First of all, yes, I realize that anything less than a billion dollars is pretty much meaningless in terms of total spending.
However, I cannot help but be mildly surprised at the level of stupidity of some of the things our money is being spent on, like, oh, spending $880,000 to study snail sex. As with many of my posts, this represents a larger issue, but first, I want to emphasize something.
They just spent well over 16 times the average household income to study why the New Zealand mud snail has sex instead of reproducing asexually. Not only will this provide no actual benefit whatsoever to any human being in existence, nobody actually cares. I'd be willing to bet that until this post, you'd never heard of the New Zealand mud snail.
Now, the bigger issue. Remember my last post, about the Congressman who thought he was above everyone? I mentioned in that post that because of their superiority complex, our governing officials don't actually care what we think. Because of this, they gleefully throw money around like a drunken 18th century pirate on shore leave - the spending is unproductive, expensive, and frivolous, and it's not actually their money that they're spending.
See, this is just further evidence that they don't care. They're not willing to sift through bills and take out unnecessary spending; the government happily gives scientists grants without regard to the merit of the study in question.
Our government, in short, feels that it is completely justified in spending however much money it wants on whatever it so chooses, ignoring public opinion, common sense, and fiscal responsibility - and again, ignoring the Constitution.
Finally, I must end on this sentiment. Why do we need to know why New Zealand mud snails have sex?!
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Congressmen above the law?
Well, well. Nobody is at all surprised when Congressmen think the law doesn't apply to them, but even so, sometimes they still manage to surprise me.
According to Mr. Gohmert's aide, the officers apologized and rescinded the ticket upon realizing their folly, and all was well with the world.
According to the officers, however, Mr. Gohmert was kind of a jerk, and wasn't actually allowed to park there even as a Congressman. The Park Police say that he would not have been permitted to park in a reserved spot near the Lincoln Memorial despite his status. As a side note: this was done to avoid a fine of - gasp! - twenty five dollars!
No, really. A Congressman flips out, acts rude towards cops, and simply walks off in direct defiance of the law all over twenty. Five. Dollars.
As with many articles, this is really about a much, much bigger issue than ignoring a $25 fine. This is about how our lawmakers see themselves. Again and again, we see it demonstrated that they believe they are above the laws that they themselves write. This is a dangerous mentality; even in 18th-century Great Britain, the King himself was subject to laws.
It's gotten very, very bad. You see, this is just a semi-amusing, pretty irritating and unusually visible expression of the belief that our lawmakers do not have to follow the law. When the U.S. was founded, the intent was that the government would be, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "bound by the chains of the Constitution." The Constitution was supposed to be the highest law in the country. Now, however, it's whatever they feel like. If you were to select five bills completely randomly that were passed in the last year, odds are frighteningly good that they are flagrant violations of Constitutional restrictions.
This is more than the fake Democrat-Republican paradigm. Gohmert is a Republican; both parties routinely violate the aspects of the Constitution that they don't like, and it's to the point that it's almost not worth trying to figure out a bill's legality under the Constitution.
There is a reason that Congress's approval is so low, right now. A disturbing number of them think that they are "above" the rest of the population, and so they don't care nearly as much as they should about the actual effect their laws will have.
According to Mr. Gohmert's aide, the officers apologized and rescinded the ticket upon realizing their folly, and all was well with the world.
According to the officers, however, Mr. Gohmert was kind of a jerk, and wasn't actually allowed to park there even as a Congressman. The Park Police say that he would not have been permitted to park in a reserved spot near the Lincoln Memorial despite his status. As a side note: this was done to avoid a fine of - gasp! - twenty five dollars!
No, really. A Congressman flips out, acts rude towards cops, and simply walks off in direct defiance of the law all over twenty. Five. Dollars.
As with many articles, this is really about a much, much bigger issue than ignoring a $25 fine. This is about how our lawmakers see themselves. Again and again, we see it demonstrated that they believe they are above the laws that they themselves write. This is a dangerous mentality; even in 18th-century Great Britain, the King himself was subject to laws.
It's gotten very, very bad. You see, this is just a semi-amusing, pretty irritating and unusually visible expression of the belief that our lawmakers do not have to follow the law. When the U.S. was founded, the intent was that the government would be, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "bound by the chains of the Constitution." The Constitution was supposed to be the highest law in the country. Now, however, it's whatever they feel like. If you were to select five bills completely randomly that were passed in the last year, odds are frighteningly good that they are flagrant violations of Constitutional restrictions.
This is more than the fake Democrat-Republican paradigm. Gohmert is a Republican; both parties routinely violate the aspects of the Constitution that they don't like, and it's to the point that it's almost not worth trying to figure out a bill's legality under the Constitution.
There is a reason that Congress's approval is so low, right now. A disturbing number of them think that they are "above" the rest of the population, and so they don't care nearly as much as they should about the actual effect their laws will have.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
North Korea is at it again
Clearly, the leadership in Pyongyang is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Kim Jong Un's latest lunacy involves declaring that his forces are in position to hit the US mainland, as well as Guam, Hawai'i, Japan, and South Korea.
They could, in fact, hit South Korea, and maybe Japan, but North Korea simply does not have the long-range missile capability to hit any of the other places. The Pacific Ocean is really freaking big, and NKorea only has short and medium range missiles, not the ICBMs necessary to hit distant targets.
That said, I'm quite frankly getting unnerved by these guys. Kim Jong Un's rhetoric indicates that he may very well be unstable, given that threatening THE superpower and two of its best buddies (Japan and SKorea) is generally considered a less-than-rational action. While we may be totally out of range, South Korea is not. Seoul is within easy range of NKorea's most primitive artillery, not to mention their very functional medium-range missiles and rocket batteries. The capital of South Korea has 10.5 million people living in it; a single day of bombardment would cost the lives of thousands.
I'm honestly not sure how to take these threats. It's very possible that Pyongyang is simply blowing off steam and acting tough to save face; given the honor-based culture in the region, that wouldn't be at all surprising, considering the recent sanctions. On the other hand, the Dear Leader's actions are very much in keeping with those of a deranged maniac, and while a lunatic third-world dictator would not normally be that big a deal, this is one lunatic with missiles, rockets, cannons and nukes pointed straight at a crowded metropolis.
I still am hopeful, however. Tensions have been severe on the peninsula before and didn't lead to war, so I think that, in the end, the worst that will happen is that the Koreas are at each others' throats for a while until things calm down, at least until the next big crisis. Only time will tell, though.
They could, in fact, hit South Korea, and maybe Japan, but North Korea simply does not have the long-range missile capability to hit any of the other places. The Pacific Ocean is really freaking big, and NKorea only has short and medium range missiles, not the ICBMs necessary to hit distant targets.
That said, I'm quite frankly getting unnerved by these guys. Kim Jong Un's rhetoric indicates that he may very well be unstable, given that threatening THE superpower and two of its best buddies (Japan and SKorea) is generally considered a less-than-rational action. While we may be totally out of range, South Korea is not. Seoul is within easy range of NKorea's most primitive artillery, not to mention their very functional medium-range missiles and rocket batteries. The capital of South Korea has 10.5 million people living in it; a single day of bombardment would cost the lives of thousands.
I'm honestly not sure how to take these threats. It's very possible that Pyongyang is simply blowing off steam and acting tough to save face; given the honor-based culture in the region, that wouldn't be at all surprising, considering the recent sanctions. On the other hand, the Dear Leader's actions are very much in keeping with those of a deranged maniac, and while a lunatic third-world dictator would not normally be that big a deal, this is one lunatic with missiles, rockets, cannons and nukes pointed straight at a crowded metropolis.
I still am hopeful, however. Tensions have been severe on the peninsula before and didn't lead to war, so I think that, in the end, the worst that will happen is that the Koreas are at each others' throats for a while until things calm down, at least until the next big crisis. Only time will tell, though.
Attack of the Drones
Sorry, couldn't resist the Star Wars pun. And no, if you're wondering, we have not yet been attacked by drones. However, since Senator Rand Paul's filibuster opposing their use, they've been in the news quite a bit. Slate, of all places, notes the dramatic swing in public opinion. Yes, you read that right. Since last year, opposition to targeted killings via drone has doubled, and support has dropped by a third.
In one year.
While there has been some opposition to the growing surveillance state for years - the "Patriot" Act comes to mind - it's never been as solid and far-reaching as now.
The thing is, in and of themselves, drones are not actually that big a deal. A manned aircraft can do the exact same thing. The importance of the drone, however, is symbolic. One can't really rally people to a cause using a security camera as the symbol of "the enemy." Those things are, in fact, quite necessary in places like banks and other high-value locations, and their appearance has been gradual enough that they don't inspire anything other than brief moments of being slightly creeped out.
But drones? They represent everything the anti-surveillance crowd has opposed, and their appearance in potential law enforcement use is sudden and surprising. Drones are freaky looking, obviously robotic, with almost no human element. The operator sits in a building miles upon miles away, totally secure. There's something about them that simply seems wrong. The opposition to drones is about more than drones, really - it's about the idea that you are being watched impersonally, and that the watcher could simply push a button and hit you with a very literal Hellfire.
In addition, it's a due process issue. Even though Rand and co. make this very clear, many times it's glossed over. But that's the core of it - the drone is merely the creepiest tool, the same logic applies to any assassination of a person, especially a U.S. citizen, without due process.
Oddly, most articles don't seem to note that, but if you pay close attention, it's very clear that the drones are only one of many things that Senator Paul and those who agree with him oppose, but it is a very powerful symbol. It's about surveillance, due process and a perceived violation of personal freedom, and drones are just the first thing to come along that embodies everything that the anti-surveillance, anti-assassination crowd opposes.
In one year.
While there has been some opposition to the growing surveillance state for years - the "Patriot" Act comes to mind - it's never been as solid and far-reaching as now.
The thing is, in and of themselves, drones are not actually that big a deal. A manned aircraft can do the exact same thing. The importance of the drone, however, is symbolic. One can't really rally people to a cause using a security camera as the symbol of "the enemy." Those things are, in fact, quite necessary in places like banks and other high-value locations, and their appearance has been gradual enough that they don't inspire anything other than brief moments of being slightly creeped out.
But drones? They represent everything the anti-surveillance crowd has opposed, and their appearance in potential law enforcement use is sudden and surprising. Drones are freaky looking, obviously robotic, with almost no human element. The operator sits in a building miles upon miles away, totally secure. There's something about them that simply seems wrong. The opposition to drones is about more than drones, really - it's about the idea that you are being watched impersonally, and that the watcher could simply push a button and hit you with a very literal Hellfire.
In addition, it's a due process issue. Even though Rand and co. make this very clear, many times it's glossed over. But that's the core of it - the drone is merely the creepiest tool, the same logic applies to any assassination of a person, especially a U.S. citizen, without due process.
Oddly, most articles don't seem to note that, but if you pay close attention, it's very clear that the drones are only one of many things that Senator Paul and those who agree with him oppose, but it is a very powerful symbol. It's about surveillance, due process and a perceived violation of personal freedom, and drones are just the first thing to come along that embodies everything that the anti-surveillance, anti-assassination crowd opposes.
Monday, March 25, 2013
I would say I feel betrayed...
...but I've never really felt that John McCain and I were on the same page. I realize I've written a disproportionate number of posts about gun control, but I ended up writing this for two reasons, those being,
A) I feel that gun control is a really important issue right now, and
B) I promised to pick on a Republican in my last post.
With Feinstein's AWB dead in the water (for now, I'm fairly sure it'll be resurrected as an amendment), the big focus now is on "universal background checks." As you've probably guessed by now, McCain supports the increased checks. I'll briefly deal with the background checks themselves, but then I want to delve into some less obvious points in the article.
The "increased background checks" are completely undefined, first of all. It's safe to assume that it will mean requiring a background check for sales between private citizens with no Federal Firearms License, but how far does it extend? Very likely, it would prohibit someone from casually selling a gun to a friend, given that the law does not distinguish between "good friend" and "complete stranger." It could potentially also include things like someone's grandpa giving them an old rifle, since that, too, is technically a firearm transfer. The real issue, though, is that it is completely and totally unenforceable.
Why? It's already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who is prohibited from buying one, yet people still do it, committing a severe felony in the process. Adding a background check requirement is not going to do anything; these people are already committing felonies, ignoring a background check requirement won't make things any worse for them, assuming they get caught.
As for the less obvious points about the article, it relates to the way in which it treats organizations like the NRA. I'm beginning to get tired of it, actually - in articles, news shows and protests, the NRA is, without fail, viewed as the voice of gun rights advocates.
Well, no, it isn't. It's really freaking big, yes, but it's getting to the point that articles, for all intents and purposes, address pro-gun arguments as the NRA's argument. In fact, there are a number of less well-known but extremely popular organizations like Gun Owners of America, which are notable for taking a significantly firmer stance than the NRA on things like background checks, including an absolute refusal to even think about possibly considering compromise. This actually leads into my next point.
The article assumes that the NRA's rankings are viewed as authoritative by all gun rights advocates. Actually, the organization is fairly lax in its rankings (the fact that McCain has a B+ and Joe Manchin has an A says it all), and there is quite a bit of disagreement. While the pro-control side is addressed based on individuals and separate organizations, the pro-gun side is consistently lumped into "the NRA" - which, ironically, is both helpful in providing the illusion of unity, and really, really annoying to those who disagree with the NRA on certain issues.
A) I feel that gun control is a really important issue right now, and
B) I promised to pick on a Republican in my last post.
With Feinstein's AWB dead in the water (for now, I'm fairly sure it'll be resurrected as an amendment), the big focus now is on "universal background checks." As you've probably guessed by now, McCain supports the increased checks. I'll briefly deal with the background checks themselves, but then I want to delve into some less obvious points in the article.
The "increased background checks" are completely undefined, first of all. It's safe to assume that it will mean requiring a background check for sales between private citizens with no Federal Firearms License, but how far does it extend? Very likely, it would prohibit someone from casually selling a gun to a friend, given that the law does not distinguish between "good friend" and "complete stranger." It could potentially also include things like someone's grandpa giving them an old rifle, since that, too, is technically a firearm transfer. The real issue, though, is that it is completely and totally unenforceable.
Why? It's already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who is prohibited from buying one, yet people still do it, committing a severe felony in the process. Adding a background check requirement is not going to do anything; these people are already committing felonies, ignoring a background check requirement won't make things any worse for them, assuming they get caught.
As for the less obvious points about the article, it relates to the way in which it treats organizations like the NRA. I'm beginning to get tired of it, actually - in articles, news shows and protests, the NRA is, without fail, viewed as the voice of gun rights advocates.
Well, no, it isn't. It's really freaking big, yes, but it's getting to the point that articles, for all intents and purposes, address pro-gun arguments as the NRA's argument. In fact, there are a number of less well-known but extremely popular organizations like Gun Owners of America, which are notable for taking a significantly firmer stance than the NRA on things like background checks, including an absolute refusal to even think about possibly considering compromise. This actually leads into my next point.
The article assumes that the NRA's rankings are viewed as authoritative by all gun rights advocates. Actually, the organization is fairly lax in its rankings (the fact that McCain has a B+ and Joe Manchin has an A says it all), and there is quite a bit of disagreement. While the pro-control side is addressed based on individuals and separate organizations, the pro-gun side is consistently lumped into "the NRA" - which, ironically, is both helpful in providing the illusion of unity, and really, really annoying to those who disagree with the NRA on certain issues.
Bloomberg doesn't believe in freedom
I swear I'll pick on a Republican sooner or later, but this was too good (actually, bad on a legendary scale) to ignore. Everyone's favorite New Yorker, NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg, has finally said what we know most politicians secretly think. That's right, he has at long last admitted that we jumped off the slippery slope a long time ago.
This is, of course, in reference to his frankly absurd Nanny-State ban on really big soft drinks. Apparently, Mr. Bloomberg feels that the government should ban things that are bad for you. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not pretending that soft drinks are anything other than entirely unhealthy, and the giant Big Gulps and other such nonsense are totally unnecessary. I also recognize that things like smoking and drinking alcohol are quite unhealthy as well.
The health of the activity in question, however, is not the issue. The issue is the fact that Bloomberg believes that the government can deny you your freedom "for your own good." Of all the slippery slopse in politics, this has got to be the worst by far. Essentially, Bloomberg is arguing that if the government decides something is "bad for you," it can prohibit you from engaging in that activity. In other words, the government controls your body, according to this unbelievably statist line of thinking.
To make matters worse, this comes mere days after endorsing the use of drones by police, among other advanced surveillance methods. I've never been a big fan of major cities, as I feel that they're rather dystopian. Bloomberg's apparent goal is to make New York City downright Orwellian.
This is, of course, in reference to his frankly absurd Nanny-State ban on really big soft drinks. Apparently, Mr. Bloomberg feels that the government should ban things that are bad for you. Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not pretending that soft drinks are anything other than entirely unhealthy, and the giant Big Gulps and other such nonsense are totally unnecessary. I also recognize that things like smoking and drinking alcohol are quite unhealthy as well.
The health of the activity in question, however, is not the issue. The issue is the fact that Bloomberg believes that the government can deny you your freedom "for your own good." Of all the slippery slopse in politics, this has got to be the worst by far. Essentially, Bloomberg is arguing that if the government decides something is "bad for you," it can prohibit you from engaging in that activity. In other words, the government controls your body, according to this unbelievably statist line of thinking.
To make matters worse, this comes mere days after endorsing the use of drones by police, among other advanced surveillance methods. I've never been a big fan of major cities, as I feel that they're rather dystopian. Bloomberg's apparent goal is to make New York City downright Orwellian.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
AWB dead in the water for now
After the Sandy Hook shooting, lawmakers began proposing a flurry of gun control measures to try to restrict these types of shootings. One of the most notorious would be Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D - California) proposed "Assault Weapons" Ban. It would ban AR-15 rifles such as the one used in the shooting, as well as AKMs, FALs, and other rifles of military appearance (bizarrely including the 8-round American classic, the M1 Garand). The legislation would also ban magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition - for context, the average 9mm or .40 caliber handgun magazine holds between 15 and 17 rounds, and these firearms are extremely popular amongst civilians.
Obviously, the latter fact would have caused it to be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to pass the bill, and today it was dropped from the Democrats' gun control package. Harry Reid (D - Nevada) apparently felt that it would cost too many votes. While Feinstein will be able to offer it as an amendment, the fact is, because it not only targets the extremely popular AR-15, but also ubiquitous pistols, it will almost certainly never pass.
Of much greater concern to gun-rights advocates, however, is the fact that without the Feinstein Ban, the gun control package is significantly more likely to pass, which only contains the ban on standard capacity magazines.
Now that the overall assessment is done, I want to mention a few pet peeves regarding the subject.
One issue that has consistently appeared in articles, including this one, is referring to 30 round AR-15 magazines and 17 round handgun magazines as "high capacity." These are, in fact, standard capacity magazines, as they are what come factory standard with the firearms in question. A Surefire 60 (a 60 round AR magazine) would be considered high capacity, and a 10-round magazine would be low capacity. The use of this terminology is either using somewhat dishonest language or being understandably confused; regardless, it only serves to perpetuate misconceptions of firearms by those who are not familiar with them.
The article also refers to "assault-type weapons." Once again, this is either from intentional use of charged language or simple ignorance of firearms. First of all, there is no official definition of "assault weapon," though the general use seems to refer to rifles that have an outward military appearance. The term "assault rifle" on the other hand, does have a definition; specifically, it is a select-fire (both semi and fully automatic) rifle of intermediate caliber. The AR-15 is semi-automatic only, in contrast to the fully automatic military M4 of similar appearance.
Obviously, the latter fact would have caused it to be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to pass the bill, and today it was dropped from the Democrats' gun control package. Harry Reid (D - Nevada) apparently felt that it would cost too many votes. While Feinstein will be able to offer it as an amendment, the fact is, because it not only targets the extremely popular AR-15, but also ubiquitous pistols, it will almost certainly never pass.
Of much greater concern to gun-rights advocates, however, is the fact that without the Feinstein Ban, the gun control package is significantly more likely to pass, which only contains the ban on standard capacity magazines.
Now that the overall assessment is done, I want to mention a few pet peeves regarding the subject.
One issue that has consistently appeared in articles, including this one, is referring to 30 round AR-15 magazines and 17 round handgun magazines as "high capacity." These are, in fact, standard capacity magazines, as they are what come factory standard with the firearms in question. A Surefire 60 (a 60 round AR magazine) would be considered high capacity, and a 10-round magazine would be low capacity. The use of this terminology is either using somewhat dishonest language or being understandably confused; regardless, it only serves to perpetuate misconceptions of firearms by those who are not familiar with them.
The article also refers to "assault-type weapons." Once again, this is either from intentional use of charged language or simple ignorance of firearms. First of all, there is no official definition of "assault weapon," though the general use seems to refer to rifles that have an outward military appearance. The term "assault rifle" on the other hand, does have a definition; specifically, it is a select-fire (both semi and fully automatic) rifle of intermediate caliber. The AR-15 is semi-automatic only, in contrast to the fully automatic military M4 of similar appearance.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Saber-rattling from the Far East... again.
Really, I was beginning to wonder if we shouldn't just ignore Kim-Jong-whoever's empty threats and just think of him as an endless source of entertainment. Our Defense Department doesn't think so, however.
Over the past few weeks, North Korea has been endlessly throwing out what I thought was meaningless rhetoric, and quite frankly, I still do. One of their recent propaganda videos showed a North Korean citizen (Citizen? Subject might be a better term.) dreaming of a nuclear strike on New York City. Humorously, being apparently at a loss for material, they used a scene from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 in said video. Lately, Glorious Leader (or whatever they call him) Kim Jong Un has been outright threatening war with the United States.
Here's the problem I have with getting freaked out. They don't have the missile technology to reach the U.S.; even if they did, it'd get shot down quickly. However, the government has decided to add a bunch of new missile defense sites anyway. It is my belief that, if North Korea genuinely wanted to attack us, it would not be with a conventional ballistic missile. Instead, I suspect that it would be a much more underhanded action, such as "losing" a warhead, which then conveniently falls into the hands of terrorists who want to blow stuff up; this would of course completely negate the missile defenses. Even still, that would be unbelievably hard to pull off, given that sneaking in a nuclear bomb would require getting passed an ungodly number of Federal and state agencies, all of whom are desperate to justify their existence.
What we do know, however, is that South Korea is not nearly as invulnerable. Seoul is positioned within easy range of conventional artillery positioned just above the border, and those nuclear missiles? They have a much greater chance of making it a little way south than across the Pacific Ocean. Now, the U.S. still has troops in South Korea, so attacking it would be, essentially, a declaration of war on the United States. Given, however, that Kim Jong appears to be somewhat unstable, it's not hard to imagine him assaulting South Korea and killing millions before he got squashed. Don't get me wrong: I'm a non-interventionist for the most part, and I think that South Korea, which has a much stronger economy and far more advanced weapons than its neighbor, could handle itself in a fight. Still, that's a whole lot of dead people, and honestly, I'm not thinking that it's us that need to worry about Commie missiles.
Over the past few weeks, North Korea has been endlessly throwing out what I thought was meaningless rhetoric, and quite frankly, I still do. One of their recent propaganda videos showed a North Korean citizen (Citizen? Subject might be a better term.) dreaming of a nuclear strike on New York City. Humorously, being apparently at a loss for material, they used a scene from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 in said video. Lately, Glorious Leader (or whatever they call him) Kim Jong Un has been outright threatening war with the United States.
Here's the problem I have with getting freaked out. They don't have the missile technology to reach the U.S.; even if they did, it'd get shot down quickly. However, the government has decided to add a bunch of new missile defense sites anyway. It is my belief that, if North Korea genuinely wanted to attack us, it would not be with a conventional ballistic missile. Instead, I suspect that it would be a much more underhanded action, such as "losing" a warhead, which then conveniently falls into the hands of terrorists who want to blow stuff up; this would of course completely negate the missile defenses. Even still, that would be unbelievably hard to pull off, given that sneaking in a nuclear bomb would require getting passed an ungodly number of Federal and state agencies, all of whom are desperate to justify their existence.
What we do know, however, is that South Korea is not nearly as invulnerable. Seoul is positioned within easy range of conventional artillery positioned just above the border, and those nuclear missiles? They have a much greater chance of making it a little way south than across the Pacific Ocean. Now, the U.S. still has troops in South Korea, so attacking it would be, essentially, a declaration of war on the United States. Given, however, that Kim Jong appears to be somewhat unstable, it's not hard to imagine him assaulting South Korea and killing millions before he got squashed. Don't get me wrong: I'm a non-interventionist for the most part, and I think that South Korea, which has a much stronger economy and far more advanced weapons than its neighbor, could handle itself in a fight. Still, that's a whole lot of dead people, and honestly, I'm not thinking that it's us that need to worry about Commie missiles.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
No debt crisis?
I'm really, really sorry. My intent with this blog is NOT to be an anti-Obama rant, but this was just too interesting to pass up, and it addresses one of the most pressing issues today. Yes, Obama believes we aren't in a debt crisis. This is a truly strange claim, let's examine it.
The Federal government, first of all, is about $16.6 trillion in debt. That's a lot of money. To make matters worse, the interest on said debt is over $223 billion. And they're increasing far, far faster than the amount of revenue being brought in. Short of really, truly dramatic spending cuts (which would have to include popular programs), there's basically no way to actually pay back the debt. In the Republican primaries last year, out of all the candidates only one (Ron Paul, who never stood a chance) would have actually come close to solving the problem even if his plan were fully implemented, and this is (supposedly, anyway) the party of fiscal responsibility. Check out the nightmare-causing real-time debt clock for a good perspective on just how severe the debt is.
Now, why is the debt a problem? Well, we're gonna have to pay it back - or default. One of the two will happen sooner or later. Here's the problem. If the government defaults, say bye to all those popular programs that are the reason for the debt in the first place. Social security? Gone. Medicare & Medicaid? Gone. Overwhelmingly powerful military? Reduced to just powerful. The unpopular programs really won't stand a chance.
Now, I mentioned that only truly dramatic spending cuts that don't spare popular programs are the only way out. However, Mr. Obama explicitly stated the following in the article;
"But ultimately, it may be that– the differences are just– too wide. It may be that ideologically, if their position is, 'We can’t do any revenue,' or, 'We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid,' if that’s the position, then we’re probably not gonna be able to get a deal."
And here we have yet another problem. Only rarely will a Republican ever dare to suggest cutting our incredibly expensive popular programs, and the Democrats won't go near it. If we default, though? They're gone anyway, and there's no way to ease out of it.
I realize that the President has the best of intentions. There are many Americans who rely on these programs. In the end, however, we're faced with two choices. We can either make the necessary, if painful, cuts while we still can, and ease into a new, less expensive system, or we can continue on our current route, default, and lose the programs with nothing even resembling a gentle transition.
Take a look back at that debt clock, and look closely at the top budget items. Medicare/Medicaid costs more than our total defense spending. Social Security costs more than our defense spending. Defense costs twice as much as the next highest budget item.
The common thread? All three are popular, and both parties are fanatically dedicated to preserving at least one, usually all of them.
I would say this warrants a "crisis" label.
The Federal government, first of all, is about $16.6 trillion in debt. That's a lot of money. To make matters worse, the interest on said debt is over $223 billion. And they're increasing far, far faster than the amount of revenue being brought in. Short of really, truly dramatic spending cuts (which would have to include popular programs), there's basically no way to actually pay back the debt. In the Republican primaries last year, out of all the candidates only one (Ron Paul, who never stood a chance) would have actually come close to solving the problem even if his plan were fully implemented, and this is (supposedly, anyway) the party of fiscal responsibility. Check out the nightmare-causing real-time debt clock for a good perspective on just how severe the debt is.
Now, why is the debt a problem? Well, we're gonna have to pay it back - or default. One of the two will happen sooner or later. Here's the problem. If the government defaults, say bye to all those popular programs that are the reason for the debt in the first place. Social security? Gone. Medicare & Medicaid? Gone. Overwhelmingly powerful military? Reduced to just powerful. The unpopular programs really won't stand a chance.
Now, I mentioned that only truly dramatic spending cuts that don't spare popular programs are the only way out. However, Mr. Obama explicitly stated the following in the article;
"But ultimately, it may be that– the differences are just– too wide. It may be that ideologically, if their position is, 'We can’t do any revenue,' or, 'We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid,' if that’s the position, then we’re probably not gonna be able to get a deal."
And here we have yet another problem. Only rarely will a Republican ever dare to suggest cutting our incredibly expensive popular programs, and the Democrats won't go near it. If we default, though? They're gone anyway, and there's no way to ease out of it.
I realize that the President has the best of intentions. There are many Americans who rely on these programs. In the end, however, we're faced with two choices. We can either make the necessary, if painful, cuts while we still can, and ease into a new, less expensive system, or we can continue on our current route, default, and lose the programs with nothing even resembling a gentle transition.
Take a look back at that debt clock, and look closely at the top budget items. Medicare/Medicaid costs more than our total defense spending. Social Security costs more than our defense spending. Defense costs twice as much as the next highest budget item.
The common thread? All three are popular, and both parties are fanatically dedicated to preserving at least one, usually all of them.
I would say this warrants a "crisis" label.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)