MATTERS AT HAND: Optimism in short supply this New Year
December 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Grand Forks Herald
The beginning of another year is supposed to be an optimistic time, but optimism is hard to muster this New Year. The news of the last month has been unbearable sad and unbelievably frustrating. Nor do the portents bode well. Continue Reading
Happy New Year Mike Jacobs! I want to apologize to you for giving you such a hard time for only endorsing republicans in the last election in the state of North Dakota. I meant what I said but I could have been less annoying about it. Take care and drive safe.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
Honestly, you are completely right in attributing the terminology of lack of problem solving resolve to those in Washington. But why go down this path of global warming, the last 25 years is a mere blink in the earths climate history. For all those scientists that are quick to tout global warming, even though some have been found to have falsified results to support their hypothisis, they cant deny the fact that the earth has always flucuated climate wise. In fact back in the 60s scientists were convinced that the earth was cooling.
Mike, the fact is, as someone who has a significant chunk of his family involved in local agriculture- there happens to be a multitude of reasons as to why local farmers have changed crops over the last 30 years, and for you to put so much emphasis on climate change, just so happens to be a lazy and uneducated argument. Shame, you need to do more research.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
24
What is the temperature supposed to be?
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
Not 333 mths. of consecutive world high record aver. mthly. ones for sure. No one 27 or under has seen a world below aver. mthly. temp. in their lifetime.
Like or Dislike:
12 
13
A warming trend like this has never happened before in 4 1/2 billion years, how can you know that spearman? That´s only 30 years out of 4 1/2 BILLION!
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
Ah Bob, where did I say it never happened before? We can safely say it hasn’t happened for a long time time considering atmospheric CO2 is higher than it has been for, I believe a few million yrs. The Antarctic ice cores tell us that.
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
Spearman, since it hasn´t happened in a long time it must be man´s fault?
What caused the earth to warm all those other times when man wasn´t here?
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Methane from dinosaurs.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
George Bush.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Bob, methane from melting permafrost. It is 10-20 times more lethal than CO2. It is about to happen again as Siberia & Canada permafrost melts.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Bah-Humbug on the whole lot
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
I have rarely met either an optimistic conservative or a pessimistic liberal. They both should be considered an endangered species. However, “The optimist lives on the peninsula of infinite possibilities; the pessimist is stranded on the island of perpetual indecision.” ― William Arthur Ward.
I prefer to be an optimistic independent having personally lived long enough to see this country survive both conservative and liberal administrations.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
Optimism went out the window when 53% of our nation decided to bring back the Spender in Chief and for some reason expect different results.
Double Facepalm moment if ever there was one.
Good Luck in 2013, youre gonna need it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
26
Here I go again … but … I read the number twelve represents perfect government. The number thirteen represents the breakdown of perfect government, in short rebellion. It is seen in association with rebellion of all forms. The first time we see thirteen in the bible is: Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled. Here we clearly see the relationship between the number twelve and thirteen. It is also part of the introduction to the first war mentioned in the bible.
Like or Dislike:
6 
15
Numerology is about as valid as Slave Jim’s hairball in “Huck Finn”.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
I will check back with you in December smarty pants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
“You say you want a revolution … well, you know …. we all want to change the world …”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you going someplace Capt? “You’re going to need it.” ??
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Optimism? We’re getting “Greeced”, bend over.
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
I have been saying for a while now that going over the fiscal cliff just might be the best thing for this country. Nothing I have heard or read during the last month dissuades me from that opinion.
First off: fiscal cliff is a term coined by newspaper editors. It is not descriptive. The only thing that happens is a federal law is allowed to expire. Most laws are written with sundowner clauses to insure they are reevaluated at a later date. Why do we want to be governed by a law written for a different time and a different place?
Congress and the White House have been busy reevaluating this law. That is their job. If they choose not to pass its extension the world most certainly will not come to an end.
If we fall off the cliff the government will not shut down and people will still receive their government checks. What will happen is the government will be forced to do what it should have already done: cut spending and increase revenue.
In other words somebody is not going to be happy. So be it. I am tired of the government not doing its job.
The farm program and other forms of corporate welfare, wasteful military spending, pet projects of influential legislators, a bloated safety net: these are all how we got to where we are today. It is time to regain control. That means EVERYONE bleeds.
I shudder thinking how much of our economy is dependent on military spending. Virginia is bracing for a perfect storm of badness (my brother works for a defense contractor earning 3x what I do. He is bracing for the possibility of being layed off). Their local economy is so dependent on DC spending that the governor is positively apoplectic.
How did it ever get this way. Obviously no one listened to Eisenhower.
Given that defense and welfare are peanuts, falling off the cliff will also make us take a long look at where our money actually goes: entitlements. Without entitlement reform the rest is just windowdressing.
You could stop WIC, AFDC (whatever it is called now), and completely shutter the DOD and our budget would still not be balanced. Entitlements have grown that large.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
There never seems to be talk about huge government give aways to corporations in this spend cuts….Do we really need to be paying oil companies money for trying to find energy solutions when we know they have no incentive to do so? I don’t know if we’re still doing it but at one time there was money for struggling companies like McDonalds to explore the feasibility of starting in another country…..We need to help them on that?
How many of these mega rich who want to take from programs that help the needy are making money hand over fist from sweetheart deals given to them by their personal congress people or such……Halliburton anyone?
There’s also just a tangle of expenses that haven’t been accounted for because the government is just so big that there’s programs that have ceased but are still getting funds (Up to a couple years ago anyway)
It just irks me to always hear about programs that will have a dire effect on the people who really need them, but never any talk about cutting the real fat….corporate welfare and padded sweetheart deals….the real corruption
Like or Dislike:
14 
6
As Thomas Jefferson advised, “don’t let the a corporate aristocracy become dominant in the US”. He was referring to the British of course who dominated by the aristocracy of the British East India Co. and The Hudson Bay Co.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
It’s one thing for the average home owner to have mortgage deduction but another to have it abused by the wealthy to build bigger houses to avoid any income taxes. Not only do those taxes lost increase the deficit but larger homes contribute a huge amount to global warming. That’s why in 72 we started req. homes to be built with 2X6s instead of 2X4s to add R value to save against OPEC petro$s.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Spearman, there is a cap on the amount of mortgage interest that is deductible; only the interest from the first $1,000,000 of debt is deductible. For example, if your mortgage $1,000,000 and the interest rate is 5% you would have a $50,000 deduction . Also note that idea that you can “avoid paying any income taxes” by building a bigger house is nonsensical; only the interest portion is deductible and the alternative minimum tax would kick-in long before you ever reach a significant deduction based itemized deductions. The problem with the alternative minimum tax is not that it does not catch enough people, it is catching too many. Even President Obama concedes that the “lost revenue” that he wants to take from the wealthy amounts to just 8% of the budget deficit; the deficit is a spending problem not a tax problem.
What bothers me about your post is that you have used biased and politically motivated misstatements about tax to support a legitimate concern. Houses are too big. Whether it is a disregard for the environmental impact of mega-homes or the unrealistic expectation that everyone is entitled to live in a mansion the size of homes in the United States has become ridiculous. Certainly some people build or buy bigger homes because of the mortgage interest deduction, but the suggestion that the mortgage interest deduction is to blame for excessive house size is not credible. By the way, I think the deduction should be eliminated as it represents just one of the many social engineering and/or preference items that have transformed the fairly simple concept of income taxation into the political monstrosity that it has become.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
$50,000 in tax reduction multiplied a million or more times year after yr. isn’t a significant drain on the ability to pay the nations bills? The debt increases exponentially when tax income is diverted to mortgage deductions.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
Spearman, no the mortgage interest deduction for the wealthy is not significant. The total tax impact of eliminating all mortgage interest would be $83 billion (based on 2010) Because of the alternative minimum tax over 90% of the tax reduction was attributable to people earning less than $150,000. The budget deficit last year was 1.2 trillion. There simply are not very many taxpayers with million dollar mortgages who can also avoid the alternative minimum tax. While your focus on the wealthy is misplaced, I do agree that complete elimination of the mortgage interest deduction would be a step forward.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
What about the exponential increase in national debt when years of accumulated loss of taxes is not available to pay for the nondiscretionary budget outlay (50%) of the $1.2 trillion each yr. That’s $650 billion per yr. in nondiscretionary expenditures that multiplies exponentially when not covered by tax income.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
9 thumbs down must be real estate agents or millionaires.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Joe, would there be a deficit if we had the tax rates we had under 1950s Republicans?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
What is, exactly, the average homeowner? Income range, please?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
$50-100,000.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1