Karee
-
Posts
10,340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Karee
-
-
I'm still wondering why the federal govt. is spending money on this in the first place, when they have 16 trillion in debt? It's silly. Probably something some congressman wanted for his district.
-
McLEAN, Va. -
Despite the fact that a local group has promised to pay for 100 percent of the operating costs, the National Park Service has closed down Claude Moore Colonial Farm.
Operators were stunned when barricades went up on Tuesday. No visitors are allowed onto the grounds.
As much as possible, it is the late 1700s at the Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Fairfax County, Va. Tobacco is still grown here, and it is dried in a small tobacco barn, just the way it was dried 200 years ago.
Even the animals here are generally "rare and heritage breeds." The pigs, for example, are smaller than modern pork. They were captured on an island off the Georgia coast, descendants of a shipwreck in the 1600s.
This history-oriented farm used to be federally-operated, but because of budget cuts in the early 1980s, a local non-profit group in recent years has paid for 80 percent of the operating costs.
"We even snowplow the roads, which [are] theirs," explained Anna Eberly, the managing director of the non-profit that runs the farm. But we still [plow] in order to get it done."
As of October 1st, the Friends of Claude Moore Colonial Farm agreed to take over 100 percent of the costs of the facility. So the operators were astonished when the National Park Service erected barricades and closed off access to visitors.
300 school kids were supposed to be here Wednesday. That field trip has been canceled.
A spokeswoman for the Park Service says it is still federal land, and the rule is: if there's no Congressional appropriation, no visitors are allowed. So, even though the non-profit is now paying for everything, the Claude Moore Farm remains closed.
Source:
-
I created a second account in my checking and sent over just a Debit card to my family there. They can remove money when we say so with what we put it. Works wonders
I did that when my wife was still there. I need to think about if I should do that with her family.
-
Pretty funny how they call it "Non-Citizens" when in reality it's people who broke the law by entering without inspection.
2) Under 8 CFR 235.1(a) an alien must apply in person to an immigration officer at a designated port of entry at a time when the immigration office at the port is open for inspection. Under 8 CFR 235.1(d) he must present any required documents and establish his admissibility to the satisfaction of the immigration officer. The immigration officer must be afforded a full and fair opportunity to question the alien. See Matter of F– , 1 I. & N. Dec. 90, (BIA AG 1941).People can't simply break a law because they think it's unfair.
-
Price of illegal drugs has declined while potency has increased, researchers warn
The “war on drugs” has failed to curtail the $350 billion annual trade in illegal narcotics over the last 20 years as the price of drugs has declined while potency has increased, according to study results released this week.
The prices of heroin and cocaine, for example, have decreased by 81 percent and 80 percent respectively in the United States between 1990 and 2007, despite increasing law enforcement efforts to disrupt drug supply, research published Tuesday in the British Medical Journal Open showed.
The study said marijuana seizures in the U.S. increased 465 percent between 1990 and 2009. During the same period, though, the average inflation-adjusted prices of pot decreased by 86 percent, while the drug’s potency increased by 161 percent.
“Organized crime has really overwhelmed law enforcement's best intentions to reduce the availability of drugs,” Dr. Evan Wood, a co-author of the study from the University of British Colombia, told Al Jazeera America. “It (the study) really calls for a total rethink on how society deals with drug use and drug addiction.”
The U.S.-led war on drugs has increasingly come under fire in the United States and abroad, with critics highlighting the program’s negative impact on public health. And yesterday’s study shows that illegal drug use remains a major menace to community health and safety. The study’s authors suggested that governments assess the effectiveness of their drug policies by using indicators such as overdose rates and the rate of blood-borne disease transmission, particularly HIV infection.
“We should look to implement policies that place community health and safety at the forefront of our efforts, and consider drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue,” Wood said.
The Organization of American States (OAS), in a report on drug problems in the Americas released last May, also emphasized drug abuse as a public health issue. The report calls for a public health approach to address the global drug epidemic. “The decriminalization of drug use needs to be considered as a core element in any public health strategy,” the study concluded.
Public health is a central component of the recreational marijuana measure approved by Washington State voters last November. The law will place a 25 percent tax on all marijuana transactions, generating an estimated $1.9 billion within five years, according to the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Fifty percent of that revenue would go to the state’s basic health plan, while substance-abuse prevention programs will receive 15 percent the revenue.
The drug war, the BMJ Open study shows, is also rife with unintended consequences. Incarceration rates, especially in the U.S., have skyrocketed in the last two decades. With more than 2.2 million Americans in prison, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world – 1 in every 99 adults. In 2011, there were more than 750,000 people under arrest in U.S. prisons for marijuana violations, with 87 percent of those inmates under arrest for possession only.
The study’s findings brought renewed calls to reexamine the effectiveness of global strategies that emphasize drug supply reduction at the expense of evidence-based prevention and treatment.
“In response to a study like this, policymakers often say, ‘drugs are harmful so they must be kept illegal,’” said Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the former president of Brazil and chair of the Global Commission on Drugs. “What they fail to consider is, as this and other research suggests, that drugs are more harmful – to society, individuals and the taxpayer – precisely because they are illegal.”
Al Jazeera
Source:
-
Relative to GDP, Reagan increased the national debt from 32.5% to 51.9% (up ~20%). Bush increased it from 56.4% to 83.4% (up ~25%). On the current path, the debt is projected to reach slightly over 100% by the end of Obama's second term (up ~20%). So Obama would be in Reagan territory and would fare better than Bush Jr.
You can slice this any way you want but the case you're trying to make just doesn't hold.
I see you're still not getting it. There's debt and there's deficit. The total debt number can rise and fall based on many things, mostly running deficits or surpluses year over year. There's also interest and other things to take into account.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, Obama is running a higher annual DEFICIT every year as a percentage of GDP than Reagan or Bush or Bush Jr. ever has. That's the number that matters! Unless you start lowering DEFICITS, there's no way the debt will decrease. It will increase. There was already existing debt there when all 3 of the presidents were sworn in. Obama has done an outstanding job of running a higher annual DEFICIT as a percentage of annual GDP than any president in decades thus raising the total DEBT to astronomical levels.
Here it is again:
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2
Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5
George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7
Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
Source:
-
Those numbers talk about the deficit, not the debt. Focus. The debt numbers make clear that Obama is by far not the worst of them.
Jesus. I figured you would be the one person here who would understand the relationship between debt and deficit. Guess I was wrong.
If the government runs a deficit one year of 1.5 billion and a deficit the next year of 2.5 billion, that equals a principle debt of 4.0 billion not including the interest on that debt.
One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits.Here, go and learn something:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm
-
Not good for the Kenyan or not good for the Hawaiian?
It's kind of a running joke here. There's one member that only refers to him as "the Kenyan"
-
-
None of that invalidates any of the numbers I have posted.
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.0009/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32The delta here is 1.86 trillion or 186% of the starting debt. That's the Gipper.
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.0609/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75The delta here is 6.1 trillion or 105% of the starting debt. That's Bush Jr.
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.7509/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.8909/30/2017 19,000,000,000,000.00*est.
The delta here is 7.1 trillion or 60% of the starting debt. That's Obama assuming that the CBO projections turn out about right.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
OK so then you agree that as a percentage of GDP, no one in the last 50 years has added more to the debt than Obama? Ohh and sorry, I don't buy 5 year predictions. I don't care who is doing the forecasting. I'd love to see the 2005 5 year budget forecasts.
-
Starting national debt for Obama was roughly $12 trillion, not $10 trillion. Added debt over the first term was somewhat over $4 trillion not $6 trillion. The national debt is on track to add a total of $6 trillion over the two Obama terms. That is the same amount added by his predecessor. Only $6 trillion dollars was a lot more relative to the size of our economy in the 2000's then it is and will be in the 2010's. Same goes for the $2 trillion added by the Gipper in the 1980's against a $4 trillion economy (at mid-point) vs. $6 trillion added by Obama against a $15 trillion economy (at midpoint).
Here's some numbers for you:
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:
Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2
George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2
Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5
George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7
Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9
*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated
Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012
Since you want to compare different times, I'd say a defecit to GDP ratio is a pretty fair way to do it. Doesn't look good for the Kenyan. He's worse than my ex at using the national credit card. I bet he doesn't even have a closet full of never worn clothes to show for it.
Source:
-
-
Reagan tripled the national debt during his two terms in office. Bush Jr. managed to doubled it during his two terms. Obama will neither double, let alone triple the national debt.
Quick math lesson for you. If you double 10 cents, you have 20 cents. If you triple 10 cents you have 30 cents. If you add 6 trilion to 10 trillion you have 16 trillion. So while adding 6 trillion to 10 trillion is not actually doubling or tripling anything, I'd argue that add 6 trillion in debt is worse than doubling a smaller number. See how that works. I know that's not in line with the DNC talking points, but it's pretty simple really.
-
He won't get that. He thinks the government is a couple secretaries and a manager with a check book.
Thank you for your consistency sir. It is impressive.
-
Putting the dirt back in the hole you dug is the least that is expected. When the economy actually starts growing at historic rates, then Obama can claim victory.
-
If the US had done austerity, we'd be in the shithole Europe is in now. Fortunately we're doing a bit better than that. To do it it required some borrowing (from ourselves, I might add. This money is borrowed by and large from ourselves). The majority of the debt comes from Republican spending. So even with that, there is a plan to reduce the debt. If you remember, Clinton balanced the budget and made a surplus. GW did not.
So anyway, the debt attributed to Obama was to keep this country going, which is much more important and better than austerity. There is and should be a plan to pay it back, but not at a time when doing so would harm the economy. Once the economy is doing better (and it is vastly improving) then that is a good time to settle it. It won't be fast, though. That Reagan and Bush debt is really big.
To cut off vital symbols of our nation, of freedom and democracy, to cut off people from the land, from this nation's history, from their own heritage, to temporarily save a dollar? No, I am not for that.
You seem to have me confused with another member here. I thought Bush jr. was probably the 2nd worst president in mordern times behind Carter. Not sure what makes you think I'm some sort of shill for the Republiucans. I'm not.
But since you're into blaming things on past administrations, look up the total debt in 8 years for Reagan and compare it to Obama. When you're finished with that, go look up the total debt for Bush jr. and compare it to Obama. Mr. BD will be along shortly to try and confuse the issue with with B.S. about how Obama wasn't responsible for FY2009 or some other such thing, so I'll go ahead and just concede that point and save him the keystokes. When is a good time to pay it back? When will it not hurt re-election chances ( I mean the economy)?
Obama isn't doing this country any fiscal favors, although he's turned out to be a pretty good foreign policy president. I think YOU need to stop being a some kind of blind Democrat supporter.
-
I mentioned several reasons why we should keep them open. Profit, symbolism, tourism effects across the spectrum. Profit for the gov and profit for other business. Republicans claim to want to boost the economy but now you cheer when the economy is being hurt? National economy is nothing like a family's cable bill.
Here, you can watch a documentary called :The National Parks: America's Best Idea. http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/
I'm all for those nice things, if you have the money for them. We don't.
I like Ferrararis. Unfortunately, they're not in my budget. Maybe if I keep spending more than I make, someday it'll happen for me.
Yeah, why make anything if you can't get it all back.
Brilliant accounting.
Do you want to clarify that, or let it stand on it's own?
ETA: I don't think you'll find too many investors if that's your business plan. I'm here to lose money, will you invest? To use one of your favorite words "Brilliant"
-
Unfortunately too many people think that and it's harmful to the nation's economy.
All those people see is spend spend spend. Did you guys know, for instance, that in bailing out AIG, the government made back that money, plus $22.7 billion in interest and the sale of shares and whatnot? (I just checked the figure, in my memory it was $12 million, which I thought was awesome, but its 22.7 billion).
Cool they made $22 billion. Only $15,978,000,000,000.00 to go until we're back in the black. I hope that puts it into persepective for you. If all those zeros don't do it, I don't know what will.
-
The gov is LOSING money by keeping those things closed, not gaining money. Those parks and zoos are businesses that make money from visitors.
Even if it did lose money, I find it odd that important symbols of this great nation are relegated in your or other republicans mind as a frivolous thing. I actually believe that national parks are vital to the health of the country, a symbol of national pride, something to fight for and share. Either way, those things being closed hurts the economy. Not only because of the fees, but also the gas people buy to drive to them, their eating at restaurants on the way there, etc.
I'd like to see the profit/loss statement on them. I seriously doubt they're making money. Anyway, since when is it the government's business to be running tourist attractions? I don't see anything about that in the constitution. Persoanlly I think losing money is a bad thing when you have a 16 trillion dollar debt. It's not like we have all this extra money laying around to be spent on frivolous things. And they are frivolous when you look at them through the lens of a 16 trillion dollar debt. It's like a family that makes 80k a year and has 80k in credit card debt refusing to downgrade their $200 a month cable TV package.
So you propose that we keep them open because people spend money on gas and food? That's the silliest thing I've heard in awhile, and RG posts regularly in this forum. Congratualtions.
- Ban Hammer and sachinky
-
2
-
It seems small, but it's ridiculous on a large scale. Like children fighting over a game.
I agree it does seem childish. IDK, with a 16+ trillion dollar debt, maybe we'll find out there's some things we can do without from the government. What are they doing running zoos, museums, and parks anyway?
-
Nothing that important is shut down. Some parks, zoos, and museums. Big deal.
-
Wow, some sad stories there.
Yep. That's the graveyard of Visa journeys.
-
Current TV? Isn't that the new Al-Jazeera USA Cable Channel?
Oops.
To Our Faithful Current.com Users:
Current's run has ended after eight exciting years on air and online. The Current TV staff has appreciated your interest, support, participation and unflagging loyalty over the years.
Your contributions helped make Current.com a vibrant place for discussing thousands of interesting stories, and your continued viewership motivated us to keep innovating and find new ways to reflect the voice of the people.
We now welcome the on-air and digital presence of Al Jazeera America, a new news network committed to reporting on and investigating real stories affecting the lives of everyday Americans in every corner of the country. You can keep up with what's new on Al Jazeera America and see this new brand of journalism for yourself at http://www.aljazeera.com/america.
Thank you for inspiring and challenging us. We are incredibly proud of what we have been able to accomplish together!
– The Current TV Staff
Source:
-
Good Riddance. I bet he gets a show on Current TV or MSNBC. Maybe they should give him own show on Fox.
Gospel according to Bill O’Reilly: Jesus died for your taxes
in Current Events and Hot Social Topics
Posted
When does your copy arrive?