Posted on 01/15/2011 8:39:37 AM PST by george76
CBS News poll finds that Americans strongly prefer cutting spending to raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. While 77 percent prefer to cut spending, just nine percent call for raising taxes. Another nine percent want to do both.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
End social security except for the truly disabled. No more over 65 or any age for entitlements.
That would throw us into the black faster than anyone can imagine. It’s the huuuggeeee elephant in the room that nobody can deal with.
If you ended it and medicare entirely, 2 socialist programs, that would be the end of any budget issues forever.
Suggest you read the history of the Great Depression, especially “Smoot Hawley.”
Those are tiny drops in the bucket. Medicare and SS are the big money. End those, quickly.
If 4 our of 5 Americans had blamed Sarah Palin for the Tucson shootings, I guarantee you that CBS would not call the polling “split.”
I’m familiar with both. I’m just not sure I care if trade relations with China sour. Not sure if what that might not be for the best as it doesn’t seem like our relationship with them is going so well for most of us. I never agreed with NAFTA or PMF/NTR status for China. They were two of Bill Clinton’s biggest mistakes imo.
How Much of Your Money Wasted on ‘Climate Change’? Try $10.6 Million a Day
Pajamas Media ^ | January 15, 2011 | Art Horn
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-much-of-your-money-wasted-on-climate-change-try-10-6-million-a-day/?singlepage=true
While reading the budget requests for FY 2011, remember to be “civil.”
Seems everyone is talking about the massive United States federal deficit and how it has now reached an unfathomable $14 trillion.
Is there any way to comprehend such a bloated number? Try this: the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. At that speed a photon of light starts at the surface of the Sun and reaches the Earth in 8 minutes. On Star Trek, the speed of light is warp one at that speed the Enterprise would travel about 6 trillion miles in one year. If each dollar of the deficit is represented by one mile, it would take the Enterprise more than two years traveling the speed of light to go 14 trillion miles.
So what can we cut out of the federal budget to make any kind of dent in this enormous pile of borrowed money?
We could start with the vast sums of cash being wasted on climate change research.
This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.
The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%.
Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect.
By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year.
Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.
Here is what the federal government thinks is happening with the Earth’s climate due to the burning of fossil fuels the following quote is from chapter 15 of the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request:
Past scientific research demonstrates that the Earth’s climate is changing, that humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century, and that further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption. This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.
The first sentence is obvious: of course the Earth’s climate is changing; it always has and always will no matter what we do.
The next statement “humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century” is speculation. The statement completely ignores any natural variability in the climate. Apparently all of nature’s power to regulate the Earth’s temperature, which has been going on for millions of years, stopped 50 years ago, and now carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the climate. This is political and social advocacy, not science.
Then, this statement: “further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption.” The implication is that there has already been widespread climate disruption there has not. There is no more extreme weather going on now than anytime in the last 2,000 years. Per the complex Orwellian world of government-speak, we have now moved on from “global warming” to “climate change” to “climate disruption.”
Climate change wasn’t frightening enough! What’s next?
My money’s on “climate disintegration” that should keep the money flowing so we can figure out who and what will be disintegrated.
The statement then reads: “This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species.” And that is the key to all of this: the fear factor. Pitching rising sea levels and other catastrophic consequences to keep the research money coming.
If you want to know where to save money in the budget, cut the vast sums of redundant funding headed to redundant federal agencies doing redundant climate change research. Four billion dollars to study climate change and that’s just for this year!
Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go to chapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.
The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.
Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.
The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change. It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I won’t include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and implements coping strategies. Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.
Solar and wind power don’t survive without this government funding.
Is that $14 trillion making sense yet?
Of course, there’s more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an increase of 1%. Do you believe that next year greenhouse gases will be reduced by the EPA spending $169 million? I would bet the ranch that greenhouse gases will continue to increase next year, and the year after that, and the year after that despite EPA spending your money.
Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding?
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%!
The USDA’s climate change efforts are supposed to help farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.
Redundancy on top of redundancy, piles of money on top of piles of money. All to study climate change, which, according to the theory, should be warming us rapidly, but, according to the data, has stopped. How much of the requested money these government agencies actually get is not yet known. The way they spend money in Washington, you can rest assured they’ll get most of it.
If you’re looking to cut the budget, climate change is a good place to start.
If we don’t get a handle on Washington’s spending soon, and I mean very soon, climate change will be the least of our problems.
And they're all Democrat congressmen... :)
Agree and shut down every department that is not needed and all benefits to illegals.
Unfortunately, with union labor, if we made everything in the U.S. things would cost 2x to 4x what they do now. Cheap manufacturing overseas makes a lot of great stuff available to us at low cost. The downside, of course, if the loss of all the good manufacturing jobs. We just cannot make that up with service jobs in the US. Unions have kept wages unrealistically high in this global economy.
A global trade war and the collapse of trade is about the last thing we need now, IMHO. I think that would really send all global economies into a tailspin.
Unfortunately, US wages are going to have to adjust downward closer to parity with global levels. I think that is inescapable. This is happening in tech — all of my colleagues and friends are at salaries about the same as they were 10 years ago. When you account for 3% to 4% inflation per year, our real wages have declined 40% or more. These are not easy times.
You forgot Jimmy Carter's Dept. of (no) Energy.
Does anyone know what the 16,000 government employees do at the Dept. of Energy?
We are currently using a whirlpool dryer. It works very well and has served us well for 38 years. We replaced the 38 year old washer last year. We also replaced our double oven last year that was just as old because the top oven was broken and the appliance was so old that parts were long since unavailable. The lower oven worked great. I hated to get rid of it (the replacement oven had a burned out light bulb within 1 week btw). The refrigerator was replaced when it was about 27 years old. These appliances were all made in the USA. You show me any appliance made in China that lasts for 38 years. You get what you pay for. I still make every attempt to buy American. Our landfills are filled with the purchases of people who didn't.
A global trade war and the collapse of trade is about the last thing we need now, IMHO. I think that would really send all global economies into a tailspin.
The last thing we need is to be the only economy sunk into the abyss. If we go down, we want as many other economies down there with us as possible. Something to think about.
Unfortunately, US wages are going to have to adjust downward closer to parity with global levels.
The problem with that is this, we are already flirting with stagflation. If you depress wages further, nobody will be buying anything and our economy will truly be in the crapper. I am making more money than I have ever made in my life right now but, at the same time, I have never had to struggle so hard to stay on top of my expenses and I kn ow I'm not alone in this. Consider that when you consider lower wages for Americans.
China is the problem. China has unbalanced a delicate supply and demand relationship. They never should have received permanent MFN/NTR status. Thanks a lot Bill Clinton.
i agree. Means test it now, eliminate in favor of tax-free private retirement accounts later.
But beware- there are even conservatives in here who will attack you for suggesting cutting “their” money.
Yes, those programs must be ended, but I think that we should probably phase them out over a period of several months(maybe even a couple of years) so that our old folks can get their affairs in order and make alternative arrangements.
We could probably balance the budget right there!
Get rid of welfare and the public education system and free medical care for deadbeats and prisoners. They should have at least decent sized co-pays like the rest of us. Jail should not cost so much to maintain.
Eliminate the Dept of Homeland security and the IRS.
Axe all non-productive government jobs and no more free anything for illegals except a plane ride back, deep over Mexico. Parachutes being charged for.
And no more bailouts for anyone. Let them let the hard way to be responsible with their money.
Make a lsit of all federal agencies and their mission. Compare that with the authority delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Weed out those that exceed Constitutional authority. Then go through the remaining agencies and look at a list of their major programs. Weed out all those that exceed Constitutional authority.
Afetr the debt has been reduced, reduce federal taxes to support the reduced size of government. The states can pick up the slack for programs removed and tax accordingly, which is where the bulk of these programs should be in the first place.
That Nine per cent are either wealthy liberals or commpletely tanked idjits who are out of the info. loop. LOL.
I would say thats 100% of informed Americans against a rise in taxes.Government needs to sit at the back of the bus, and they are having a hard time with that, having lived like leeches off of a fat body, now emaciated and dying
thanks to the left and their housing finance policies.
I swear, I am waxing more libertarian every day. LOL.And here I was just a conservative.
debt ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.