The problem is that the government is made up of people who want to be re-elected - and what they have learned is the best way to do that is to pander to the special interests that finance them, and also to the electorate with handouts, subsidies, grants, kickbacks, loans, credits, bailouts, loans, etc.

All of those things cost money - and the people who write and pass the laws that create them have for decades done so without any consideration for how much they cost. Every year, the government just borrows more money to cover the additional spending. This is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem - both major parties are equally guilty - they just want to spend the money on different things.

I'm very conservative. Despite that, I'll agree taxes probably need to go up at this point - BUT... with a couple of caveats:

1) Since the federal government has proved that it is incapable of reining in its spending, increased taxes by itself is not a solution - without some sort of enforced fiscal responsibility, they would just treat increased revenue as a license to increase spending. To that end, a balanced budget amendment is an immediate requirement. If necessary, peg spending to income, and pro-rate all budget items - but it has to be done.

2) The income tax needs to be replaced with a flat, federal sales tax that exempts food and clothing below a set dollar amount that is indexed to inflation. This accomplishes several things. First, it closes all the tax loopholes that the ultra-rich use to pay lower tax rates than the middle class. Money does them no good unless they spend it, and when they spend it, they pay taxes. Second, it abolishes corporate income taxes (which are just taxes on the customers of those corporations by proxy, since the corporations simply pass the costs of those taxes on to the consumer). Third, it gives private citizens at all income levels a stake in paying for the services and monies provided by the federal government. Currently almost half the population pays no federal income tax. As a result, they often have no concern for the costs of benefit programs. This change would mean that the "poor" while not taxed on basic necessities, would be paying some tax - and that tax would increase as federal spending increases. "Want national healthcare? No problem. Your taxes will go up X amount next year to pay for it."

If this is part of the stimulus, I wonder if the negative 1100 jobs counts toward the total jobs created by all our money. It would be kind of funny and kind of sad if we spent a trillion dollars to create jobs and the total job creation from that spending ended up being negative.

If I lived in a country that had such a law, the first thing I would do is ensure my children never had internet access - since as their parent, I am financially liable for their behavior.

I would also turn off the wireless on any internet-connected devices and go hard-wired only.

There are certainly other measures one could take to protect oneself from inadvertently becoming a victim of this sort of law - but those are a couple of basic ones.

I wonder if the people who voted for the law will like the consequences of people trying to protect themselves from it.

Yep - and for non-union employees, that is done once, at time of hire. Unions deliberately negotiate short term contracts so that they can periodically re-negotiate to get better pay/benefits, on the theory that the economy is consistently improving. In times of very low unemployment, the union can even hold a company hostage for unreasonable demands and get them.

This time, that strategy backfired. Sucks to be them - but when you gamble regularly, sometimes you lose.

The future of IT will be one guy, sitting in a closet, making minimum wage to push a button when someone's cupholder is broken. ...because management is afraid of automation.

What happened to Law Enforcement in this country is that citizens now commonly have the ability and equipment to record and publish Law Enforcement abuses where they can be seen by a global audience.

Prior to this ability being commonplace, cases of police abuse tended to be the officer's word against the victim's, and unless there were other unbiased witnesses the officer was generally presumed to be telling the truth. Accusers and witnesses were also commonly harassed and further victimized by police in an attempt to get them to retract/recant. The abuses have not changed - only the frequency with which they get public attention with proof.

Law Enforcement does not like being held responsible for their crimes, thus the abuse of the wiretapping laws to silence accusers and witnesses.

As for winning the cases against those recording police in public - they often do - and even where they do not, the citizens are often ruined financially by the cost of defending themselves.

First order of business is to stop spending more than we take in.

What to cut? Cut everything. Balanced budget amendment, limit government spending for the current year to last year's income.

Take 25% off the top and use that to pay down the debt.

Take the remaining money and use it to finance the budget on a pro-rated basis. That means -everything- gets cut.

You can argue about what specific programs to cut spending on so that there is more money for everything else, AFTER you stop spending more than we take in.

Seems to me the government is trying to solve the wrong problem.

Everyone keeps talked about deficit reduction. ...but that's just a fancy way of saying we're going to keep spending more than we take in.

What we need to be talking about is DEBT reduction. This is the plain way of saying we're going to spend less than we take in and use the remainder to pay down the debt.

The reason politicians never talk about debt reduction is they all have pet projects/programs they want to protect at all costs.

There's a simple solution to this. It will be painful as all hell, but not as much as the financial collapse that will occur if we don't act. In short, pass a balanced budget amendment like the one I wrote below:

Balanced Budget Amendment
As our elected representatives seem to be incapable as a body, of spending within the country's income, this amendment's purpose is to leave them no choice, at any time there is a national debt.

Section 1

The provisions of this Amendment shall go into effect on the calendar year following any calendar year in which there exists a national debt, and shall remain in effect until the debt has been paid in full.

Section 2

The United States shall be prohibited from spending more money than it received as revenue during the previous calendar year, except as outlined in the Sections below. In the event that the previous year's revenue is greater than that of the current year, the United States may borrow such funds as are necessary to make up the difference.

Section 3

While the provisions of this Amendment are in effect, 25% of the revenues taken in by the United States (or the full amount of the debt, whichever is less) shall be allocated out of budget to pay down the debt, before any other spending. If it was necessary to take out a loan under Section 2 of this amendment to meet the previous year's income level, an amount equal to the loan shall be added to the 25%, to pay the loan off in full the following year. The remaining revenues shall be spent on the budget, all budget items being funded on an equal, pro-rated basis. If remaining revenues after paying down the debt are only half as much as required to fully fund all budget items, then all budget items will be funded at half their budgeted level.

Section 4

To prevent the United States from circumventing this amendment by shifting costs to individuals or states, all existing unfunded or underfunded mandates shall become null and void from the date of ratification of this amendment. Creation of additional unfunded or underfunded mandates shall be prohibited. If the United States mandates behavior of individual states or individuals, and that behavior has a cost, the United States must fully fund the cost. In addition, the United States shall be prohibited from making monies paid to individuals or States conditional on behavior it cannot legally require.

Section 5

In the event of the United States engaging in a declared war, Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment shall be suspended so long as the state of war exists.

If Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment are suspended during wartime, neither any currently serving member of Congress, nor the President or Vice President may run for election or re-election until one election cycle has passed after the end of the war.

Section 6

To encourage actual budget cutting rather than simply increasing the budgeted dollar amount of a budget item beyond all reason in order to get a larger piece of the pro-rated pie, the budgeted amount for any budget item is prohibited from being increased while Sections 1 through 3 of this amendment are in effect. Further, the budgeted dollar amount for any budget item whose budgeted dollar amount was increased while Sections 1 through 3 were suspended due to the United States engaging in a declared war shall immediately revert to pre-war levels as soon as the state of war ends.

=================

Thought on the above provisions:

Section 1 - This could instead be modified to have the amendment take effect at a pre-defined trigger level - such as 10% of the yearly revenues - with minor language changes. For the amendment to be useful, the trigger level must be low enough that the debt level is healthy.

Section 2 - Ties spending to income, in such a way that spending is based on expected revenue, and may not exceed that level (except in special circumstances detailed later). Allows for variance in revenue via a healthy borrowing strategy. Guarantees popular support among the masses.

Section 3 - Requires that, while the restrictions are in effect, 25% of revenues go to paying down the national debt, before any other spending. Further requires that any loans taken out in the previous year be paid in full after the 25% and before any other spending. Funds all remaining budget items on a pro-rated basis - meaning that contentious debates on budget cuts are simply not required for the system to work. Legislators can enact new spending all they like - but it competes for available funding with all the other budget items, and it is funded at a percentage based on the remaining revenues after the debt paydown and any loan repayments. No matter how many new budget items are added, spending cannot increase beyond revenues. The 25% number is the hardest sell for Section 3, but it is required if we are to pay down the national debt within our lifetimes (even at this level, it will take nearly 30 years to pay off the debt). Pro-rating remaining revenues hurts everything equally, so could be a positive or negative selling point depending on how it is spun. Nobody loses their pet programs outright as negotiations on budget cuts are completely separate from this amendment.

Section 4 - Prevents the Federal Government from offloading former federal programs onto states or individuals without fully funding them. Without this provision, the Federal Government would make an end run around the spirit of this amendment and bankrupt the citizens or individual states in the same way it has bankrupted itself. Further, the last sentence of this section prohibits the Government from using federal funding as a carrot to encourage behavior that the Constitution prevents it from legislating. This provision makes the amendment a huge win for the individual states, though proponents of mandatory State-funded social spending will not like it, nor will those who seek to circumvent the 10th amendment by creating unfunded mandates and then offering funding conditional on the states doing things the Federal Government can't require they do. Programs the Federal Government -can- legally require are still possible, but must be fully funded by the Federal Government. On the other hand, this section should make ratification easy.

Section 5 - Allows the Federal Government to exceed spending limits during wartime, but prevents politicians involved in that decision from benefiting by remaining in office beyond their current term, and prevents them from running for election after stepping down so long as the war continues. This removes the incentive for the declaration of (or continuation of) wars for the sole purpose of exceeding spending limits, since those responsible for declaring or continuing a war will be unable to remain in office beyond the current term. Likewise, it removes the incentive for Peace Treaties immediately before elections for the sole purpose of allowing politicians to run for re-election, with an immediate resumption of hostilities after.

Section 6 - Forces congress to actually cut the budget if they wish to increase pro-rated funding for the remaining items, rather than simply increasing the budgeted funding for their specific item beyond its needs to "steal" pro-rated funding from everything else.

Is it draconian? Yes. However, rampant overspending has been allowed to go on to the point where draconian measures are required. The government is nearing total financial collapse because it is dependent on borrowing that will soon no longer be available except at ruinous interest rates, and shortly after that, not at all.

This could be a real money saver...

Since you aren't planning on giving up the internet entirely and plan to use it at work and via public wifi, given that you are addicted, you wont be spending any time at home.

That means you can put all your goods in storage, sleep in your car, use the showers at truckstops, and save a bundle on rent/mortgage.

WIn?

If there are only two choices, I don't disagree - but if there are three or more choices, and everyone is telling you the one you really want to vote for doesn't have a chance, then the logical thing to do is pick the least bad of the remainder. It is exactly that sort of manipulation that has given us more of the same, election after election.

This sort of thing is exactly why I have been against televised exit polls and election returns on national elections in the US while the polls are still open.

Exit polls and even preliminary poll results from the east coast are being broadcast while the polls are still open in other states, which influences the voters who have yet to cast their vote.

Off-shoring is never done to improve service for the customer. It is always done on the basis of cost. Why is it less expensive? Because off-shored labor is so much less expensive that it is cheaper to set up the infrastructure and hire offshore workers than it is to hire workers locally. In short, it is less expensive because it allows companies to circumvent minimum wage laws.

Want to offshore labor "ethically" in your global market? Pay offshore workers the same as you would pay local ones. Suddenly off-shoring looks far less attractive.

I once worked for a company whose internal help desk was rated as being in the top 5% in quality and cost in the industry. The following year, it was off-shored, and all the local workers fired, because the company discovered it could save $1/hour per worker, on about 20 workers. Those who had to use the new "helpless desk" told horror stories about it for years - but none of that mattered. The company saved its dollar per hour (on paper), and the CIO got his bonus.

There was a time when managers and companies considered that they had a duty to treat their employees in an ethical fashion - not just the minimum required to satisfy the law. I miss those days.

There's a good chance they aren't, actually, at least in the US.

For example: Upper class people tend to pay for educations at the best universities. Doesn't mean they know any more than people in the middle and lower classes, but having such a school on a resume tends to mean that they will get hired more for management jobs than someone coming from a less prestigious school (middle class), or no college at all (much of the lower class). No labor laws are broken, but in most places, "upper class" has a rather uneven distribution as to the general population with regard to race.

With somewhat more justification, a disproportionate number of highly technical jobs go to the middle class, because they usually have the education to get and keep such jobs. Again, the middle class tends to have an uneven racial distribution.

Menial labor is usually the province of the lower class because most do not have the education to do better, do not speak the language well enough to do better, or both. Middle and upper class workers will take menial labor jobs only as a last resort because they believe they can do better. In the US, the lower class has a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minorities, which results in a large number of people in menial labor jobs being from those groups.

If blacks and hispanics make up 30% of the population, that 90% of the qualified applicants for an engineering job are white males doesn't mean a company is breaking labor laws if it hires almost exclusively while male engineers. Likewise, if 90% of the applicants to a construction company are black or hispanic, the company having mostly black and hispanic workers is also not breaking labor laws.

While I have seen company policies in large companies that mandated the workforce be of the same racial makeup (percentage-wise) as the local population, such policies are almost uniformly bad for the company, as they result in under-qualified or unqualified applicants being hired solely on the basis of their being the best applicant of their racial group to apply. In the worst case of that I've seen, a company with such policies hired a woman who was both unskilled and functionally illiterate to manage an IT help desk, because she happened to be the same gender and a member of the same minority group as the outgoing manager. That she was fired within a few months and replaced with someone less incompetent is of small comfort to the employees there, or to any of the people who could have done the job well, but were passed over because they didn't meet the company's "diversity goals."

Unresponsive providers might be more likely to respond if responsive parties who controlled upstream routers were to stop routing traffic from them.

All traffic.