Obama or Romney ? - page 10. | Bitcointalksearch.org

bitcoinbear

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: notme on October 15, 2012, 02:22:06 PM

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 15, 2012, 02:09:18 PM

- Privatized prisons would be interesting... certainly, they could do it more efficiently than the government if nothing else! Of course, in my opinion, prisoners don't deserve anything more than a 5x5 cell with a drain in the middle and a bowl of mush twice a day. My prison would be incredibly cheap to operate. It's probably a good thing I don't operate one, because it just rubs me the wrong way when prisoners have big screen TV's and Playstation 3's and good hot meals to eat, when many people who actually work for a living can't claim the same.

Many prisons in the United States are already privatized. This creates a issue because it is in the corporation operating the prison's best interest to keep their cots full since they get paid per head. To that end they lobby for laws that supply more heads for them to charge the customer (the government) for. For example: http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/arizonas_draconian_and_constitutionally_suspect.html

Sure, they might be able to house the same number of prisoners for less money, but if they are using their profits to "reinvest" by turning more people into criminals, than that is a problem. In the end, it costs the taxpayer and the economy more because we've moved yet another productive member of society into a position of dependence on the government. The fact (yes, this is a fact) that the "land of the free" has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any country in the world disgusts me. For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

I propose we eliminate federal prisons altogether. Keeping people locked up in cages is just a waste of resources. Instead, we should use alternate forms of punishment. Fines, wage garnishments, etc. For henious crimes, just use a quick capital punishment and get it over with.

BoardGameCoin

sr. member

Activity: 283

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitcoinbear on October 17, 2012, 04:19:25 PM

I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally.

You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted?

++

I'm glad my family immigrated when Ellis Island was open, it helped us a lot. I want others to have that same freedom. We obviously need to find ways to more productively integrate immigrants. Each person represents a tremendous potential both economically and socially. Only seeing the potential downsides to immigration seems un-american to me.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 09:06:54 AM

Why he hasn't disclosed which loopholes he want to close on the Federal level? because that would be too easy for Obama to steal, Obama has already stolen his idea of "closing loopholes" shown by yesterday's debate. Of course Obama has no idea which loopholes to close, since Obama has ZERO record of closing them after having the job for 4 years. Romney has the experience and the record, and that's good enough for me to believe him.

This post highlights the problem with politics in America. Ideas on how to fix the country cannot be stolen. If it is a good idea I do not care of Ron Paul, Romney or Obama it.

There is no secret sauce, there is no secret idea that Romney has to fix the country. The problem is not the ideas, it is the resolve of getting them done. This requires BOTH sides to co-operate. So far they do not seem to be able to do that.

bitcoinbear

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: kokojie on October 14, 2012, 08:34:51 PM

There are several issues that makes Obama a deal breaker for me, not that I really like Romney, but right now, Romney looks a million times better than Obama:

* Obama supports legalizing tens of millions of illegals, Romney is against

What Obama says and what he does do not always intersect. Obama has overseen the largest number of deportations of any presidency. Yet he makes token movements toward allowing undocumented immigrants who have been here since they were children to remain.

I support feedom of movement, I would like to see the borders opened much more than they are now, and practical policies and procudures put into place for people to immigrate legally.

You don't see US states putting up border patrolls and inspection points, this freedom of movement has been a great boon to the US. Why would we not see similar benefits from having national borders unrestricted?

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 03:34:05 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 03:15:10 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 03:10:21 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 03:01:39 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:31:31 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 02:30:52 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:27:59 PM

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.

Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =)

I edited my post above already.

Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted.

The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit.

Deficits for past years are based on actual rather than projected receipts and expenditures. Differences being discussed in the current campaign largely have to do with how to project ongoing receipts and expenditures. If I'm wrong on this, please point me to something substantive that shows how the government can invent money off the books via 'emergency expenditures', as that would certainly be relevant.

As an example so you can work out the details yourself, here's an emergency appropriation bill that passed in 2005: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr1268
Here is a record of estimated vs. actual expenditures in the budget for that year: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2005_XXbs1n_30

Notice how $450 billion was budgeted for military, but $495 billion was actually spent that year. The difference is largely made up of emergency appropriations. Notice also that the ACTUAL deficit from that table ($318 billion) is what shows up in the chart kokojie linked. Deficits for past years don't have stuff 'off the books'. They can have structural deficits, but that's a whole different discussion.

Quote from: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 03:16:57 PM

Not true, the graph wouldn't be much different even if you add the war costs that were omitted from budget.

Shame on you kokojie, you obviously don't understand the figures you're linking, and if you didn't understand them, you have no business making assertions about how they would or wouldn't be different.

That's called spending less than you budgeted for, not "spending off the books". Of course the actuals are what show up in the chart - the actual deficit is the actual deficit. I mean, I though this would be obvious to anyone, but...

Keep FUDing please, this is getting entertaining.

BoardGameCoin

sr. member

Activity: 283

Merit: 250

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 03:15:10 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 03:10:21 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 03:01:39 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:31:31 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 02:30:52 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:27:59 PM

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.

Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =)

I edited my post above already.

Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted.

The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit.

Deficits for past years are based on actual rather than projected receipts and expenditures. Differences being discussed in the current campaign largely have to do with how to project ongoing receipts and expenditures. If I'm wrong on this, please point me to something substantive that shows how the government can invent money off the books via 'emergency expenditures', as that would certainly be relevant.

As an example so you can work out the details yourself, here's an emergency appropriation bill that passed in 2005: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr1268
Here is a record of estimated vs. actual expenditures in the budget for that year: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_estimate_vs_actual_2005_XXbs1n_30

Notice how $450 billion was budgeted for military, but $495 billion was actually spent that year. The difference is largely made up of emergency appropriations. Notice also that the ACTUAL deficit from that table ($318 billion) is what shows up in the chart kokojie linked. Deficits for past years don't have stuff 'off the books'. They can have structural deficits, but that's a whole different discussion.

Quote from: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 03:16:57 PM

Not true, the graph wouldn't be much different even if you add the war costs that were omitted from budget.

Shame on you kokojie, you obviously don't understand the figures you're linking, and if you didn't understand them, you have no business making assertions about how they would or wouldn't be different.

kokojie

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1003

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:27:59 PM

Quote from: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 02:16:39 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:08:35 PM

Quote from: kokojie on October 17, 2012, 02:04:17 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:02:38 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 01:12:05 PM

Quote

there is nothing, NOTHING! that will create "enough" revenue

not defense cuts, not social security, certainly not the more politically palatable pittances bandied about by one candidate or another

it is all smoke and mirrors now, until the wheels come off in earnest

That's ludicrous. While it is most likely that the problems will not be remedied, it certainly is possible with persistent focus and time to get out of the debt problem we have. Canada went from ~64% GDP public debt in 1997 to ~28% public debt in 2008. I don't think we WILL course correct, but its definitely possible.

We're at 80% of GDP and well over 100% if you look at gross debt. Plus, we aren't as responsible as Canadians.

That's mostly thanks to Obama, increasing the debt from 10T to 16T in a matter of 4 years.

Right... it couldn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the economy and getting us involved with two wars. Sure, Obama's very far from perfect, but I doubt you could have done better given the same situation.

The wars started in 2003, and they only had a tiny effect on deficit or debt, the defict and debt didn't increase so dramatically until 2009 when Obama took office. So I don't think it's the wars.

Bush didn't fuck up the economy, the two biggest recessions in the past 20 years, were caused by dotcom bubble and the housing bubble, correct? Both are actually caused by Bill Clinton. The dotcom bubble is pretty evident, it happened entirely within Clinton's administration, and Clinton did nothing, he was the biggest cheerleader for the dotcom bubble. When the bubble went crashing down, he simply handed the recession to Bush. The housing bubble is a little more complicated, as housing cycles are very slow. But I think most people who investigated the cause, can agree that Clinton's huge expansion of the "Community Re-investment Act", allowing Fannie and Freddie to blindly guarantee subprime mortgages, played a big part in forming that bubble. Bush actually asked for regulation of Fannie and Freddie, but the proposal got shot down by democrats in Congress.

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart. Obama called BS and started counting it. That's why it looks so much worse after he took office. http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx

Not true, the graph wouldn't be much different even if you add the war costs that were omitted from budget. Also the national debt can't lie, Bush increased the debt by 4.5T in 8 years, Obama increased the debt by 6T in 4 years, with wars that are supposedly has been winding down, I don't think it can be explained by war costs.

BoardGameCoin

sr. member

Activity: 283

Merit: 250

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 03:10:21 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 03:01:39 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:31:31 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 02:30:52 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:27:59 PM

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.

Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =)

I edited my post above already.

Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted.

The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit.

Deficits for past years are based on actual rather than projected receipts and expenditures. Differences being discussed in the current campaign largely have to do with how to project ongoing receipts and expenditures. If I'm wrong on this, please point me to something substantive that shows how the government can invent money off the books via 'emergency expenditures', as that would certainly be relevant.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 03:01:39 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:31:31 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 02:30:52 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:27:59 PM

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.

Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =)

I edited my post above already.

Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted.

The deficit graph is based on budget deficits. If the spending is funded by "emergency measures" it is not included in the budget, thus not included in the deficit.

BoardGameCoin

sr. member

Activity: 283

Merit: 250

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:31:31 PM

Quote from: BoardGameCoin on October 17, 2012, 02:30:52 PM

Quote from: notme on October 17, 2012, 02:27:59 PM

Nice graph, but the funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't included in the budget, so they won't show up on that chart.

Can you elaborate or link? I've been trying to understand the US budget for several years now. Any help would be appreciated =)

I edited my post above already.

Sorry notme, took a look and the information in your link is not relevant or substantive. A correct way to say what you might mean by 'off the books' is that we haven't finished paying for all of the wars costs, and only past costs are accounted for in the deficit graph posted.

notme

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1002

Quote from: SgtSpike on October 17, 2012, 02:40:31 PM

The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is only $1.4T (http://costofwar.com/). I believe it was under $1T when Obama took office. That's less than $150B/year.

I don't know what part of that $150B/year is claimed to be "off the books", but even if all of that number is off the books, Bush's deficits still look a heck of a lot better than Obama's.

From that site: http://costofwar.com/about/notes-and-sources/

Quote

Spending includes only incremental costs – those additional funds that are expended due to the war. For example, soldiers' regular pay is not included but combat pay is included. Potential future costs, such as future medical care for soldiers and veterans wounded in the war, are not included. These figures also do not include additional interest payments on the national debt that will result from higher deficits due to war spending.

These numbers are based on an analysis of legislation in which Congress has allocated money for war and research by the Congressional Research Service (latest report) which has access to Department of Defense financial reports. An article offered by the Strauss Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information offers greater insight into the problems of truly knowing how much has been spent on the Iraq War or other military operations.

During the Bush administration, the majority of war funding was allocated through emergency supplementals. Beginning with the FY2010 budget, most of the war funding was included in the core budget appropriations process. In July 2010, Congress passed additional supplemental appropriations to fund the 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan announced by President Obama in December 2009.

In other words, they are only counting what is on the books. Also, they aren't counting the base pay for the additional soldiers needed, only the combat hazard pay.