See Pg 5:“After a Nunn-McCurdy breach of the critical cost growth threshold and DOD certification, the most recent milestone must be rescinded, the program restructured to address the cause of the breach, and a new acquisition program baseline must be approved that reflects the certification approved by the milestone decision authority.”
So, back to the drawing boards.Not so bad:Table 2 shows all the things JSF cannot do, but should.Table 2 show the watered down plan and how it is being met, somewhat out of line with the facts, but the plan is not the plan that got the JSF its last milestone, it has been revised for scrap and rework beyond plan.
Figure 2 design changes are expensive scrap and rework and they usually cost in qualityas well.
Figure 3:Bodes badly, justify going back to drawing board and maybe kill the thing.
Figure4: says just kill the thing!
Figure 5:Says to me we don’t know what we will get for JSF in Block 1.Just kill it.
I would beg Boeing to bring in their design which “lost” in 2002.The Lockheed […]
“It seems to me [prudent that] we at least begin considering alternatives,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said during a hearing May 19, after hearing that current estimates show the program’s development and sustainment are unaffordable.
That idea does not sit well with the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Ashton Carter, who says the Pentagon has no good alternative to the next-generation stealthy fighter, even though the cost to sustain the program into the future is an eye-popping $1 trillion, adjusted for inflation over its lifespan. That is less than the cost to sustain the F-22, about the same as the F-15, and more than either the F-16 or the F-18.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), from the home state of the program’s Ft. Worth production facilities, says that the Pentagon needs to do all it can to protect the JSF. “If you’re going to put all your eggs in one basket, you ought to protect that basket.” Cornyn says.
Then:
Others picked up on McCain’s comment, however, including Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who pressed Carter on exactly how much cost the Pentagon would like to see removed from the sustainment estimate.
Carter says he is aiming to reduce costs by 20% to 50%. “It’s not a small amount,” Carter says.
The thing don’t need to fly!! Then the airplane is not needed.
Just kill it!!
I used to do sustainment planning, if you don’t buy it up front the things do not work. If anything the current estimates are way low given all the changes and poor testing of the F-35.
Most of the AGW predictions are from computer models, and one of the leaders of the catastrophic predictions, has a new paper. After we see the obligatory statement “my new paper proves AGW” there’s a little surprise. Here’s the abstract
Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications
James Hansen (1), Makiko Sato (1), Pushker Kharecha (1), Karina von Schuckmann (2) ((1) NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, (2) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) (Submitted on 5 May 2011) Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain constrain the net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be -1.6 \pm 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. A recent decrease in ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era can readily be accounted for by thermal expansion of the ocean and ice melt, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate a near-term acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. (My bolding)
Hansen admits that the models are over estimating heat. We already know they do not handle water vapor and clouds well. They also are over estimating Ocean Heat Content (see chart below), so how much further will this dubious science be pushed.
Wow. CoRev doesn’t even understand what Hansen wrote, yet he posts about it. What Hansen wrote was that the models have overestimated the efficiency of the transfer of heat from the atmosphere and upper ocean into the deep ocean. This is not the same thing at all as over estimating heat. The phrase that CoRev put in bold isn’t that hard to understand, yet CoRev’s post misses the point entirely.
JimS, it appears you have missed the point. To be clear it was: how much further will this dubious model-based science be pushed? We are finding huge errors in today’s models.
One of its points that relates diectly to my above reference is: “The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.”
It concludes with: “Life is about making decisions, and decisions are about trade-offs. We can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or we can be caught up in a crusade that seeks to suppress energy use, economic growth, and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.”
It is now 8:05AM, May 21st, in NY. I have not been “raptured”. I heard the other night that the church members of the wacky church have been donating at the pace of about 15M yearly and that the church is currently worth about $72M. Not a bad business plan, and the profit ratio to costs is likely enormous. Why not appoint the gentleman to be Secty of the Treasury. His technique is unorthodox, but he’s getting results.
Jack, oddly enough, I haven’t been raptured either. But, I didn’t expect to be. When I kept asking awkward questions in Sunday school, one of my teachers told me that if I kept it up I’d go to Hell. I kept it up, of course. And, my fate was settled by the time I was nine. Certainty in life is a good thing. NancyO
i asked for an interpretation of that from a climate blogger:
actually, as far as current warming goes, what Hansen says is that the models are supposing that the oceans are absorbing more heat than they are (I think that is a good thing that the oceans may not contain as much heat as we think they do since it stays there so long – much easier for it to leave the atmosphere). But if that is true, then he says that aerosols (like dust and soot) are shielding the ocean. The problem is that we need to reduce aerosols to slow down the melting of snow and ice in the Arctic and Himalayas, but as he says, it is a Faustian bargain. Aerosols cause global dimming because they reduce the amount of sunlight coming through the clouds. Remove the aerosols and we will get more sunlight and thus more heat. Hansen wants modellers to have a better grasp of the size of the effect of the negative forcing of aerosols so that they will have a better idea of what will happen if they are removed.
rjs, I agree: “ Hansen wants modellers to have a better grasp of the size of the effect of the negative forcing of aerosols so that they will have a better idea of what will happen if they are removed.” And that was the point. If the catastrophic predictions are wrong, then the solutions are also bad/unneeded.
The models may have the physics all wrong, or as we can see at best only partially correct. Aerosols is only one negative forcing they have wrong, clouds and perhaps even water vapor, appear to be wrong and over stated.
Remember, in the models it is the water vapor that drives much of the warming for all the attention given to CO2. We must also remember the model predictions are diverging from observations, and knowing why is important. It is unlikely to be just one feedback/forcing.
Norman yes. at least, if you have time and want to read a really good play about Ireland and economics, you might enjoy George Bernard Shaw, “John Bull’s Other Island.” It was written in about 1910.
Actually, he doesn’t put it quite the way you did, but the point is the same.
The language Gingrich used (“radical right wing social engineering”) is that of the liberal opposition. His trust level was already in the toilet because of his support for AGW legislation.
It’s a case of not ‘what’ was said, but ‘how’ it was said.
“Humans are now the most significant driver of global change, propelling the planet into a new geological epoch, the
Anthropocene. We can no longer exclude the possibility that our collective actions will trigger tipping points, risking abrupt and irreversible consequences for human communities and ecological systems.
We cannot continue on our current path. The time for procrastination is over. We cannot afford the luxury of denial. We must respond rationally, equipped with scientific evidence. “
“There are compelling reasons to rethink the conventional model of economic development. Tinkering with the economic system that generated the global crises is not enough. “
Hmmmm. I do not think we will easily set aside our tinker toys.
Stormy, it’s comments like this: ““There are compelling reasons to rethink the conventional model of economic development. Tinkering with the economic system that generated the global crises is not enough. “ that make conservatives more than suspicious.
Did you read my Happer reference above? It pretty much describes why skeptics still do not believe.
I pulled up a list of the Nobel participants. It looks like it consists of a lot of people who either benefit directly from environmental alarmism, or are way out of their area of experise.
The BBC’s Paul Hudson got Hansen’s article completely backwards. What Hansen was saying is that the models are making estimates of warming that are too low because they have not factored in enough of the negative feedback of aerosols. This means that the climate is even MORE sensitive to CO2 than the models currently suggest. Hansen was already at the high end with his estimate of 4 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 – now he is saying that the sensitivity could be 6 to 8 degrees. Basically, we are even more screwed than we already thought we were. Without the negative feedback from the aerosols things will get a lot hotter. Hansen has been publishing on aerosols for at least 20 years.
rjs, would you provide a link to the Hansen interpretation, please?
And this makes no sense with today’s observations: “ Basically, we are even more screwed than we already thought we were. Without the negative feedback from the aerosols things will get a lot hotter. Hansen has been publishing on aerosols for at least 20 years.”
Hansen’s 1988 predictions, those that were done in Congressional testimony on a hot summer day when Gore had the AC turned off the night before, have been proven very wrong. See the chart below. Hansen’s AGW scientific prowess is not considered to be very high. Much too much political advocacy and too little objectivity.
Remember the S&P ratings downgrade for US treasuries? From Calculated Risk this is what interest rates look like for those countries with less than high ratings: “The yield on Greece ten year bonds increased to a record 16.6% and the two year yield was up slightly to 25.5%.
Here are the ten year yields for Ireland at 10.5%, Portugal at 9.4%, Italy at 4.8%, and Spain at 5.5%.”
Wonder why conservatives keep harping on controlling the debt? Consider doubling/tripling/quadrupling or even more our current interest payments which already exceed 6% of the overall budget.
Very wrong?? Not even close to being true, CoRev. But of course that’s why you use a graph with no attribution that emphasizes the RSS data instead of GISS data. For those who would like to read something about the claims that people like CoRev make about Hansen’s 1988 projections here is something from RealClimate and something else from Skeptical Science. But what is another fact to discredit the point that CoRev wants to make? For you to assume that since projections made in 1988 aren’t exactly right then nothing being done ever since can be any better. The assumption must be made that nothing has been learned from further research and that better computers, efforts to improve the software and models that have learned from the errors of the past make no difference since Hansen made his projections. How anyone can actually believe those things without being a fact free conspiracy lover is beyond me.
You complain about Hansen being involved in politics and then turn around and push an article from the chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank that is published by a conservative religious publication that has nothing to do with science. Working hard on that hypocrisy merit badge, CoRev.
JimS, attacking the person and not the content is a sure sign of a weak argument. Being involved in politics and not objective science, when your scientific findings are weak, is also a sign of politrical advocacy and not science. Hansen has been far from the top of the AGW scientific community for quite some time.
Finally, I included this article to explain why there is growing skepticism toward AGW/CAGW. It’s scientific underpinnings are weak and observational proof, the real confirmation of the science, nearly nonexistent.
Stormy, did you actually look at the list Sammy provided? Remember Al Gore, Pachauri, and even Obama are Nobel winners, and at least two of those three are loosely related to the AGW science. Not true of the list of signers.
Several times each week we hear the liberal/democratic solution to balancing the budget as stop paying for the war and restore the tax rate to pre-Bush rates. My response is to ask those same purveyors of class warfare and mistrust of capitalism to just do the math!
Accordingly my intent is to provide the following response every open thread after we see the same nonsensical solution.
The solution has to get us to a balanced budget in some time frame. Let’s start with the CBO deficit projection of $1.5T to $1.7T for 2011. I’ll even provide some of your numbers for you to get started.
The Bush tax cuts ~$272.3B* for 2011. The 2% FICA cut is projected at ~$112B for 2011. Cost of wars ~$100B for 2011.
* Oops! the bulk ($232B) of those revenue gains come from those making under $250K/Yr
Good job, liberals. Your approach still leaves >$1T in deficits and hurts the middle class and risks slowing economic growth. Way to go! For once, just do the math instead of repeating the ideological talking points.
When referring to GISS versus RSS data is the below chart what you mean? Remember the Tisdale chart centers the data sets on 2003 to better show the different trend slopes. Notice the slopes in the below chart. It is from here: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/rss-uah-giss-comparison/
Which…. Hasn’t happened. As (so sorry) Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman observed, 10 year UST yields are actually down recently. Keep hunting those vigilantes though they have to be somewhere!!!!
It’s a real puzzler to me how a once dominant party, one that recently controlled the entire government for nearly a decade can’t seem to find a workable electorally viable opposition candidate.
The right wing is obsessed with characterizing the current administration as a socialist, anti-business anti-middle class, promoter of reverse racism against white people but can’t inspire or recruit a credible leader capable of making that case. The mystery continues!
NPR headline on Daniels decision not to run: “…Daniels disappointed many republicans who hoped he would run based on his strong fiscal record…” I had to laugh out loud. The man who ran Ws OMB while it turned a $236B surplus into a $400B deficit was hailed as a strong fiscal leader.
AS, it’s still too early to make substantive statements re: the republican field. A Bachmann/Cain or vice versa would be a powerful anti-Obama campaign. As I’ve already said the republicans aren’t running a presidential race yet. When they do it will all be about Obama, and nasty as all get out from the democrats. Your comments might just be early, light weight representations.
Stormy, good to see you rejoining the fray. Your acceptance of the Hansen paper, and your reference to: “We cannot continue on our current path. The time for procrastination is over. We cannot afford the luxury of denial. We must respond rationally, equipped with scientific evidence. ” are very intriguing.
So what you’re saying is that cleaning up aerosol pollution causes global warming? I look forward to the “Produce More Aerosol Pollution” campaign from you and the Green/Environmental lobby. Since the science is so clear, I went to Wiki to get a semi-public definition of and examples for aerosols, and they are smoke, oceanic haze, air pollution, smog and CS gas.
CoRev at this point I would think that your math should be directed at the FY 2012 budget numbers that, hopefully, Congress soon will be debating. Do you have ideas other than what’s out there for the coming year? OMB’s proposal is for a $1.1T deficit, and the GOP/Ryan House-passed budget is for a $1.0T deficit. (The differences are $200B less in spending and $100B less in taxes in the GOP House budget; I don’t know the source of the lower revenue, given the December 2010 compromise tax bill; the difference in spending is attributable to cuts in food stamps, unemployment compensation, student loans, Medicare/Medicaid, and non-security discretionary spending that presumably is detailed someplace beyond broad categories.)
PJR, I would cut defense. Start with the cuts defined in the House Resolution and cut additionally by ~$125B. Remove the Bush tax cuts for ~$272B. The improving economy should add an additional ~$100 to $150B. That total gets us to the $900+ to $950+ range for annual cuts. Freeze spending at the level for 2 years and let a growing economy get us to near balance in the budget. Once close to balance we can add some minor tax increases to pay down the debt and begin limiting spending growth to economic growth projections, till we hit the next bursting bubble. Included in these steps are the minor steps needed to balance SS, and some small increases in medicare taxes.
If its not obvious the key steps are stop increasing spending and improve the economy. The current administration is totally incapable of doing this.
BTW, Medicare can be made at least 5-10% more efficient than it is today by asking seniors to combine Dr visits, and using one Dr as the maintenance monitor for chronic diseases. Today’s system makes the opposite approach (multiple specialist visits) the preferred approach for those elderly with controlled chronic diseases/conditions.
There are many areas such as Medicare where fiddling on the edges to add efficiency that savings could be realized. One area is ILSM’s favorite, military procurements.
one trouble with your sense of argument is you have no memeory. the lets pump aerosols into the atmosphere meme has been out for awhile, promoted by some other lame brain idiots. as far as i know not taken up by the global warming conspiracy who, as you know, are not interested in making smog, but in enslaving the rich.
it is fairly typical of bad-faith political “arguments” to rely on the limited attention span of their audience to push one emotional “conclusion” at a time. some people i know think you are a bad-faith arguer. i think you are the victim of one.
CoRev my math says your plan successfully reduces the deficit to just under $500B for FY 2012 by (a) adding $272B to OMB’s revenue plan by cancelling all the Bush tax cuts and (b) subtracting $125B from defense from the lower GOP House spending plan and C) Medicare efficiency measures. I agree that economic growth is key to deficit reduction but I suspect your FY 2012 deficit reduction plans might seriously undermine this goal. (Not that the GOP House or OMB plans would do much to boost it.) On the subject of basic arithmetic and deficits, this article offers some simple reminders: http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/some-simple-deficit-reduction.html
PJR, my apologies for not being clear. I started with this statement: “Start with the cuts defined in the House Resolution…” but did not include the estimated amount of ~$400B which should be added to the ~$500B.
Your reference relies on a relatively large multiplier, as did Romer while estimating the effect of the stimulus. Regrettably, the jury may have a different opinion of the “multiplier” after the stimulus. IIRC, the actual GDP growth was closer to even with stimulus spending. Furthermore we forget that the “G” portion of the GDP calculation first came from the private sector side of the equation, so may actually be a wash.
As to undermining the efficiency gains, I’m not so sure. They would appear to be independent from any prior spending baseline.
This is probably the fourth or fifth time I have proposed something similar as a plant for cutting the deficit. I also proposed using the debt ceiling as the catalyst to rack and stack the targeted programs for cutting that ~$400portion.
CoRev, sir. Excuse me, but had you not noticed that no one seems to be taking your comments in regards to the budget (or global warming for hat matter) seriously. You’ve got lots of numbers and suppositions you seem to enjoy throwing out, but it amounts to little more than a bit of hot air. Say, you’re contributing to climate change without even intending to do so. What is even more difficult to understand in the midst of all your banter about the size of potential savings on this or that budgetary manipulation is that you keep throwing in references to liberals whom you see as being responsible fo the budget issues that you highlight. Just what liberals might that be? Are thy in the Congress? Are they in the White House? Just where re all these liberals that are responsible for all of our economic problems? Do you seriously believe that liberals are in control of some branch of our government? Or have been in a position of control in the past three decades? I think it was George McGovern who might have been the last liberal elected to public office. Oh yes, there were a couple of guys from Wisconsin some years back. Wellstone, I think it was. The others name escapees me. Those liberals you complain about have had so little influence that it’s hard to keep them in mind.
But the unwarranted influnce of all the war graft…………………………
The war budget is 20% of outlays, and those outlays are a jobs and dividend spreading process with no value to 98% of the people.
I don’t worry so much about the deficit, I worry about the fraud waste and abuse that needs to be cut and the false hope that Lockheed or Prat and Whitney or Boeing might someday come through if needed.
Better, by orders of magnitude, is fiscal stimulus to build roads in the US not hire Pakistani’s to run Mac Donalds at US posts in SW Asia.
Jack said: “Just what liberals might that be?” For one, you, NanO, ILSM, and the several others who make the same claim that cutting “war/defense/national security” spending and renewing the Bush tax cuts will balance the budget.
Because I have asked, you in particular, to do the math and several times actually provided the math that I frustatedly added the comment to which you responded. It’s Ok to be ignorant of an issue, but to continue ignorance without trying to learn is just ideologic. Find another soap box upon which to stand. The one you are using is too low!
Using what I would think to be an acceptable better source than CoRev we find the cost of war discussed as follows:
“While spending on Afghanistan grew between FY2010 and FY2011, DOD’s average spending in Iraq fell from $7.9 billion to $6.2 billion or by about 20% while troop strength dropped from 141,000 to 96,000, by about one-third, as the U.S. withdrawal continues. Troop strength in Iraq is projected to average 43,000 in FY2011 and to fall to 4,450 in FY2012 with all troops out of Iraq by December 2011 according to the U.S. security agreement with Iraq. On March 18th, 2011, the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution was enacted (H.J.Res. 48/P.L. 111-6). In the case of DOD’s war funding, the current CR, H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1 all set DOD’s war funding at close to the FY2011 request. For State Department diplomatic operations and foreign aid, the current CR could reduce funding by about $1 billion below the FY2011 request of $7.6 billion. VA medical spending is likely to match the request. CRS has lowered its previous estimate of war funding in FY2010 to $165 billion because DOD spent about $3 billion less than anticipated, transferring $885 million of war funds to its base budget and allowing some $2 billion in funding to lapse and be returned to the Treasury. Congress also included about $5 billion in non-war programs in funding designated as for “Other Contingency Operations.” Although DOD’s FY2012 request of $118 billion fell in proportion to the 25% fall in troop levels from 212,000 in FY2011 to 158,000 in FY2012, this funding could be more than necessary in light of recent experience and potential troop decreases. If the overall war FY2012 request of $132 billion is enacted, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would reach $1.415 trillion. According to CBO’s latest projection, war costs for FY2012-FY2021 could total another $496 billion if troop levels fell from 180,000 in FY2011 to 45,000 by FY2015 and remained at that level through FY2021. Under that scenario, war costs through FY2021 would total $1.8 trillion.”
That’s from a summary of a report by Amy Belasco for the Congressional Research Service entitled:
The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
That’s a lot more than the paltry $100B noted by CoRev on an annualized basis. Lately his BS has become pervasive on this site. His information does not have the degree of validity that he likes to suggest.
Jack, OK, we’ll use your numbers: “If the overall war FY2012 request of $132 billion is enacted, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would reach $1.415 trillion.” So we’ve moved from a paltry $100B to a massive $132B. You’re still over $1T in deficits just for 2012. What bothers me is you probably still do not understand that!
And we wouldn’t have that deficiency in the budget had that $1.4 Trillion not been pissed down the tubes. And note that that figure does not include the enormous, almost incalculable, amount of tangential expenses arising from the war such as medical care and deah benefits for thousands of military personnel that would otherwise be alive and well. As you probably know Stiglitz estimated the total cost of the wars to be over $3Trillion several years ago.
Add to that the cost of the income tax policies from 2001 which are estimated to be about $2.7Trillion. So what would the deficit be if ouor government had been acting in a responsible manner in regards to taxation and military adventurism? Looks like we’d have a substantial surplus on our hands and maybe that would have helped ease the effects of the financial industries irresponsible behavior. Instead we have a deep deficit and a bunch of deceptive criers out there blaming every thing, but the real causes of the problems.
I can’t say that the Republican base won’t choose Michelle Bachmann as its front runner, but watch her give a speech or two. Listen to the content of her commentary on vartious issues, especially from prior to her becoming a potential candidate. We have reached a new low in our lowest common denominator. She is ignorant of social, economic, national and international issues. The Queen Mother in England seems better prepared to be the President than does Michelle Bachmann. Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish and he could probably beat Bachmann. Her appeal is very limited on a nationwide basis.
Jack, you inability to think logically and do simple math is extraordinary. Let’s use your, even again, new numbers. Total Deficit $14.3T Tax cuts -$2.7T Stiglitz est. -$3.0T War funding -$1.4T* ?Surplus? ——– ————-$7.2T or $8.6T* still in deficit.
* is this double counted with Stiglitz? Perhaps.
This is simple adding and subtracting, but it appears your ideology is blinding you. Let’s dicuss the chart below, to see if it’s all Bush’s fault. Note the chart is a year old and does not include the $1.7T Obama 2012 projected budget deficit.
I love that chart. Its amazig the left can’t handle it. Obama is going to run deficits that make Bush Jr look downright spendthrift in comparison.
And blaming it on the war is hilarious. The war was bi-partisanly supported every single time there was a vote on it. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. And since Obama took office we’ve seen the consolidation, on Bush’s time table, of the US victory in Iraq and the Obama surge in Afghanistan. And don’t forget Obama widening the War on terror into Libya, without even a fig leaf of a vote from congress (and not even a hat-tip to the War Powers Act that just expired). Considering the anti-war left doesn’t exit anymore all those protests during the Bush years were just protest becuase their guy wasn’t in office. Its blantantly obvious the Dems don’t care about the war as long as their guy is running it. And when the Dems are actually asked to vote and take a stand on the war they supported the war overwelmingly.
Yet they continue to stand by the idea that there is no problem and its all Bush’s fault. Guess what? Bush has been gone for over two years now and I’m still waiting for my 5.4% GDP growth….
PJR, re: the “multipliers” I ran across this chart today which show that they may actually have been negative. IIRC, ARRA was ~$800B over three years. If the 1.5 multipliers had panned out the recovery would have been in the $1.2T range. From the chart below the multiplier appears to be less than 1.0.
AS, nice chart. Note the early period, 2001-2007, Bush wanted his tax cuts to stop the Fed Govt from over collecting taxes, and what happened was even through a recession and attack, they leveled public debt with GDP growth.
The chart also puts the lie to the oft proposed without the Bush tax cuts we would have been able to pay off our public debt.
The chart also shows the importance of rapidly getting us out of a recession. The 2001 recession doesn’t even show up on the chart, but the delayed response to this one is obvious. another obvious point is the value of TARP. It had almost no impact at raising debt, but stabilized the banking industry.
Two different administrations and two different approaches to solving economic problem. Your chart shows the impact/success of each approach.
It also shows how much smaller the deficit would be without the wars and especially the bush tax cuts. It also shows how irresponsible it was for Obama to extend them as part of the deal to get a budget done last year.
I find your worry about Bush’s “over collecting” taxes to be interesting given that he was running deficits even before the tax cuts. Why wasn’t the administration worried about under collecting taxes? Especially given our new found deficit obsession (by useless leaders of both useless parties, acknowledged)
Forgotten already the CBO estimate of running surpluses as far as they could see in 2000? Do you actually think the Fed Govt taking more in taxes than necessary from the private sector is good? Do you really believe that that ole benevolent and big Fed Govt spends your money better than you? I dunno, seems a little weird economically.
No I didn’t forget. I believed then as I do now that the long term benefit of those surpluses was to retire the existing (already significant) debt. Reducing interest payments to bondholders etc. It was all the rage when the tools on wall street sold Slick Willie on it. Funny how that discipline evaporated once a rich oil man got into office.
AS, look back at your chart to see that retiring the debt was transient. Also, understand that retiring the publicly held debt hurts the many retirement funds so invested. That ole rule of unintended consequences is still in place and active.
Buff, don’t you just wish we had the ole Bush $178B or maybe the prior year’s $248B deficit back? The bad ole days don’t seem so bad anymore, but the same crowd crowing over those horrible deficits are now … well you know.
It was not an attack on the person, just pointing out that he is a non-climatologist who also currently has as his primary profession political advocacy, not science. And the comments you make about Hansen are only true in the community you follow, the deniers of science for the sake of their politics. Everything you post comes from places that do nothing but misrepresent the science, which is the only thing you do as well.
AS what I do not completely grasp about this graphic, which is making the rounds, is the grey area under the line for “debt without these factors” because it has to be attributed to some other factors. The last Clinton OMB budget proposal, for FY 2001, showed the public debt would reach zero in 2013. I notice the line is on a downward slope, roughly as projected by the FY 2001 budget proposal, through 2007 but something must have begun in 2008 that isn’t depicted in the graphic to keep the grey area from falling. (I’d guess the economic downturn, but that’s already on the graphic.) So what’s missing?
Absolutely amazing that sammy or anyone else can challenge Nobel winners in chemistry, physics, b iology, etc…duh… as either ignorant of of what is happening or as just self-serving idiots intent on fattening their wallets.
I am not exactly sure what Nobel prize winners sammy or others would like to trot forward. I certainly have looked closely at the signers of the latest document.
As for me, I have lived long enough (71 years) to know that we are changing the planet in my short life span. Anyone who thinks otherwise has his or her head firmly buried in the mud. The question is: Will the changes we have wrought create a real sewer for us?
Time to up the discussion, boys. Don’t think you are advancing thought by simply throwing mud at people. It really gets tiring hearing it ad nauseum.
I finally got tired of reading the knee jerk stuff, thoughtless stuff.
Try thinking about population growth, land decimation, species decline…move outside how you think about climate change…and actually think about how we are changing the planet.
Please, CoRev, if you are not willing to be balanced and thoughtful, do not just fill the space with your rather narrow view of AGW…as if it were gospel. Don’t do it. Let the site be an economic one….
By the time I stopped writing for this blog, I knew the fuitlity of even mentioning climate change, or planet change…pollution, water and soil…resource depletion, biodiversity loss….I gave up talking about them….or weaving them into an economic outlook.
I would not have minded an intelligent, thoughtful response, acknowledging at least some of the problems we are creating for ourselves…but what I got was sheer lunacy….a complete inability to think that anything was wrong.
If you think we can continue to increase human population indefinitely, or that we can continue to pour pollants willy nilly anywhere and everywhere…or that we could not conceivably pollute the atomosphere or the oceans…then I really have nothing to say to you….
And frankly, I would not want to write for a blog where any mention of these problems will be howled down by such idiocy.
If you have studied climatology (and the related sciences one of which is physics) you will know that his specialty is the core of the understanding irradiance in the climate change theory and implemented in the calculations of the GCMs. It’s one of those core functions of the theory.
Stormy, my friend (yes, folks, we are friendly, and have talked off line) that was a well written request. I agree with your call: “Time to up the discussion, boys.”, but a discussion will almost always have contradictory point of view. It appears that you prefer discussion be an echo chamber of single views.
You then went on to state: “Don’t think you are advancing thought by simply throwing mud at people.” Pointing out that the Nobel winners on the list were not core providers to the science in question is not throwing mud but an attempt to have a discussion over their qualifications. JimS did the same when he questioned the qualifications of Dr Happer, the author of my reference, and it ended with my response showing how his expertise actually did apply to the science. Having a differing point of view actually can/may advance thought more than gross agreement.
You then go on to say: “I finally got tired of reading the knee jerk stuff, thoughtless stuff.” From this I can only conclude that having differing views and discussing them is not allowed or appreciated in a discussion with you. Why?
You go on to request: “Please, CoRev, if you are not willing to be balanced and thoughtful … Let the site be an economic one…. ” but what is really confusing is your follow-on comment: “By the time I stopped writing for this blog, I knew the fuitlity of even mentioning climate change, or planet change…pollution, water and soil…resource depletion, biodiversity loss….I gave up talking about them….or weaving them into an economic outlook.” Even you admit that economic discussions includes environmental and climate issues, but wish them to be only on your view point because they are not balanced and thoughtful (as your views)?
Stormy, the truly confusing part of your comment is this: “I would not have minded an intelligent, thoughtful response, acknowledging at least some of the problems we are creating for ourselves…” but they were never presented. Instead you have used terms such as: idiocy, (not) balanced and thoughtful, throwing mud, knee jerk stuff, thoughtless stuff, and finally call those with other views lunatics. Using name calling is not often a successful approach to an intelligent and thoughtful discussion.
Stormy, please don’t take these comments personally. They are an attempt to illustrate the faultiness of your logic, not of the sciences (climate change and economics, etc.) but of how we should discuss issues. Differing views are potential learning points. Echo chambers seldom are.
“The justices unanimously set aside a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Navy had been justified in canceling the contract for the A-12 radar-evading attack plane after it encountered serious technical difficulties.”
“The justices sent the case back to the appeals court to consider other issues. The justices said that when state secrets must be protected and a court dismisses a contractor’s defenses to government allegations of contract breach, the proper remedy is to leave the parties where they were on the day they filed suit.”
Dick Cheney stood up and cancelled the loser, a fate most of the recent programs should share.
AS, of course you can if you make a complete and reasonable argument. Name calling does not qualify! I thought your chart was a reasonable discussion. The two views were presented, and no minds were changed, BUT, the viewpoints were reasonably presented.
I suspect what you are really saying is that you have not convinced others, me included, that your argument is more valid than theirs. Too often all we see is argument by sarcasm, a frequent approach of yours, and argument by ridicule. Neither makes a point nor are they convincing, but they also too often result in responses in kind.
Strangely, Dale with reasonable presentations convinced me about the validity of the NW plan several years past.
I disagree with AS on many things but in this case he’s right on the money. You’ve been drinking the looney right wing koolaid a little much these days. No one who is big with the Religous Right (RR) has a chance vs. even a weakend Obama. Bachmann doesn’t have a chance short of the economy imploding (10% unemployment isn’t it either) or the proverbial dead girl/live boy scenario. Obama is very vulnerable, but if the Reps send up a nutcase he will get re-elected in a landslide. No one who doesn’t beleive in evolution will (or should) win. No one who doesn’t laugh at the ‘young earth’ people will be or deserves to be President. And they won’t. If we get a looney RR type running as the Rep nominee I might even pull the lever for Obama! Better the incompetant I know than someone that will be far worse. A divided gov will keep Obama in line – though obviously won’t stop he Dem President from expanding the war.
AS – Explain to me exactly how the Director of the OMB has any control over the fiscal spending of the Feds? Daniels would run on his strong fiscal record as a governor. Get a grip.
“If you think we can continue to increase human population indefinitely,…”
Great – exactly how do you propose to slow the growth of the most proplificat and least economically/scientifically contributing people on the planet? How exactly do you plan to reduce the Islamic, Chinese, Indian, and sub-sahara Africa populations to below replacement rate so we can reduce the human population? I really want to know your plan.
The US has 300 million people, roughly 5% of the world population and the lower 48 are part of the least population dense but most productive area of the world. The US doesn’t need to reduce. Heck we feed the world. The US is cleaner and greener now than it was 50 years ago. Did you know there are more trees in Ohio now than at the trn of the century (1900)? Do you remember the LA smogs and how bad it was? Well its gone now but if you want to sample a bygone era just travel to any Chinese industrial town.
So call me when you come up with a plan to cut Egypts poulation by 50% so it can have a reasonable chance to feed itself. Ditto India and Pakistan. Let’s see the plan to change the incredibly disfunction cultures of the Islamic world or sub-saharan Africa. We have more than enough food on the planet and areble land. Its the tyrannical governments around the world whose failed command economies that are letting people die. Call me when you get around to a plan to change them.
We can argue all we want about cap & trade or milage requirements or green rooftops or windmills in Puget Sound. But none of that will amount to a grain of sand on the beach until you get the rest of the world onboard. The senate voted 97-0 against Kyoto for a reason.
My solution has always been the same: A crash program into solar, nuclear fusion, and battery technology combined with expanding the capabilities of GM crops to provide food and energy for all until we can change the crappy cultures world-wide into something at least semi-civilized. If that fails at least cushion the collapse in the third world.
But until you can fix the rest of the world all the AGW angst in the US won’t matter at all except to cripple our economy.
Come on back Stormy – I always liked your posts even when I thought they were totally pie-in-the-sky ideas that could never happen.
PJR, since no one else has taken a chance, I will. Wiki provides this definition: “ The United States public debt is a measure of the obligations of the United States federal government and is presented by the United States Treasury in two components and one total: Debt Held by the Public, representing all federal[1]securities held by institutions or individuals outside the United States Government;Intragovernmental Holdings, representing U.S. Treasury securities held in accounts which are administered by the United States Government, such as the OASI Trust fund administered by the Social Security Administration; andTotal Public Debt Outstanding, which is the sum of the above components.[2]
So my opinion is that gray area of the CBPP chart is actually Debt Held by the Public in the definition above, and the chart is sloppy work. So, it is hard to judge the accuracy of the chart.
I would caution comparing reality with the Clinton’s last budget estimate.
Buff, I guess you don’t agree with my Bachmann/Cain republican candidacy. ;-)) I have to admit I was not seriously proposing them as any thing other than the extreme demographic examples they represent in response to the earlier comments.
Care to elucidate me on this: “ You’ve been drinking the looney right wing koolaid a little much these days.”
Unless of course. He doesn’t. As his press release Sunday stated fairly clearly. And I stand by my laughter. Anybody who advised W on his fiscal strategery and then claimed to be responsible should elicit at least a chuckle.
I may have missed the nuance but you have been talking about some of the Reps wacko’s have it they have a chance. Gingrich, Bachmann, Trump, and others all don’t have a chnace in hell of winning the general. If the RR picks the R candidate Obama wins. Its that simple. And a number of the Reps candidates seem to try to impress the evengelicals. These guys will lose short of a total economic meltdown (which is possible, just not probable).
AS is correct. The Rep field is not that stellar. Like the Dems in 2004 and 1984, 1988, and Reps in 1996 and 2000. No clear game changer in the bunch to beat an incombent. Bush Jr would have been crushed by Clinton in 2000 if Clinton was allowed to run a 3rd term. Anyway it will be interesting – I just don’t want the RRs picking the Pres. they are almost as bad as the looney left.
AS- Sorry I knew that Daniels had decided not to run. My statement wasn’t clear.
Buff, thanks for the explanation. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who evolves as the republican candidate. Also, I don’t see the election as close as you do. It is why I keep cautioning those on the other side to remember, we are not in a two-party presidential race, yet. When it’s all about Obama’s record issues will get more clear.
Its all going to come down, IMHO, to two things. The economy and who the Rs nominate. Obama’s foriegn policy is right out of the Bush playbook, with steroids when you add in Libya, and isn’t pissing off the independants. The looney left have no where to go and will vote Obama (as will 90% + of the black vote) even if the Rs vote in a centrist. If for no other reason than to ensure the Supreme Court doesn’t get another crazy like Justice Roberts in (sarcasm off). So that leaves just those two things:
Good economy – Obama wins (landslide against RR Rep) Bad/mediocre economy – RR Rep – Obama wins (may look close if economy double dips) Bad economy – centrist Rep – Obama loses, loses big if economy seriously double dips Mediocre economy – centrist Rep – Obama probably loses by the same margins as McCain did.
Remember Obama has a lock on the black vote. Expect high turnout and 95% for Obama. This takes 13% of the population and places it in the D camp right from the start (and was the primary reason no one from the left primaried Obama – they would have no chance in the general without that big chunk of voters who would have felt betrayed that the first black president was knifed in the back by his own party). Obama needs less than 40% of the rest of the voters to win.
This is also why the out-of-the-Whitehouse party always talks down the economy even when the economy is OK. I don’t think an incumbant has lost while the economy was good ever. Truman maybe?
Stormy’s point shold be taken to heart, though I have no illusion that it will by those who most need to do so. CoRev, and to a similar extent buff and Sammy, spend an enormous amount of time and bites responding critically to any and all suggestions of solutions from others on this site. Glaringly absent from those harangues is any clear cut suggestion of a solution they might offer as an alternative to those they so vehemently critique. They complain that the statements of others do not solve the problems that they see, whether in the area of climate change or budgetary deficiency. It’s a simple process as you, CoRev like to say the the math is so straight foreward. If you’re complaining that the suggestions of others are inadequate or erroneous then come up with some better suggestions of your own.
You, CoRev, have repeatedly noted that you have outlined better solutions to the budget deficiency issue. Well I’ve been searching through your commentary on any thread remotely related to the deficit and guess what? You’re all over any suggestions to cut spending on the military, especially the wars in the middle east or suggestions regarding raising taxes on the upper tiers of income. Glaringly absent is any better suggestion of your own. There is an implication that you favor the Paul Ryan budget plan, but that has been amply demonstrated to make no contribution at all to deficit reduction. You repeatedly criticize the Health Care legislation, but ignore that it is likely to cut medical spendiing though not immediately.
The point is that you guys, you so called conservatives, know how to complain about what you label liberal approaches to these problems, but you don’t have anything to offer beyond those complaints. Put up or shut up, as they say. Let’s read a simple outline of a plan to reduce the deficit so that we can all see how much better versed you are in these matters. Up to now you’ve offered little beyond ideological bickering.
Buff, I see two ways the 2012 elections can go. 1) a very close election with Obama winning by less than 12 electoral votes, or 2) a landslide win (~200 to ~338) for a republican candiate that promises an economic recovery and reduced deficit.
AS, what part of they have not raised the “debt ceiling” do you think applies here? There are a couple of solutions to funding the disaster relief without borrowing. Internally the president can just reprogam already passed budget/spending authority, the most logical and timely solution. Or, more likely use the emergency funding in the FEMA budget.
What Cantor is saying is if the administration asks for a Continuing Resolution, neither logical due to the debt ceiling issue and seriously not timely, the CR request amounts may need to be offset. Offset because there is no debt ceiling!
Geithner also has a couple of administrative ways to fund the MO disaster relief, but that would move the date forward for the Govt to continue operating as it is today.
These are the kinds of day-to-day decisions federal agencies are about to face if the debt ceiling is not raised. I actually would prefer that racking and stacking of funding priorities to go forward. From that step the fall out would be some obvious funding decisions. Once they are identified then the debt ceiling amount could be better determined.
Two current new items that tell a story regarding the pig headed obstinance of the Republican Party leadership if not their constituents.
First paragraph of this morning’s NY Times article concerning the NY 26th district election results “Kathy Hochul won in a conservative New York district in a race that largely turned on the Republican Party’s plan to overhaul Medicare.”
And Eric Cantor from Va. best represents “compassionate conservatism”: From a South Carolina newspaper, no sense sourcing the info from those liberal media outlets like the NY Times
“Virginia U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor said Tuesday that any spending costs associated with federal disaster funding for Joplin, Missouri, tornado victims must be offset with spending cuts. The Virginia Republican said “if there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental.” The House Republican leader is the first to push for spending cuts related to the disaster that has already claimed over 100 lives. Democrats slammed the Republican leader, saying it amounted to “ransom.”
Yeah let’s see how many GOPers let Cantor or Ryan campaign for them next year. The GOP and affiliated groups including Rove’s American Crossroads group dropped a ton of money in this race: $700K from Rove, over $450K from the NRCC no to mention $2.6M spent by Corwin their candidate. This adds up to almost $70/vote about double what Meg Whitman spent to try to win the gubernatorial race in CA last year.
Cue wingnut objections that the Tea Party candidate spoiled their election in 3… 2…. 1….
CoRev asks Where's the Dem plan to save Medicare? says:
AS, there is growing evidence that it is a Dem strategy to split the conservative vote to gain leverage in an election. It has happened twice, as far as i know today, in MI and in NY. The model was the earlier NY special election where a legitimate Tea party candidate ran against a Republican and Democrat. It has been successful, so expect lots of Dems running as TP candidates in close elections in 2012.
Kinda anachronistic, isn’t it? BTW, thanks for noting the obvious.
I have, on many occaisions, thrown out solutions. My point with most of the left’s solutions are either they don’t solve the problem (all AGW solutions and others) or ratchet down on individual liberties immensely and intentionally (or grow the power and reach of the central Fed gov. which has the same effect) (every problem they are faced with).
BTW, I think Ryan’s budget plan is just as DOA as anything else currently out there. I give him kudos for at least throwing something on the table. That’s a far cry from anything we’ve seen from the deficit busting Obama proposals or anyone else on the left.
No matter how you skin it we are spending $1.4 TRILLION more than we brought in this year. To cover that your going to have to increase taxes AND cut the feds. A lot.
My solution: Repeal the Obama tax cuts, make all spending equal to the 2008 budget. Then a straight 5% across the board cut of every line item (no exceptions). Let the executive branch dole out the details below that. And that would be the warm-up.
But the bottom line: any attempt to balance the budget and actually cut programs will career end a lot of congress-critters who want to hang on a long time. So they will keep pushing this to another day.
The F-35 is an abyssmal failure, the Navy won’t kill it, and the senate will argue about it.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 GAO 11-677T Testimony:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11677t.pdf
See Pg 5: “After a Nunn-McCurdy breach of the critical cost growth threshold and DOD certification, the most recent milestone must be rescinded, the program restructured to address the cause of the breach, and a new acquisition program baseline must be approved that reflects the certification approved by the milestone decision authority.”
So, back to the drawing boards. Not so bad: Table 2 shows all the things JSF cannot do, but should. Table 2 show the watered down plan and how it is being met, somewhat out of line with the facts, but the plan is not the plan that got the JSF its last milestone, it has been revised for scrap and rework beyond plan.
Figure 2 design changes are expensive scrap and rework and they usually cost in qualityas well.
Figure 3: Bodes badly, justify going back to drawing board and maybe kill the thing.
Figure4: says just kill the thing!
Figure 5: Says to me we don’t know what we will get for JSF in Block 1. Just kill it.
I would beg Boeing to bring in their design which “lost” in 2002. The Lockheed […]
Then Senate gets into it today:
Just kill the F-35!!
From Aviation Week on line:
“It seems to me [prudent that] we at least begin considering alternatives,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said during a hearing May 19, after hearing that current estimates show the program’s development and sustainment are unaffordable.
That idea does not sit well with the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Ashton Carter, who says the Pentagon has no good alternative to the next-generation stealthy fighter, even though the cost to sustain the program into the future is an eye-popping $1 trillion, adjusted for inflation over its lifespan. That is less than the cost to sustain the F-22, about the same as the F-15, and more than either the F-16 or the F-18.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), from the home state of the program’s Ft. Worth production facilities, says that the Pentagon needs to do all it can to protect the JSF. “If you’re going to put all your eggs in one basket, you ought to protect that basket.” Cornyn says.
Then:
Others picked up on McCain’s comment, however, including Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who pressed Carter on exactly how much cost the Pentagon would like to see removed from the sustainment estimate.
Carter says he is aiming to reduce costs by 20% to 50%. “It’s not a small amount,” Carter says.
The thing don’t need to fly!! Then the airplane is not needed.
Just kill it!!
I used to do sustainment planning, if you don’t buy it up front the things do not work. If anything the current estimates are way low given all the changes and poor testing of the F-35.
Here’s how its going on the AGW front
Most of the AGW predictions are from computer models, and one of the leaders of the catastrophic predictions, has a new paper. After we see the obligatory statement “my new paper proves AGW” there’s a little surprise. Here’s the abstract
Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications
James Hansen (1), Makiko Sato (1), Pushker Kharecha (1), Karina von Schuckmann (2) ((1) NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, (2) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) (Submitted on 5 May 2011) Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain constrain the net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be -1.6 \pm 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. A recent decrease in ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era can readily be accounted for by thermal expansion of the ocean and ice melt, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate a near-term acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. (My bolding)
Hansen admits that the models are over estimating heat. We already know they do not handle water vapor and clouds well. They also are over estimating Ocean Heat Content (see chart below), so how much further will this dubious science be pushed.
Wow. CoRev doesn’t even understand what Hansen wrote, yet he posts about it. What Hansen wrote was that the models have overestimated the efficiency of the transfer of heat from the atmosphere and upper ocean into the deep ocean. This is not the same thing at all as over estimating heat. The phrase that CoRev put in bold isn’t that hard to understand, yet CoRev’s post misses the point entirely.
JimS, it appears you have missed the point. To be clear it was: how much further will this dubious model-based science be pushed? We are finding huge errors in today’s models.
There is a a really goood artcile written by William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I highly recomment it. It can be found here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
One of its points that relates diectly to my above reference is: “The frightening warnings that alarmists offer about the effects of doubling CO2 are based on computer models that assume that the direct warming effect of CO2 is multiplied by a large “feedback factor” from CO2-induced changes in water vapor and clouds, which supposedly contribute much more to the greenhouse warming of the earth than CO2. But there is observational evidence that the feedback factor is small and may even be negative. The models are not in good agreement with observations—even if they appear to fit the temperature rise over the last 150 years very well.”
It concludes with: “Life is about making decisions, and decisions are about trade-offs. We can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or we can be caught up in a crusade that seeks to suppress energy use, economic growth, and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.”
It is now 8:05AM, May 21st, in NY. I have not been “raptured”. I heard the other night that the church members of the wacky church have been donating at the pace of about 15M yearly and that the church is currently worth about $72M. Not a bad business plan, and the profit ratio to costs is likely enormous. Why not appoint the gentleman to be Secty of the Treasury. His technique is unorthodox, but he’s getting results.
Jack, oddly enough, I haven’t been raptured either. But, I didn’t expect to be. When I kept asking awkward questions in Sunday school, one of my teachers told me that if I kept it up I’d go to Hell. I kept it up, of course. And, my fate was settled by the time I was nine. Certainty in life is a good thing. NancyO
i asked for an interpretation of that from a climate blogger:
actually, as far as current warming goes, what Hansen says is that the
models are supposing that the oceans are absorbing more heat than they
are (I think that is a good thing that the oceans may not contain as
much heat as we think they do since it stays there so long – much
easier for it to leave the atmosphere). But if that is true, then he
says that aerosols (like dust and soot) are shielding the ocean. The problem is
that we need to reduce aerosols to slow down the melting of snow and
ice in the Arctic and Himalayas, but as he says, it is a Faustian
bargain. Aerosols cause global dimming because they reduce the amount
of sunlight coming through the clouds. Remove the aerosols and we will
get more sunlight and thus more heat. Hansen wants modellers to have a
better grasp of the size of the effect of the negative forcing of
aerosols so that they will have a better idea of what will happen if
they are removed.
Newt Gingrinch may have finally got something right (Ryan’s Medicare plan won’t work) and he is being hammered for it.
What goes around comes around Karma?
Anyone ever give thought that if Heaven is up there somewhere in the clouds, then this must be Hell down here on Earth!
rjs, I agree: “ Hansen wants modellers to have a
better grasp of the size of the effect of the negative forcing of
aerosols so that they will have a better idea of what will happen if
they are removed.” And that was the point. If the catastrophic predictions are wrong, then the solutions are also bad/unneeded.
The models may have the physics all wrong, or as we can see at best only partially correct. Aerosols is only one negative forcing they have wrong, clouds and perhaps even water vapor, appear to be wrong and over stated.
Remember, in the models it is the water vapor that drives much of the warming for all the attention given to CO2. We must also remember the model predictions are diverging from observations, and knowing why is important. It is unlikely to be just one feedback/forcing.
Norman
yes. at least, if you have time and want to read a really good play about Ireland and economics, you might enjoy George Bernard Shaw, “John Bull’s Other Island.” It was written in about 1910.
Actually, he doesn’t put it quite the way you did, but the point is the same.
rusty,
The language Gingrich used (“radical right wing social engineering”) is that of the liberal opposition. His trust level was already in the toilet because of his support for AGW legislation.
It’s a case of not ‘what’ was said, but ‘how’ it was said.
So glad we have an informative voice regarding AGW. Here is a bit of news from 17 Nobel Laureates: http://globalsymposium2011.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/The-Stockholm-Memorandum.pdf
“Humans are now the most significant driver of global change, propelling the planet into a new geological epoch, the
Anthropocene. We can no longer exclude the possibility that our collective actions will trigger tipping points, risking abrupt and irreversible consequences for human communities and ecological systems.
We cannot continue on our current path. The time for procrastination is over. We cannot afford the luxury of denial. We must respond rationally, equipped with scientific evidence. “
Hmmmmm. Anthropocene.
Addendum (Should have included it):
“There are compelling reasons to rethink the conventional model of economic development. Tinkering with the economic system that generated the global crises is not enough. “
Hmmmm. I do not think we will easily set aside our tinker toys.
Stormy, it’s comments like this: ““There are compelling reasons to rethink the conventional model of economic development. Tinkering with the economic system that generated the global crises is not enough. “ that make conservatives more than suspicious.
Did you read my Happer reference above? It pretty much describes why skeptics still do not believe.
Stormy,
I pulled up a list of the Nobel participants. It looks like it consists of a lot of people who either benefit directly from environmental alarmism, or are way out of their area of experise.
http://globalsymposium2011.org/participants
The BBC’s Paul Hudson got Hansen’s article completely backwards. What
Hansen was saying is that the models are making estimates of warming
that are too low because they have not factored in enough of the
negative feedback of aerosols. This means that the climate is even
MORE sensitive to CO2 than the models currently suggest. Hansen was
already at the high end with his estimate of 4 degrees C for a
doubling of CO2 – now he is saying that the sensitivity could be 6 to
8 degrees. Basically, we are even more screwed than we already thought we were.
Without the negative feedback from the aerosols things will get a lot
hotter. Hansen has been publishing on aerosols for at least 20 years.
rjs, would you provide a link to the Hansen interpretation, please?
And this makes no sense with today’s observations: “ Basically, we are even more screwed than we already thought we were.
Without the negative feedback from the aerosols things will get a lot
hotter. Hansen has been publishing on aerosols for at least 20 years.”
Hansen’s 1988 predictions, those that were done in Congressional testimony on a hot summer day when Gore had the AC turned off the night before, have been proven very wrong. See the chart below. Hansen’s AGW scientific prowess is not considered to be very high. Much too much political advocacy and too little objectivity.
So much for an attempt at a little llevity… :))
Sense of humor:
AMC (the old movie channel) is running a Conan the Barbarian night.
A couple of the lines by and about Arnold take on a whole new meaning.
Remember the S&P ratings downgrade for US treasuries? From Calculated Risk this is what interest rates look like for those countries with less than high ratings: “The yield on Greece ten year bonds increased to a record 16.6% and the two year yield was up slightly to 25.5%.
Here are the ten year yields for Ireland at 10.5%, Portugal at 9.4%, Italy at 4.8%, and Spain at 5.5%.”
Wonder why conservatives keep harping on controlling the debt? Consider doubling/tripling/quadrupling or even more our current interest payments which already exceed 6% of the overall budget.
Not nearly as big or wide spread as you’d like to believe.
Very wrong?? Not even close to being true, CoRev. But of course that’s why you use a graph with no attribution that emphasizes the RSS data instead of GISS data. For those who would like to read something about the claims that people like CoRev make about Hansen’s 1988 projections here is something from RealClimate and something else from Skeptical Science. But what is another fact to discredit the point that CoRev wants to make? For you to assume that since projections made in 1988 aren’t exactly right then nothing being done ever since can be any better. The assumption must be made that nothing has been learned from further research and that better computers, efforts to improve the software and models that have learned from the errors of the past make no difference since Hansen made his projections. How anyone can actually believe those things without being a fact free conspiracy lover is beyond me.
You complain about Hansen being involved in politics and then turn around and push an article from the chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank that is published by a conservative religious publication that has nothing to do with science. Working hard on that hypocrisy merit badge, CoRev.
Well…. no Nobel Laureates here. Or… do you have any you would like to trot forward? Impugn the motives if you cannot attack the science. Sigh.
Stormy,
AGW is a very questionable theory. We shouldn’t base policy on biased and/or uninformed people.
JimS, attacking the person and not the content is a sure sign of a weak argument. Being involved in politics and not objective science, when your scientific findings are weak, is also a sign of politrical advocacy and not science. Hansen has been far from the top of the AGW scientific community for quite some time.
Finally, I included this article to explain why there is growing skepticism toward AGW/CAGW. It’s scientific underpinnings are weak and observational proof, the real confirmation of the science, nearly nonexistent.
Stormy, did you actually look at the list Sammy provided? Remember Al Gore, Pachauri, and even Obama are Nobel winners, and at least two of those three are loosely related to the AGW science. Not true of the list of signers.
Mitch Daniels decides not to run! The field is diminished with his decision.
Several times each week we hear the liberal/democratic solution to balancing the budget as stop paying for the war and restore the tax rate to pre-Bush rates. My response is to ask those same purveyors of class warfare and mistrust of capitalism to just do the math!
Accordingly my intent is to provide the following response every open thread after we see the same nonsensical solution.
The solution has to get us to a balanced budget in some time frame. Let’s start with the CBO deficit projection of $1.5T to $1.7T for 2011. I’ll even provide some of your numbers for you to get started.
The Bush tax cuts ~$272.3B* for 2011.
The 2% FICA cut is projected at ~$112B for 2011.
Cost of wars ~$100B for 2011.
* Oops! the bulk ($232B) of those revenue gains come from those making under $250K/Yr
Good job, liberals. Your approach still leaves >$1T in deficits and hurts the middle class and risks slowing economic growth. Way to go! For once, just do the math instead of repeating the ideological talking points.
JimS said: “But of course that’s why you use a graph with no attribution that emphasizes the RSS data instead of GISS data.” The chart has been used several time here. It is from http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/first-quarter-2011-update-of-nodc-ocean-heat-content-0-700meters/#more-537
When referring to GISS versus RSS data is the below chart what you mean? Remember the Tisdale chart centers the data sets on 2003 to better show the different trend slopes. Notice the slopes in the below chart. It is from here: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/rss-uah-giss-comparison/
Which…. Hasn’t happened. As (so sorry) Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman observed, 10 year UST yields are actually down recently. Keep hunting those vigilantes though they have to be somewhere!!!!
The diminished field of midgets.
It’s a real puzzler to me how a once dominant party, one that recently controlled the entire government for nearly a decade can’t seem to find a workable electorally viable opposition candidate.
The right wing is obsessed with characterizing the current administration as a socialist, anti-business anti-middle class, promoter of reverse racism against white people but can’t inspire or recruit a credible leader capable of making that case. The mystery continues!
NPR headline on Daniels decision not to run: “…Daniels disappointed many republicans who hoped he would run based on his strong fiscal record…” I had to laugh out loud. The man who ran Ws OMB while it turned a $236B surplus into a $400B deficit was hailed as a strong fiscal leader.
Well I guess we know what the benchmark is now.
AS, it’s still too early to make substantive statements re: the republican field. A Bachmann/Cain or vice versa would be a powerful anti-Obama campaign. As I’ve already said the republicans aren’t running a presidential race yet. When they do it will all be about Obama, and nasty as all get out from the democrats. Your comments might just be early, light weight representations.
You mean like the theory that tax cuts reduce deficits? That theory?
Stormy, good to see you rejoining the fray. Your acceptance of the Hansen paper, and your reference to: “We cannot continue on our current path. The time for procrastination is over. We cannot afford the luxury of denial. We must respond rationally, equipped with scientific evidence. ” are very intriguing.
So what you’re saying is that cleaning up aerosol pollution causes global warming? I look forward to the “Produce More Aerosol Pollution” campaign from you and the Green/Environmental lobby. Since the science is so clear, I went to Wiki to get a semi-public definition of and examples for aerosols, and they are smoke, oceanic haze, air pollution, smog and CS gas.
I’m waiting! ;-))
CoRev at this point I would think that your math should be directed at the FY 2012 budget numbers that, hopefully, Congress soon will be debating. Do you have ideas other than what’s out there for the coming year? OMB’s proposal is for a $1.1T deficit, and the GOP/Ryan House-passed budget is for a $1.0T deficit. (The differences are $200B less in spending and $100B less in taxes in the GOP House budget; I don’t know the source of the lower revenue, given the December 2010 compromise tax bill; the difference in spending is attributable to cuts in food stamps, unemployment compensation, student loans, Medicare/Medicaid, and non-security discretionary spending that presumably is detailed someplace beyond broad categories.)
If conservatives did levity Dennis Miller would still have a career.
Let the waiting continue!
PJR, I would cut defense. Start with the cuts defined in the House Resolution and cut additionally by ~$125B. Remove the Bush tax cuts for ~$272B. The improving economy should add an additional ~$100 to $150B. That total gets us to the $900+ to $950+ range for annual cuts. Freeze spending at the level for 2 years and let a growing economy get us to near balance in the budget. Once close to balance we can add some minor tax increases to pay down the debt and begin limiting spending growth to economic growth projections, till we hit the next bursting bubble. Included in these steps are the minor steps needed to balance SS, and some small increases in medicare taxes.
If its not obvious the key steps are stop increasing spending and improve the economy. The current administration is totally incapable of doing this.
BTW, Medicare can be made at least 5-10% more efficient than it is today by asking seniors to combine Dr visits, and using one Dr as the maintenance monitor for chronic diseases. Today’s system makes the opposite approach (multiple specialist visits) the preferred approach for those elderly with controlled chronic diseases/conditions.
There are many areas such as Medicare where fiddling on the edges to add efficiency that savings could be realized. One area is ILSM’s favorite, military procurements.
CoRev
one trouble with your sense of argument is you have no memeory. the lets pump aerosols into the atmosphere meme has been out for awhile, promoted by some other lame brain idiots. as far as i know not taken up by the global warming conspiracy who, as you know, are not interested in making smog, but in enslaving the rich.
it is fairly typical of bad-faith political “arguments” to rely on the limited attention span of their audience to push one emotional “conclusion” at a time. some people i know think you are a bad-faith arguer. i think you are the victim of one.
I’m perfectly fine with just plain old bad.
I like the idea of freezing spending:
“Dear, my gambling debts are really high this year, we are going to have to hold our spending for groceries to the level they were two years ago.”
“But, Dear, we’ve had two children since then.”
“So what you want. Me to give up gambling?”
“Well, Dear…”
“But then how would we ever get ahead?”
CoRev my math says your plan successfully reduces the deficit to just under $500B for FY 2012 by (a) adding $272B to OMB’s revenue plan by cancelling all the Bush tax cuts and (b) subtracting $125B from defense from the lower GOP House spending plan and C) Medicare efficiency measures. I agree that economic growth is key to deficit reduction but I suspect your FY 2012 deficit reduction plans might seriously undermine this goal. (Not that the GOP House or OMB plans would do much to boost it.) On the subject of basic arithmetic and deficits, this article offers some simple reminders: http://streetlightblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/some-simple-deficit-reduction.html
PJR, my apologies for not being clear. I started with this statement: “Start with the cuts defined in the House Resolution…” but did not include the estimated amount of ~$400B which should be added to the ~$500B.
Your reference relies on a relatively large multiplier, as did Romer while estimating the effect of the stimulus. Regrettably, the jury may have a different opinion of the “multiplier” after the stimulus. IIRC, the actual GDP growth was closer to even with stimulus spending. Furthermore we forget that the “G” portion of the GDP calculation first came from the private sector side of the equation, so may actually be a wash.
As to undermining the efficiency gains, I’m not so sure. They would appear to be independent from any prior spending baseline.
This is probably the fourth or fifth time I have proposed something similar as a plant for cutting the deficit. I also proposed using the debt ceiling as the catalyst to rack and stack the targeted programs for cutting that ~$400 portion.
CoRev, sir. Excuse me, but had you not noticed that no one seems to be taking your comments in regards to the budget (or global warming for hat matter) seriously. You’ve got lots of numbers and suppositions you seem to enjoy throwing out, but it amounts to little more than a bit of hot air. Say, you’re contributing to climate change without even intending to do so. What is even more difficult to understand in the midst of all your banter about the size of potential savings on this or that budgetary manipulation is that you keep throwing in references to liberals whom you see as being responsible fo the budget issues that you highlight. Just what liberals might that be? Are thy in the Congress? Are they in the White House? Just where re all these liberals that are responsible for all of our economic problems? Do you seriously believe that liberals are in control of some branch of our government? Or have been in a position of control in the past three decades? I think it was George McGovern who might have been the last liberal elected to public office. Oh yes, there were a couple of guys from Wisconsin some years back. Wellstone, I think it was. The others name escapees me. Those liberals you complain about have had so little influence that it’s hard to keep them in mind.
CoRev,
But the unwarranted influnce of all the war graft…………………………
The war budget is 20% of outlays, and those outlays are a jobs and dividend spreading process with no value to 98% of the people.
I don’t worry so much about the deficit, I worry about the fraud waste and abuse that needs to be cut and the false hope that Lockheed or Prat and Whitney or Boeing might someday come through if needed.
Better, by orders of magnitude, is fiscal stimulus to build roads in the US not hire Pakistani’s to run Mac Donalds at US posts in SW Asia.
Jack said: “Just what liberals might that be?” For one, you, NanO, ILSM, and the several others who make the same claim that cutting “war/defense/national security” spending and renewing the Bush tax cuts will balance the budget.
Because I have asked, you in particular, to do the math and several times actually provided the math that I frustatedly added the comment to which you responded. It’s Ok to be ignorant of an issue, but to continue ignorance without trying to learn is just ideologic. Find another soap box upon which to stand. The one you are using is too low!
Using what I would think to be an acceptable better source than CoRev we find the cost of war discussed as follows:
“While spending on Afghanistan grew between FY2010 and FY2011, DOD’s average spending in Iraq fell from $7.9 billion to $6.2 billion or by about 20% while troop strength dropped from 141,000 to 96,000, by about one-third, as the U.S. withdrawal continues. Troop strength in Iraq is projected to average 43,000 in FY2011 and to fall to 4,450 in FY2012 with all troops out of Iraq by December
2011 according to the U.S. security agreement with Iraq. On March 18th, 2011, the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution was enacted (H.J.Res. 48/P.L. 111-6). In the case of DOD’s war funding, the current CR, H.R. 1, and S.Amdt. 149 to H.R. 1 all
set DOD’s war funding at close to the FY2011 request. For State Department diplomatic operations and foreign aid, the current CR could reduce funding by about $1 billion below the FY2011 request of $7.6 billion. VA medical spending is likely to match the request. CRS has lowered its previous estimate of war funding in FY2010 to $165 billion because DOD spent about $3 billion less than anticipated, transferring $885 million of war funds to its base budget and allowing some $2 billion in funding to lapse and be returned to the Treasury. Congress also included about $5 billion in non-war programs in funding designated as for “Other Contingency Operations.”
Although DOD’s FY2012 request of $118 billion fell in proportion to the 25% fall in troop levels from 212,000 in FY2011 to 158,000 in FY2012, this funding could be more than necessary in light of recent experience and potential troop decreases. If the overall war FY2012 request of $132 billion is enacted, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would reach $1.415 trillion. According to CBO’s latest projection, war costs for FY2012-FY2021 could total another $496 billion if troop levels fell from 180,000 in FY2011 to 45,000 by FY2015 and remained at that level through FY2021. Under that scenario, war costs through FY2021 would total $1.8 trillion.”
That’s from a summary of a report by Amy Belasco for the Congressional Research Service entitled:
The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
That’s a lot more than the paltry $100B noted by CoRev on an annualized basis. Lately his BS has become pervasive on this site. His information does not have the degree of validity that he likes to suggest.
No. They are not running a presidential race. They are running away from one.
Jack, OK, we’ll use your numbers: “If the overall war FY2012 request of $132 billion is enacted, war funding since the 9/11 attacks would reach $1.415 trillion.” So we’ve moved from a paltry $100B to a massive $132B. You’re still over $1T in deficits just for 2012. What bothers me is you probably still do not understand that!
And we wouldn’t have that deficiency in the budget had that $1.4 Trillion not been pissed down the tubes. And note that that figure does not include the enormous, almost incalculable, amount of tangential expenses arising from the war such as medical care and deah benefits for thousands of military personnel that would otherwise be alive and well.
As you probably know Stiglitz estimated the total cost of the wars to be over $3Trillion several years ago.
Add to that the cost of the income tax policies from 2001 which are estimated to be about $2.7Trillion. So what would the deficit be if ouor government had been acting in a responsible manner in regards to taxation and military adventurism? Looks like we’d have a substantial surplus on our hands and maybe that would have helped ease the effects of the financial industries irresponsible behavior. Instead we have a deep deficit and a bunch of deceptive criers out there blaming every thing, but the real causes of the problems.
I can’t say that the Republican base won’t choose Michelle Bachmann as its front runner, but watch her give a speech or two. Listen to the content of her commentary on vartious issues, especially from prior to her becoming a potential candidate. We have reached a new low in our lowest common denominator. She is ignorant of social, economic, national and international issues. The Queen Mother in England seems better prepared to be the President than does Michelle Bachmann. Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish and he could probably beat Bachmann. Her appeal is very limited on a nationwide basis.
Jack, you inability to think logically and do simple math is extraordinary. Let’s use your, even again, new numbers.
Total Deficit $14.3T
Tax cuts -$2.7T
Stiglitz est. -$3.0T
War funding -$1.4T*
?Surplus? ——–
————-$7.2T or $8.6T* still in deficit.
* is this double counted with Stiglitz? Perhaps.
This is simple adding and subtracting, but it appears your ideology is blinding you. Let’s dicuss the chart below, to see if it’s all Bush’s fault. Note the chart is a year old and does not include the $1.7T Obama 2012 projected budget deficit.
Jack, Shhh! Why ruin a perfectly useful delusion?
Data courtesy CBPP on the sources of the deficit:
CoRev,
I love that chart. Its amazig the left can’t handle it. Obama is going to run deficits that make Bush Jr look downright spendthrift in comparison.
And blaming it on the war is hilarious. The war was bi-partisanly supported every single time there was a vote on it. EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. And since Obama took office we’ve seen the consolidation, on Bush’s time table, of the US victory in Iraq and the Obama surge in Afghanistan. And don’t forget Obama widening the War on terror into Libya, without even a fig leaf of a vote from congress (and not even a hat-tip to the War Powers Act that just expired). Considering the anti-war left doesn’t exit anymore all those protests during the Bush years were just protest becuase their guy wasn’t in office. Its blantantly obvious the Dems don’t care about the war as long as their guy is running it. And when the Dems are actually asked to vote and take a stand on the war they supported the war overwelmingly.
Yet they continue to stand by the idea that there is no problem and its all Bush’s fault. Guess what? Bush has been gone for over two years now and I’m still waiting for my 5.4% GDP growth….
Islam will change
PJR, re: the “multipliers” I ran across this chart today which show that they may actually have been negative. IIRC, ARRA was ~$800B over three years. If the 1.5 multipliers had panned out the recovery would have been in the $1.2T range. From the chart below the multiplier appears to be less than 1.0.
AS, nice chart. Note the early period, 2001-2007, Bush wanted his tax cuts to stop the Fed Govt from over collecting taxes, and what happened was even through a recession and attack, they leveled public debt with GDP growth.
The chart also puts the lie to the oft proposed without the Bush tax cuts we would have been able to pay off our public debt.
The chart also shows the importance of rapidly getting us out of a recession. The 2001 recession doesn’t even show up on the chart, but the delayed response to this one is obvious. another obvious point is the value of TARP. It had almost no impact at raising debt, but stabilized the banking industry.
Two different administrations and two different approaches to solving economic problem. Your chart shows the impact/success of each approach.
rdan,
Anyway to get the threads to show the earliest comment first and go to the latest last?
Thanks – BP
It also shows how much smaller the deficit would be without the wars and especially the bush tax cuts. It also shows how irresponsible it was for Obama to extend them as part of the deal to get a budget done last year.
I find your worry about Bush’s “over collecting” taxes to be interesting given that he was running deficits even before the tax cuts. Why wasn’t the administration worried about under collecting taxes? Especially given our new found deficit obsession (by useless leaders of both useless parties, acknowledged)
On the Wars I defer to Buffy’s comment.
Forgotten already the CBO estimate of running surpluses as far as they could see in 2000? Do you actually think the Fed Govt taking more in taxes than necessary from the private sector is good? Do you really believe that that ole benevolent and big Fed Govt spends your money better than you? I dunno, seems a little weird economically.
No I didn’t forget. I believed then as I do now that the long term benefit of those surpluses was to retire the existing (already significant) debt. Reducing interest payments to bondholders etc. It was all the rage when the tools on wall street sold Slick Willie on it. Funny how that discipline evaporated once a rich oil man got into office.
AS, look back at your chart to see that retiring the debt was transient. Also, understand that retiring the publicly held debt hurts the many retirement funds so invested. That ole rule of unintended consequences is still in place and active.
Buff, don’t you just wish we had the ole Bush $178B or maybe the prior year’s $248B deficit back? The bad ole days don’t seem so bad anymore, but the same crowd crowing over those horrible deficits are now … well you know.
Appologies if it has already been posted but if anyone trades Forex, EWI have a free week running at the moment…. EWI Forex Analysis Free Week
CoRev,
I won’t get into it with you Heritage and buff.
It was not an attack on the person, just pointing out that he is a non-climatologist who also currently has as his primary profession political advocacy, not science. And the comments you make about Hansen are only true in the community you follow, the deniers of science for the sake of their politics. Everything you post comes from places that do nothing but misrepresent the science, which is the only thing you do as well.
AS what I do not completely grasp about this graphic, which is making the rounds, is the grey area under the line for “debt without these factors” because it has to be attributed to some other factors. The last Clinton OMB budget proposal, for FY 2001, showed the public debt would reach zero in 2013. I notice the line is on a downward slope, roughly as projected by the FY 2001 budget proposal, through 2007 but something must have begun in 2008 that isn’t depicted in the graphic to keep the grey area from falling. (I’d guess the economic downturn, but that’s already on the graphic.) So what’s missing?
Absolutely amazing that sammy or anyone else can challenge Nobel winners in chemistry, physics, b iology, etc…duh… as either ignorant of of what is happening or as just self-serving idiots intent on fattening their wallets.
I am not exactly sure what Nobel prize winners sammy or others would like to trot forward. I certainly have looked closely at the signers of the latest document.
As for me, I have lived long enough (71 years) to know that we are changing the planet in my short life span. Anyone who thinks otherwise has his or her head firmly buried in the mud. The question is: Will the changes we have wrought create a real sewer for us?
Time to up the discussion, boys. Don’t think you are advancing thought by simply throwing mud at people. It really gets tiring hearing it ad nauseum.
I finally got tired of reading the knee jerk stuff, thoughtless stuff.
Try thinking about population growth, land decimation, species decline…move outside how you think about climate change…and actually think about how we are changing the planet.
Please, CoRev, if you are not willing to be balanced and thoughtful, do not just fill the space with your rather narrow view of AGW…as if it were gospel. Don’t do it. Let the site be an economic one….
By the time I stopped writing for this blog, I knew the fuitlity of even mentioning climate change, or planet change…pollution, water and soil…resource depletion, biodiversity loss….I gave up talking about them….or weaving them into an economic outlook.
I would not have minded an intelligent, thoughtful response, acknowledging at least some of the problems we are creating for ourselves…but what I got was sheer lunacy….a complete inability to think that anything was wrong.
If you think we can continue to increase human population indefinitely, or that we can continue to pour pollants willy nilly anywhere and everywhere…or that we could not conceivably pollute the atomosphere or the oceans…then I really have nothing to say to you….
And frankly, I would not want to write for a blog where any mention of these problems will be howled down by such idiocy.
JimS said: “ he is a non-climatologist…” Wiki says is a specialist in “Spectroscopy is the study of the interaction between matter and radiated energy…. Spectroscopic studies were central to the development of quantum mechanics and included Max Planck’s explanation of blackbody radiation, Albert Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect and Niels Bohr’s explanation of atomic structure and spectra. Spectroscopy is used in physical and analytical chemistry because atoms and molecules have unique spectra.”
If you have studied climatology (and the related sciences one of which is physics) you will know that his specialty is the core of the understanding irradiance in the climate change theory and implemented in the calculations of the GCMs. It’s one of those core functions of the theory.
Victory CoRev. Fwiw I don’t blame you. You’ve got your ignorance and you’ve got your stupidity. One of them is correctable.
buff,
“The war was bi-partisanly supported every single time there was a vote on it.”
Mencken was right, and this is what it looks like when the “monkey cage” runs the circus.
Monkey cages using unwarranted influence…………………
Stormy, my friend (yes, folks, we are friendly, and have talked off line) that was a well written request. I agree with your call: “Time to up the discussion, boys.”, but a discussion will almost always have contradictory point of view. It appears that you prefer discussion be an echo chamber of single views.
You then went on to state: “Don’t think you are advancing thought by simply throwing mud at people.” Pointing out that the Nobel winners on the list were not core providers to the science in question is not throwing mud but an attempt to have a discussion over their qualifications. JimS did the same when he questioned the qualifications of Dr Happer, the author of my reference, and it ended with my response showing how his expertise actually did apply to the science. Having a differing point of view actually can/may advance thought more than gross agreement.
You then go on to say: “I finally got tired of reading the knee jerk stuff, thoughtless stuff.” From this I can only conclude that having differing views and discussing them is not allowed or appreciated in a discussion with you. Why?
You go on to request: “Please, CoRev, if you are not willing to be balanced and thoughtful … Let the site be an economic one…. ” but what is really confusing is your follow-on comment: “By the time I stopped writing for this blog, I knew the fuitlity of even mentioning climate change, or planet change…pollution, water and soil…resource depletion, biodiversity loss….I gave up talking about them….or weaving them into an economic outlook.” Even you admit that economic discussions includes environmental and climate issues, but wish them to be only on your view point because they are not balanced and thoughtful (as your views)?
Stormy, the truly confusing part of your comment is this: “I would not have minded an intelligent, thoughtful response, acknowledging at least some of the problems we are creating for ourselves…” but they were never presented. Instead you have used terms such as: idiocy, (not) balanced and thoughtful, throwing mud, knee jerk stuff, thoughtless stuff, and finally call those with other views lunatics. Using name calling is not often a successful approach to an intelligent and thoughtful discussion.
Stormy, please don’t take these comments personally. They are an attempt to illustrate the faultiness of your logic, not of the sciences (climate change and economics, etc.) but of how we should discuss issues. Differing views are potential learning points. Echo chambers seldom are.
Otherwise, be well, my friend.
AS, victory? Over what? And, why did you resort to name calling? As Stormy requested, “time to up the discussion”. If you have a point make it!
Supreme court ruling on the A-12, the longest and largest contract litigation ever!! Terminated in 1990, when I was just a mid grade PM!
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/
“The justices unanimously set aside a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Navy had been justified in canceling the contract for the A-12 radar-evading attack plane after it encountered serious technical difficulties.”
“The justices sent the case back to the appeals court to consider other issues.
The justices said that when state secrets must be protected and a court dismisses a contractor’s defenses to government allegations of contract breach, the proper remedy is to leave the parties where they were on the day they filed suit.”
Dick Cheney stood up and cancelled the loser, a fate most of the recent programs should share.
You can’t reason with unreasonable people.
AS, of course you can if you make a complete and reasonable argument. Name calling does not qualify! I thought your chart was a reasonable discussion. The two views were presented, and no minds were changed, BUT, the viewpoints were reasonably presented.
I suspect what you are really saying is that you have not convinced others, me included, that your argument is more valid than theirs. Too often all we see is argument by sarcasm, a frequent approach of yours, and argument by ridicule. Neither makes a point nor are they convincing, but they also too often result in responses in kind.
Strangely, Dale with reasonable presentations convinced me about the validity of the NW plan several years past.
CoRev,
I disagree with AS on many things but in this case he’s right on the money. You’ve been drinking the looney right wing koolaid a little much these days. No one who is big with the Religous Right (RR) has a chance vs. even a weakend Obama. Bachmann doesn’t have a chance short of the economy imploding (10% unemployment isn’t it either) or the proverbial dead girl/live boy scenario. Obama is very vulnerable, but if the Reps send up a nutcase he will get re-elected in a landslide. No one who doesn’t beleive in evolution will (or should) win. No one who doesn’t laugh at the ‘young earth’ people will be or deserves to be President. And they won’t. If we get a looney RR type running as the Rep nominee I might even pull the lever for Obama! Better the incompetant I know than someone that will be far worse. A divided gov will keep Obama in line – though obviously won’t stop he Dem President from expanding the war.
AS – Explain to me exactly how the Director of the OMB has any control over the fiscal spending of the Feds? Daniels would run on his strong fiscal record as a governor. Get a grip.
Islam will change
Stormy,
“If you think we can continue to increase human population indefinitely,…”
Great – exactly how do you propose to slow the growth of the most proplificat and least economically/scientifically contributing people on the planet? How exactly do you plan to reduce the Islamic, Chinese, Indian, and sub-sahara Africa populations to below replacement rate so we can reduce the human population? I really want to know your plan.
The US has 300 million people, roughly 5% of the world population and the lower 48 are part of the least population dense but most productive area of the world. The US doesn’t need to reduce. Heck we feed the world. The US is cleaner and greener now than it was 50 years ago. Did you know there are more trees in Ohio now than at the trn of the century (1900)? Do you remember the LA smogs and how bad it was? Well its gone now but if you want to sample a bygone era just travel to any Chinese industrial town.
So call me when you come up with a plan to cut Egypts poulation by 50% so it can have a reasonable chance to feed itself. Ditto India and Pakistan. Let’s see the plan to change the incredibly disfunction cultures of the Islamic world or sub-saharan Africa. We have more than enough food on the planet and areble land. Its the tyrannical governments around the world whose failed command economies that are letting people die. Call me when you get around to a plan to change them.
We can argue all we want about cap & trade or milage requirements or green rooftops or windmills in Puget Sound. But none of that will amount to a grain of sand on the beach until you get the rest of the world onboard. The senate voted 97-0 against Kyoto for a reason.
My solution has always been the same: A crash program into solar, nuclear fusion, and battery technology combined with expanding the capabilities of GM crops to provide food and energy for all until we can change the crappy cultures world-wide into something at least semi-civilized. If that fails at least cushion the collapse in the third world.
But until you can fix the rest of the world all the AGW angst in the US won’t matter at all except to cripple our economy.
Come on back Stormy – I always liked your posts even when I thought they were totally pie-in-the-sky ideas that could never happen.
Islam will change
PJR, since no one else has taken a chance, I will. Wiki provides this definition: “
The United States public debt is a measure of the obligations of the United States federal government and is presented by the United States Treasury in two components and one total:
Debt Held by the Public, representing all federal[1] securities held by institutions or individuals outside the United States Government;Intragovernmental Holdings, representing U.S. Treasury securities held in accounts which are administered by the United States Government, such as the OASI Trust fund administered by the Social Security Administration; andTotal Public Debt Outstanding, which is the sum of the above components.[2]
Which is accompanied by a chart the directly contradicts CBPP’s chart. The Wiki chart is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt
So my opinion is that gray area of the CBPP chart is actually Debt Held by the Public in the definition above, and the chart is sloppy work. So, it is hard to judge the accuracy of the chart.
I would caution comparing reality with the Clinton’s last budget estimate.
Buff, I guess you don’t agree with my Bachmann/Cain republican candidacy. ;-)) I have to admit I was not seriously proposing them as any thing other than the extreme demographic examples they represent in response to the earlier comments.
Care to elucidate me on this: “ You’ve been drinking the looney right wing koolaid a little much these days.”
Unless of course. He doesn’t. As his press release Sunday stated fairly clearly. And I stand by my laughter. Anybody who advised W on his fiscal strategery and then claimed to be responsible should elicit at least a chuckle.
CoRev,
I may have missed the nuance but you have been talking about some of the Reps wacko’s have it they have a chance. Gingrich, Bachmann, Trump, and others all don’t have a chnace in hell of winning the general. If the RR picks the R candidate Obama wins. Its that simple. And a number of the Reps candidates seem to try to impress the evengelicals. These guys will lose short of a total economic meltdown (which is possible, just not probable).
AS is correct. The Rep field is not that stellar. Like the Dems in 2004 and 1984, 1988, and Reps in 1996 and 2000. No clear game changer in the bunch to beat an incombent. Bush Jr would have been crushed by Clinton in 2000 if Clinton was allowed to run a 3rd term. Anyway it will be interesting – I just don’t want the RRs picking the Pres. they are almost as bad as the looney left.
AS- Sorry I knew that Daniels had decided not to run. My statement wasn’t clear.
Islam will change
Buff, thanks for the explanation. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who evolves as the republican candidate. Also, I don’t see the election as close as you do. It is why I keep cautioning those on the other side to remember, we are not in a two-party presidential race, yet. When it’s all about Obama’s record issues will get more clear.
CoRev,
Its all going to come down, IMHO, to two things. The economy and who the Rs nominate. Obama’s foriegn policy is right out of the Bush playbook, with steroids when you add in Libya, and isn’t pissing off the independants. The looney left have no where to go and will vote Obama (as will 90% + of the black vote) even if the Rs vote in a centrist. If for no other reason than to ensure the Supreme Court doesn’t get another crazy like Justice Roberts in (sarcasm off). So that leaves just those two things:
Good economy – Obama wins (landslide against RR Rep)
Bad/mediocre economy – RR Rep – Obama wins (may look close if economy double dips)
Bad economy – centrist Rep – Obama loses, loses big if economy seriously double dips
Mediocre economy – centrist Rep – Obama probably loses by the same margins as McCain did.
Remember Obama has a lock on the black vote. Expect high turnout and 95% for Obama. This takes 13% of the population and places it in the D camp right from the start (and was the primary reason no one from the left primaried Obama – they would have no chance in the general without that big chunk of voters who would have felt betrayed that the first black president was knifed in the back by his own party). Obama needs less than 40% of the rest of the voters to win.
This is also why the out-of-the-Whitehouse party always talks down the economy even when the economy is OK. I don’t think an incumbant has lost while the economy was good ever. Truman maybe?
Islam will change
CoRev,
I railed against Bush’s deficits back then. But they look rather quaint these days in comparison to Obama’s. Practically a rounding error.
But I still remember Bruce telling me to expect 5.4% GDP growth! And, BTW, don’t forget these numbers are Obama’s! Best case scenarios!
Yep its all Bush’s fault….BWhahaha
Islam will change
Stormy’s point shold be taken to heart, though I have no illusion that it will by those who most need to do so. CoRev, and to a similar extent buff and Sammy, spend an enormous amount of time and bites responding critically to any and all suggestions of solutions from others on this site. Glaringly absent from those harangues is any clear cut suggestion of a solution they might offer as an alternative to those they so vehemently critique. They complain that the statements of others do not solve the problems that they see, whether in the area of climate change or budgetary deficiency. It’s a simple process as you, CoRev like to say the the math is so straight foreward. If you’re complaining that the suggestions of others are inadequate or erroneous then come up with some better suggestions of your own.
You, CoRev, have repeatedly noted that you have outlined better solutions to the budget deficiency issue. Well I’ve been searching through your commentary on any thread remotely related to the deficit and guess what? You’re all over any suggestions to cut spending on the military, especially the wars in the middle east or suggestions regarding raising taxes on the upper tiers of income. Glaringly absent is any better suggestion of your own. There is an implication that you favor the Paul Ryan budget plan, but that has been amply demonstrated to make no contribution at all to deficit reduction. You repeatedly criticize the Health Care legislation, but ignore that it is likely to cut medical spendiing though not immediately.
The point is that you guys, you so called conservatives, know how to complain about what you label liberal approaches to these problems, but you don’t have anything to offer beyond those complaints. Put up or shut up, as they say. Let’s read a simple outline of a plan to reduce the deficit so that we can all see how much better versed you are in these matters. Up to now you’ve offered little beyond ideological bickering.
In other news Eric Cantor has decided to hold much needed disaster relief for MO tornado victims hostage…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55513.html
House republicans: No matter how cynical you get it’s not enough!
Buff, I see two ways the 2012 elections can go. 1) a very close election with Obama winning by less than 12 electoral votes, or 2) a landslide win (~200 to ~338) for a republican candiate that promises an economic recovery and reduced deficit.
We’ll get a better feel next Spring.
AS, what part of they have not raised the “debt ceiling” do you think applies here? There are a couple of solutions to funding the disaster relief without borrowing. Internally the president can just reprogam already passed budget/spending authority, the most logical and timely solution. Or, more likely use the emergency funding in the FEMA budget.
What Cantor is saying is if the administration asks for a Continuing Resolution, neither logical due to the debt ceiling issue and seriously not timely, the CR request amounts may need to be offset. Offset because there is no debt ceiling!
Geithner also has a couple of administrative ways to fund the MO disaster relief, but that would move the date forward for the Govt to continue operating as it is today.
These are the kinds of day-to-day decisions federal agencies are about to face if the debt ceiling is not raised. I actually would prefer that racking and stacking of funding priorities to go forward. From that step the fall out would be some obvious funding decisions. Once they are identified then the debt ceiling amount could be better determined.
Two current new items that tell a story regarding the pig headed obstinance of the Republican Party leadership if not their constituents.
First paragraph of this morning’s NY Times article concerning the NY 26th district election results
“Kathy Hochul won in a conservative New York district in a race that largely turned on the Republican Party’s plan to overhaul Medicare.”
And Eric Cantor from Va. best represents “compassionate conservatism”:
From a South Carolina newspaper, no sense sourcing the info from those liberal media outlets like the NY Times
“Virginia U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor said Tuesday that any spending costs associated with federal disaster funding for Joplin, Missouri, tornado victims must be offset with spending cuts. The Virginia Republican said “if there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental.” The House Republican leader is the first to push for spending cuts related to the disaster that has already claimed over 100 lives. Democrats slammed the Republican leader, saying it amounted to “ransom.”
Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/rep-eric-cantor-spending-cuts-in-exchange-for-missouri-aid/#ixzz1NN8zh2YC
That’s real compassion. Funny, but I don’t recall any cal for offsets when he last round of tax cut continuations were voted upon. Let’s hope that the NY 26th vote is a harbinger of things to come.
Yeah let’s see how many GOPers let Cantor or Ryan campaign for them next year. The GOP and affiliated groups including Rove’s American Crossroads group dropped a ton of money in this race: $700K from Rove, over $450K from the NRCC no to mention $2.6M spent by Corwin their candidate. This adds up to almost $70/vote about double what Meg Whitman spent to try to win the gubernatorial race in CA last year.
Cue wingnut objections that the Tea Party candidate spoiled their election in 3… 2…. 1….
AS, there is growing evidence that it is a Dem strategy to split the conservative vote to gain leverage in an election. It has happened twice, as far as i know today, in MI and in NY. The model was the earlier NY special election where a legitimate Tea party candidate ran against a Republican and Democrat. It has been successful, so expect lots of Dems running as TP candidates in close elections in 2012.
Kinda anachronistic, isn’t it? BTW, thanks for noting the obvious.
The pork keeps marching on!
Evidence on apprpriation bills: Tea partying, new members in the House, stops at cutting federal waste in the home district.
Whuddanode????
Hey buck up buddy your hero Governor Quitter has a new movie out: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/25/palins_secret_weapon_new_film_to_premiere_in_june_109949.html
I see only good things from this element in the media universe. But I am a lifelong democrat.
Jack,
I have, on many occaisions, thrown out solutions. My point with most of the left’s solutions are either they don’t solve the problem (all AGW solutions and others) or ratchet down on individual liberties immensely and intentionally (or grow the power and reach of the central Fed gov. which has the same effect) (every problem they are faced with).
BTW, I think Ryan’s budget plan is just as DOA as anything else currently out there. I give him kudos for at least throwing something on the table. That’s a far cry from anything we’ve seen from the deficit busting Obama proposals or anyone else on the left.
No matter how you skin it we are spending $1.4 TRILLION more than we brought in this year. To cover that your going to have to increase taxes AND cut the feds. A lot.
My solution: Repeal the Obama tax cuts, make all spending equal to the 2008 budget. Then a straight 5% across the board cut of every line item (no exceptions). Let the executive branch dole out the details below that. And that would be the warm-up.
But the bottom line: any attempt to balance the budget and actually cut programs will career end a lot of congress-critters who want to hang on a long time. So they will keep pushing this to another day.
Until they can’t.
Islam will change