - your personal share of the bailout - is much easier to comprehend.
Doug points out that the per capita cost of our federal budget is $0.003 per million dollars of federal dollars spent. That does sound like a bargain and if the federal budget was a million dollars, I'd gladly send in my penny and let them keep the 7/10 of a cent in change.
But the federal budget isn't a million dollars. It is over three million times that much. So the tax burden per capita ($0.003 per million budget dollars) must be multiplied by three million and is now $9,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. And of course not every man, woman (and few children) even files a tax return. And of those that do, about half do not actually pay any taxes. In the end, less than a third of our citizens actually pay any taxes. So the "per capita" tax burden must be (conservatively) multiplied by three.
This puts the per taxpayer tax burden at $27,000 per year.
Wow. That's another number that surprised me. Our income is a little above average and we don't pay that much in taxes. Why is this? The only reasons I can think of are:
1) We're paying quite a bit more in taxes than the bottom line on our 1040 form. As has been pointed out, we're indirectly paying corporate taxes when we make purchases.
2) Luckily for us, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are pitching in some extra to lessen the load on the rest of us.
3) We're not paying for somewhere between $500B and $1T of our budget (the budget deficit). We're borrowing it. I wonder how long we'll be able to do this? If you were to spend more than you earned year after year, piling on more and more debt, requiring greater amounts of money just to pay for the interest on the debt, would there ever come a day of reckoning? Is there something magical about the government which allows them to do this with no consequence? If so, please explain.
Anyway, if these figures are accurate, the average taxpayer is on the hook (either today in the form of taxes or in the future in the form of a larger national debt) for $27,000 per year.
Add to this burden obligations for TARP1, BAILOUT1, etc, each of which Doug calculates add another $8,400 per household.
Where will this end? How can this be morally justified?
I stumbled across another great quote from Thomas Jefferson RE the 10th amendment:
Quote:
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition.
Isn't that exactly what we've done by interpreting "promote the general welfare" to be a blank check for the government?
also:
Check out this quote on debt and taxes:
Quote:
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.
If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and
in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and
our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...
[we will] have no time to think,
no means of calling our miss-managers to account
but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves
to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...
And this is the tendency of all human governments.
A departure from principle in one instance
becomes a precedent for [another ]...
till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery...
And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt.
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
For those that claim that the old, dead founders can offer no guidance to us in these modern times, please explain how indebtedness and high taxes have changed so that although they used to be bad, they no longer are? Technology may have changed, but again, human nature, debt and taxes are very old concepts.
To those that speak of "the common good" and other socialist terms, I offer one of my most favorite budget items: Our federal government has spent $1,400,000,000 ($1.4B) of taxpayer dollars on TV converter boxes.
Who can argue that this is a valid expenditure for the federal government? Why should the government take my tax dollars and use them to buy TV converter boxes for somebody else? I do not own a digital-ready TV or a converter box. Why should I be forced to buy one for somebody else?
These are good threads. Thanks for the participation in them. These items should be discussed more often.
Doug points out that the per capita cost of our federal budget is $0.003 per million dollars of federal dollars spent. That does sound like a bargain and if the federal budget was a million dollars, I'd gladly send in my penny and let them keep the 7/10 of a cent in change.
But the federal budget isn't a million dollars. It is over three million times that much. So the tax burden per capita ($0.003 per million budget dollars) must be multiplied by three million and is now $9,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. And of course not every man, woman (and few children) even files a tax return. And of those that do, about half do not actually pay any taxes. In the end, less than a third of our citizens actually pay any taxes. So the "per capita" tax burden must be (conservatively) multiplied by three.
This puts the per taxpayer tax burden at $27,000 per year.
Wow. That's another number that surprised me. Our income is a little above average and we don't pay that much in taxes. Why is this? The only reasons I can think of are:
1) We're paying quite a bit more in taxes than the bottom line on our 1040 form. As has been pointed out, we're indirectly paying corporate taxes when we make purchases.
2) Luckily for us, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are pitching in some extra to lessen the load on the rest of us.
3) We're not paying for somewhere between $500B and $1T of our budget (the budget deficit). We're borrowing it. I wonder how long we'll be able to do this? If you were to spend more than you earned year after year, piling on more and more debt, requiring greater amounts of money just to pay for the interest on the debt, would there ever come a day of reckoning? Is there something magical about the government which allows them to do this with no consequence? If so, please explain.
Anyway, if these figures are accurate, the average taxpayer is on the hook (either today in the form of taxes or in the future in the form of a larger national debt) for $27,000 per year.
Add to this burden obligations for TARP1, BAILOUT1, etc, each of which Doug calculates add another $8,400 per household.
Where will this end? How can this be morally justified?
I stumbled across another great quote from Thomas Jefferson RE the 10th amendment:
For those that claim that the old, dead founders can offer no guidance to us in these modern times, please explain how indebtedness and high taxes have changed so that although they used to be bad, they no longer are? Technology may have changed, but again, human nature, debt and taxes are very old concepts.
To those that speak of "the common good" and other socialist terms, I offer one of my most favorite budget items: Our federal government has spent $1,400,000,000 ($1.4B) of taxpayer dollars on TV converter boxes.
Who can argue that this is a valid expenditure for the federal government? Why should the government take my tax dollars and use them to buy TV converter boxes for somebody else? I do not own a digital-ready TV or a converter box. Why should I be forced to buy one for somebody else?
These are good threads. Thanks for the participation in them. These items should be discussed more often.
I agree with you on the converter boxes. If your argument is that they overdue it on some things then specify what those things are.
You make it seem as though you have a problem with any and all taxes and all government etc....
I figured out that both parties are totally corrupt when both parties were complicit in giving taxpayer money to investment Banks.
... To those that speak of "the common good" and other socialist terms, I offer one of my most favorite budget items: Our federal government has spent $1,400,000,000 ($1.4B) of taxpayer dollars on TV converter boxes. Who can argue that this is a valid expenditure for the federal government? ...
Propaganda is essential, as is an opiate for the masses. Television serves both functions.
__________________
-
Douglas Campbell, P.E.
1986 Isuzu P'up, 177,673.8 miles.
- Hella headlights (highly recommended)
- DOT C-2 back end (also recommended)
- R-12 air conditioner converted to R-406a. Saved ozone and money
- 4.1:1 final drive converted to 3.4:1. Quieter, better mileage but it's a good thing I live in the flat Midwest.
- 9/22/2007, age 21: Still running well when reluctantly sent away for reincarnation, due to body & frame rust.
I agree with you on the converter boxes. If your argument is that they overdue it on some things then specify what those things are.
You make it seem as though you have a problem with any and all taxes and all government etc....
Thanks for the post CTO. I've been thinking that I should clarify a point or two and your post is a good chance to do so.
The converter boxes are of course just one example that the federal government is doing things that it was never intended to do.
The founders intentionally designed the weakest possible federal government. They'd just been through a war to get out from under King George and didn't want to set up a similar situation here. They placed great restrictions on the federal government.
But during the 20th century, attitudes started to change and the federal budget started to include things that (it was thought) people needed.
This worked out so well for the politicians that they soon started to offer up things that people merely wanted.
Now the federal budget is simply the national cookie jar and there is no longer ANY limit to what the federal government can spend money on (if there is a limit, I'd like to hear about it).
So to answer your challenge to point out things that should be removed from the federal budget:
The federal government should not fund roads, bridges, museums, police, fire departments, education, health care, nor support those that no longer work, are out of work, refuse to work, or yes, farmers. None of those things are new. They were all around 230 years ago. Does that mean that those things should not be funded at all?
Nope. It means that those things should be left to the states (or local communities).
If the fine people in some faraway state don't value a road, museum, etc enough to fund it themselves, why should I be forced to pitch in and help fund it? Let these things be taken care of at the smallest local level possible. These are the people that are most affected and are in the best position to decide if the investment is necessary. How does it make sense for the people in Florida to be taxed to help pay for a bridge in Wyoming and the people in Wyoming taxed to build a museum in Florida, etc? This makes the federal government the big "money swapper" in the sky and ultimately gives them a ton of power, which they are abusing. If something is important enough, the local states or communities can raise the money and build it themselves.
Let every state come up with their own policies on taxes and spending. If California or New York want to set up a socialist paradise and tax the crap out of their citizens to fund it, I say let 'em at it! But if people and businesses get tired of it, they have the option of "voting with their feet" and leaving the state. If enough people/businesses do this, the legislators will be forced to change things. This puts one state in competition with another and forces the states to watch their spending. And I guess I should mention, should California or New York run out of money and collapse in a pile of debt, they are on their own. It would be very bad news should this happen, but compared to the option of putting all of our eggs in one basket and having the federal government bail everybody out to the point that it eventually fails, it's clearly the better choice.
On the other hand, out of control spending at the national level leaves the citizens with almost no options. We're forced to just sit here and take it. But I worry that if this tax/spend splurge we are on doesn't stop soon, people will eventually take some kind of action. It's not much of a practical option for us to leave the country, but it wouldn't surprise me to see some kind of a tax revolt one of these days. We're already seeing "tea parties" here and there. If it is perceived that a large number of people are going to tell the feds to stuff their tax bill, more people could easliy dog pile on this effort and it could quickly snowball.
The feds would likely clamp down hard to try to halt such a revolt, but that could backfire. I'm telling you, here in Texas, we would not respond kindly to federal authorities coming in and arresting citizens who have decided that they have had enough of an out of control federal government. If it was a few people, that would be one thing, but if lots of people jump in, it could be big, big trouble.
And unfortunately, the non-taxpaying folks who have been appointed to high places in government just fuels the fires. Why should I pay my taxes when doing so is not required of our "leaders"?
We may be headed for a crisis. We need to put our federal government back on constitutional grounds. Let the states do the experimentation and competition between the states will force them to run efficiently.
Quote:
I figured out that both parties are totally corrupt when both parties were complicit in giving taxpayer money to investment Banks.
Agreed. I am against using taxpayer money to prop up private companies.
3) We're not paying for somewhere between $500B and $1T of our budget (the budget deficit). We're borrowing it. I wonder how long we'll be able to do this? If you were to spend more than you earned year after year, piling on more and more debt, requiring greater amounts of money just to pay for the interest on the debt, would there ever come a day of reckoning? Is there something magical about the government which allows them to do this with no consequence? If so, please explain.
I don't think that continued borrowing of our debt should cause any problems. Sure we're now borrowing most of our debt from arab oil states and China, but they really like us a lot.
I don't think that continued borrowing of our debt should cause any problems. Sure we're now borrowing most of our debt from arab oil states and China, but they really like us a lot.
One last note and then I'll give it a rest for a while.
I admit that there is zero chance of trimming the "entitlement" spending from the federal budget. If any politician even hinted that they wanted to trim medicare, medicaid, prescription drugs, or any of the "welfare" programs, they would be demonized in the media and virtually run out of town. If somehow those programs did manage to be eliminated, people would riot in the streets. Short of total collapse, we are stuck with those programs.
But I do not think that people would riot if we cut out all of the "pork barrel" spending. If Town X doesn't get a new museum, airport, or shiny new bridge, I would expect that life would go on.
So why can't we at least get rid of all of that junk from the federal budget? Let's say that we have 100,000 communities in the US, each of which has one special project that they would like to get done. Instead of having the federal government tax all 100,000 communities and then funding each of the 100,000 special projects, why not have each community tax itself and then fund their one project? Would that be so bad? The federal taxes would drop and the local taxes would go up. It might even be a wash for most taxpayers, but in the end, it would give the citizens more control. My reps in Washington don't know me and I have virtually no influence on them. On the other hand, I personally know one of my state senators and also the mayor of our town. There is some chance that they would actually listen to my opinion. And as I said in an earlier note, if I was unhappy enough with my local reps, I could look for a community that had tax and spend policies more in line with my personal wishes!
I'll not hold my breath waiting for these changes. But I wonder if we'll ever find the stones to actually reduce spending. Even in the times of financial crisis, the special projects and TV converter boxes are being funded as always.
There is ONE area that I've read is likely to get substantial budget cuts in the future. Which one you ask? The military budget.
The one thing that the constitution specificially states is the responsibility of the federal government to provide!
Did I miss the news that stated that the international threats we were facing are over? Did China, Russia, Iran, North Korea etc all decide to make nice? Did Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Queda make up with the West? Hooray!
I have in front of me an article from UPI that states
Quote:
With the combined cost of the economic stimulus package and the Wall Street bailout projected to top $2 trillion and the federal deficit spiraling, US officials are fretting that current levels of defense spending may be unsustainable.
...
"The spigot of defense spending that opened on Sept 11 is closing," Defense Secretary Robert M Gates told a hearing last month of the Senate Armed Services Commitee.
...
According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending constitutes more than half of US discretionary spending - the part of the federal budget that is not spent on mandatory items including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. That is about 4.5 percent of the US gross domestic product."
Note that the constitutionally mandated military spending is called "discretionary" and the unconstitutional entitlement handouts are "mandatory". The entitlement spending is over half of the federal budget and the military spending is less than 5%.
If our founders were alive today, they would slap us silly.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
