Glenn Beck's $53 trillion asteroid

[TheQuestion]

Why do I hear a lot of talk on lots of issues this election, but not this issue?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Can any one find anything on McCain's, Clinton's or Obama's web sites that talks about this metaphorical asteroid?

Is Beck fear-mongering (he is a conservative after all, right?)? Is this a mythical asteroid? Can someone please help? Would a real asteroid be better to talk about?

[hdsalinas]

Beck is so right on many issues. I appreciatte his point of view and I just wish any of the candidates had as much common sense as he does.

[miloblithe]

Sounds like he's either ignorant or, much more likely, deliberately as misleading as possible:

Let me give you three numbers that will put this economic asteroid into perspective: $200 billion, $14.1 trillion, and $53 trillion.

# $200 billion is the approximate total amount of write-downs announced so far as a result of the current credit crisis.

# $14.1 trillion is the size of the entire U.S. economy

# And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made.

This is apples to oranges comparisons. The "entire US economy" he quotes is the US GDP per year. The $53 trillion dollar (what exactly? He never defines this. Is that $53 trillion for all currently living Americans, including babies, some of whom won't die until somewhere around 2110? What does that $53 trillion mean? One thing for certain is that it's $53 trillion over many many years, not over one year, wherein the US economy is $14.1 trillion (and growing by the way).

I've never heard of this guy before, but this article makes me think he's not exactly qualified to write on economic issues to audiences capable of doing math.

Aha.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/turk/2008/0109.html

it's $53 trillion over 75 years.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Glenn is making the point, lets face it the federal govt is a train wreck on so many issues it aint funny. Someone with both party's help or without needs to fix the problem of a govt gone astray even with itself.
Glenn doesnt talk much of Clintons surplus and Bush's lack of the Veto pen.... Though Bush sort of discovered it after 6 years and the democrats taking congress by a hair but before.........Spent more then all combined presidents before him put together if im not mistaken.

[TheQuestion]

I've never heard of this guy before, but this article makes me think he's not exactly qualified to write on economic issues to audiences capable of doing math.


Which begs the question, who is qualified in the MSM or political arena to offer an opinion (and this an op-ed piece)?

[r.j.s]

I like Glenn, but as with everyone's opinion (which he clearly states everything he says is his opinion, and it comes from a conservative (not Republican) viewpoint) it must be taken with appropriate dosage of salt.

You should never take anyone on TV or the radio at face value, check the facts yourself - from several different sources.

[Desertrat]

Folks need to get over worrying about the political views of who said what, and look at the numbers.

From the data provided by the SS people, who know more than any of us do about the income/outgo, the rising curve of outgo meets the declining curve of available income in 2019. Isn't that easy?

IOW, right now, there is more money coming in via FICA than is being paid out in benefits. That ends in 2019. After that, either there is an increase in the FICA tax or the new benefit-money comes from the general revenue fund. In either case there is an increasing number of recipients and a declining number of those who pay in. Fewer workers per Olde Phart, to be expected in an aging society. In its own way, SS is a Ponzi scheme, albeit much longer-lived.

This has been known since at least the 1970s, insofar as public discussions. It was predicted soon after the Social Security program was instituted. Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has avoided and evaded this political hot potato.

"There is no problem so important that we cannot turn tail and run." -- Congress

Granted, there have been a few "trial balloons" for folks to think about. Raising the age of eligibility, lowering benefits, making benefits need-related. All have met with howls of outrage from the public, AARP in the forefront. (People 55 and older are the most likely to vote, and re-election is the most important thing in a Congresscritter's life.) There is also the occasional rumble about raising the FICA tax rate from the present 7.65% and to raise the amount of income subject to the tax.

Overall, Beck is indeed correct that, "U.S., we have a problem."

'Rat

[skunk]

If you cut back some more on healthcare for the elderly, you can kill two birds with one stone. As it were.

[SMM]

It has been many years since I took two semesters of economics. However, I do not think a person has to be fluent in that field to understand some of the obvious issues facing America today.

Each of us has, or will, learn that you cannot keep accumulating debt. Eventually, it will engulf you and you will not be able to cover the cost of debt service. When you are constantly spending more money than you are making, you go in the red - very easy for anyone to understand. So, how smart is it to decrease your income by providing reduced taxes?

This is Reagan economics. Give the appearance of spending less, while you are actually spending more. Then 'hide' your excessive spending by borrowing. Republicans project a myth of fiscal responsibility and being good for business and the economy. They are neither. Their focus is on personal wealth preservation. I remember T. Boone Pickens quote about the national debt, "Hell no I do not worry about it, I am not going to pay for it". And so it goes.

The only way America can solve the current financial crisis, and also invest in the many different areas we need to, is to reduce unnecessary spending and raise taxes. Greedy citizens will scream 'rape' over this, but those people have no face anyway. I do not think most Americans mind paying taxes if they see a well-managed economy in place. We must have leadership that can accomplish this. And, that sure is not McCain and his fellow republicans.

[TheQuestion]

It has been many years since I took two semesters of economics. However, I do not think a person has to be fluent in that field to understand some of the obvious issues facing America today.

Each of us has, or will, learn that you cannot keep accumulating debt. Eventually, it will engulf you and you will not be able to cover the cost of debt service. When you are constantly spending more money than you are making, you go in the red - very easy for anyone to understand. So, how smart is it to decrease your income by providing reduced taxes?

This is Reagan economics. Give the appearance of spending less, while you are actually spending more. Then 'hide' your excessive spending by borrowing. Republicans project a myth of fiscal responsibility and being good for business and the economy. They are neither. Their focus is on personal wealth preservation. I remember T. Boone Pickens quote about the national debt, "Hell no I do not worry about it, I am not going to pay for it". And so it goes.

The only way America can solve the current financial crisis, and also invest in the many different areas we need to, is to reduce unnecessary spending and raise taxes. Greedy citizens will scream 'rape' over this, but those people have no face anyway. I do not think most Americans mind paying taxes if they see a well-managed economy in place. We must have leadership that can accomplish this. And, that sure is not McCain and his fellow republicans.

So would you agree the best solution is to cut spending and increase taxes, as hard as it to swallow?? Would this not at least give your children and grand children something less than a complete fiscal mess??

[Tilpots]

I actually opened this story today on CNN.com. I really thought an asteroid might be coming, then I saw it was a Glenn Beck piece. This guy could blow an asteroid off course with all the hot air he spews from his mouth.

Is SS a problem, of course. Is Beck exaggerating the numbers to get you to listen to him, absolutely.

If you really want to know more about the state of SS (and it's really not good), read the comments (http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/25/pf/soc_sec_trustees_report/index.htm?postversion=2008032517) of the SS trustees.

And to the OP, yes, a real asteroid would be better to talk about. Then you might see some action.

[SMM]

So would you agree the best solution is to cut spending and increase taxes, as hard as it to swallow?? Would this not at least give your children and grand children something less than a complete fiscal mess??

We have to pay down the debt. It will take many generations to accomplish this. Those who have prospered by this irresponsible policy will no doubt snicker as America's middle-class corrects the excesses of the elitists. However. It will be the middle-class who suffers most by not 'righting the ship'. Government pisses away billions of dollars. The first place to start is getting rid of poorly managed, or unnecessary programs. Those saving can then be diverted to programs which lack funding, or need more. That only gets us part of the way to our goals, however. Our budget/taxes must include a yearly levy to pay down the debt. Start by paying off loans with unfavorable terms, or interest rates. The dollar will see a decent bounce when creditors recognize a responsible fiscal plan is in place and is being followed. Right now, we are borrowing at unfavorable terms. We are desperate to keep funding the war and still maintain tax cuts. Americans are generally too lazy to educate themselves about what is going on. This is alarming to me (but not surprising).

[TheQuestion]

Is Beck exaggerating the numbers to get you to listen to him, absolutely.


Which numbers are exaggerated? For what purpose? Did you admit the situation was bad?

[Desertrat]

Sheesh! Beck's not exaggerating the numbers! He's merely replaying the numbers given by the Trustees. Multiplying the years by the dollars per year.

Among other things: The incremental cost--that cost over and above the usual spending--for the Iraq war is somewhere around a hundred, maybe a hundred-fifty billion per year. The national debt is some $9 trillion. Divide, and figure out how much help ending the war in Iraq actually would be. Well, okay, sixty years.

Given our existing social programs and the proposed expansions by the presidential candidates, how much more money per year do you want? Then, how much money do you think is actually available toward paying down debt? Even Clinton's tax hike didn't really balance the budget. It was the surplus income from FICA that was juggled to make it appear to balance.

As far as FICA, a self-sustaining rate would be roughly double today's number. Roughly. Do you work? You're now paying 7.65%, doubled (Your employer "contributes" another 7.65%, but that's money that he could otherwise be paying to you.) 15.3% of your paycheck to FICA? Enjoy! And that's just to break even on SS; it won't help the national debt's reduction.

Unless and untiil we somehow create a younger and larger workforce, making items for export sales in excess of our consumption, we'll never regain any sort of position as a leading economic system. For now, we're merely on the downslope of a decline...

CUL. Onto the Superslab for a couple of days...

'Rat

[Tilpots]

Which numbers are exaggerated? For what purpose? Did you admit the situation was bad?

Quoted from Beck:

And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made.


The $53 trillion is exaggerated, because he gives no time frame as to how that money is broken down over the years. He's merely throwing as large a figure out there as possible to hit the reader over the head. He needs to quantify this figure in order to give the reader perspective and he does not. His purpose is to stand on a soapbox and attract an audience.

Of course I admit the situation is bad, and getting worse everyday. I'm not defending SS or its administration, I'm merely calling out Glenn Beck for being irresponsible. He's not a journalist and should never be mistaken for one. Journalists use facts to present a story, not create one. He's a talk show host trying to stir the pot.

[TheQuestion]

Quoted from Beck:

And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made.


The $53 trillion is exaggerated, because he gives no time frame as to how that money is broken down over the years. He's merely throwing as large a figure out there as possible to hit the reader over the head. He needs to quantify this figure in order to give the reader perspective and he does not. His purpose is to stand on a soapbox and attract an audience.

Of course I admit the situation is bad, and getting worse everyday. I'm not defending SS or its administration, I'm merely calling out Glenn Beck for being irresponsible. He's not a journalist and should never be mistaken for one. Journalists use facts to present a story, not create one. He's a talk show host trying to stir the pot.

Do not both the article you cite and Beck's piece suggest that the fund becomes insolvent in 2019? Isn't then when repayments must be made or BOOM? Again, what's being exaggerated?

[Ugg]

Do not both the article you cite and Beck's piece suggest that the fund becomes insolvent in 2019? Isn't then when repayments must be made or BOOM? Again, what's being exaggerated?

Unless I'm mistaken, only a few years ago the date was 2014. Now it's 2019. It would seem to me that steps are being taken to slowly improve Medicare.

The same goes with Social Security.

I believe that viable solutions can be found for both Medicare and SS. The biggest problem in my mind is that successive administrations have raided the Medicare and SS "lockbox" to fund current spending. As the surpluses in Medicare and SS begin to diminish, they'll no longer have the luxury of using the surpluses to balance the budget.

That, IMHO, is the biggest problem we face.

[r.j.s]

Unless I'm mistaken, only a few years ago the date was 2014. Now it's 2019. It would seem to me that steps are being taken to slowly improve Medicare.

It was 2041.

CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/retirement/SStrustees_2006report/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/03/24/social_security_crunch_2041/)

[miloblithe]

This is all such nonsense. OK. Raise the age to receive benefits from 67 to 68 starting in 2015 and to 69 2030. Some people will complain, just like they did the last time, but the fact is people are living longer. The adjustment needs to be made.

I just "saved" social security.

Also, I think we need to take the word of Bush appointees with a grain of salt. Just like Bolton in the UN, they were chosen probably precisely because they oppose the basis of the organization and want to abolish it or alter it beyond recognition (i.e., privatize social security).

[Tilpots]

Do not both the article you cite and Beck's piece suggest that the fund becomes insolvent in 2019? Isn't then when repayments must be made or BOOM? Again, what's being exaggerated?

$53 trillion are not due in 2019, though that is what his piece seems to suggest. That is the exaggeration.

[TheQuestion]

$53 trillion are not due in 2019, though that is what his piece seems to suggest. That is the exaggeration.

Does he not say that 2019 is when the asteroid FIRST hits? Is not the point of his piece that the debt service to the American taxpayer will increase every year over SEVERAL years?

[Badandy]

Then 'hide' your excessive spending by borrowing. Republicans project a myth of fiscal responsibility and being good for business and the economy. They are neither.

Watch the stock market plummet if a Democrat wins the White House. Wall Street knows this, and while Wall Street is not the whole economy, it's certainly an important indicator, as most people on the street are betting the welfare of company's and their employees will dwindle.

Of course, I'm a Republican and want fiscal responsibility. Don't over-generalize, as there are a lot of people with me on this. The elected Republicans, however, do pretend to be fiscally responsible while spending as much as the Democrats, so you are right in that way.


The only way America can solve the current financial crisis, and also invest in the many different areas we need to, is to reduce unnecessary spending and raise taxes.

How about just reducing unnecessary spending? As soon as taxes are raised, they ain't coming back down easily. That's the way the government works; They get used to more cash and then they find ways to spend it. You see the evidence in small fee raises everywhere, and I loathe the day when it becomes even more of a large scale problem.

Greedy citizens will scream 'rape' over this, but those people have no face anyway.


Greedy? You're calling people greedy who don't want to have HALF of their income taken away through taxes and fees?

I do not think most Americans mind paying taxes if they see a well-managed economy in place.

I agree with you here. But I do mind paying more in taxes when I see government spending sky-rocketing even higher.


We must have leadership that can accomplish this. And, that sure is not McCain and his fellow republicans.

And it sure isn't Obama and his fellow Democrats. In fact, how is all this unnecessary spending going to be cut? I hear promises from the Republicans and Democrats and how things need to be improved, more funding for this, more funding for that, but little to any talk on how we're going to pay for it. So, oh wise Obamanites, WHAT exactly are we going to cut from federal expenditures that will reduce government spending significantly?

[Daveman Deluxe]

Let's put the $53 trillion in perspective...

If EVERY U.S. resident were a Social Security benificiary this year, and the total bill for SS this year were $53 trillion, each U.S. resident would receive over $175,000 this year.

Call it a hunch, but I think that $53 trillion is NOT going to be the total expense of Social Security in 2019.

[IJ Reilly]

I believe that viable solutions can be found for both Medicare and SS. The biggest problem in my mind is that successive administrations have raided the Medicare and SS "lockbox" to fund current spending. As the surpluses in Medicare and SS begin to diminish, they'll no longer have the luxury of using the surpluses to balance the budget.

That, IMHO, is the biggest problem we face.

I think this is somewhat less of an issue than it is often made out to be. In effect, the trust fund is invested in federal debt, which is not inherently a bad thing. It only becomes an issue if the federal government reneges on the debt. Not that this isn't a gathering issue, since federal debt is being continually kicked down the road.

Also, the use of the term "insolvent" is a bit over-dramatic. If the trust funds running into a deficit is the definition of insolvency, then the federal government as a whole has been "insolvent" for over 50 years. Better words, please. Let's try to use better words.

Beck is at least right in saying that Congress has no appetite for solutions because all of them are politically unpleasant, and the longer the solutions get put off, the more unpleasant they will become.

[TheQuestion]

Also, the use of the term "insolvent" is a bit over-dramatic. If the trust funds running into a deficit is the definition of insolvency, then the federal government as a whole has been "insolvent" for over 50 years. Better words, please. Let's try to use better words.


How does this mitigate the problem? Does it not make things worse?? Should we feel comfortable with debt because it's been a fact for generations?

[Thomas Veil]

Watch the stock market plummet if a Democrat wins the White House....That is the least of our worries. Wall Street always reacts negatively to the possibility that someone might slap some fiscal responsibility on them, or the government, or both.

So, oh wise Obamanites, WHAT exactly are we going to cut from federal expenditures that will reduce government spending significantly?http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/images/map.gif

[Tilpots]

Does he not say that 2019 is when the asteroid FIRST hits? Is not the point of his piece that the debt service to the American taxpayer will increase every year over SEVERAL years?

Now I see why your handle is "TheQuestion." You just keep asking them in a leading manner, as if you are actually making a point. You started this thread but keep prodding those who give you an opinion.

Here's a few questions for you:

Do you know how to end a sentence with a period?

Do you have all the answers and just aren't willing to share?

Is Glenn Beck your fav?

How would you solve the SS deficit?

[TheQuestion]

Now I see why your handle is "TheQuestion." You just keep asking them in a leading manner, as if you are actually making a point. You started this thread but keep prodding those who give you an opinion.

Here's a few questions for you:

Do you know how to end a sentence with a period?

Do you have all the answers and just aren't willing to share?

Is Glenn Beck your fav?

How would you solve the SS deficit?

To what end do you propose i would withhold the answer if I had it? If I had the Answer what sense would it make not to share it? Is not the Answer the handle of someone else? Cannot an object of liberal derision occasionally have a valid point? By what rationale would that then make him "my fav"?

[Iscariot]

Now I see why your handle is "TheQuestion."

I would have thought he took his name from the DC Comics superhero of the same name, to which I say "The plastic ends of shoelaces are called aglets. Their true purpose is sinister."

[TheQuestion]

I would have thought he took his name from the DC Comics superhero of the same name, to which I say "The plastic ends of shoelaces are called aglets. Their true purpose is sinister."

;)

[Badandy]

(picture of iraq)

That's a joke. Iraq is the least of our financial worries, we have a hugely imbalanced budget even without the war over there.

So tell me, how is all this unnecessary spending going to be cut? I hear promises from the Republicans and Democrats and how things need to be improved, more funding for this, more funding for that, but little to any talk on how we're going to pay for it. So, oh wise Obamanites, WHAT exactly are we going to cut from federal expenditures that will reduce government spending significantly?

[spork183]

That's a joke. Iraq is the least of our financial worries, we have a hugely imbalanced budget even without the war over there.

So tell me, how is all this unnecessary spending going to be cut? I hear promises from the Republicans and Democrats and how things need to be improved, more funding for this, more funding for that, but little to any talk on how we're going to pay for it. So, oh wise Obamanites, WHAT exactly are we going to cut from federal expenditures that will reduce government spending significantly?

Not to worry. McCain, following in the able footsteps of Dubya, will take care of all. I feel secure in the knowledge that we have 8 more years of stellar republican fiscal leadership to steer the ship of state... :eek:

[Badandy]

Not to worry. McCain, following in the able footsteps of Dubya, will take care of all. I feel secure in the knowledge that we have 8 more years of stellar republican fiscal leadership to steer the ship of state... :eek:

You're telling me. I already expressed my sentiments in another thread on PRSI, but I don't expect you to have read it being as though it is a different thread than this one. It bears repeating though: I don't think McCain is fiscally conservative and he will not help our fiscal situation at all.

EDIT: And yet again, my question I posed is ignored.

[IJ Reilly]

How does this mitigate the problem? Does it not make things worse?? Should we feel comfortable with debt because it's been a fact for generations?

I'm not saying any of this. I am saying simply that it's overly dramatic to describe this situation as insolvency. Beck implies that if the problem isn't fixed that the Medicare and Social Security trust funds will go out of business and be unable to pay any benefits. We've got a problem, but that isn't a description of it.

[solvs]

Beck is so right on many issues. I appreciatte his point of view and I just wish any of the candidates had as much common sense as he does.
Please tell me you're kidding.

Among other things: The incremental cost--that cost over and above the usual spending--for the Iraq war is somewhere around a hundred, maybe a hundred-fifty billion per year.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

So far the war is costing over $500 billion. Including other costs, such as paying for care for returning soldiers and a lot of other things we don't even think about, it's been estimated that cost will be somewhere around several trillion. And that's only so far. It won't solve it, but it could have helped. Could have gone towards other things too. But it isn't. Meanwhile, our debt is going up and all I hear is that we should lower taxes again. Pardon us for questioning the wisdom of that.

Watch the stock market plummet if a Democrat wins the White House.
The stock market is all over the place now. And our economy is already tanking. You think a fiscal Dem, both of the current candidates claiming to be BTW, is going to make things worse?

I would have thought he took his name from the DC Comics superhero of the same name
That guy would never listen to someone like Glen Beck.

And yet again, my question I posed is ignored.
For one, I don't see any Obamanites here. Most of us just don't think McCain will be any better than Bush. From what I've been reading, he very easily could be worse. Which is too bad, because prior to embracing the current policies that have helped to get us into this mess we're in now, he actually had some good ideas and was against some of the Bush policies more than most of the Dems were. Even if he is the first to admit he doesn't know much about economics. Not saying Obama is going to fix it all though. I just can't see him making things worse. Calling the current policies bad doesn't mean I automatically have to like the alternative candidate's policies.

For the record, SS is not in as much trouble as people keep saying, nor would giving people their money back to go invest in the stock market going to help, especially in this market, as people like Beck want to do.

[Thomas Veil]

That's a joke. Iraq is the least of our financial worries, we have a hugely imbalanced budget even without the war over there.

So tell me, how is all this unnecessary spending going to be cut? I hear promises from the Republicans and Democrats and how things need to be improved, more funding for this, more funding for that, but little to any talk on how we're going to pay for it. So, oh wise Obamanites, WHAT exactly are we going to cut from federal expenditures that will reduce government spending significantly?We're dumping tons of money into the giant bottomless hole that is Iraq. Project how much money that will turn into with another decade or two of this (if John McCain and other Republicans have their way), and, as the wag says, it adds up to real money. So it's not a joke.

But you want more? Ideally you'd like to cut out all the subsidies and other pork projects that seem to be a staple of our government...but realistically that's not gonna happen. So let's go for some more practical ideas.

How about eliminating the $90,000 income cap on people paying into Social Security? That alone would probably save it.

Then again, Bush's tax cuts just might have something to do with reduced government revenue. Obviously eliminating them would help as well.

Those aren't the cuts you asked about. But then there are two ways of balancing a budget -- more income, less expenditures -- and you were asking only about the latter. I gave you that answer with the Iraq war.

But really, we want to ask ourselves if Beck isn't only playing a fear-mongering game. I know (gay marriage) that it's so unlike (immigration) Republican flaks to resort to (Terry Schiavo) something like that around election time...but it's just a thought.

Recall that just a scant two or three years ago, Dubya and all of his surrogates were running around screaming about the $11 trillion deficit that was going to destroy Social Security in another decade or two. Turns out they were lying, using projections that assumed people would retire at 67 and live to collect Social Security until they were 150. How are we supposed to take conservatives' numbers seriously when they are making those kinds of manipulative assumptions?

So I'm less inclined to worry about how social programs that have been around a long time are gonna pay for themselves, and much more inclined to worry about how my kids are gonna pay for the expenses we hadn't figured on, like horrendously expensive wars started by idiots against the wrong enemy.

[MacFanBoyIIe]

Iraq is the least of our financial worries...

You're high.

New York Times. March 23rd, 2008. Iraq War costs $5000 per second.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23kristof.html

Be sure and scroll down to the part about how Americans will still be paying for the war 50 years from now when aging Iraq War Vets are in need of assistance.

[Badandy]

The stock market is all over the place now. And our economy is already tanking. You think a fiscal Dem, both of the current candidates claiming to be BTW, is going to make things worse?

Yes, it will. Wall Street knows this, it's really not up for debate on the Street.


For one, I don't see any Obamanites here. Most of us just don't think McCain will be any better than Bush. From what I've been reading, he very easily could be worse. Which is too bad, because prior to embracing the current policies that have helped to get us into this mess we're in now, he actually had some good ideas and was against some of the Bush policies more than most of the Dems were. Even if he is the first to admit he doesn't know much about economics. Not saying Obama is going to fix it all though. I just can't see him making things worse. Calling the current policies bad doesn't mean I automatically have to like the alternative candidate's policies.

I don't think he'll be any better than Bush (both McCain and Obama) fiscally.


We're dumping tons of money into the giant bottomless hole that is Iraq. Project how much money that will turn into with another decade or two of this (if John McCain and other Republicans have their way), and, as the wag says, it adds up to real money. So it's not a joke.

But you want more? Ideally you'd like to cut out all the subsidies and other pork projects that seem to be a staple of our government...but realistically that's not gonna happen. So let's go for some more practical ideas.

How about eliminating the $90,000 income cap on people paying into Social Security? That alone would probably save it.

Then again, Bush's tax cuts just might have something to do with reduced government revenue. Obviously eliminating them would help as well.

Social Security is a separate fund, our general fund is in serious trouble as well. On the topic of government revenues:

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg

I couldn't find through 2008 but I'd assume it hasn't gone down. Overall, tax revenue has increased and our budget has increased at a faster pace than that.

Again, democrats, what would YOU eliminate in our budget that you deem unnecessary that would help America be fiscally responsible?


Those aren't the cuts you asked about. But then there are two ways of balancing a budget -- more income, less expenditures -- and you were asking only about the latter. I gave you that answer with the Iraq war.

Without the Iraq war, we still have a huge budget deficit.



You're high.


I don't do drugs, and there's no need to bring that hostility here. Read my quote above.

[MacFanBoyIIe]

Without the Iraq war, we still have a huge budget deficit.

The deficit is not a real financial worry for the U.S. right now, nor will it be in the near future. It's a scare tactic. It's a scary movie politicians show to voters to scare votes of "change in the White House" out of them. There will essentially always be a deficit. Get used to it.

Also, if the Iraq war is the least of America's financial worries, as you so boldly stated, then try naming some other money-pit that costs $5000 a second?
BTW, for the mathematically challenged, $5000 per second is roughly:
$300,000 per minute
$18 million per hour
$432 million per day
$3 billion per week
$13 billion per month

Furthermore, I think we would all like to hear you logically explain how saving $5000 spent every second for the last FIVE years wouldn't help America's economy. Really...

[Thomas Veil]

Yes, it will. Wall Street knows this, it's really not up for debate on the Street.But it's very much up for debate everywhere else. Wall Street "knew" electing Bill Clinton was going to cause financial disaster, and instead we had a great economic expansion.

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpgBoy, that's pretty damning of the Republican Congress that was still in session in 2005. Highest revenue ever, and we were still spending it faster?

I'd add that those revenue numbers are a little skewed. It was around then that Bush ordered the IRS to seriously go after back taxes owed by corporations. (Why this wasn't done earlier, I don't know.) So I'm pretty sure those increased numbers couldn't be sustained indefinitely.

Again, democrats, what would YOU eliminate in our budget that you deem unnecessary that would help America be fiscally responsible?Asking the same question over and over will not change the answers. What do you want to hear?

[Badandy]

Boy, that's pretty damning of the Republican Congress that was still in session in 2005. Highest revenue ever, and we were still spending it faster?

I didn't say that it wasn't.

Asking the same question over and over will not change the answers. What do you want to hear?

I want to hear what programs/services you democrats would cut in order for the federal government to be fiscally responsible. We all know the Iraq war, it costs money and that's a given. Without that, we're still spending far more than we make, and with all of these "changes" that democrats are pushing, amounting to little more than increased spending, I don't see how you dems expect that Obama or whoever your primary winner is will actually improve our fiscal situation.

[hulugu]

I didn't say that it wasn't.



I want to hear what programs/services you democrats would cut in order for the federal government to be fiscally responsible. We all know the Iraq war, it costs money and that's a given. Without that, we're still spending far more than we make, and with all of these "changes" that democrats are pushing, amounting to little more than increased spending, I don't see how you dems expect that Obama or whoever your primary winner is will actually improve our fiscal situation.

Well, aside from the posts above, which mentioned a removal of the Bush tax cuts, I would want a re-assessment of the Department of Defense. I still question the necessity of the CVN-79 (the Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear carrier), the new DDX program, another nuclear attack submarine, not to mention the money spent in programs such as the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter.
Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that the missile defense system is worth the more than 10.2 billion that's already been sunk into it.

I would also like to see a serious audit by the GAO on money given to contractors in Iraq and a repeal of any tax cuts or subsidies given to the oil industry.

That was off the top of my head.

[Badandy]

...not to mention the money spent in programs such as the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter.

The F22 and JSF are extremely important to our military. Our fighters are getting aged, and the benefits of air superiority should not need to be further extolled.

Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that the missile defense system is worth the more than 10.2 billion that's already been sunk into it.

Unconvinced in its usefulness and worth or unconvinced because of the problems it's had? Because with such advanced technology problems are to be expected.

I would also like to see a serious audit by the GAO on money given to contractors in Iraq and a repeal of any tax cuts or subsidies given to the oil industry.



Agreed with the contractors, disagree to oil industry. The oil industry pays so much money in taxes and people don't realize it. Besides, with all the claims of price gouging, their profit margin is not out of line with other industries. The reason their profits and revenues are so high is because of volume, there is very little of the gouging that people think there is.

[hulugu]

The F22 and JSF are extremely important to our military. Our fighters are getting aged, and the benefits of air superiority should not need to be further extolled.

What about the F/A-18 Super Hornet? We've just spent a significant amount of money upgrading the F/A-18 program and now we're about to spend more for a system we may or may not need. Furthermore, only China and Russia retain fighters capable of engaging the US with any hope of success, and this discounts the advantages we retain in AWACS capabilities. I'm not saying the programs are worthless, but does the Navy need both the Super Hornet program and the JSF? Does the Air Force need the F-22 and the JSF?

There are other programs, such as the Osprey, which do not appear to be worth the money we've already spent. I noticed that you skipped over the new carrier, the DDX, and the new Virginia-class attack submarines. Does the US need another carrier or several more attack submarines?
These are questions worth asking, but I remain wholly unconvinced that every single program in the DoD budget is necessary.

Unconvinced in its usefulness and worth or unconvinced because of the problems it's had? Because with such advanced technology problems are to be expected.

The current program is a mish-mash of technology and policy. There are serious problems with the radar stations, especially the massive off-shore platforms, and currently the system has failed almost every test that has been thrown at it; except for the strapped-chicken tests, which it has only moderately failed at.
As for the strategic usefulness of such a weapon, I think we'd be better off with theater-wide systems, diplomacy, and a well-funded intelligence branch that can assess what's happening before that missile is fueled and launched.


Agreed with the contractors, disagree to oil industry. The oil industry pays so much money in taxes and people don't realize it. Besides, with all the claims of price gouging, their profit margin is not out of line with other industries. The reason their profits and revenues are so high is because of volume, there is very little of the gouging that people think there is.

I'm not going to call it gouging, but when an industry is making record profits, it would seem that they don't need a helping hand through corporate welfare.
This seems akin to someone making $100K a year and asking for food-stamps. If the oil industry cannot afford to pay the taxes they are required to pay while making 400% profits than I suggest a review of their books.
When their profits fall, they can have their tax break back.

My over-reaching point, however, is the US budget is not as lean as some pretend it is. There are things that can be cut.

[Badandy]

What about the F/A-18 Super Hornet? We've just spent a significant amount of money upgrading the F/A-18 program and now we're about to spend more for a system we may or may not need.

And you might not need insurance, but you buy it anyway. I understand your point, however, but the F-18 is an old plane, and making it the Super Hornet is an improvement, but the chassis and basic avionics are old. It still is a great plane though.

Furthermore, only China and Russia retain fighters capable of engaging the US with any hope of success, and this discounts the advantages we retain in AWACS capabilities. I'm not saying the programs are worthless, but does the Navy need both the Super Hornet program and the JSF? Does the Air Force need the F-22 and the JSF?

Well, I guess it comes down to how important and powerful you think the United States military should be. So that's opinion.

There are other programs, such as the Osprey, which do not appear to be worth the money we've already spent. I noticed that you skipped over the new carrier, the DDX, and the new Virginia-class attack submarines. Does the US need another carrier or several more attack submarines?

The Osprey was a huge mistake, and I couldn't agree with you more there. It's an interesting plane, just a little redundant in my mind. The DDX program has also been significantly cut down because of costs. On a side note, they really look awesome. The Virginia-class subs replace a more expensive model and fill out our ranks after the decommissioning of other subs.


These are questions worth asking, but I remain wholly unconvinced that every single program in the DoD budget is necessary

Thank you for the quality post. The questions are definitely worth asking and I too doubt that every DoD program is necessary. I'm just nervous that once people start cutting a lot on DoD spending they'll think it's an easy way out to cut government expenditures until one day in the future, we'll actually need some of those cut programs because we're left with an antiquated military. To be clear, this will not happen soon as our military superiority is gigantic, I am speaking in the far future.



The current program is a mish-mash of technology and policy. There are serious problems with the radar stations, especially the massive off-shore platforms, and currently the system has failed almost every test that has been thrown at it; except for the strapped-chicken tests, which it has only moderately failed at.
As for the strategic usefulness of such a weapon, I think we'd be better off with theater-wide systems, diplomacy, and a well-funded intelligence branch that can assess what's happening before that missile is fueled and launched.


I'm not going to call it gouging, but when an industry is making record profits, it would seem that they don't need a helping hand through corporate welfare.
This seems akin to someone making $100K a year and asking for food-stamps. If the oil industry cannot afford to pay the taxes they are required to pay while making 400% profits than I suggest a review of their books.
When their profits fall, they can have their tax break back.

Their profit margins are not 400% as long as you're speaking of the companies I am thinking about. Exxon, BP, Shell, and Chevron among others all have huge profits, but that's due to revenue, not to the margin.

As a matter of fact, I doubt few people realize the different between a company like Exxon (10 billion profit in one quarter) and Apple. Exxon, because it is in the oil industry, is portrayed as a price-gouging, evil company. ExxonMobile has a net profit margin of 10% and an operating profit margin of about 16%. Compare that to Apple, who has a net profit margin of 16% and an operating profit margin of 22%. That's a huge difference, but I doubt few will actually get the point.

My over-reaching point, however, is the US budget is not as lean as some pretend it is. There are things that can be cut.

It's definitely not lean, good point.

[iJesus]

I say everyone here on MacRumors joins in and buys a nice big Island. With Steve Jobs as President. The Island would be designed by Jonathan Ive. Oh, best part... everyone would use a Mac.

=P

[hulugu]

Thank you for the quality post. The questions are definitely worth asking and I too doubt that every DoD program is necessary. I'm just nervous that once people start cutting a lot on DoD spending they'll think it's an easy way out to cut government expenditures until one day in the future, we'll actually need some of those cut programs because we're left with an antiquated military. To be clear, this will not happen soon as our military superiority is gigantic, I am speaking in the far future.

First, thanks for the compliment. I appreciate your posts as well.

I think you have a valid worry, but I think there can be a balance between a too-lean military and one that's gorging on every dollar it can. We need to consider how much power we should realistically project, and when we currently spend more and have more advanced stuff than everyone else put together, we should be asking serious questions. I'm also of the mind that the Navy and Air Force should not maintain the same budget that the Army does during two land wars. The reason the budgets are equivalent has everything to do with turf-wars than a reasonable attempt to budget our armed forces.

Their profit margins are not 400% as long as you're speaking of the companies I am thinking about. Exxon, BP, Shell, and Chevron among others all have huge profits, but that's due to revenue, not to the margin.

As a matter of fact, I doubt few people realize the different between a company like Exxon (10 billion profit in one quarter) and Apple. Exxon, because it is in the oil industry, is portrayed as a price-gouging, evil company. ExxonMobile has a net profit margin of 10% and an operating profit margin of about 16%. Compare that to Apple, who has a net profit margin of 16% and an operating profit margin of 22%. That's a huge difference, but I doubt few will actually get the point.

I'll accept your point about profit versus operating margins, although if I can find the source that marked the 400% number as real profit, I'll post it, however I will grant that I may have misunderstood the data.

However, when we compare Apple to Exxon, how much does Apple get in corporate subsidies? Does Apple get a special tax break too?

Again, does the oil industry need protection from the market-forces of its own business model, especially in a boom time? That seems wrong.

[skunk]

First, thanks for the compliment. I appreciate your posts as well.Oi, you two, get a room, will you? :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

Oi, you two, get a room, will you? :rolleyes:

I appreciate your posts as well.

Cranky bugger. ;)

[Thomas Veil]

I want to hear what programs/services you democrats would cut in order for the federal government to be fiscally responsible. We all know the Iraq war, it costs money and that's a given. Without that, we're still spending far more than we make, and with all of these "changes" that democrats are pushing, amounting to little more than increased spending, I don't see how you dems expect that Obama or whoever your primary winner is will actually improve our fiscal situation.We're going in circles with this, I think. I still don't get why you're focusing only to making cuts in programs, and not increasing revenue.

You're not going to see Dems in charge cut social programs, so forget that. Were it up to me, I'd love to see them cut a bunch of earmarks and corporate welfare. But again, I don't see that happening as long as politicians of both parties cater to both their hometown voters and their corporate patrons. So aside from winding down the Iraq war, I don't see how we are going to help by cutting much of anything.

We cut the capital gains tax and the inheritance tax, we gave everyone (especially the wealthy) three rounds of tax cuts...if you're looking for money to cover programs, that's where it went.

[solvs]

You're high.
You don't have to do that, it ruins the rest of your valid points.

I've been there, it gets frustrating, but it's not helpful. :)

Yes, it will. Wall Street knows this, it's really not up for debate on the Street.
Again, they aren't happy now (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/30/business/credit.php), or with what the current people in charge want to do (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32050.html). They may be afraid of Dems, and with some things I kinda hope they will be based on what we've seen with what they've gotten away with recently, but again, they're also worried about what's going on with the current administration (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8VNVMFG1.htm) and the possibility of McCain's Presidency (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/mccain-economic.html). So unless you're trying to say they're worried no matter what, I don't get your point.

I don't think he'll be any better than Bush (both McCain and Obama) fiscally.
Some things could be better:

Economists Worried By Support For Tax Cuts (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/politics/washingtonpost/main3978743.shtml)

When President Bush pushed big tax breaks through Congress in 2001 and 2003, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) joined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats in opposing them as fiscally reckless. But now that McCain and Clinton are running for president, neither is looking to get rid of the cuts. Instead, they are arguing over which ones to keep.

The same is true of Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who recently blamed the Bush tax cuts for driving the nation toward recession. But he, too, wants to preserve about half the cuts, and pile on new ones.
Never said it was by much, but at least it's something:

Obama: McCain 'Traded Principles for his Party’s Nomination' (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-mccain-tr.html)

our general fund is in serious trouble as well.
Again, not really (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004313743_froma30.html). Especially if we can raise the income cap from $90,000 to something like $250,000 as TV alluded to. Bush's plans wouldn't have "saved it" (especially since it doesn't really need saving) and would have actually made things worse, and now that McCain has taken the same positions, we don't trust him with it either. It's not so much that we trust the Dems, we just don't trust the GOP. Based on the evidence, nor should we.

Overall, tax revenue has increased and our budget has increased at a faster pace than that.
Again, not that we trust the Dems with it, we just don't trust the GOP anymore. Hillary's plans are similar to Bill's, and we've seen how that worked out. Obama's aren't great, but better than McCain's, who's decided to carry on Bush's failed policy. Never said the Dems' plans were perfect, or even great.

Again, democrats, what would YOU
you democrats
you dems
You assume we're all Dems or support the Dems for anything other than not supporting the GOP. Maybe true with some of us, but not all. I don't know what they'll do. I don't know if they'll do anything. I just don't like what the current administration is doing or what McCain wants to do. I'm not alone in feeling that way. If Obama or Hillary can't fix anything, so be it. I'd be happy if they just don't make things worse.

[Desertrat]

The federal budget is up some 50% in just six years. Why not ask about, "What cuts?"

And I'd like to hear something specific about these alleged corporate subsidies for the awl bidness. Such as?

As far as oil company profits, Exxon alone has some $25 billion proposed for exploration/development, just this year. $125 billion in this current 5-year period. What do they use for money if the taxes get jacked up as Hillary has said she wishes?

And, sorta separately, another unanswered question I've broached before: Why is it bad for Exxon to profit by some 14% or so, when the countries selling oil are profiting by a factor of $108:$7? 1,500 percent profit.

[hulugu]

The federal budget is up some 50% in just six years. Why not ask about, "What cuts?"

And I'd like to hear something specific about these alleged corporate subsidies for the awl bidness. Such as?

As far as oil company profits, Exxon alone has some $25 billion proposed for exploration/development, just this year. $125 billion in this current 5-year period. What do they use for money if the taxes get jacked up as Hillary has said she wishes?

And, sorta separately, another unanswered question I've broached before: Why is it bad for Exxon to profit by some 14% or so, when the countries selling oil are profiting by a factor of $108:$7? 1,500 percent profit.

Again, my question is how can Exxon expect to avoid paying the taxes it owes during a boom period? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask this question.

Separately, I don't have a problem with Exxon's profit, but rather their significant profit when they claim they can't pay their taxes and thus need some kind of break. Apple and other companies spend enormous amounts of money on R&D, is Exxon so different? And if so, why?

[Badandy]

Separately, I don't have a problem with Exxon's profit, but rather their significant profit when they claim they can't pay their taxes and thus need some kind of break. Apple and other companies spend enormous amounts of money on R&D, is Exxon so different? And if so, why?

Exxon's R&D costs make Apple's look like chump change. While they have massively more revenue, they have a lower profit margin than Apple.

Read it and weep oil company haters, the price gouging buzz words you've been hearing for the past 5 years about the evil oil industry are exaggerated and irrelevant. Exxon and other oil companies make no more per dollar of merchandise sold than Apple...they make less.

[dukebound85]

Again, my question is how can Exxon expect to avoid paying the taxes it owes during a boom period? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask this question.

Separately, I don't have a problem with Exxon's profit, but rather their significant profit when they claim they can't pay their taxes and thus need some kind of break. Apple and other companies spend enormous amounts of money on R&D, is Exxon so different? And if so, why?

i hope you are saying exxon spends a lot on R&D. they spend sooooooooooo much on new methods to obtain oil its not even funny

[hulugu]

Does anyone have any actual numbers or even comparable percentages?

[Badandy]

Does anyone have any actual numbers or even comparable percentages?

For research and development?

Oftentimes, oil companies have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the option to even look in a place that might contain oil.

I still think the most relevant info is profit margin. Let there be no more mistakes of people calling oil companies greedy price gougers.

[hulugu]

For research and development?

Oftentimes, oil companies have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the option to even look in a place that might contain oil.

I still think the most relevant info is profit margin. Let there be no more mistakes of people calling oil companies greedy price gougers.

So, no actual numbers?

Exxon managed to make 102.3 Billion dollars in the 3rd Quarter of 2007, according to their SEC filings, they spent 5.4 Billion in R&D (exploration) and capital expenditures, and 7 billion to buy back shares.

Apple, for comparison, spent approximately 200 Million in R&D with a revenue of 1.58 Billion.

Interesting.

[Desertrat]

"Exxon managed to make 102.3 Billion dollars in the 3rd Quarter of 2007, according to their SEC filings, they spent 5.4 Billion in R&D (exploration) and capital expenditures, and 7 billion to buy back shares."

Isn't the $102.3 billion the figure for sales? Ya gotta subtract the costs incurred in order to have something to sell. How much was that? Exploration is just part of their overhead. They buy oil from OPEC, et al, as well as produce their own. There's production, conveyance and refining as well as capital expenditures.

What's lost sight of in all this is that Exxon buys oil on a contract basis. One year, two years, whatever deal they can cut. So, if they're buying oil at $70 and it goes to $105 during the period of the contract, they're ahead of the game. And they're selling into a rising market, so for a quarter or maybe a year, they have high profits.

Folks weren't saying, "Aw, poor Exxon," back when oil prices fell out of bed and they didn't profit as well as McDonald's. Well, the stockholders did, of course...

It's not that an Exxon can't pay more taxes. The important point is that more taxes = less investment capital for new projects. And, after all, it's the consumer who pays all corporate taxes, one way or another. If Exxon has to borrow money to do new projects, the cost of the product is then higher--and the consumer pays more.

All corporations want stability, to the greatest extent possible. They'll follow any regulatory process, whether environmental or taxation, as long as they can work within a known system that's stable. They then can factor in the costs of doing business with a greater degree of accuracy. That allows a best-profit, least-sales-price system within a competitive market.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

Addendum: I saw in this morning's news that the five oil "biggies" had profits of $123 billion. (Congressinal hearing) Does anybody know what the total sales were?

Gone to Ojinaga for the day. CUL...

'Rat

[solvs]

The federal budget is up some 50% in just six years. Why not ask about, "What cuts?"
Maybe you should ask the conservatives who've been in charge and the complicit Dems who've done nothing about it. And McCain wants to keep going with the same type of things. You may have legitimate criticism about Obama and Hillary's plans, but to say they're the worse option because of what they might do while ignoring what we already know isn't working is a little disingenuous, no?

GAO Blasts Weapons Budget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102789.html?nav=rss_email/components)

Government auditors issued a scathing review yesterday of dozens of the Pentagon's biggest weapons systems, saying ships, aircraft and satellites are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.

The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages.

Read it and weep oil company haters, the price gouging buzz words you've been hearing for the past 5 years about the evil oil industry are exaggerated and irrelevant.
I don't know who's gouging us, but I feel gouged.

And where's that alternative energy they keep talking about but we never see much about?

[Bobdude161]

I know MR has this extreme hate for Bush, but to say Glenn Beck is puppet of his is wrong. Even to say that Glenn is favorable to McCain, is incorrect as well. Glenn disagrees with Bush AND McCain a lot of the time.

How about this solution to debt? Cut taxes AND reduce government spending. Raising taxes is just going to take more money out of people's pockets. The government shouldn't be paying large amounts of debt during times of a slowed market. Doing so makes things much worse. The government should be paying off debt and raising taxes during a growing and prosperous period time in the market.

And as for both Republicans and Democrats both spending like crazy and putting us into debt more and more, it's hard to explain to the people who elect you, why you decided to not increase funding for protecting the troops or increase Medicare funding. So in order to look good, they say yes to everything to seem sympathetic to whatever cause it may be.

I don't know who's gouging us, but I feel gouged.

And where's that alternative energy they keep talking about but we never see much about?

Still being researched I suppose. I know that gasoline powered cars took many years to research and produce to the widespread public. Same thing with alternative fuels.

[solvs]

I know MR has this extreme hate for Bush
Can you blame us?

but to say Glenn Beck is puppet of his is wrong. Even to say that Glenn is favorable to McCain, is incorrect as well. Glenn disagrees with Bush AND McCain a lot of the time.
True, but from what little I've seen of him, he does seem to be a bit of a tool:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/01/the-big-egg/

Still being researched I suppose. I know that gasoline powered cars took many years to research and produce to the widespread public. Same thing with alternative fuels.
My car also runs on CNG. There are a ton of other alternative fuels too. I keep hearing about them, but as much as the oil and car companies say they're funding them, they certainly are taking their sweet time doing anything about it.

[Badandy]

My car also runs on CNG. There are a ton of other alternative fuels too. I keep hearing about them, but as much as the oil and car companies say they're funding them, they certainly are taking their sweet time doing anything about it.

Some accuse big oil of gouging for pure profit purposes. Don't you think they're doing all they can in researching alternative fuels if they really have the promise to gain widespread use and, thus, make the company money?

CNG, as you know, is still a fossil fuel, and what other "ton of other alternative fuels" are there? I read a PM article among other things saying we can't make enough ethanol to power transportation. Sure, we can use it to supplement it, but as of know, it is my understanding that no alternative energy is ready for primetime.

[solvs]

Some accuse big oil of gouging for pure profit purposes. Don't you think they're doing all they can in researching alternative fuels if they really have the promise to gain widespread use and, thus, make the company money?
Up to recently, they haven't really had as much of an incentive. As I said, they are. Just seems like they've been dragging their feet, and now suddenly we realize we need to move on the alternatives. We've had a lot of hindsight lately, very little foresight.

That goes for the Clinton administration too.

CNG, as you know, is still a fossil fuel,
But it's not oil and cleaner burning.

and what other "ton of other alternative fuels" are there?
Ethanol, vegetable oil, solar, electric, water...

I read a PM article among other things saying we can't make enough ethanol to power transportation. Sure, we can use it to supplement it, but as of know, it is my understanding that no alternative energy is ready for primetime.
Correct on both points, which is what I meant. Lack of foresight. They've been looking into it for years now (since before I was born), and we have little to show for it. Meanwhile, we're still buying SUVs and lagging in the production of affordable and more reliable hybrids. Electric cars were recalled and that was that.

I'm just venting, I do that.

[Badandy]

You see, I'm more worried about airplanes and such than I am about personal transportation. There's no doubt that we can build an electric car reasonably well, and with wind/solar/nuclear/hydroelectric power, we can power cars with not too much environmental impact fairly well. But airplanes, which are super important to the military, shipping, travel, and all that good stuff need fuel. I can't imagine a passenger/freight airliner powered by electricity. But to this point, I'm sure we'll keep a gigantic strategic reserve for airplanes we need before fossil fuels run out (way more on reserve than we do currently.)

To be honest, I think the best we can do is urge the energy-related corporations towards R&D by convincing them that the profit opportunity is huge. If you think that these companies are so motivated by profit (which they are) as to do everything in their power to make a buck, imagine what they'll be able to do once the immense profit motive is realized by them for alternative energy. Go free market, do your best, there's a lot of money riding on your progress.

[solvs]

Actually, this would be one of the times I would actually support tax incentives. The profit margin in there, but the R&D upfront is expensive, and there's little proof of payout anytime soon. Incentive is already there, but it's longer term than the free market seems to be comfortable with for little profit in the interm. It would be great for the economy eventually too, as I said. Lots of new local jobs, people upgrading and purchasing new products that work better, are eventually cheaper to run using greener and less energy, as well as being often more environmentally friendly. We aren't there yet, but again, kinda why I'm so pissy. Had we spent more time and put more effort into it sooner, we'd be closer if not there already. I look at other countries with their lower MPGs, better hybrids, and more research into alternatives and I'm envious. Until I remember how much they pay for gas, and realize I guess that's what it'll take here. Better late than never I suppose. I agree about the planes though, hadn't even thought of that. That's much worse.

Still wondering what happened to the electric car that was all the rage.

[Bobdude161]

Can you blame us?

lol, not really.


True, but from what little I've seen of him, he does seem to be a bit of a tool:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/01/the-big-egg/


Yeah he is at times.

But my main argument is that some people in this thread are trying to tie Glenn with Bush and McCain to discredit what Glenn is saying even more, when they should be addressing the topic at hand. I can see how he used the 53 trillion number in a sneaky way, but still doesn't make SS costs seem more or less intimidating.

Up to recently, they haven't really had as much of an incentive. As I said, they are. Just seems like they've been dragging their feet, and now suddenly we realize we need to move on the alternatives. We've had a lot of hindsight lately, very little foresight.

That goes for the Clinton administration too.


But it's not oil and cleaner burning.


Ethanol, vegetable oil, solar, electric, water...


Correct on both points, which is what I meant. Lack of foresight. They've been looking into it for years now (since before I was born), and we have little to show for it. Meanwhile, we're still buying SUVs and lagging in the production of affordable and more reliable hybrids. Electric cars were recalled and that was that.

I'm just venting, I do that.

I know we're straying from the subject at hand, I just wanted to put in my 1 cent. Although there are a lot of alternatives out there, if one were being used or even a few in massive amounts they would probably be as expensive as gas, directly and indirectly.

Ethanol may be cheap, but used in mass quantities (and even in the small portions we use today) the price of corn will sky rocket. This in turn will raise prices on many, many foods, such as milk, soda, anything that has corn in it or feeds the animal that is later used for food. Same thing goes for vegetable oil.

Solar power is a great resource, but consumers want consistency. They want power all the time and given that you need sunlight the majority of the time for solar to work, inconsistencies would be abundant in places other than California (where it's sunny all the time, supposedly).

And on electric only vehicles, if that was being used, the price of electricity will shoot way up. More coal would be extracted (most power plants run on coal), thus destroying more land and stripping our nation of our most plentiful resource.

Hydrogen seems the to be the best route, but I think it will take more than 4 dollars a gallon for the majority of people to to make a stand and have a STRONG desire for an alternative. It'll have to rise to 6 or 7 dollars in order for the the vast majority to request a change. Changes in lifestyles are not brought upon us through the decisions of corporations. The change has to come through us, through our demand for an alternative. Without a demand there is no supply.

[solvs]

Again, part of my point. That none of these are yet viable. Now that it's become an issue, suddenly everybody is talking about funding and researching it. As I said, better late than never I suppose. Maybe we'll actually have something viable in a few years that doesn't do more damage than it fixes. Not as worried about the price. It's future oil prices that we should worry about, and more important, the other costs of using oil and where it comes from, not to mention the damages to the environment.

[Desertrat]

solvs, it's a numbers thing. Absent a high rate of growth in the number of highly-paid and younger workers, it ain't fixable.

Environment? CO2 doesn't care where it comes from. Run the numbers on the growth rate of the Chinese and Indian outputs. Both are heavy in the cars'n'coal growth rates.

'Rat