With November’s state and federal elections in our rear-view mirror, Maine people can now focus on the road ahead and how we will govern ourselves for the next two years. The decisions we make will require an honest, unflinching assessment of our limited resources and a sober evaluation of competing claims for public assistance. “Let’s pretend” is not an option if we want to preserve the safety net for the truly needy.
The beauty of our uniquely American system of self-government is that there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats in our politics, only a permanent struggle to preserve the liberties secured by our state and federal constitutions. Every two years we have the opportunity to hold elected officials accountable at the ballot box and make a fresh start. As Article 1, Section 2 of the Maine Constitution puts it, we have an inalienable right “to alter, reform, or totally change” state government when our safety and happiness require it.
Many people have concluded that our state and nation are at the proverbial crossroads, that the decisions our public servants make in the next year or two will profoundly affect not just us but our children and grandchildren. First and foremost, the unprecedented and unsustainable public debt we’re passing on to the next generation demands our immediate attention.
Regardless of party affiliation or political ideology, we all understand that in our household budgets we cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. Sooner or later, the accumulated debt will impoverish or enslave us. The same logic that governs our household finances also applies to our state and national governments. No act of Congress or the Legislature can repeal the laws of mathematics.
And I would argue that there’s a moral dimension to the debt crisis. Simply put, it is immoral to borrow money from your grandchildren.
At the state level, Maine has made enormous progress unwinding the debt clock. The last Legislature reformed our public employee pension system that was on the road to insolvency and paid down several hundred million dollars owed to Maine hospitals for unreimbursed MaineCare coverage. For the time being, we have stopped piling up more hospital debt, but we still owe the hospitals more than $400 million.
In Washington, D.C., our federal government is flat broke. It borrows 32 cents of every dollar it spends, month after month, year after year, with no end in sight. If we increase tax rates on the rich, those with incomes greater than $200,000, we will gain about $80 billion a year in new revenue. Problem is, the federal government spends $10 billion a day and borrows more than $3 billion of that. So we could fund about eight days of federal spending by jacking up the top bracket to what it was 10 years ago, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, in Washington and Augusta. There aren’t enough rich people to fix this. Even if you confiscated all their wealth, it wouldn’t cover even one year of current spending, and you would only get that windfall one time.
Since entitlement programs account for 62 percent of federal spending (compared with 19 percent for defense), the only path to solvency is entitlement reform. But if you put serious reform proposals on the table, you run the risk of being vilified in the liberal media and accused by political opponents of wanting to throw granny in the snowbank so you give tax cuts to the rich.
Look across the pond if you want some idea of where this is headed.
For years, Ivy-educated American progressives have lectured us about the superiority of the European model of generous welfare programs, open-door immigration, bulletproof job security, long-paid vacations, extended unemployment benefits, early retirement and “free” health care.
Today, with Europe in a slow-motion financial collapse, those progressive chickens have come home to roost on the streets of London, Athens and Madrid.
We’re on the same path to chaos and insolvency as the social democracies of Western Europe.
Whose vision of the future will prevail? Will we continue to embrace the progressive redistributionist model that measures its success by the number of people who depend on government to meet their basic needs? Or will we turn back to freedom and personal responsibility?
To put this in human terms, let’s decide who is most worthy of our limited resources. Will we make sure your 75-year-old grandmother who lives alone has her meds and stays warm this winter? Or will we continue to subsidize your 28-year-old able-bodied but unemployed nephew and make sure he has free health care, free methadone and free cab fare to the methadone clinic? Our resources are limited and we’re drowning in debt; we can’t afford to carry both of them. Who will we choose?
Lawmakers will have many tough choices to make in the next year or two. This one is easy.
Rep. Lawrence E. Lockman, R-Amherst, represents District 30 in the Maine House of Representatives. His email address is larrylockman@rivah.net.
The grandmother was a nice touch. No argument about the 28 year old junkie. But how about we back away from being under the ‘Raw Deal’ of the last 30 years, which I have little doubt you have a picture of Ronny Ray Gun hanging over your porcelain throne, where you pay homage a few times every day.
But let’s back away from the ideals he set in motion and return to a ‘New Deal’. Your concerns will actually pale in comparison when the ‘criminals’ launch the revolution in this country. And while you may take great comfort in the knowledge that gun sales have been off the charts, it’s really not so much because we have a Black President as it is the skyrocketing crime going on out here.
Remember that bumper sticker phrase “Kill The Rich” ? If you even look rich and your daughters half way decent looking, guess what.
Has absolutely nothing to do with redistribution, so can we dispense with the typical Republican b.s. How about paying your fair share. I mean they have rape and pillage this country for years. I mean come on now. They got it good in this country. Creating wealth not only for themselves but every where else except in America.
And what do you know about morality !? Your a politician, am I to believe you answer some higher calling to serve the public ? Well then prove it by donating your salary to the only thing you have helped create in this country, your local homeless shelter & soup kitchen.
Morality ya say,
“And I would argue that there’s a moral dimension to the debt crisis. Simply put, it is immoral to borrow money from your grandchildren.”
I should be concern about the grand kids. Oh yeah, while I’m using leaves to wipe me a–. America needs to be burnt to the ground and started anew, and throw that worthless piece of paper they call the Constitution in the fire as well, or better yet let me use it as toilet paper.
Anger is a cancer.
Agreed!!!
A case in point here, people, that the Dems whipping up class warfare in the last few elections was clearly NOT a dangerous thing?!
The thing is, though, we’re going to spend money on the 28-year-old junkie anyway, either in the form of rehab, vocational training, subsidized housing, or prison — the last option being the most expensive, and the one we taxpayers will be stuck with after every other option is de-funded in the name of lower taxes. A four-year ride at the University of Maine is cheaper than a four-year ride in state prison (not that the junkie is necessarily college material). It’s not realistic to think that once we cut these people off they will disappear and no longer be a burden to taxpayers.
Exactly. Thank you. That Lockman is in the legislature with such an uninformed view of addiction is appalling. Cutting addicts off from treatment would only make a dent in the deficit; hospitals would then suffer even more because they can’t turn away people who can’t pay and who ultimately will be shelling out more for that?
The vast majority of our welfare system dollars goes to supporting the developmentally disabled (think MR and autistic), the elderly, and the severely disabled. Trying to blame the problem on welfare cheats and drug addicts is just a red herring thrown out by Republicans.
True, I remember a country though that did solve the problem of all their unwanted, they loaded them on trains and upon arriving at their destination where told they’d be getting showers. Which is beginning to sound more and more like those on the right side of things in this country.
About time you got involved. Disagreement improves outcomes in democracy. David Broder used to say “there are no experts in congress”.Your point. Perhaps that is why we are in so much trouble.
Interesting stuff you regurgitate Captin’.. So since you’re obviously not an American please frame your actual leanings, you know … 3rd Rail, 3rd Reich, Golden Dawn, World Order White Supremacists, fascist, Illuminati, tea party
or all the above?
Interesting indeed…I’ve got to give it to him, as wacky as some of his ideas are, he’s always entertaining. ;D
Paul Krugman of the NY Times has discussed the national debt (which is NOT an emergency) and austerity politics (a sure way to destroy the economy) numerous times.
For example, he notes: Austerity “isn’t really about debt and deficits at all; it’s about using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs…
“Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income… If everyone simultaneously slashes spending… everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better… When the private sector is frantically trying to pay down debt, the public sector should do the opposite, spending when the private sector can’t or won’t.”
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html]
Please keep quoting Krugman, it helps diminish the point you are trying to make.
OK, I think I get it. When times are bad and there’s a very large and increasing national debt, the government should borrow and spend even more.
Austerity programs destroy national economies.
Yes, I think I understand: Austerity is bad; profligacy is good.
Were you vitally concerned about “profligacy” when GW Bush started two major, permanent wars (one for spurious reasons), while slashing revenue by giving tax breaks to millionaires? To me, that’s a definition of profligacy.
Rebuilding America’s infrastructure (which would provide work for many thousands of people) and maintaining the social safety net (which keeps at least some money coming into our local businesses while keeping people alive, sheltered, and not starving) is a worthy investment.
Yes, I agree that those wars and tax cuts were profligate, and I think they were wrong, just as I think the government’s continued pissing away money and likely refusal to go back to pre-Bush tax levels are wrong. But I don’t buy that “safety net” and infrastructure hocum as justification for increased government borrowing and spending. I don’t trust politicians and government functionaries – least of all Obama – to do the right thing.
Krugman is a keynesian clown….austrian economics has proven time and time again that Krugman and the rest of the keynesian clowns are sailing the ship straight toward the iceburg
the truly sad part is that he has thoroughly convinced a good deal of people that exponential expansion of debt is a sustainable enterprise…unfortunately for the Keynsians, as with ALL exponential curves is nature, debt expansion at our current pace is NOT sustainable and will contract. All we are doing now is making the inevitable contraction that much worse and the negative ramifications all the more pervasive.
Reducing government spending increases unemployment by laying off public workers, and damages the infrastructure by allowing it to keep decaying. Reducing safety net spending keeps desperate people unable to spend money in their communities (which could wipe out your own job due to lack of demand for the goods or services your workplace provides). Reducing government spending reduces the GDP–so the debt to GDP ratio examined by creditors and rating agencies does not improve. Short-term government spending (when consumers and businesses are unwilling or unable to spend), though financed by deficits, supports economic growth.
But I don’t think the intent is ever to rely on the government’s spending (and employment) to boost the economy in the long run. Short term growth will necessarily mean a contraction later, and if you tell me that government hiring has to always increase, that makes this a suicide pact, and I’ll press to stop it today. The first step is recognizing you have a problem.
Krugman isn’t even true to his Keynesian roots. JM Keynes advocated government borrowing only for the short term, never for the long term and never when you had structural debt to begin with.
Paul Krugman (NY Times) on the national debt:
“Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.
“This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways. First,
families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do
is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World
War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S.
economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
“Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an
over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large
extent, money we owe to ourselves. This was clearly true of the debt incurred
to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was
significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt
was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds.
So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t
prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes
and living standards in our nation’s history…”
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html#h]
Phew, and here I was worried about borrowing all of that money. Pass the champagne, the crisis is over.
It’s a fake crisis. GW Bush and his cronies spent our tax dollars hand over fist on two wars while awarding special tax breaks to their millionaire buddies–they CREATED this debt, and no Republicans were complaining while they were in charge. The purpose of creating the debt was to create a phony rationale for slashing social spending.
Wow, there was NO debt before GWjr? Come on, Liz! Your ideological hatred keeps you from any worthwhile debate on this issue.
There has always been a national debt–a national economy always has either a debt or a surplus. My point is that it skyrocketed under Republican leadership, and they did not consider it a problem.
Republicans blame the “Democratic Congress” for their debt increases. The trouble is that Congress was only Democratic 8 out of the 20 years, and in those 8 years, on average, Congress passed smaller budgets than the Republican presidents requested… let’s add up the debt under Reagan and the Bushes. We can’t blame Reagan for the debt’s increase until his first budget took effect, October 1, 1981. Then, for 12 years until Sept. 30, 1993, the Republicans ballooned the debt. Later, George W. Bush took over.
Under Reagan and Bush: $3.4 Trillion increase in the debt. Under George W. Bush: $6.1 Trillion.
Just like a mortgage, the debt incurs interest, so the Reagan-Bush-I debt grew during the Clinton years. The average debt interest rate in those years was about 6.5%, which would increase it over 50% without compounding, but with compound interest the total debt – including interest – increased by $2.2 trillion. Total Republican debt from above: $9.5 trillion.
GW Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008.
Interest on Reagan-Bush debt under Clinton: $2.2 trillion; Interest on $11.7 trillion after G. W. Bush: $0.3 trillion. Grand Total Reagan-Bushes Debt: $12 trillion (as of Sept. 30, 2010).
Yet there was no Republican outcry until President Obama was elected. Then suddenly, Republicans said, “Gosh! There’s a deficit! We simply have to slash Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other problems that help ordinary folks, while preserving tax breaks for millionaires and a bloated military.”
So the free spending republicans created this mess so what is it that you democrats want to cut to fix it?
Liz Davies – marry me. We could have some interesting disagreements. But you must play bridge.
The excessive WWII debt was decreased by super inflation after WWII = 27% in 1947 was the worst year if my memory serves me. It will happen with this debt too. Eventually our congress will address our entitlement problem by means testing leaving intact the safety net for the bottom half of income earners.
Why haven’t we come out of this recession that congress caused? Of the many reasons, some are FEAR related. Dodd/Frank, the main instigators that sold congress on easy housing mortgages, did a job on the banking industry with the Dodd/Frank bill. Obama care – more fear. EPA delayed rules. You get the picture. Fear.
We have a catalyst for the next boom – our dirty energy resourses which may be shut down by our current president and the EPA.
My most recent accomplishment was getting a retired liberal Un Mass professor to vote Republican. Are you up to the challenge?
Dear, me. What a combination we’d make. I suspect the neighbors would call the cops once they heard the decibel level of our debates. Fortunately, I already have a husband, a Vietnam vet who shares my politics. We’ve been together quite happily 40 years and counting, so I’ll pass up your kind offer.
Dear Liz, Someone that agrees with your politics explains how you slid so far left. So sorry. You may not be salvagable. I don”t shout, or even raise my voice. You can’t win arguments that way.
“Those that give up liberty for safety deserve neither.” – Ben Franklin.
Humorless, I see…
bailout bubble.
It doesn’t matter how the debt was created, only that it exists and we need to deal with it. Saying “It’s Bushs’ fault” doesn’t even begin to address the issue. If we continue spending the way we do will the problem be solved if I blame obama in 5 years? i don’t think so.
Blaming the other side of the aisle is how Washington and Main Street America avoid actually having to make politically tough choices. Nobody kicks the can like an American politician, and no one defends them like a partisan attack dog.
Owing 13 trillion is a fake crisis? Bush increased debt by 4 trillion in 8 years, Obama increased the debt by 5 trillion in 4 years and you call it a fake crisis? What is your rationale for that?
Listening to Paul Krugman reminds me of this junkie i saw on TV justifying her crime every day so she could get her daily “fix”.
“U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves”
Just like the junkie, you can come up with an excuse that lets you keep sticking the needle in. It doesn’t matter if you borrow the money from someone else or “yourself”, at some point the money has to be paid back or your finances fail.
Tell your children that you have indebted them into poverty for their entire lives so you could indulge yourself in things you could not pay for over your entire life and see how happy they are with you.
The big lie from Paul Krugman is that he claims that governments don’t have to pay their debt. What he doesn’t tell you is how and why. The simple answer is inflation. Inflate the money supply, (if you and I did it we would be sent to prison for printing counterfeit money), and in effect unmanageable debt becomes manageable. And just don’t look at the huge numbers of people hurt in the process. And those people, primarily the poor and elderly in the past, but with these levels of debt it will probably be a large segment of the middle class as well this time, “pay” for that debt with reduced real income and a lower standard of living. A hidden tax.
The largest proportion of our debt is domestic (not foreign) so it’s money we owe to ourselves, as Americans.
People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: there’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else.. because the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources…
“… talking about leaving a burden to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a very different kettle of fish.” [Krugman]
There’s a group calling itself “Fix the Debt” — a front group for the ultra-rich that called for cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs. From ThinkProgress:
“these CEOs have little cause for concern if government retirement assistance is cut, as they have millions of dollars squirreled away in their personal retirement accounts:
“The 71 Fix the Debt CEOs of public companies have average retirement assets of $9.1 million. Of these 71 CEOs, 54 participate in their company‘s retirement programs and have collective pension assets of $649 million, or more than $12 million per CEO — enough to generate a $65,873 pension check each month for life. In contrast, the average monthly Social Security check for retired workers is $1,237.
“A dozen of the Fix the Debt executives have more than $20 million in their individual company retirement accounts. If each of these CEOs converted their assets to an annuity when they turned 65, they would receive a monthly check for at least $110,000 for life.
“…Many of the CEOs calling for cuts to the social safety net are underfunding their workers’ retirement accounts: Of the 71 publicly held Fix the Debt member companies, 41 provide employee pension funds for their workers. Of these, only two have sufficient assets in their pension funds to meet their expected obligations. The rest have underfunded their worker pension funds by $103 billion, or about $2.5 billion on average.”
Yet you didn’t hear these CEOs complaining about the national debt under Republican presidents. The national debt was never considered a problem “for our children and grandchildren” until the CEOs saw a chance to slash social services desperately needed by the people they’ve been defrauding all along, while keeping special tax breaks for themselves.
The current system is mathematically unsustainable. The fixture of permanent debt is ridiculous. Or money is debt. We are paying our debt with more debt, which of course is causing the erosion of the purchasing power of said money at exponential rate.
Though Keynsians and their counterpart free-marketeers need to come up with something other than eternal growth as the key to a solid future for the human race, Krugman pretty much nails the issue. As for permanent public debt being proof of sinful,reckless behavior of some sort, as some seem to think, it ought be pointed out that the much beloved private sector lives with permanent debt as a matter of doing business. Corporations sell bonds and acquire loans all the time, calling it investment opportunity, but when the public does it it’s called sin, except when it’s used for war (except the current ones which should have been financed by special war taxes), highways, schools or football stadiums.
The article says it all.
Conveniently, the article leaves out the fact that the European austerity policies have caused more damage to those economies. A road the author seems to advocate. Conservatives seems only to see the cost of social programs as the problem. Social programs that are more necessary during tough economic times. They have complelte blinders for the lax regulation of the financial sector that caused the economic collapse.
Debt did the damage. The cure is painful…. now debt is only spreading and the cure is being delayed.
Pain for the poor, old, and sick and socialisn for the wealthy is no way to cure the debt.
Then don’t return anyone to government who allowed to happen, and don’t make excuses for them.
The housing crisis was caused by Clinton. Quick fixes have caused several bubbles,or lack of concern(ie-Fanny Mae and Fredie Mac Etc.and the liberals “October Surprise”)
it was congress under Clinton. Chiefly Dodd and Frank that threatened to investigate banks that were not loaning money to marginally qualified buyers.
“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-bank
Complete nonsense. Credit Default Swaps were not created by Congress.
Bad mortgages triggered the credit defalt swaps. When the leg fell out. Leg being mortgage backed securities. Then it became credit default swaps that was the web that pulled everything else down.
buying AAA rated securities that turned into junk bonds that of course triggered a watershed of sell offs. Don’t here much about the companies that were stamping those securities with AAA ratings but they are as much to blame as anything.
I still have no idea why ANYONE cares what the rating agencies say right now.
well at this point yeh… but 3/4 years ago they were still somewhat reputable.
False. The majority of CDS were prime. Only financial market greed is to blame for investment in risky subprime CDS and resulting collapse.
If the federal govenment did not have the ability to run a deficit, much like the states, then there would have been no economic collapse as the source of the funds leveraged in an irresponsible manner (e.g. the federal reserve) would not exist. Even if Clinton had not repealed Glass Steagall, we would still be in debt up to our eyeballs with no end in sight.
Reasoned commentary.
It really is too bad that the short sighted dim wits in Washington couldn’t see this coming when they held the door open and invited the traitors to move their factories to China. No jobs, no tax revenue. Whoda thunk it? Could they actually been that clueless, or were they just paid to pretend they were?
But they did see it, when they could see past their next election. And the electorate said, “Go ahead…do more!”
We should put the pictures of all these great “Americans” in the hallways of our schools for all the kids to see. Hold them all up as examples of patriotism and truth in America today. Our kids need modern day heroes to inspire them. Why not the dirt bags who move their factories to China and put Americans out of work? Why not the tax dodgers who hide their money in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland? These would make fine examples for our children.
I have no problem with it. Just put up the pictures of all the people who voted for people who told them taxes could be low and entitlements could be generous. …voted for people who said our state safety net could be comfortable without industry. …voted for people who said we could fight two wars without paying for them. …voted for people who said keep dancing no matter what the price.
I like to focus on the greedy dirt bags that caused all these problems in the first place. A great example of this would be Warren Buffet. He bought Dexter Shoe from Harold Alfond and promptly closed it down and moved it to China. Dexter Shoe was a profitable company that employed hundreds of people in the area at a living wage. A greedy dirt bag named Warren Buffet screwed the area where I live and hurt hundreds of working Maine families. His picture should be a little larger than the others in my opinion. We should be teaching our children that people like him are no better than someone like Hitler in the grand scheme of things. He should be tarred, feathered, and run out of America on a rail, period.
Got it. So it’s cheaper to make shoes in China, let’s say. Should we bar companies from moving? Should we start a trade war with China?
And Warren Buffett is hardly Hitler.
Warren Buffett is no American, in my opinion. His greed screwed the area where I live, period. He should have left that company alone. The people of this area depended on it to feed their families for Christ’s sake! Is his insatiable greed more important than Americans putting food on their tables? How many billions is enough for that greedy old clown? It is a moot point for me anyway. I wouldn’t buy a Chinese shoe if you held a gun on me, let alone one that would put a plug nickel in Warren Buffett’s bulging pockets. I buy local and I buy American. I refuse to condone what these traitors have done to America by giving them any of my money, period. You do as you wish. In 1985 our trade deficit with COMMUNIST China was $6 million. In 2011 it was $350 billion. That is an increase of 5,833,233%. If that doesn’t make you sick, go back and read that number again.
I’m not disagreeing with you about Buffet.
But please don’t forget that Romney did the same thing many times. So he is a “traitor” also.
At least Buffet wasn’t running for President.
I agree. Romney is just as big of a dirt bag and no more American than Buffett. They should both have their pictures hung up in the school hall ways and used as examples to the kids as people that they should not aspire to be like, period. The Walton brats belong up there on the wall of shame as well. These people are all horrible “Americans” and have continually put profits in front of their fellow Americans.
Was Alfond’s arm twisted? Are those that sell out to “the man” culpable to any degree as well? I don’t want to try and tarnish a man with such an impressive legacy – though aren’t locals selling out to international giants part of the formula?
And though I admire your dedication to buying American, I do have to wonder what type of computer you’re posting from.
I am posting on an old Compaq. I am sure it was made by kids in some foreign country. I make every effort to buy American. It is not always completely possible, but it is 99% of the time. 90% of the money that I spend in the course of a year, I spend within a 5 mile radius of my house. I buy local and I buy American. No one is twisting anyone’s arm when it comes to selling this country out, it is purely a money thing. Nothing to do with patriotism or the impact it will have on those left behind, ever.
I’m hearing that the slave labor produced PC products are really affordable and quite nice, the only problem is there are chips in them that can be accessed by the makers of the product or the government those makers reside in.
so where did you get your computer engineering degree?
http://ptclub.com/anon_mobile.html
did you take the Walmart two hour IT course or from Clueless U?
ahh yes the ptclub, my #1 source of information when alex jones is on vacation.
I am actually a member of the IEEE and minored electrical and computer
engineering, not saying that makes me an expert or authority by any
means but your statement:
“the only problem is there are chips in them that can be accessed by the
makers of the product or the government those makers reside in.”
Is conjuncture at best and worst ignorant conspiracy theory. The chips themselves will not have the ability to be connected to by shady governments. Also which chips are you talking about? I don’t know of a singular ICC that allows a remote machine to access local data. ICC engineered together to send and receive data on network component card might be able to have some sort of port opening routine designed into them to grant a remote access but seems unlikely. I would say its far more likely (we have been seeing it for years) that data mining software and malicious spyware would be embedded in system as it ships. Maybe some sort of modification to the OS. though I am still skeptical of that. The article you listed, though I use that term loosely as its more of an advertisement, that is about phone calls being eavesdropped on. I have no doubt that the SIM cards in phones and logs from providers themselves are being used to track and observe our happenings. warrant-less wiretapping has been in the NSA’s wheelhouse for some time now probably even before the patriot act.
So does that make Alfond, Goebbels or Himmler? ;)
LoL! I guess so! I am no fan of Harold Alfond. He spent most of his later life creating tombstones. He offered to build a new High school for Dexter, with the caveat that they put his name on it. They declined, and I am glad they did. He sold out the people of Dexter and tried to offer a little guilt money,
I guess the moral to this story is, regardless of your political affiliations when it comes to making a buck in today’s market …. anything goes, Zumba lessons and all !
Exactly. No conscience, no morals, no ethics. Just plain greed.
This would be the same Warren Buffett that said… “I should pay much higher taxes”? All the while his team of bean counters have been going toe to toe for the past few years with the IRS to NOT pay $1 Billion in back taxes.
How about the parents of the little tykes who flock to Wallyworld to buy the cheap junk made in the factories in China? How about understanding that if you buy thing that are Proudly Made in China you are complicit in dirtbaggery?
Yes, they are totally complicit. The buck always stops at the American consumer. If we didn’t flock down to Walmart to jump on the cheap Chinese crap like sea gulls on a french fry, the dirtbags who moved the factories would not profit from their treasonous ways.
Mr Lockman has just rehashed the same old republican mantra. Cut taxes, cut spending.We need a balanced approach and the majority in the US are behind that.Take off your blinders sir and put away those old tired talking points that lost your party the election!
Excellent op-ed, Rep. Lockman. Very well reasoned and very well written. I hope many will heed your wise words.
This state’s and nation’s debt is our biggest problem, and entitlements are the biggest reason for it. It is past time for us to evaluate priorities and stop indebting our grandchildren to communist China.
Congress: Please stop the spending, now, before it becomes too late. Thank you.
While we’re at it, in addition to “stop the spending,” if we’re truly serious about it, let’s take care of our government debt by paying it off now. We’ll simply split it among the whole population, sort of like splitting a restaurant bill. Oh, there’ll be pain for some, but it’ll only last a short while; then we can rest in peace knowing we’ve solved the problem of our public debt once and for all. Our grandchildren, whose financial futures we so desperately wish to preserve while we merrily consume their environmental futures will thank us.
You know, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.
Rightwing conservative and Republican icon, Dick Cheney speaking to Paul O’Neill, chairman of the RAND Corporation and G W Bush’s Treasury Secretary
Behold the enslavers !
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-500857
Who deserves scarce resources? What an easy to answer question. The top 2%!! They didn’t get there because of a head start (Koch brothers), or because of tax rates that have been HIGHLY favorable to them, or because they control the legislative process. They got there by their intelligence, hard work, and compassion to the less fortunate. So, they, the top 2% wealthiest people in the country, deserve our scarce resources.
Which is how it is going to turn out anyway.
Mr. Lockman is my District Rep.. His contribution to the BDN editorial pages is a good example of the reasons I worked to support his opponent in the election.
While I don’t disagree debt is a problem, America has a priority problem first and foremost. The “defense” budget and the foreign policies that accompany them has, long term, been money that has benefitted the American people far less than the entitlement programs. Their long term sustainability is of course of major concern, though when it comes to putting items on the chopping block, entitlements should not be first on the list.
When I hear the majority of Republicans strongly urging cuts to “defense” (and calling for a more reserved foreign policy) as loudly as they urge cuts to “entitlements”, I will recognize them as fiscal conservatives. Until that time, they’re just phonies in my book (as are Democrats cut from the same cloth.)
To say, oh, defense is only 19% and imply it’s not of concern, is not only a cowardly cop out, it’s highly inaccurate if looked at with any objectivity and examination of true cost.
check out the actual breakdown dude. defense only has like 7 billion (only lol) in mandatory budget outlay. Where as DHHS mandatory is around 860 billion. Yes ending foreign contingency would drastically reduce discretionary defense spending which I am all for, however DHHS only has 80 billion in discretionary spending we can cut. Even if they were to cut every penny of disc spending from defense and entitlement we would still have 300 billion deficit for 2013 under current plans.
The savings would not be realized in a single year clearly. I’m talking long term priority and perspective. The same perspective must be taken in regard to entitlements. No one is correcting this problem overnight, I don’t care who they are or what they say.
I know there are indeed some that put it all on the table, and I commend them for it – though these libertarian, non-interventionist leaning GOP are far outnumbered by neoconservative types.
It’s going to take a little bit of give from just about every area in truth. Not only widespread spending cuts, but revenue increases. I just want to see priorities put in order. Americans needs need to come first. We can go back to “saving the world” after we’ve saved ourselves.
agreed it has taken 80 years to bury us in this debt and considering interest on all the money we have borrowed it will probably take much longer to dig us out.
We should never go back to saving the world, should never have been in the world saving business in the first place.
I am one of those libertarian types you talked about though no longer a member of the GOP
My mere point was the mandatory budget outlaws favor domestic entitlement spending, heavily too. Actual spending including discretionary flattens it out considerable.
I agree, going back to non-interventionist policies would suit me fine – though if we must play global police, we at least should be in the black first.
I suspected you might be…the Gadsden is a bit of a tip off. ;)
The thing with the entitlements is that we’re not just talking dollars, but a moral obligation – a pact between the citizens and the government. Those that paid in all their lives, have earned and deserve their pay out – unlike some things that could be classified as handouts, handouts these are not. I think the GOP irks a lot of people when they talk of welfare and SS as if they are the same thing.
Though “the deal” will have to be changed to some degree in order to remain solvent, there’s a reason that it’s mandatory.
I have seen how poor the government is at managing financial affairs, I would like to opt out of the deal all together. the $50.00 I pay into SS every week I could invest FAR better at my own discretion. If SS was even remotely comparable to private retirement savings IRAs 401ks blah blah blah I could cash out what I already had in it. Maybe against a penalty or tax but there is no option like this unless I file for disability which means I can no longer work.
Yes SS and Welfare aren’t the same, welfare is something people have contributed to. However, my understanding of the current SS system is when you file and are approved for disability you can start receiving the benefits and continue receiving them far after and over the amount you have paid in. Now this idea in itself isn’t difference from disability insurance in the way that maybe 1 in 1000 insurance users will actually need the insurance thus keep the enterprise solvent and profitable. I take several issues with this, SS should no be both used for retirement and disability insurance. and there needs to be an opt out option because I am paying into (a lot of people are) this program but I have disability insurance through my work and my own retirement savings program so why am I paying into this?
end rant
I think it’s worth having a serious discussion about. I didn’t find the suggestions the Bush admin made about SS reform were too out of line. The Dems hated it instinctively of course.
The major rub obviously, is where do you make the cut? I’m 34 – not old, not young – I’ve been paying into SS for 18 years, more than half my life – if I could “opt out” today, what happens to the money I’ve already paid in? Would I have to eat it? Get it back in part, in full, what? The more years a worker has put in, the less appealing the idea becomes that you might not be getting sh!t back (though I suppose that’s what many younger workers will be getting if things aren’t reformed by the time they retire eh?)
It makes sense to me to start it as an option for those just entering the work force. Though that still leaves us obligated (for a looooong time) to paying back those who have been paying in, doesn’t it?
My point wasn’t that the current setup is perfect, just that, like it or not, this was a deal made – and there’s nothing worse than someone (or something) that doesn’t fulfill their end of the bargain.
yes that is a very course rub… I would guess the opt out would be for ppl below xx age or you can currently opt out and eat it lol.
the problem with opting out younger ppl now entering the workforce is the # of retirees is going to be growing from the baby boomers retiring and population/life expectancy growth, SS will quickly become insolvent in 4 or 5 years after millions of young people opt out and they loose billions in revenue for it.
Sad-Statue, The waste in HealthCare i quoted was from the Institute of Medicine, and was a conservative estimate. 30% of all health care, including Medicaid & Medicare is WASTE that should be cut. The question is – How do you do it? That waste would total $7.5 trillion over 10 years. $1.2 trillion spent on 2 wars over 10 years are peanuts when compared to health care WASTE.
Am I disputing that there is waste in our health care? Not at all. I think we need entitlement reform. I think we need to bring healthcare costs down, improve efficiency and yes, make some real cuts.
My point was about priority, or lack thereof. Anyone that dismisses that defense and war spending isn’t a major issue of concern and writes it off dismissively as peanuts, simply is not a fiscally conservative minded person.
I don’t know your politics, though I’m mostly looking at the neocon phonies.
1.2 trillion is not just a conservative estimate – it is far too low. The true costs, factoring long term costs will be closer to the ballpark of 3-4 billion. And this is money that bought us what exactly? At least with healthcare the “waste” will to some degree recycle itself in our domestic economy. The money spent on Iraq, for the most part might as well just have put in a pit and set on fire for all the good it’s done the American people.
I’m a Ron Paul Libertarian. Yup, defense spending is dead money compared to health care spending. My field was Health care, and my opinion 50% is wasted, unecessary, as physicians over diagnose, over prescribe, and over treat. No controls and unlimited options.
Nice. Though I’m more of a fiscal moderate, I admire a lot about Paul as well, probably most obviously, his foreign policy views.
I don’t know about 50%, though I certainly agree that the things you’ve noted have gotten out of hand. You obviously are big on the free market, though what do you think about use of regulation to temper the profit at all cost mentality?
The thing about our debt is that the enslaved don’t care, the hard line lefties don’t care, the selfish one-issue voters don’t care, and the progressives in charge don’t care. They’re all against capitalism and against American Exceptionalism, and haven’t a care about the rest of us that love this country. They would just as soon live under a Socialist Dictator, because freedom and liberty aren’t important.
I smell a revolution on the horizon.
That’s not a revolution you smell …. it’s all the rotten meat the hucksters on the extreme right have left rotting in our streets.
I think you mean Occupy.
yeah it’s the one where your finger Occupies your nose or any other orifice of your choice.
American Exceptionalism – what does that mean to you? Is not exceptional education, infrastructure and environmental practice/conservation part of it? Isn’t an exceptional country one that takes care of it’s most vulnerable? Republicans of the “greatest” generation understood that naked capitalistic (selfish) greed is not all that makes a country exceptional.
I shared this with Cheese awhile back, though I think you’d enjoy it too. ;)
http://boingboing.net/2012/11/21/tom-the-dancing-bug-bill-o.html
There is a reason the debt grows under both Republicans and Democrats — though, under Republicans more…. It is an instrument of control; debt is used to justify policies that further impoverish our common wealth and working people.
Meanwhile in other news…. bernake announced QE4, only an additional $45 billion to the already $40 billion = $85 billion monthy being printed,bought, & sold in a nifty little three card monty trick…….times 12 = one Trillion, 20 billion added to the debt.
Interesting:
Sorry Protesters: Your Jobs Are Being Sent To China And They Aren’t Coming Back
http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/12/13/.
you want to save money euthanize the elderly dont let them linger and suffer the humilation
sorry Lockman – R, there are not enough of the “converted” in the pews of Maine for you to preach to.
most people will remain sleeping until someone removes their blankets..They just want to party and have a good time, People just don’t care and will only wake up when the party is over