text:
Who's Ready for Some Trillion-Dollar Republican Deficits?
Fiscal hawks, from their perch in the wilderness, predict we may again see 13-digit deficits as soon as next year
north of $1 trillion. The figure was shocking—Washington didn't get around to spending $1 trillion in a year total (in 2009 dollars) until 1975. Coming on the heels of the debt-doubling during the presidency of George W. Bush, which candidate Barack Obama in 2008 characterized as "unpatriotic," the new recession/bailouts/stimulus deficit-spending triggered a stampede of national anxiety.From 2009 to 2012, the federal government of the United States ran an annual deficit
The Tea Party arose in 2009 partly in revulsion at the Bush/Obama binge. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen famously warned CNN in 2010 that, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt." The president himself acknowledged the problem, predicting in a major 2011 speech that the debt "has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order." After the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the main topic of American politics was the long-term debt and the short-term trillion-dollar deficits exacerbating the problem.
And now, after another Obama-era doubling of the debt, and the successful removal of Democrats from federal power, Republicans are ushering in a new era of…would you believe trillion-dollar deficits?
found (emphases in original). "Tax cuts and sequester relief alone would be enough to bring back trillion-dollar deficits by 2019, and tax cuts by themselves would bring them back by 2020." More, from the organization's press release:That's what the grumps over at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) are saying today. "By our estimate, a combination of tax cuts, sequester relief, and other changes would increase deficits to $1.05 trillion by 2019 and $1.1 trillion by 2020," the CRFB
"As we wrap up 2017, the last thing we need is for Congress to go on a tax cutting and spending spree with the national credit card," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It's like Santa Claus in reverse – parents and grandparents spending on themselves and handing the bill to their children and grandchildren."
"If Congress doesn't get its act together soon, we will end up with trillion-dollar deficits in the next few years," MacGuineas continued, "and debt as a share of the economy will be as high as it has ever been in U.S. history."
December in contemporary Washington, alas, is not a time for getting acts together, but rather smashing together the annual cromnibus/continuing resolution/debt ceiling monstrosity, which is more indigestible than Aunt Ruthie's fruitcake at a cajillion times the cost. We are poised to re-climb that trillion-dollar debt summit, only this time without the excuse of a preceding financial crash.
paying attention. As I recounted in my December-issue column, the GOP's governing debt milestones come so quick it's hard to keep track:That this is happening with Republicans firmly in charge of Washington should surprise no one who has been
On September 6, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey (Irma and Maria had not yet hit), only three members of the House of Representatives—Justin Amash (R–Mich.), Andy Biggs (R–Ariz.), and Thomas Massie (R–Ky.)—voted against spending $8 billion on hurricane victims because the bill did not include offsetting cuts. That compares to the 179 Republicans and one Democrat who voted against a $60 billion aid package after Superstorm Sandy back in January 2013.
On September 8, Trump signed into law a deal he forged with Democratic congressional leaders to raise the debt ceiling from $19.84 trillion to $20.16 trillion.
On the grim anniversary day of September 11, the nation's debt clock crossed the ominous $20 trillion threshold. Most economists agree that growth becomes dampened after a country's ratio of debt to gross domestic product creeps higher than 90 percent; we've been north of 100 percent for some time now, and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that we are on pace to soon break the all-time record set at the height of World War II.
On September 18, the Senate passed the $700 billion National Defense Authorization Act, showering more money on the military than even the pro-buildup president had sought. "It's a grandiose spending plan," Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) observed to The New York Times.
Let us stop pretending to know Republicans by the words they speak while in the opposition. When the GOP holds power, what matters is its fruits.
And they're rotten.
Photo Credit: Silver Fortune
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
A trillion is a million millions. Think about it.
That second definition seems needless. I don't know if one should attempt to define every word that can be used hyperbolically.
One might even say it seems wrong. Trillion is a number with a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean lots. The second definition is an appropriate definition of bazillion or gajillion.
Then again, wasn't Merriam Webster also the one to offer a second definition of "literally" as a synonym for figuratively.
Then again, wasn't Merriam Webster also the one to offer a second definition of "literally" as a synonym for figuratively.
God, I hate english....
Consider this:
1,000,000 seconds ago - 11/25/17
100,000,000 seconds ago - 10/7/14
1,000,000,000 seconds ago - 3/31/86
10,000,000,000 seconds ago - 1/17/1701 (the USA wouldn't declare independence for another 2.37m seconds)
100,000,000,000 seconds ago - 1/22/1151 BCE (the Hebrews left Egypt ~3.15m seconds ago)
500,000,000,000 seconds ago - 7/25/13,827 BCE (half-way there! Moog the Hairy invents the wheel)
1,000,000,000,000 seconds ago - 3/13/29,671 BCE Neatherthal dies out, all CroMags look like they're from an Arkansas trailer park.
So what about 20 trillion seconds ago?
Bless her heart, Ms. Dorothy Morrell, of Seattle WA, beat me to the punch by roughly 985,219,200 seconds.
Well done Dot - sorry no one listen to you back then, dear.
You SF'ed the link ^_-
I waaa? Hey, why doesn't my link work? a href, right?
I believe the sad truth is that people don't particularly care about debt and deficit. It is too abstract, it has no obvious consequence to the average person, and every possible pullback is fought tooth and nail.
I don't believe this to get better, it will continue until something happens. Maybe we default? I don't know. But I just don't see people really giving a shit. The average voter only cares about it until anything related to them comes on the chopping block. There is no actual will.
As long as people keep buying bonds, the deficit and debt truly don't matter.
That's the shit of it. America's position as the global reserve currency underwrites the government's drunken sailor spending philosophy. The only reason America doesn't get its comeuppance is because all the other national governments are even worse at fiscal discipline.
We can all take some joy that we are not Japan.
BUCS will never forgive the Japanese for pixelating the genitals in their porns.
To be fair to BUCS, in the genres of porn that he enjoys that translates to about 75-80% pixels on any given image.
Their porn is super awful for many reasons, that being relatively low on the ladder. The worst thing is that they seemingly manufacture everything to make it feel like rape. I really, really dislike that a lot. Next is that Asian women are pretty eh to me.
Their porn is super awful for many reasons, that being relatively low on the ladder. The worst thing is that they seemingly manufacture everything to make it feel like rape. I really, really dislike that a lot.
You seem to be very knowledgeable on this subject. Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?
Just search for JAV. That's stuff actually produced in Japan. It's all super gross. Most porn fails my preference of having some sensuality in it, some romance, but Japanese porn is super obsessed with straight up debasement.
Unless long term interest rates go up from 2 percent to 8 percent or so. Then the budget pain really starts.
It will never be the single issue for a sizable group of voters. Medicare cuts, or seeing a military base close down, or losing government subsidies, those can be single issues that motivate voters against a politician. As is raising taxes, of course.
So the only hope is that some legislators commit to reducing the deficit as a matter of personal principle. In other words, brace for the eventual default.
The budget was the single issue for Perot voters like me. He got 19 million votes in 1992. I would call that a sizable group.
A bizarre fluke indeed. He has a pretty neat museum here in Dallas, too.
It is too abstract
Debt is a major problem until it gets to 10 trillion or so, then it becomes abstract and you don't have to worry about it anymore.
It's 2 major problems now than.
I dunno... I'm more of an optimist. In my personal experience (i.e. I don't have any statistics or facts to back this up), baby-boomers are generally much less fiscally responsible than folks in both older and younger demographics. Maybe because they were raised in an era of American financial dominance and seemingly endless growth. I think that as younger generations assume the reigns of power, there will be a slow and gradual reversal in spending trends. Or maybe we all end up as Chinese speaking, Wal-Mart employees/slaves.
I don't know what happens. In the end, the debt is part of the American government. It is probably not good if it defaults. But that doesn't remove everything else we have. It doesn't remove our industry, it doesn't remove Silicon Valley or our Film Industry. It doesn't remove our farmlands and the millions of people working all across the US.
What happens is that there is a default on a fiat currency that is already largely wishful thinking and poor impulse control. I don't think the results of that are good, but what exactly they are I don't know.
[stands, hums "America the Beautiful" as an eagle screeches overhead]
I learned my rhetoric style from Oliver Douglass on Green Acres.
"What happens is that there is a default on a fiat currency that is already largely wishful thinking and poor impulse control. "
you think we're gonna let let bitcoin be the least real money forever?
Or maybe we all end up as Chinese speaking, Wal-Mart employees/slaves
Pretty sure we'll nuke Beijing first.
I'm serious. What happens if we default? No one's positioned to come after us.
Who knows? As much as people bitch about us the world over I don't actually think that many Europeans want to follow China or Russia. And the EU is not a country, no matter how much they wish themselves to be.
The American people might come after the government. After all, they're essentially defaulting on us.
Probably foreign banks/states stop lending us money, hyperinflation, soaring crime rates, govt - such as it is - scares away foreign investors, at least that's what's happening in Venezuela.
But we have lots & lots of guns, so maybe the union falls apart, too.
OK, is there a down side?
What happens if we default? No one's positioned to come after us.
You can't default if you incur debt in your own currency.
So your question is more - what happens if no one needs/wants dollars to buy 'stuff' somewhere else in the world?
And the second you ask that question, the answer is - well that depends entirely on what IS going to be used to buy 'stuff' somewhere else in the world. Because at that moment we know exactly what (not really who) is positioned to come after us.
If the dollar collapses with no replacement, then you are simply saying there is no global trade anymore (or more accurately an 80% or so reduction).
If we defaulted we would certainly default on ourselves (Federal Reserve) , that is where most all the debt resides. So don't worry about taking the Chinese lessons.
But do take Chinese lessons because it's a cool language to learn.
They're reins of power, not reigns. When you reign you hold the reins of power.
"I believe the sad truth is that people don't particularly care about debt and deficit. It is too abstract, it has no obvious consequence to the average person, and every possible pullback is fought tooth and nail."
That's what I don't get about the average person. Most of us average people have at some point in our lives gotten into a bit of trouble with a credit card. So you went a little nuts one Christmas buying stuff for others and a bunch of stuff for yourself, then you maybe had a some unplanned car repair, a medical bill not covered by your insurance, etc. Next thing you know you are making barely the minimum monthly payment and getting socked with interest every month so that balance is stuck where it is?
Most people, even the idiots who vote democrat or republican, realize on some level that the answer isn't to just go out and spend some more and run that card up even higher, and then maybe call and plead for the card issuer to raise your credit limit because now you're getting hit with over-the-limit fees as well.
So what part do they not understand when it comes to government? It's still THEIR money (newsflash: politicians don't use their own salaries for spending); they have zero say on how their money is being spent, unlike with their own charge cards; and they will be on the hook for it, not the politicians, at some point. Do they really need a degree in economics to understand what a shitty deal that is and to start being genuinely angry about it?
I think it's just a matter of out of sight, out of mind. There is no consequence on their end to have debt pile up. But there is very possible consequence to them if spending is cut.
That's why I think the best hope if for simplification of systems, but even then the entrenched bureaucracy gets hit, and they are more powerful than people realize. Still, I can't imagine how much we could save on entitlements if we got rid of 90% of the infrastructure and just transferred lump sums to people who qualify. No bullshit, cut out all the tremendous systems required to administrate this bullshit.
Not a pure libertarian stance, and I'd prefer to just phase it out entirely, but I think it would probably be better than what we have now, and would treat people on welfare slightly more like adults responsible for their own lives.
There is no consequence on their end to have debt pile up.
It wasn't all that long ago that the big story was that the debt clock in NYC wasn't big enough to handle $10T. Now we're at $20T and what's happened? Well, what's happened is the stock market is at an all time high.
No one is going to give two shits about the debt until the system of fiat currency implodes. When that'll happen is anyone's guess.
"Still, I can't imagine how much we could save on entitlements if we got rid of 90% of the infrastructure and just transferred lump sums to people who qualify. No bullshit, cut out all the tremendous systems required to administrate this bullshit."
I used to think the same thing. Want to help someone on welfare, etc.? Just give them a lump sum! Sure, some will be broke again before too long, but you might also have the occasional oddball who goes and gets a technical degree or starts a business or something. Like you say, it's not particularly libertarian, but it might actually help, at least in some cases.
Then I realized there's a whole system, both public and semi-private (non-profits) built around CONTROLLING how those po' folk should spend that money they receive.
You can't go around handing out lump sum checks to po' folk because then -- God forbid -- some of them might start thinking for themselves instead of relying on their enlightened intellectual betters to help them with all those pesky life decisions. And next thing you know, you'd be out of your cushy government or foundation job, and you'd find your social work or public affairs degree isn't all that marketable in the private sector.
If you just hand out cash to the needy, how do the government administrators earn their pensions?
I can't imagine how much we could save on entitlements if we got rid of 90% of the infrastructure and just transferred lump sums to people who qualify.
Well, that gets you probably 80% to the idea behind Universal Basic Income. The only extra step is cutting out the infrastructure and bureaucracy to find out who "qualifies" by just cutting everyone a check.
That said, if you look at the history of welfare in this country you'll see we (broadly speaking) went through such a period. Eventually the busy-bodies and moralists said "these poor people are spending it on women and booze! We have to control them!"
Paying people not to work is the surest way to make sure that no one does.
If we could get the MSM to kick over a corpse laying face down in the gutter and have them proclaim, "Well, we tried to help him out, but sometimes it just doesn't work. And now for the weather", I'd be half-willing to give it a chance. But we all know society will always be "responsible" for the irresponsible.
That's the ticket.
What you do is: Universal Basic Income, but then figure out the people who really need more help than that.
You get the best of both worlds: everyone on the dole, plus, for those special people/places/circumstances/deserving, people get more welfare and supplementary benefits, and the spending just goes higher and higher.
It's a win-win all around.
""So what part do they not understand when it comes to government? It's still THEIR money (newsflash: politicians don't use their own salaries for spending); ""
Question and answer.
They think it's the governments money, or someone else's, but not theirs. When they talk about a single payer health care system, which would be supported by taxes. They think it's free.
No, people don't give a shit. No matter what. You can explain to them that interest payments on the debt are about 7% of the total budget and will be up to about 10% in a couple of years. They don't care. Point out that for every $100 that they pay in taxes, that means they are paying $7 towards the debt. They don't care.
It's because the concept of paying it off is irrelevant to them. They know full damned well that the debt will still be there when they die... and many generations after that. So, fuck it. Print more money and buy more crap. There are no consequences to running up your credit card bill as long as you can open another credit card or loan to pay the minimum payments.
And, realistically, the minimum payment on the credit card is now greater than the amount we have left over from our income, after taxes, electric, water, rent. There's no way to pay off the credit card, at this point. So why deny ourselves cable and cell-phones on the ride down?
True, it is like they do not realize that if the debt continues to grow and grow the interest will eventually consume all of tax revenue. Head in sand syndrome.
Damn right, because I am retired and do not pay taxes anymore.
Send the bill to my grand kids.
Oh, wait. I don't have grand kids. Is that sticking it to the man?
That timely Dr. Evil reference is 2 legit 2 quit, Matt.
Yeah, it's almost like when Dick Cheney said "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter", he wasn't joking.
If you thought that Republicans actually cared about deficits, rather then finding it a convenient talking point, that's your own fault. They told you and showed you how they really felt a long time ago.
Why blame "Republicans" for not caring about spending when the establishment Republicans all voted to cut $1.022 trillion in entitlement spending--and the Tea Party/libertarian types voted against those spending cuts?
Fiscal conservatism is as fiscal conservatism does, and Rand Paul and his merry band of five followers voted against the bill to cut $1.022 trillion in entitlement spending.
I'm not blaming Republicans for anything.
I'm blaming anyone that bought their lies for being an idiot.
People buy the lies of politicians every time they vote.
The House Republican passed a bill to cut almost a $1 trillion in spending--over the objection of Democrats.
The Republican president promised to sign that bill, something his Democrat opponent would never have done.
The Republicans in the senate voted to cut $1.022 trillion in spending over the objections of the Democrats. The difference was that six ostensibly fiscally conservative libertarian/tea party Republicans (led by Rand Paul) voted against the bill--not because of what it did but because they wanted it to do more.
. . . and you think anyone who supports the establishment Republicans are idiots for thinking they're serious about fiscal conservatism?
Voting for Democrats if you're serious about fiscal conservatism is absurd. Voting for Rand Paul because you believe he's a fiscal conservative--after he voted against cutting $1.022 trillion from entitlement programs--is idiotic.
Voting for the establishment Republicans who voted to cut $1.022 trillion in entitlement spending because you think they might be fiscal conservatives isn't idiotic at all.
Republicans love debt more than Democrats do, you moron. Just look at this new tax bill or RTFA.
Democrats love big spending of course but they also are willing to pay for those programs by raising taxes.
Democrats gave us the welfare state and they never paid for it. Their tax increases just allow them to spend even more.
Cutting taxes is a constraint on future spending.
If you really want to cut spending, then voting to cut $1.022 trillion from entitlement spending is a good start. The Republicans went after that.
Rand Paul and his five followers voted with Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, and Liz Warren against cutting $1.022 trillion in entitlement spending.
Fiscal conservative is as fiscal conservative does. Cutting taxes so the government can't spend that revenue--isn't the same as spending more money. And if Rand Paul and his five merry men want to get back on board the Republican establishment with cutting Medicaid, all it takes is a phone call.
P.S. Tax cuts mean more money spent by individuals and businesses and less by government. That means more of the economy is governed by markets and less of it is subject to central planning.
P.P.S. This is a better response than you deserve, Shrike. I didn't realize it was even you until now. I usually ignore you because in addition to being a troll, you're also a fucking idiot.
Cutting taxes is a constraint on future spending.
That could be the case, but it could also mean a few different things. It could mean tax increases down the road. More likely it means continuing to add to our outstanding debts. Anyone who has looked at contingent liabilities going forward realizes my latter scenario is the much more likely outcome unless something majorly bad happens.
contingent liabilities
That should be unfunded liabilities.
We shouldn't spend less than we would otherwise through lower taxes now because it might increase spending and taxes in the future--that's a circular argument, is it not?
I favor lower taxes and lower spending both now and in the future, but cutting taxes now means we'll spend less in the future than we would have otherwise. Even if the government takes on more debt, that is not the same as taking on more spending--which increases the basis of our debt.
Incidentally, raising taxes so the government can comfortably spend more isn't the solution to inflation either. When we find ourselves in that part of the economic cycle, we should oppose tax hikes and stimulus.
We shouldn't spend less than we would otherwise through lower taxes now because it might increase spending and taxes in the future--that's a circular argument, is it not?
That would be circular reasoning, but that isn't what I was saying. I apologize if my post led you to believe that is what i was saying.
We should spend less at every given opportunity. But I just don't see any tangible evidence that tax cuts now lead to lower spending in the future. I don't see any reason the government will reduce our spending now or in any near-term future.
"But I just don't see any tangible evidence that tax cuts now lead to lower spending in the future."
It leads to lower spending--than there would be otherwise.
Maybe that's the part that's not getting across. We might spend more in absolute terms--if the government borrows more money and pays way more in interest. However, the government spends every penny it gets.
We haven't had a surplus for any length of time . . . ever. The government will spend every penny they get, no marginal propensity to save, but they can't spend what they can't get.
They can continue to float debt, but at reduced revenue streams on more debt, the market will ask for a higher yield (subject to pressure from other currencies). When the government needs to pay a higher yield than they would otherwise. Ultimately, there are two breaks on deficit: the voter's willingness to pay higher taxes and the willingness of investors to buy U.S. debt.
Yes, if the government can't raise taxes to get more revenue, they will turn to debt. And the more debt and dollars they flood the market with, OTBE, the higher the cost of financing NEW SPENDING! Being able to keep taxes high takes some brake off of new spending.
Short of the political will to restrict spending, tax cuts are the only way to put more break on new spending.
And think of the converse argument. Imagine that there is a fictional government that becomes so flush with cash that it decides not to spend it, but to pay off its debt instead. We've got all this extra money--but we're not going to spend it getting reelected! Oh no. We're just going to pay down our debt.
When Gingrich was elected in the wake of Perot's Reform movement, and Gingrich went on his budget cutting spree, interest rates were around 8% on the ten year treasury. Four times higher than they are now? That surplus lasted a minute or two. It was spent again as soon as somebody could think of something to spend it on.
Point being, there will never be a time when taxes are so high that we pay off our debt. That is a fantasy that will never happen. If you think that taxes being higher means that the government will spend less money, you're working on an assumption that have no basis in the real world. It simply doesn't happen.
They're going to spend every penny they get in taxes--plus whatever they can float as debt. We can't stop them from floating debt if that's what the market wants to buy, but we can cut off their ability to get their hands on our taxes.
Furthermore, when you cut into their tax revenue, it undermines their ability to finance more spending. The smaller the revenue stream relative to the size of the debt, the more the market will demand for new debt--more than they would otherwise. Therefore, cutting taxes necessarily and always means less spending in the future--not in absolute terms but less spending than there would have been otherwise.
Cutting taxes is a constraint on future spending.
False. Absolutely false, in fact.
Ronald Reagan's tax cutting was a constraint on future spending.
That 800 ship navy isn't going to pay for itself.
From the Washington Examiner:
Paul said he won't support the Senate Republican healthcare plan because it keeps too much of the Affordable Care Act and doesn't fix the main problem with the law that's causing it to go into a so-called "death spiral."
Paul said he couldn't support the Better Care Reconciliation Act because it doesn't repeal enough of Obamacare's taxes, mandates, and regulations. He added that Republicans who have written the bill haven't fixed the essential problem: Not enough healthy, young people are signing up for the exchanges to subsidize the sick and older people who need insurance.
"The Republican plan admits it will continue, it just says, 'Hey guys, we're going to subsidize it,'" he said.
Paul added, "This bill keeps most of the Obamacare taxes, keeps most of the regulations, keeps most of the mandates and creates something Republicans have never been for before and that's an insurance company bailout super fund."
CBO said it would only reduce the deficit by 321 billion dollars over 10 years.
Nice. Keep rooting for your Dog Shit team to triumph once and for all over the Cat Vomit team. And then keep wondering why nothing ever really improves when it comes to how terribly messed up government is and how the average IQ of the major party candidates seems to keep going down.
I suspect the buttplug your handle references is actually your own head. How about trying to actually read through some of these articles and learn, like I did years ago, that choosing between Rs and Ds is a fool's errand?
that choosing between Rs and Ds is a fool's errand?
I have no loyalty to either team since I generally vote libertarian or for gridlock. I do notice that our fiscal situation worsens when the GOP controls the government and that the last two Dem presidents actually lowered the deficits drastically.
And once again (as the article states) the GOP wants larger deficits.
Lowered it so much that he added more debt than all of his predecessors combined.
Lowered it so much that he added more debt than all of his predecessors combined.
And as you know he inherited the Bushpig's $1.2 trillion deficit. It is difficult to not add debt when handed record deficits and 750,000 job losses per month.
But even then, his deficit spending was higher on average than Bush's. This doesn't make Bush good, Bush was shit on spending. But also saying that Obama's deficit was less than the one generated by the singular event known as TARP is also dishonest.
The Bush 1.2 trillion dollar deficit was due mostly to the one time TARP bailout of 800 billion dollars (which I opposed). Instead of going back to pre-TARP spending levels, Obama took them as the new baseline.
The Bush 1.2 trillion dollar deficit was due mostly to the one time TARP bailout of 800 billion
No it was not.
The swamp votes overwhelmingly D-they know where their bread gets buttered.
Now pay your bet!
The "swamp"? Go back to polishing Trump's little penis at Bratfart.com.
Yeah-that's a rebuttal for what I said. It is what it is and the fact that that was what you yowled about shows how closely it hits home. Defend D.C corruptocrats all you like Shrike, but don't pretend that it is a libertarian position.
You didn't know? PB is the 'only true libertarian'. I mean, they say so themselves so it must be true.
Definitely not a full-throated lying Democrat operative though. Definitely not that.
you think anyone who supports the establishment Republicans are idiots for thinking they're serious about fiscal conservatism?
I think anyone that thinks that Republicans are serious about fiscal conservatism are idiots. Support is incidental.
Republicans are totally serious about fiscal conservatism, dude. Ask any of them next time the Democrats hold Congress.
Haha good comment.
On this we agree. There are way too many examples going back at least 30 or 40 years to ignore the trend. That said, they are a lesser evil than Democrats on the subject. Marginally, perhaps, but demonstrably.
I don't see how they are the lesser evil when they run up bigger deficits.
I don't see how they are the lesser evil when they run up bigger deficits.
Fair enough I guess, but with Democrat spending no amount of taxation would be enough. Fiscally I hate them both. Actually, in most other ways too. I used to think Republicans would leave me alone more, but that was before 9/11.
Maybe they voted against it because it didn't actually repeal Obamacare, which is the sole reason many of them got put in Office in the first place?
Yeah, so instead of getting rid of 95% of ObamaCare, they got rid of none of it?
Does not compute.
ObamaCare increased the Medicaid rolls by 11 million. Any "repeal" of ObamaCare that doesn't cut Medicaid is a false repeal.
Medicaid is a safety net for the needy. Obamacare (and Medicare) are socialist health care for the non-needy.
So you think that people could actually retire without Medicare? Most retirees are certainly needy when it comes to health care and could never afford market health insurance. They are not non-needy.
So you think that people could actually retire without Medicare? Most retirees are certainly needy when it comes to health care and could never afford market health insurance. They are not non-needy.
This is true, and it's why in any single-payer healthcare system they will be ignored. They use close to all the healthcare in America, and most of that is end-of-life. There is no way single-payer can pay for them. It's also true that the elderly, having lived a whole life, are far better off than 'the young' who are being asked to subsidize their care.
That, on the back of the certainly the next generation isn't likely to have it in anything like it's current form. Do you see the legislatures we've had for the past twenty years doing something about it soon, if even at all?
We're already broke today, I don't see it ending well.
So you're against cutting socialist programs?
We could do far better for our poor than a socialist healthcare program, and Medicaid is a big part of the socialist problem that's strangling our healthcare system.
It is not a mere coincidence that our healthcare problems got worse when ObamaCare added 11 million more people to the socialist Medicaid rolls.
Why is it hard to convince my fellow libertarians that the problem with our healthcare system is socialism?
Is it because you've been reading Suderman?
"By our estimate, a combination of tax cuts, sequester relief, and other changes would increase deficits to $1.05 trillion by 2019 and $1.1 trillion by 2020," the CRFB found (emphases in original).
The ObamaCare replacement bill that Rand Paul voted against would have cut $1.022 trillion in spending--$772 billion of it from Medicaid, an entitlement program.
It's hard to take the deficit reduction criticism of the tax reform package seriously when it's coming from people who were also against the biggest cut to entitlement spending we're likely to see in our lifetimes.
Bob Corker, for instance, voted against cutting $1.022 trillion in the spending bill I linked above--and then voted against the tax reform package because it increased the deficit. What a jackass!
We should keep in mind, too, that limiting the government's access to tax revenue is effectively making it harder for them to spend more money. Certainly, the solution to drunken sailors spending all our money is not to give them more tax revenue to spend. In fact, the suggestion that drunken sailors will someday become so flush with tax revenue that they decide to cut spending is patently ridiculous.
If Prop 13 were repealed, Sacramento would not have used that money to balance the budget. They would have blown even more money on bullet trains and outrageous pension benefits for state employees. Prop 13, like other tax cuts, is therefore a limit on spending.
Ken, once again you're dumb to compare state governments to the federal government. The state governments have balanced budget constraints and cannot print their own currency. The federal government doesn't have to deal with these limitations.
I'm not arguing for tax increases, or even that the feds wouldn't react to tax increases by further increasing spending. I'm saying that it's beyond naive to think that they'll react to tax cuts by cutting spending in order to limit the deficit.
I was comparing the spending restriction ability of tax cuts.
California floats debt under the same constraints as the federal government. They may pay a slightly higher interest rate than the federal government for their inability to print money, but the interest rate the market charges California in a function of the size of their revenue stream--just like it is with the federal government. Do you imagine the interest rate on U.S.treasuries never rises because the federal government can print money?
California is facing a deficit, right now, and they'll make it up by floating debt and raising taxes, just like the federal government, and whatever spending and debt they can't finance because of political resistance to tax hikes or the higher interest rates the market charges them for their debt will necessarily come, first, from not spending as much money as they would otherwise--just like with the federal government. If it gets bad enough, they might even have to cut spending--just like the federal government.
If you don't understand that, after the third time it's been spelled out for you, then you're the one that's dumb.
The debt borrowing and money printing abilities of California and the federal government are not at all comparable just because you say so. Also, politicians react differently to tax increases (such as repealing Prop 13) than tax cuts. Tax increases make it easy to justify new spending because the tax increase itself is the politically costly/risky move. Tax cuts don't make it any politically easier to cut spending.
Please give an example at the federal level where the feds cut spending in reaction to tax cuts. Did it happen after JFK/LBJ cut taxes? Reagan? Bush II? None of the above.
Even if they got to a point where they had no other choice than to cut the deficit (which would probably be a pretty dire situation that I would like to avoid), why on Earth would you think their first choice to address that would be spending cuts rather than tax increases?
Please give an example at the federal level where the feds cut spending in reaction to tax cuts. Did it happen after JFK/LBJ cut taxes? Reagan? Bush II? None of the above.
Correct. Ken points out some voted down bill that would have cut over $1 trillion over time. That's nice, and it was good to see a little effort, but that is chump change compared to the massive hole we've dug for ourselves.
We won't ever see any real reductions in the outstanding debt (not the deficit) unless something horrible happens. Tax cuts by themselves almost certainly will not.
It wasn't chump change--it was the first time anyone would have cut Medicaid ever. It would have cut $772 billion from Medicaid directly. The reason it isn't more is because that bill Rand Paul voted against also cut the penal tax along with the individual mandate, cut the other taxes associated with the employer mandate, etc. too. Still, it cut spending more than taxes--along with a ton of regulation, as well. Cutting spending, taxes, and regulation--that's the very definition of making the government smaller.
Cutting $321 billion from the deficit isn't chump change either. That's a third of the way toward $1 trillion in new deficit this bunch is complaining about.
Regardless, I never said we'd only get lower spending through tax cuts or that cutting taxes was the only way to reduce spending. Tax cuts just mean the government will spend less than it would have otherwise. To cut spending in absolute terms requires actually cutting spending.
Rand Paul and his five cohorts voted against cutting $1.022 trillion in spending and $321 billion from the deficit. If you want to complain about people who refuse to cut spending, blame them. The rest of the Republican establishment voted for those spending cuts.
It isn't chump change in aggregate, but it is chump change relative to our current and future financial position in regards to unfunded liabilities. We're going to have to do a lot more than that for future interest rate hikes to not have an enormous detrimental effect on our budgets.
I agree with you, that that bill would have absolutely been better than nothing. There is no debating that. But really to get out of this mess we are going to have to look some extremely difficult policies.
Where I disagree is your assertion that tax cuts mean that the government spends less than it normally would have. I haven't seen any direct evidence to that idea. Tax cuts are easy and politically popular. Really reducing spending across the board isn't, and the government doesn't really have any political incentive to reduce spending.
I would be glad to be proven wrong though. Can you tangibly show me where these tax cuts will lead to the government spending less?
And the health care bill only reduced the deficit by 321 billion dollars over 10 years (32 billion a year, whoopee), according to the CBO, and kept most of Obamacare. It would have been a major defeat. (Though maybe not as bad as the defeat of doing nothing turned out to be.)
When you say it "kept most of ObamaCare", what do you mean?
It got rid of the individual mandate and the penaltax.
It got rid of the employer mandate.
It got rid of the subsidies.
It cut $1.022 trillion in spending, $772 billion of it from Medicaid--a socialist entitlement program.
The reason it got rid of "only" $321 billion in deficit is because it got rid of the stupid taxes in ObmaCare, the penaltax, the medical device tax, etc., etc.
It didn't keep most of ObamaCare. It got rid of almost all of ObamaCare.
Am I to understand that you're against cutting spending because it's only $321 billion in deficit reduction? Is that what you're saying?
Are you against making the government smaller by getting rid of 95% of ObamaCare, cutting $1.022 trillion in spending, and cutting $701 billion in taxes because it only results in $321 billion in deficit reduction?
Are you a libertarian?
Because making the government smaller by cutting regulation, spending, and taxes is what I mean when I say I'm a small government libertarian.
Because guaranteed issue and community rating were left in place and Paul clearly said he had a problem with a death spiral, which was left in place under the Republican plan.
We've talked about this.
That is not keeping "most of ObamaCare".
And we certainly aren't better keeping 100% of ObamaCare because that little piece of it stays.
If Rand Paul voted against cutting $1.022 trillion from entitlement spending, eliminating the individual mandate, and eliminating the employer mandate--because of that--then he's a buffoon.
Keeping most of ObamaCare or not, it's leaving in place a socially and politically destructive force on purpose. Maybe Republicans should be punished, although we both know they never had the votes to keep that promise. It's been posturing since they failed to get enough of the Senate.
What's so sad is that it's a foregone conclusion that Democrats can't recognize what they've done and try to help fix their mess. I blame them both, though, far less than I blame Paul. Not that it matters, he's not going to win the Presidency this next time around and neither of us live in Kentucky.
*Since they failed to get enough seats in Congress and the Senate, I should say.
*Sheesh, I'm getting off. I can't type. I blame Paul less than Democrats and Republicans in general.
"The debt borrowing and money printing abilities of California and the federal government are not at all comparable just because you say so."
I never said the money printing abilities of California and the federal government were comparable.
That's something you made up in your head while you were calling other people "dumb".
Fine then, at a minimum you're ignoring the importance of the difference when it comes to the ability of a government to run large, long-term fiscal deficits. I never claimed that was the only difference between the two before you respond with that.
I was comparing the spending restriction ability of tax cuts.
But since this doesn't exist...then?
Yeah, my analysis of federal spending and borrowing shows that taxes have been cut several times, but the last time spending was cut was in 1801.
No, I mean even if taxes were zero the government could literally create money to spend. Sure, it would be a giant disaster but inherently Ken's statement is blatantly false. Tax cuts can not inhibit spending as a basic function of our system of currency.
Crusty hit hardest.
Don't worry: once you factor in inflation, everything is awesome.
Prepare your nuts for some gentle caressing.
Ex-cop Michael Slager sentenced to 20 years for shooting death of Walter Scott
Former South Carolina police officer Michael Slager was sentenced today to 20 years in prison for the 2015 deadly shooting of unarmed black man Walter Scott.
U.S. District Judge David Norton made the ruling after saying he would follow sentencing guidelines to send Slager to prison for 19 to 24 years. The former officer could have faced life in prison. Norton ruled that Slager committed second-degree murder and obstruction of justice.
I love how they never fail to repeat that he is a former cop and not currently a cop.
I'm angry because this contradicts my previous statements that nothing ever happens to these cops.
It's still absurd that he got a mistrial in his state trial. He shot an unarmed guy running away in the back, tried to cover it up, and there was video of it. And yet 1 asshole in the jury refused to convict - whether that was because of cop worship, racism, general assholery, or some combination thereof (probably the most likely scenario), I'm not sure.
I don't know. He was essentially be tried twice for the same crime. The outcome was probably just but I don't like using multiple jurisdictions to skirt double jeopardy restrictions. If they can use it against killer cops, they can use it against you. And all levels of prosecutors have unlimited funds. You don't.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, it went higher as a Federal Civil Rights Violation (Which we can probably discuss entirely on it's own) and the defendent pled guilty to that charge.
THEN the judge further ruled he committed Second Degree murder. After already being acquitted for murder at the lower level. Beyond the fact that this not having a jury is suspicious, I agree that trying multiple times in different jurisdictions is very suspect indeed.
So is a cop being acquitted of murder with video evidence of said cop shooting a man in the back while he was running away.
And I will side with you on this. It's certainly not something to cry over. I have no love for cops in general, murderers even less, and those who abuse their power least of all. But that still doesn't mean that Fist's concern that precedent set here and now is precedent that can be abused later any less valid.
If the precedent mostly applies to cops and if cops will no longer feel like they'll be protected by their buddies in the local court system, that's a good precedent in my eyes.
And you have no evidence whatsoever that the precedent will only or even mostly apply to cops. In fact, everything we know about the system shows the opposite. Like how tactics of asset forfeiture was originally done to fight organized crime, but quickly became a way to fuck people with consequence.
I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA, where I live, precedence set is precedence abused; whatever is used against your opponent today will be used against you tomorrow, bank on it.
"...shooting a man in the back while he was running away."
Dammit, Jim -- he was a cop, not Jesse Owens!
If you expected him to be able to run more than 12 feet to perform his job without risking a coronary, then you shouldn't have paid for all those delicious donuts with ticket-writing quotas and civil asset forfeiture.
As I said below, he was not acquitted of the murder charge. It was a mistrial with a deadlocked jury that could not return a verdict. He was set to be retried before he plead guilty to the federal charges.
Here is where I am ignorant. Do mistrials often lead to trials occurring at a higher level? If a case keeps leading to mistrial does that mean they can keep doing trials in different jurisdiction until some result is reached?
Mistrial usually results in either another trial or the prosecution deciding not to retry. There usually is not the state/federal dynamic, that was a part of this case because Slater was a cop and thus had crimes that could be tried at the federal level.
He was indicted on federal charges before the state trial even started. And the state was going to have another trial to resolve the prior mistrial, until Slater plead guilty to the federal charges.
I'm not a huge fan of trying at the state and federal level for reasons discussed here. That said, Slater was not free on grounds of double jeopardy even if the feds weren't involved. He would have had another state trial, and it was 11-1 in favor of conviction the previous time. Also, if there was a rule that you could only be tried at one level, I'm sure the feds (under Obama at least) would have stepped in and made sure they were the ones who got to try him.
So he "should" have only been sentenced to 10 years (for the civil rights violation), but he got 20 years (for murder), when he should have got life without parole for the murder.
He was essentially be tried twice for the same crime.
Which was caught unambiguously on video. I'm not going too upset about it.
He wasn't acquitted, it was a mistrial. He was set to be tried again at the state level until he plead guilty to the federal charges.
There has been only one serious attempt to address the debt/tax issue - Simpson-Bowles (which Obama heartily supported) and the Tea Party assholes helped kill that (along with progressive assholes).
The plan released on December 1, 2010, fell short of a supermajority on December 3, with 11 of 18 votes in favor,[3] Voting for the report were Bowles, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Cote, Durbin, Fudge, Gregg, Rivlin, Simpson, and Spratt. Voting against were Baucus, Becerra, Camp, Hensarling, Ryan, Schakowsky and Stern.
If barry had accepted the house budget from 2014 that would have put us in a path towards balance. Barry never submitted a plan that would balance the budget even at an infinite future date. Not once.
He could have also kept his promise to pull out of expensive foreign quagmires instead of doubling down on them and bombing the crap out of even more brown people at weddings. That might have saved a few billion.
He could made good on his criticisms of his predecessor's domestic surveillance apparatus by putting an end to it and shutting down all those alphabet soup agencies with nothing better to do than read people's emails and listen in on their phone sex. That might have cut another few billion. But noooo, better to ramp that up even more!
But hey, what's a few billion, or even a few hundred billion, between your politican and cronie friends, amirite? Especially when it belongs not to you but to those plebes you and your people have power over?
Barak never met a dollar he didn't want to spend.
Barak never met someoneelse's dollar he didn't want to spend.
Correction accepted, lol
Well hollleeee shit, the cockroaches are scattering under the glare of the kitchen light.
Weaponized Outrage Is a Threat to Free Speech
Activists on the right and left are exploiting sensitivity over sexual misconduct and other issues. It's seriously undermining journalism.
But it's not just the rancid right doing so. MSNBC host Joy Reid has been targeted over homophobic blog posts she wrote nearly a a decade ago. The main instigators of the campaign against her are Bernie Sanders supporters who are angry over Reid's full-throated support of Hillary Clinton during last year's Democratic primary. Unlike the Seder fabrication, the Reid case has some basis in reality. She did direct homophobic jibes against politicians like Florida Governor Charlie Crist. But Reid has apologized for her comments, an atonement Crist has graciously accepted. Firing Reid, as some are calling for, is a punishment far in excess of the crime.
Good people in the media are getting hurt!
Sanders supporters, and others on the left, need to rethink the way they weaponize outrage and try to get people fired. Mike Cernovich's campaign against Seder shows how setting a low bar for fireable offenses will lead to the silencing of important progressive voices.
We're disarming ourselves!
This reminds me of that article defending Franken the other day. It was basically "Yes, he did it. But he's OURGUY"
This reminds me of that article defending Roy Moore the other day. It was basically "Yes, he did it. But he's OURGUY"
Both sides now and always.
This article was much more specific.
This one was pretty much, "Progressive ladies, if you get molested by a democrat, shut up and take one for the team."
Or, in short, we must excuse sexual impropriety in order to punish sexual impropriety!
It is impossible to lampoon someone like that.
A dude was fired from a prominent position because of beliefs he privately held, which were only betrayed by someone digging up a relatively small donation he made.
It's a circular firing squad. They've got each other surrounded.
Imagine how bad the deficits will get when the next recession hits and/or when interest rates rise.
Irrelevant compared to the unfunded liability of the welfare state.
It seems exactly related to it.
It is.
Leave it to you to make a semantic argument.
They are related but it's panicking over a leak in your sink while your home is being flooded by a raging river.
If you can't control spending, than there is no way to 'fix' the problem at all. Deficits will necessarily go up, as there is a finite amount of money you can remove from the economy through taxation but no functional limit on how much you're spending.
Unfunded liabilities are so far outside of the conversation that it makes the conversation that is occurring look like a joke.
This seems to be an impossible concept to grasp for most people. And for buttplug.
In fairness, most people have not actually taken an economics class.
And in most of the economics classes, the professor doesn't laugh out loud when he reads Keynes' theories.
Fortunately my economics professor was not a fan of that bastard.
Recessions are nothing compared to the 100TT in unfunded liabilities. It isn't the dip in revenues that are the problem, it is the increase in spending. The only one of the two items he listed that sorta does that is rising interest rates, and given that the fed has demonstrated plenty of "accommodation" over the last ~15 years and that inflation actually helps monetize the debt, where do you think that merry-go-round is going to end up?
That doesn't make them unrelated though. Spending and Income are related, even if the bigger problem is how much one is spending.
As BYODB pointed out, you can always spend more than you take in if you're sovereign. Revenue has never solved the deficit, only spending restraint. A recession here or there won't matter over the long run unless they turn into the socialist utopia that anal blockage dreams off. Interest rates also won't matter because the fed will just accommodate them away. And if interest rates were to be allowed to float and matter then they would actually result in spending restraint. Again, it all comes down to the spending and more specifically the mandatory spending of the welfare state.
Spending and income are related for normal entities, but not for the Federal Government. It's bizarre and counter-intuitive, but frankly that's why it was designed the way it was. It's a vast Rube-Goldberg machine that pretends infinite money is possible. And in truth money is infinite but in this type of scenario what actually happens is that the currency loses value which is more or less what the plan appears to be. Devalue the currency which 'reduces' the debt as well as all Americans savings.
They try to shore that up by moving production oversea's for cheaper domestic goods, but there is a logical limit to how long that will work.
I'm not smart enough to lay it out better than that off-hand, but that's the short and very likely incorrect in some parts version.
Relax, I wasn't making an argument about the structural or long-term causes of the deficit. I was just making light of how (potential) near-future events like a recession or interest rate increases would cause even a $1 trillion deficit to look small. Unless you think the feds will actually cut spending in reaction to those events.
Recession no, but a sustained interest rate hike would probably cause some restraint eventually. But that assumes that the fed would allow rates to get that high for long enough that the weighted debt yield reflected those rates. It's more likely that they would just allow more inflation (the sign of a healthy economy, you know) which would screw everyone without ascribable blame. That's the almost guaranteed scenario now.
Interest rate hikes could cause spending restraint at some point depending on how the feds react. But they would not resolve it immediately, thus there would be sky high deficits at least until some action to alleviate it was taken.
I think they would prefer inflation to the alternatives, but I assume they'll try to solve it (and inevitably fail) with tax increases before that.
It's more likely that they would just allow more inflation (the sign of a healthy economy, you know) which would screw everyone without ascribable blame. That's the almost guaranteed scenario now.
Pretty much this, which is why most of the advice I've been hearing seems to be 'own assets' like property or commodities. You can't devalue a tangible asset nearly as easily as you can devalue a currency.
I would not put all my eggs in commodities (or property), there's a lot of volatility, and in the long-term I think the stock market with hedges in those sort of asset classes is still the best option. If the long-term stock market goes to shit there's probably bigger things to worry about.
Inflation can increase asset prices along the way. Real return is another question, but even just matching inflation in high inflation times is undoubtedly far better than holding cash. Outside of the oil crisis years of 73 and 74 that had large negative returns, the stock market tended to outperform inflation even during the high inflation years of the 70s and early 80s. Even with those two years, the S&P 500 had a 8.5% annual return from 1970-1980, while inflation was 8%. And if you look at the longer-term picture, the real return was much better. Gold had a great return in the 70s, much better than the stock market, but it had a negative (nominal) return in the 25 year period between 1980-2005. And after the surge in the late 2000s and early 2010s, it's lost over 20% of its value in the last 5 years.
I do keep a portion of my portfolio invested in commodities, but there's too much volatility and unpredictability to make it the basis of it. Stocks aren't immune to that by any means, but in the long-term they've been much less volatile and more predictable, and in the short-term you can use hedges and diversification in fixed income and other classes to account for that.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say put all your eggs in one basket I mean one should invest at least partially in things that will retain their value regardless of the value of the dollar, whatever that might be.
That's super common advice though, even if it's usually sold as a hedge against market volatility as opposed to currency issues (although it works for both), so you might have thought I was being more specific which I could totally understand.
Yeah I get what you're saying, I think I did take it more specifically than you meant it.
when interest rates rise
This is going to be the thing, because it's coming.
Oh, relax. Just like student loans, I'm sure the government will bail them out.
From Michael Tanner, CATO:
Start with the debt. It is wonderful that Democrats, who previously considered the national debt somewhere below lawn mold on their list of priorities, have now been reborn as deficit hawks. And there is reason to be concerned that the tax bill will add to the debt.
But to keep things in perspective: Under current law, the federal government is expected to collect $43 trillion in taxes over the next ten years, while spending $53 trillion. That will increase the national debt to $30 trillion by 2028. If this tax bill passes, the federal government will collect $42 trillion in taxes over the next ten years, while spending $53 trillion. That will increase the national debt to $31 trillion by 2028.
Worse? Absolutely, like a drunk asking for one more drink.
But it would be nice if everyone got this worked up about the first $30 trillion.
In fact, even after this tax cut, the federal government will be collecting 17.6 percent of GDP in taxes, more than the post-war average of 17.4 percent. The problem is that we will be spending 22.2 percent of GDP, considerably more than the 20.3 percent that we've averaged since World War II.
We don't tax too little — we spend too much.
We don't tax too little — we spend too much.
Yep. Darn accurate stuff. Notably no Democrat would vote for a spending reduction, and it's clear neither will Republicans, so it's a moot point. The deficit will go up no matter what, they're just arguing on Massive Scale A or Massive Scale B. They're not even talking about a non-massive scale at all.
Coming on the heels of the debt-doubling during the presidency of George W. Bush, which candidate Barack Obama in 2008 characterized as "unpatriotic"...
What he meant to call it was "child's play. Watch this."
The president himself acknowledged the problem, predicting in a major 2011 speech that the debt "has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order."
And that process was to continue to increase federal spending without end, and then cut taxes?
You see, it was George Bush's fault that Obama was a fan of Keyes.
You can't do anything to the deficit unless you do something about entitlement spending, and anyone who suggests that will be derided by both parties as "killing grandmas".
Half the country thinks the 50-70% of the budget is on defense and fighting wars. That prompts people to say "less bombs, more books". Unless people are informed about spending, nothing will change.
You can't do anything to the deficit unless you do something about entitlement spending, and anyone who suggests that will be derided by both parties as "killing grandmas".
Half the country thinks the 50-70% of the budget is on defense and fighting wars. That prompts people to say "less bombs, more books". Unless people are informed about spending, nothing will change.
There is always bi partisan agreement to spend more. More than the rate of inflation, more than the rate of population growth. The only debate is over whose favored groups get the money.
The best part is that of the $10 trillion obutthead added to THEIR debt (not mine), we have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for it, NOTHING. He fuc*ed America good. How can one person spend/waste that kind of money and have nothing to show for it?
Maybe we'll finally get Hillary in 2020 and then Reason can forget about deficits again.


text:
ERIC Number: EJ820660
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2008-Nov-7
Pages: 1
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: 0
Tuition Cut, Anyone?
Supiano, Beckie
Chronicle of Higher Education, v55 n11 pA6 Nov 2008
In a sputtering economy, and with demographic changes ahead, the model of ever-increasing price and merit-based student aid cannot be sustained. But what new system might rise in its place? One option is returning to a system in which the government bears more of the cost of higher education--something that might be possible, if still unlikely, in a weakened economy. Another possibility is to create a system in which students begin at community colleges and transfer to four-year institutions, which would serve as "finishing schools." Cutting tuition is also another possibility. However, for all the talk, little action has been taken toward any alternative pricing model. "There's a lot of things colleges can do," says Robert A. Sevier, senior vice president for strategy at Stamats Inc., a higher-education-marketing company. For instance, he suggested, tuition-dependent colleges can work on differentiating their brands from others and increasing endowed scholarships.
Descriptors: Tuition, Higher Education, Educational Finance, Financial Policy, Finance Reform, Fiscal Capacity
Chronicle of Higher Education. 1255 23rd Street NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20037. Tel: 800-728-2803; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com; Web site: http://chronicle.com/
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Find robinsonville ms obituaries archives robinsonville mississippi obituaries death notices funeral home obituaries in robinsonville ms. Muslim dating for muslim singles meet muslim singles online now registration is 100% free. Online dating isn't just used for casual hookups anymore with the announcement that there is a new version of tinder called minder (specifically for muslims), lilufa looks at the rising trend of young muslims finding partners online. Abdul davis is 36 years old and was born on 08/14/1981 currently, he lives in robinsonville, ms and previously lived in shelby, ms. Meet singles in mississippi, free dating in mississippi free mississippi dating and personals site view photos of singles, personal ads, and matchmaking in mississippi. In the season finale of aziz ansari's popular netflix series, master of none, the show's main character, dev, an american-born single played by ansari, has a heart to heart with his indian father about relationships dev is unsure about getting serious with his live-in girlfriend and holds a. Someone you can love is nearby browse profiles & photos of muslim singles in walls, ms join matchcom, the leader in online dating with more dates, more relationships and more marriages than any other dating site.
How young muslims define 'halal dating' for themselves : code switch young muslims find a middle ground for fostering romantic relationships between what is permissible and what is forbidden. Muslim singles who are in search of a partner for marriage are welcomed to try online dating services provided by cupidcom free muslim dating. Here you will find classified ads for the search "muslim" in johannesburg – see all offers on locanto™ personals. Muslim dating at muslimacom sign up today and browse profiles of women for dating for free. Hello all so i've been researching this kind of question a lot recently as i'm looking for a partner for my son and daughter we've tried all the "dating" sites like single muslim, muzmatch and those alike with no luck.
Single muslim dating website and app where you can search and video chat for free a platform for a single muslim who is looking for a muslim marri. Come to muslim vows and you will have a chance to meet devout and beautiful muslim singles connect with other muslim men and women who want to have a date, muslim vows. A marian apparition is a reported supernatural the earliest reference to the tradition of his marian apparition, dating from the late in robinsonville. This is what it's like to date as a young american muslim by while online dating among muslim americans is on the rise, certain stigmas, rooted in tradition.
Zoosk online dating makes it easy to connect with single bbw women in robinsonville date smarter date online with zoosk. Muslim dating site in nigeria 1,098 likes 19 talking about this free muslim networking online matchmaking and dating system register with us to find. Rionero in vulture single parent dating site, rionero in vulture single parent personals, rionero in vulture single parents homosexual dating robinsonville dating site, 100% free online dating in robinsonville, ms dating plattform kinderwunsch robinson gin dating and personals singles in johnstown, pa are connecting on eharmony. Someone you can love is nearby browse profiles & photos of muslim singles in lake cormorant, ms join matchcom, the leader in online dating with more dates, more relationships and more marriages than any other dating site.
The challenges of young muslim girls to ignore the pressures of dating in the western world. Free muslim chat room we are on a mission to make people feel loved and happy join cupidcom and start going on real dates download our free apps to stay in touch.
Founded by 34-year-old british-born entrepreneur azad chaiwala, secondwifecom functions like any other dating service – with users filling out a questionnaire about their interests and posting photos of themselves in the hopes of finding a match – except the site is meant for married muslim men looking to start a. Buzzmuslim is the place for muslims from around the world who're looking for friends, dating or a life partner modern diverse free. Assalamu-alaikum, hi again there were a few comments i wanted to make about an article i read here titled – dating in islam q & a first of all, i am coming back after a long time so bear with me, in my attempts to learn how the site works.
Robinsonville's best 100% free online dating site meet loads of available single women in robinsonville with mingle2's robinsonville dating services find a girlfriend or lover in robinsonville, or just have fun flirting online with robinsonville single girls. 100% free online dating in robinsonville 1,500,000 daily active members.


text:
Brooklyn lee and jewels jade make a date outdoors for lesbian cute blond teen gets a mouthful of cum from a guy she met on a dating site my grand tube. By submitting your email address or phone number, you allow us, bmw grand river, to include you on our contact lists to send you information about our products,. You can't do much better than match this dating site have numerous tools designed to direct you to viable date prospects gay dating sites lesbian dating sites. Find love in grand river with free dating site benaughty online dating in grand river for single men and women. Xnxxcom lesbian seduction videos, free sex videos.
@us_taylor_1999 is a 19 year old bisexual female from grand river, ohio, high quality and hassle free lesbian and bisexual dating for women home | support. Find love with this popular global online matchmaking service for loving singles worldwide chat with personals, find a match, and begin your online relationship. Michigan singles is an online dating and match making service for all singles in michigan top rated michigan dating sites, that offers thousands of local personal ads. Watch bbw with sexy grand river men porn videos for free, here on pornhubcom discover the growing collection of high quality most relevant xxx movies and clips no other sex tube is more.
The best dating online for free with xdatingcom xdatingcom all members and persons appearing on this site have contractually represented to us that they are 18. Grand junction lesbians at pinkcupidcom join for free and meet hundreds of lesbian singles in grand junction and surrounding areas. Shemeetsher meeting black lesbian women just got easier shemeetshercom is a lesbian dating website for black gay singles dating in cross river state. Sex dating in grand river iowa dating site to watch girls live fifty dating is the south africa's leading over fifty online dating and friend finder service. This is the fastest expanding free dating site in grand river, iowa in bridge-of-love are definitely the most fantastic slavic girls is free to join and free to message.Meet lesbian singles from colorado browse photos, contact and chat with lesbian singles quality online community site for lesbian dating in colorado. Horny grannies, hot grannies, sexy grannies and old slutty grannies there is always something for everyone when granny dating silvergrannycom is the best granny dating site for people. Watch mothers and daughters having lesbian sex video on xhamster, the greatest hd sex tube site with tons of free teen free sex redtube & mature porn movies. Find personals listings in grand forks, nd on oodle classifieds join millions of people using oodle to find great personal ads don't miss what's happening in your neighborhood. Grand cayman online dating, best free grand cayman dating site 100% free personal ads for grand cayman singles find grand cayman women and men at searchpartnercom find boys and girls. Lesbian sex video featuring phoenix marie and jenna sativa grand mamma movs 82 mature porn farm 83 parents, you can easily block access to this site.
Free porn: lesbian, lesbian mom, lesbian massage, lesbian strapon, japanese lesbian, lesbian anal and much more. 100% free grand river free dating & free personals signup free & meet 1000s of sexy grand river, ohio singles on bookofmatchescom. The it's just lunch difference: personalized matchmaking high touch service guaranteed dates our dating experts provide an enjoyable alternative to online dating websites. Best free swingers club for select swinger couples swinging clubs cuckold parties, crossdressers, gay, ts, cd, transgender and transvestite fuck my wife swapping open marriage swinging.
Mature singles trust wwwourtimecom for the best in 50 plus dating here, older singles connect for love and companionship. Grand river's best 100% free lesbian dating site connect with other single lesbians in grand river with mingle2's free grand river lesbian personal ads place your own free ad and view.
Meet singles for casual sex in grand rapids find a sex partner in grand rapids for a casual encounter - page 6. Watch grandma lesbian porn videos for free, here on pornhubcom discover the growing collection of high quality most relevant xxx movies and clips no other sex tube is more popular and. Grand river's best 100% free asian girls dating site meet thousands of single asian women in grand river with mingle2's free personal ads and chat rooms our network of asian women in grand. The best dating online for free with xdatingcom all members and persons appearing on this site have contractually represented to us that they are 18 years of.


text:
Looking to meet the right single women in manitowoc see your matches for free on eharmony - #1 trusted manitowoc, wi online dating site. Jewcier is the fun, stress-free, jewish dating site where jewish singles flirt, and find dates it's free to join, so stop kvetching and start dating. Zoosk is a fun simple way to meet manitowoc jewish single men online interested in dating date smarter date online with zoosk. Manitowoc singles events & manitowoc nightlife in march 2018 [updated daily] find fun stuff to do in manitowoc, wi tonight or this weekend. Manitowoc singles our success stories include manitowoc wi swingers, manitowoc single men and women, jewish and christian singles in manitowoc.
Sawyouatsinai combines matchmaking with orthodox jewish dating so orthodox jewish singles can date in a private, discreet and effective manner. Matchcom, the leading online dating resource for singles search through thousands of personals and photos go ahead, it's free to look. A comprehensive listing of manitowoc synagogues, manitowoc shuls and manitowocjewish temples from mavensearch, the jewish directory. Single and over 50 is a premier matchmaking service that connects real professional singles with other like-minded mature singles that are serious about dating.
Browse our manitowoc, wi single-family homes for sale view property photos and listing details of available homes on the market. Jewish singles ny - to find true love is hard, but we can help you, just register on this dating site online and start dating, chatting and meeting new people. Baltimore jewish singles - to find true love is hard, but we can help you, just register on this dating site online and start dating, chatting and meeting new people. Looking for jewish singles we know you're more substance than just a selfie okcupid shows off who you really are, and helps you connect with people who share your beliefs.
Date smarter date online with zoosk meet manitowoc jewish single women online interested in meeting new people to date. What makes amazing journeys so amazing we create customized vacations for jewish singles and solos and take you all around the world.
Free onling dating class jewish matchmaking free onling dating free lesbian singles free onling dating manitowoc singles. We will hike areas of sheboygan manitowoc area parks minimum 2 hours as group grows hopefully bring new ideas and activities to.
Wisconsin jewish singles - free jewish singles in wisconsin at adatingnestcom 100% free online wisconsin dating site connecting local singles in wisconsin to find online love and romance. Manitowoc, wi synagogues and temples - i'm so tsufridned you chose our vebzayt to gefinen your shul check out the synagogues and temples of. Sawyouatsinaicom - a leading jewish dating & matchmaking site, provides expert matchmaking services for jewish singles click here to learn more about our jewish matchmaker services.
Page view sumberg, alfred d, et al / manitowoc county historical society: occupational monograph 45, 1981 series the manitowoc county jewish community. Free online dating for manitowoc singles, manitowoc adult dating - page 1. Read our expert reviews and user reviews of the most popular empire beauty school manitowoc catholic and jewish singles tours worst cities. Shop manitowoc ice 7627813 ice thick control, single unbeatable prices and exceptional customer service from webstaurantstore. Single and over 50 - what is your gender and preference.
Page view sumberg, alfred d many single young men also left for the golden land to of this group we will remember the manitowoc county jewish community ptt. Jwed is for jewish singles who meet selective criteria we look for: authentically jewish legally single genuinely interested in marriage. Map of anshe poale zedek synagogue manitowoc wisconsin jewish shopping: synagogues: hanukkah gifts | twitter | hebrew calendar | jewish singles | jewish. The latest on home and style, food & dining, community events, health, and living in manitowoc check out wwwhtrnewscom for information that fits your lifestyle. Searching for interracial singles is now easy interracialdatingcentral helps you start your interracial love journey search for interracial singles now. The manitowoc county jewish community pdf (52 mb) manitowoc county historical society occupational monograph 45 1981 series editor's note: manitowoc county is truly cosmopolitan in its nature it is made up of a number of different ethnic groups.


text:
The Chamber of Manitowoc County Job Fair
Name: The Chamber of Manitowoc County Job Fair
Date: April 26, 2018
Time: 12:30 PM - 3:30 PM CDT
Event Description:
Businesses: This is a great way for you to share the positions you have available, collect application and set up interviews. All high school students from Manitowoc County are invited and encouraged to attend. (Please note not all students will be over the age of 18). This event will also be open to the public. Students will once again be bused to job fair. To sign up for a booth, click the Register Online Button. For more information, please contact The Chamber at (920) 684-5575. Click Here for setup information.
Participating Schools include:
Lincoln High School
Mishicot High School
Valders High School
McKinley Academy
Roncalli High School
Stay tuned for more...
Attention High School Students and Public: The Chamber of Manitowoc County is pleased to offer a Job Fair for student job seekers in Manitowoc County who are looking for either summer or permanent employment. Click Here for event flyer. (You do not need to register).
Current Employers:
ABR Employment Services
Carpenters Local 731
Felician Village
Formrite Companies
Fox Hills Resort
GKN Sinter Metals
IQ Resource Group
Jagemann Stamping Company
Lakeside Foods
Manitowoc Grey Iron Foundry
Mill's Fleet Farm
Northern Labs, Inc.
Quality CNA Training, LLC
Qualified Staffing
SEEK Careers/Staffing, Inc.
Shoto Corporation
Tramontina U.S. Cookeware, Inc.
Wal-Mart Supercenter
Stay tuned for more...


text:
2/26/18 - Three Woodmore basketball players earned a spot on the Northern Buckeye Conference all-league teams as recently selected by the league coaches. Senior Mitchell Miller was a first-team selection after averaging 19.8 points and 5.4 rebounds this season. Earlier this month, Miller became the sixth male and 10th overall (including girls) player at Woodmore to reach 1,000 points for their career. His 1,059 points ranks fourth among boys players in school history. Junior Drew Burner was a second-team selection after averaging 14.1 points and 5.5 rebounds. Junior Hayden Heidebrink earned a spot on the honorable mention team after averaging 7.3 points and 4.3 rebounds this season. The Wildcats will play Otsego Wednesday in the first Div. III sectional game. The contest begins at 6:15 p.m. and will be played at Anthony Wayne High School. Woodmore will take a 16-6 record into its first tournament contest.
Athletics > Boys Basketball > Boys Basketball News >


text: On 10/08/12 11:39, Tom Thomson wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- From: >> ukcrypto-bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk [mailto:ukcrypto- >> bounces at chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey Sent: >> 09 August 2012 22:20 To: UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group >> Subject: Re: What is a "communication" (was Re: sorry, but ... >> >> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:33:04 +0100, Peter Fairbrother >> <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> For the sake of any doubt, I are talking here about a situation >>> where eg a Policeman is searching for traffic data and >>> incidentally sees message content as part of that search; and >>> any further uses that data may then be put to, for example as >>> intelligence or as evidence. >> >> But the "conduct" of Plod in this case is not covered by either >> (a) or (b) in: >> >> (5) References in this Act to the interception of a communication >> in the course of its transmission by means of a postal service or >> telecommunication system do not include references to--- (a) any >> conduct that takes place in relation only to so much of the >> communication as consists in any traffic data comprised in or >> attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) >> for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunication system >> by means of which it is being or may be transmitted; or (b) any >> such conduct, in connection with conduct falling within paragraph >> (a), as gives a person who is neither the sender nor the intended >> recipient only so much access to a communication as is necessary >> for the purpose >> >> because it takes place in relation to a portion of the >> communication which does not consist of traffic data and it was >> not necessary to see that message content because he could/should >> have averted his eyes (aka used a properly designed filter) when he >> came to it. >> >> Only if it could be demonstrated that designing such a filter was >> truly impossible could it be claimed that his conduct was >> "necessary". Otherwise, it WAS interception, and he had no warrant >> to legitimise it. >> >>> [1] no interception at all took place, even though they saw >>> content; see 5(a) above, and below. >> >> No, he is not covered at all by 5(a). Sorry, my mistake. Meant 5(b), of course. >> There is a slight possibility that he might be covered by 5(b), but >> he would have to justify that. When, and who to? >>> BTW, that "necessarily" is also the "necessary" in the final >>> line of 2(5). They cannot find secondary traffic data in a mass >>> of content without looking at that content, it's simply not >>> possible. >> >> Isn't it? Negatives are notoriously difficult to prove. Maybe we are on different pages - I am, initially at least, just saying that in order to filter traffic data from the stream he has to look at the stream, in order to filter it. Whether a computer filter or a human does the filtering, the raw unfiltered feed has to be looked at. Plod cannot filter it without looking at it, it is impossible. Now some prefiltering which does not see content is perhaps possible on an internet feed, eg if you are looking for Facebook traffic data then you should not look at traffic to Lloyds bank or mywebsite, which can be identified by traffic data in the packet headers. Now I guess Plod might want to look at traffic to/from mywebsite in order to find traffic data. That does contain some traffic which is not generally available - I use private URLs for this, and eg sometimes place family ancestry data there for my family, but not the world, to see. I might use other means to communicate with others though, including maybe steganographic messaging (I don't, but I might) - however if I did there would be no traffic data in my communications with mywebsiteserver, whether I used private URLs or steganographic means. Any traffic data would flow on other channels. But I might be forgetful someday, and leave some traffic data in my communications with mywebsiteserver. So maybe Plod would feel justified in passing my traffic beyond the first traffic-data based prefilter. Another question here, is traffic between me and mywebsiteserver a communication? Between the webcam I set up in the PM's toilet and my computer? There is in general no sender and intended recipient which both have personhood status. I digress. Getting back to the point, or nearer anyway, I can't imagine Plod/GCHQ saying, "hmm should we include mywebsite in our detailed searches? There may be no traffic data there", but rather they would most likely say "include mywebsite, it may have traffic data, and excluding it would be far too fine-grained a prefilter to write - Hmmm, in general just pass through everything unless we are sure it doesn't contain secondary traffic data, because we are looking for secondary traffic data which may be deliberately obscured or hidden." And so, where do they draw the line? At Lloyds bank? That might be okay, except Standard Chartered was just found to have been hiding transactions and communictions with Iranians, so we want to look at Standard Chartered, and who's tosqy that Lloysds is rosy cheeked and shiny clean too? So I can't really see where a prefilter operating only on packet traffic data would have any function - Plod/GCHQ would want to look further, and could show reason why almost any site or connection or link might be passing messages to the bad guys, and they want at least the associated traffic data. Go on few levels, rinse and repeat, and you'll find that unless it's actually spelled out that they can't look at content while looking for traffic data in this or that situation, then they can look at content for their filters. So in order to see what the new bill actually means we have to see where it's spelled out where they can't look at content. And ooops, that's nowhere. >> > In addition to Charles' points above, there seems to me to be yet > another problem if this content is used in investigations and/or in > prosecutions since this will inevitably entail informing other > police officers, and also crown prosecutors, solicitors, and > barristers (or procurators fiscal, solicitors, and advocates > elsewhere in the Kingdom) . Even if Charles were wrong (I don't for > a moment imagine he is, but that's by the bye) and the content had > not yet been intercepted, it would now be being made available to > another party, yes and that making available is not an inevitable > consequence of of obtaining the traffic data (since the policeman > originally concerned is clearly capable of separating the traffic > data and passing only that on to his superiors (or his juniors or > colleagues or the prosecuting officials)) yes so it is quite certainly an > interception, ah, exactly why please? The making available? Yes, that might make it an interception. and hence illegal since there is no warrant. You may be right - but the "policeman originally concerned" (in reality a GCHQ officer, I can't imagine anyone else is going to be appointed as the filter-operating agency, with access to all the internet) can see everything. If he sees a murder or a terrorist attack being planned, would he be expected to keep silent? I doubt it. And Lord Bassam's comments as reported by Caspar would seem to strongly suggest he would not. Maybe they have some sort of intersecting warrants, issued post-facto, to cover this situation? Hmm, that might limit it to "serious crime". What if he sees someone was planning to do a fraud, or a burglary, or shoplift, or break a window - or just be nasty to their grandma? The real question is, What is really planned? To answer that I think we have to look at capabilities rather than intentions, as we do not know their intentions but we can get some idea of their capabilities as expressed in Law. And it loks to mevery like the capabilities asked for are pratty much " see everything, all the time. Why is it okay for them to see traffic data but not content? Historically it's just because telephone bills had lists of calls, and Plod wanted to see them to help with their enquiries. There is no natural right for Plod to see traffic data. There is a natural right to _prevent_ Plod seeing message content, the right to privacy. and it also applies to unnecessary looking at traffic data, or anything else which is private which Plod do not need to do in order to protect us from crime - we agree to a small invasion in our privacy in order to benefit from the increased freedom from the disadvantageous effects of crime policing brings. The problem is in the accounting. The invasion of privacy must be more than offset (yes, more than offset, not just balanced - the natural right and condition is to privacy) by the benefit that the better policing made possible by the invasion of the right to privacy confers. And I do not see that that is the case even now, and it will be much less so when/after/if the new bill is passed. -- Peter Fairbrother


text:
A Review Of homework writing serviceI've utilised Godot Media to develop content for 2 Internet websites more than quite a few months. They are really normally very prompt and the ultimate products they develop is incredible! I would highly endorse them for your entire writing needs!!!
Inside the Visible arts, an essay is usually a preliminary drawing or sketch that types a foundation to get a closing portray or sculpture, created as being a test of the get the job done's composition (this meaning of the phrase, like a number of of Individuals subsequent, arises from the term essayJA's this means of "try" or "demo"). See also
Furthermore, your mother's medical doctor has got to confirm inside a written assertion that you offered treatment that saved her from a nursing household for The 2 yrs before her getting into in to the nursing home. The composed assertion needs to have aspects about what varieties of treatment you furnished. The statement ought to describe the sort of care that nursing house people get: aid with things to do of everyday living, issues inhabitants require so as to Safe and sound, that demonstrate they can not Dwell alone.
Due to the fact plagiarism is really a sort of academic dishonesty or academic fraud, universities and colleges could investigate papers they suspect are from an essay mill by utilizing plagiarism detection software package, which compares essays towards a databases of regarded mill essays and by orally screening pupils within the contents of their papers.[18] Magazine or newspaper
"States which can be committed to serving persons in their unique households (or perhaps a homelike choice) build procedures and processes to make that doable. When that infrastructure will not be set up, folks have no decision but to enter an establishment mainly because official website they are not able to wait months or months for services to be authorized and sent.
When someone's title or date of birth is amended, the birth certification will reveal that the item was modified. Notes about the amendment are going to be printed on the certificate. The notes will say what was adjusted, the files utilized to justify the Modification, and the day the Modification was made.
We tackle all method of subject areas. Below, you'll see this have a far more peaceful time to search for a writer with superior knowledge of ways to do your homework.
A history essay from time to time called a thesis essay describes an argument or claim about a number of historical occasions and supports that declare with evidence, arguments, and references. The textual content can make it obvious into the reader why the argument or declare is find more info therefore.[fifteen] Narrative
"Every time you start a fresh project, you need to comprehensive a Project Constitution template. The Project Constitution defines the eyesight and boundaries with the project, plus the substantial amount roadmap.
I like to consider authorized paperwork as resources. Some equipment you use if you are alive, look at these guys which include Powers of Legal professional and Well being Care Directives. I might deal with these types 1st, due to the fact plenty of people want to control their life, while alive, as much as you possibly can.
is usually The most hard ways while in the Project Daily life Cycle, because it defines the parameters inside of which the project must be sent.
Persons also default on their own reverse mortgage financial loan if they permanently go out of the home. article This tends to come about when a person goes in to the nursing home and their medical professional suggests which they now not can return home, and You can find not A further borrower (e.g. spouse) living in the house.
An alternative choice will be to report this to the law enforcement to determine if Jacob might be billed with against the law, Potentially theft and/or criminal trespass. It will be up towards the prosecutor to decide if there is enough proof to carry any legal fees against Jacob.
Feel free to check out my array of books to assist with the preparing of the funding proposal. Take pleasure in applying this Information and I hope it delivers you superior luck when you look for funding in your Thoughts!


text:
Nokia unveils budget Lumia 620 Windows Phone 8 handset
Colourful handset offers latest Microsoft mobile OS on the cheap
Nokia has unveiled the Lumia 620 smartphone today, its cheapest Windows Phone 8 handset yet.
The Nokia Lumia 620 was shown off at the LeWeb conference in Paris on Wednesday morning, with Nokia emphasising its design virtues. It uses a new dual-shot colour technique, which makes it the most colourful Nokia Lumia phone yet.
"Dual-shot adds a second layer of coloured, transparent or translucent polycarbonate on top of a base layer to produce secondary colour blends and depth effects," Nokia explained. This means, for example, that adding yellow and cyan cases to the handset will make a lime green colour.
The handset will be available in seven different colours at launch: lime green, cyan, orange, magenta, yellow, black and white.
Marko Ahtisaari, executive vice president of design at Nokia, told conference-goers: "The Nokia Lumia 620 takes our pure colour story and give it a burst of playfulness.
"We like to say about the 620 'it's the most fun for your money.'"
The compact handset also features a 3.8in 480x800 Clearblack screen, a dual-core Qualcomm Snapdragon processor and Microsoft's Windows Phone 8 mobile operating system. There is also 8GB of internal storage, a 5MP rear-facing camera, 0.3MP front-facing camera and a 1,300mAh battery.
"With its innovative design, the latest Windows Phone 8 software and signature experiences from Nokia, like Nokia lenses, Nokia Maps and Nokia Music, the Nokia Lumia 620 is a highly competitive smartphone at this price point," said Jo Harlow, executive vice president of Nokia Smart Devices.
The Nokia Lumia 620 will arrive in Europe early next year, priced at around £150 before taxes and subsidies.
V3 Latest
'Cutting edge' Russian robot was man in suit
Boris the robot outed as man in rented robot suit
NASA and SpaceX reschedule first demonstration mission of SpaceX's Crew Dragon capsule
Mission will provide vital data about the performance of rocket, spacecraft, autonomous docking system and the landing system
Virgin Galactic could attempt test flight of SpaceShipTwo today
The flight will take off from California's Mojave Air and Space Port and could happen as soon as 13th December
Supernova close to Earth 2.6 million years ago could have killed off large ocean animals
Earth was showered with heavy particles called muons, which could have caused mutations and cancer in animals


text:
die maulklemme ist echt geil...
A classic from the Golden Age of Porn and the VHS tapes dominated the market.
Damn..she's one cutie!
Lol, I didnt watch the video, just heard her voice while I was scrolling down reading the comments. Talk about a German Accent. Yes, zis is nize. Ze best.
What an idiot to put this in the Babysitters category. That is the one thing I like better about porn hub, they let the people vote on the categories.