Okay, not really a blog post, but something for a game I play, so everybody can just ignore it :)
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Just ignore this
Okay, not really a blog post, but something for a game I play, so everybody can just ignore it :)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Just how much trouble are we in?
So, I've been having discussions lately with family and friends regarding U.S. debt and fiscal policy. I can't stress enough to them that we are in horrible trouble. None of them seem to want to hear it and they certainly don't grasp how severe the problem really is. Let's take a look at some of the numbers.
An article in the Telegraph today (strange that I have to go to foreign sources to get this because none of the U.S. news sources felt it was newsworthy on the same day the President will make a speech about the debt), they discussed a report from the IMF (international monetary fund) about the debt of the "advanced economies" also known as the G20. The full report discussed in this article can be found here. Basically, this report says the U.S. is in the worst shape of any of the G20 with the possible exception of Japan and that we must cut 1.7 trillion dollars from our debt to return ourselves to sustainable debt levels. The current debt is 14.2 trillion dollars and climbing. So, the IMF is saying what exactly? Basically that we need to cease deficit spending entirely and reduce our debt by an additional 1.7 trillion dollars...immediately. Well, this can be achieved, right? Let's take a look at our budget numbers.
Under GW Bush, we ran 8 years of budget deficits totalling 3.368 trillion dollars, which is an average of 421 billion dollars a year. This does not include off budget items like Social Security. Now, with 2 budget cycles under Obama, we have a total deficit of 3.183 trillion dollars averaging 1.591 trillion dollars a year. Look at these budget numbers. In 8 years, Bush racked up 3.3 trillion in debt. In two years, Obama has increased that debt by an additional 3.2 trillion. I guess that is the change we voted for, but it isn't what anyone wanted.
So, in the last 2 budget cycles alone, we are adding 1.5 trillion dollars a year to the deficit. In the previous 8, we added 421 billion dollars a year to the deficit. This means, that to meet the IMF's goal, the U.S. must cut the entire 1.5 trillion in deficits we are facing EVERY YEAR. However, that just gets us to even. We still need to cut an additional 1.7 trillion dollars from the debt. Therefore, no more deficits, plus cutting 1.7 trillion dollars. This should bring some perspective to the debt argument in Washington and the President's speech tonight. After all, the Republicans are calling for cutting 6 trillion dollars over 10 years and the Democrats are countering with a 4 trillion dollar cut over 10 years. Remember the numbers I just presented above? Will either of these strategies meet the goal stated by the IMF for sustainable debt? After all, we must cut 1.5 trillion in annual spending plus manage to cut an additional 1.7 trillion dollars. Over ten years, that equals 16.7 trillion dollars! Yes, 16.7! No way either of these two plans comes anywhere close to that. Congress is still completely oblivious to the real problem, their addiction to spending.
An article in the Telegraph today (strange that I have to go to foreign sources to get this because none of the U.S. news sources felt it was newsworthy on the same day the President will make a speech about the debt), they discussed a report from the IMF (international monetary fund) about the debt of the "advanced economies" also known as the G20. The full report discussed in this article can be found here. Basically, this report says the U.S. is in the worst shape of any of the G20 with the possible exception of Japan and that we must cut 1.7 trillion dollars from our debt to return ourselves to sustainable debt levels. The current debt is 14.2 trillion dollars and climbing. So, the IMF is saying what exactly? Basically that we need to cease deficit spending entirely and reduce our debt by an additional 1.7 trillion dollars...immediately. Well, this can be achieved, right? Let's take a look at our budget numbers.
Under GW Bush, we ran 8 years of budget deficits totalling 3.368 trillion dollars, which is an average of 421 billion dollars a year. This does not include off budget items like Social Security. Now, with 2 budget cycles under Obama, we have a total deficit of 3.183 trillion dollars averaging 1.591 trillion dollars a year. Look at these budget numbers. In 8 years, Bush racked up 3.3 trillion in debt. In two years, Obama has increased that debt by an additional 3.2 trillion. I guess that is the change we voted for, but it isn't what anyone wanted.
So, in the last 2 budget cycles alone, we are adding 1.5 trillion dollars a year to the deficit. In the previous 8, we added 421 billion dollars a year to the deficit. This means, that to meet the IMF's goal, the U.S. must cut the entire 1.5 trillion in deficits we are facing EVERY YEAR. However, that just gets us to even. We still need to cut an additional 1.7 trillion dollars from the debt. Therefore, no more deficits, plus cutting 1.7 trillion dollars. This should bring some perspective to the debt argument in Washington and the President's speech tonight. After all, the Republicans are calling for cutting 6 trillion dollars over 10 years and the Democrats are countering with a 4 trillion dollar cut over 10 years. Remember the numbers I just presented above? Will either of these strategies meet the goal stated by the IMF for sustainable debt? After all, we must cut 1.5 trillion in annual spending plus manage to cut an additional 1.7 trillion dollars. Over ten years, that equals 16.7 trillion dollars! Yes, 16.7! No way either of these two plans comes anywhere close to that. Congress is still completely oblivious to the real problem, their addiction to spending.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Women's NCAA basketball decisions are interesting
Something interesting happened this year in women's college basketball that I bet a lot of people didn't notice. Of course, maybe everyone noticed and since I don't have cable of any kind, I just didn't hear about it. Nonetheless, I found it fascinating that this year, the NCAA set up the top two number 1 seeds to fail. What do I mean? Well, probabilities are wonderful things. No matter how good a team you are, if you play the same team often enough, they can figure out a way to beat you at least once. You see this kind of thing in baseball all the time. After all, do you really think that a 57 win team can beat a 100 win team? Yet they do it, at least once a season (usually).
Now, I find it fascinating that UCONN and Baylor both beat teams in the own conference three times during the regular season. They both won both regular season contests and they both met again and won the conference championship game. Uconn vs. Notre Dame and Baylor vs. Texas A&M. So...move to the elite 8 where Baylor lost to Texas A&M while playing them for the fourth time this year. Everyone expected Baylor to make it to the final 4 if not the championship, but A&M (a very good team in their own right) managed to figure out how to win one after playing them 3 times already. I actually predicted this would happen when I first learned the NCAA had placed them in the same bracket. I figured A&M should have to at least make it to the final four to get to play Baylor again, but no...the NCAA felt differently. At least A&M proved they belonged in the final four by beating Stanford.
As for UCONN and Notre Dame, well, UCONN did the same thing during the regular season and conference championship as Baylor had done. They won. However, in the final four, Notre Dame managed to figure out a way to beat UCONN. Only Stanford had done it all year and only Baylor had come close, so this is unheard of, but you have to remember the law of averages. 4 times in one year?! At least Notre Dame had to earn it by beating no. 1 Tennessee and get into the final four.
Now, I don't want to take anything away from either team in the final...Texas A&M lost 5 times all year, 3 of those to Baylor and one to Duke so they are an excellent team in their own right. Notre Dame also lost 3 to their conference champion UCONN, but they did struggle a bit more, losing 7 overall. However, all of their losses came against ranked opponents whereas one of A&M's losses came against an unranked Kansas State team. All this said to say I believe Texas A&M will win the NCAA championship this year. That'll make the Big 12 happy, even if it isn't from the expected source. Baylor fans have much to look forward to next year as 4 of their starters, including Griner are only sophomores and freshmen. As for the others? UCONN loses their top player, A&M loses their top player and I'm not sure about Stanford and Tennesee's rosters. Nonetheless, it should be a good final and a fun season next year.
Now, I find it fascinating that UCONN and Baylor both beat teams in the own conference three times during the regular season. They both won both regular season contests and they both met again and won the conference championship game. Uconn vs. Notre Dame and Baylor vs. Texas A&M. So...move to the elite 8 where Baylor lost to Texas A&M while playing them for the fourth time this year. Everyone expected Baylor to make it to the final 4 if not the championship, but A&M (a very good team in their own right) managed to figure out how to win one after playing them 3 times already. I actually predicted this would happen when I first learned the NCAA had placed them in the same bracket. I figured A&M should have to at least make it to the final four to get to play Baylor again, but no...the NCAA felt differently. At least A&M proved they belonged in the final four by beating Stanford.
As for UCONN and Notre Dame, well, UCONN did the same thing during the regular season and conference championship as Baylor had done. They won. However, in the final four, Notre Dame managed to figure out a way to beat UCONN. Only Stanford had done it all year and only Baylor had come close, so this is unheard of, but you have to remember the law of averages. 4 times in one year?! At least Notre Dame had to earn it by beating no. 1 Tennessee and get into the final four.
Now, I don't want to take anything away from either team in the final...Texas A&M lost 5 times all year, 3 of those to Baylor and one to Duke so they are an excellent team in their own right. Notre Dame also lost 3 to their conference champion UCONN, but they did struggle a bit more, losing 7 overall. However, all of their losses came against ranked opponents whereas one of A&M's losses came against an unranked Kansas State team. All this said to say I believe Texas A&M will win the NCAA championship this year. That'll make the Big 12 happy, even if it isn't from the expected source. Baylor fans have much to look forward to next year as 4 of their starters, including Griner are only sophomores and freshmen. As for the others? UCONN loses their top player, A&M loses their top player and I'm not sure about Stanford and Tennesee's rosters. Nonetheless, it should be a good final and a fun season next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)