Tag Archives: Journalism

December 6, 2022 · 16:06

The other white paper

Yes, there are always white papers, but which one is true? You see, they are all true, they are all a point of view. Yet the truth from a point of view is relative, that has always been the case. This is why we have peer criticism for academic papers. Yet that is not the case for the media, they are all fighting to remain around with some feigned form of value. This has been the case for over a decade and now the BBC gives us (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63869013) ‘Meta threatens to remove US news content if new law passes’, you see the truth of the matter is that the people no longer need the news, the news is no longer if value. It started when the media starting soliciting (aka whoring) for digital dollars. Flamed bring revenue, actual news not so much. The events surrounding Elon Musk, the abstinence around Jack Dorsey and a dozen other cases made it so. The newspapers are irrelevant and they know it, so in a last gesture to remain not completely irrelevant they rely on laws to force funds from social media. Even as the shared instances from places like the Australian link to paywalls, they are all about ‘lost revenue’ And the Australian is not alone, loads of American newspapers and media (like Forbes) do EXACTLY the same thing. They will tell you the scoop AFTER you pay, so how is that lost revenue? Not all papers are like that, but many are and now we get “It would give publishers and broadcasters greater powers to collectively bargain with social media companies for a larger share of ad revenue”, I believe this is to be a false setting and Meta gives it to you in the form of “Meta claims their platform, in fact, provides increased traffic to struggling news outlets.” They are correct. Consider the truth, it I simple, how many times did you go to the news site? How many times was this because THEY shared news on social media? This has been the case for a decade and now that Meta is taking off the gloves, we see how irrelevant the media has become. In the last year alone I highlighted close to a dozen cases of incompetency and a lack of information vetting by the media, so why should they get paid for shortcomings? It is almost like the decapitated chicken.  It’s running around, but it is already dead, the rest of its body did not figure it out yet. Is it fair? Does it matter? No, the media had the option to evolve, it merely decided that is was cheaper and more profitable to hang onto someone else’s coattails. It did not work out well for them and now they cry foul, almost like the yellow pages. Their era died and they just never adjusted in time and I am adding to the pain as my 5G seemingly goes to China. Setting a new stage in several ways and taking advertisement power away from all and leave it where it should have been all along, with the advertising people. With the locations of advertising and that is the lesson that they never picked up on, and it is not their fault. A place like Google missed it too and I mentioned it at least twice this year. 

A stage that is moving away from them faster and faster and if Meta makes the move it is threatening to a lot of players in the media world will be done for. Such is life, Media Erectus is getting eaten before passing on its whinges. So do not focus on the whinge, consider the place technology had for almost 2 decades and see where the media is not, and they have not been where they needed to be for almost a decade and now that they are about to become irrelevant they cry laws. Bu the way these same people never championed law changes to the environment, law changes to taxation and they simply went for the emotional targets, it had more expected digital dollars, so where are these dollars now? 

And when we see “Media companies argue that Meta generates huge sums of money from news articles shared on the platform.” So where is THAT evidence? Meta generates advertisement towards people through free accounts, and this gets me to (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ) the congress statement April 2018 where the answer is ‘We run ads’ a setting that was in place for well over a decade. The news was never an element and as such the media better be quick with presenting ACTUAL evidence in that case.

When I see how irrelevant the media and Microsoft have become and I see them cry like little chihuahua’s all whilst they screw up options left right and centre, what the actual F*** (censored word) the world around them is doing protecting something this irrelevant is beyond me, it actually is.

We can debate things but look at the numbers. the Paris based World Association of Newspapers, which represents 18,000 newspapers gives us that there are a lot more. The world has 8,000,000,000 people, which implies that there is an average of 445,000 people per newspaper. When you start doing the math, you will see that the numbers o not add up. The newspapers that are still relevant are so as they have well over 2 million subscriptions. The Washington Post has 3 million, and The Wall Street Journal 2.4 million subscriptions. The Dutch Telegraaf had in 2001 807,000 subscriptions, in 2017 it was only 393,000. The larger national newspapers are losing ground and now we see the larger play. There are 195 countries in the world. So why are there 18,000 newspapers? They nearly all rely on Reuters, making at least 17,000 irrelevant already. But these are the numbers no one looks at, and they are all vying for advertisements. Look at ANY newspaper and look how many advertisements they have and how much they charge and you will see their actual loss. They are no longer a relevant advertisement group, digital media replaced them, they lost relevancy by allowing to become a family of 18,000 brothers and sisters and that is before you see the rest of the media relying on advertisement sales to qualify their existence. But no one looks at that side are they?

The other white paper that no one gets to see is the one no one in media wants to look at, it merely shows how irrelevant they have become.  

Advertisement

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 31, 2022 · 20:04

Cives tantum

It is an old setting, I forgot about it for the longest of times. You see in the old days there were announcers, they would give the people the knowledge of the events taking place. Yet in some cases some area’s would not be told everything. It was a case of ‘citizens only’, a filtering of what non-citizens needed not know. It still happens today, governments and corporations are filtering the news to protect their interests. So what happens when everyone demands to know?

It started a few days ago, but today I see another setting, a setting that goes beyond filtering, a setting that we need to know about. Several outlets reported on ‘UAE intercepts Houthi missile as Israeli president visits’ (at https://aje.io/jww3hn), I am taking the Al Jazeera link (it was a lot shorter) but they all give the same news. We are given “The UAE is part of a Saudi-led coalition fighting the Iran-aligned Houthis in Yemen, in a seven-year-old conflict that has left tens of thousands of people dead, displaced millions and spawned what the United Nations describes as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis”, we are given the news, we are given the news again and again, yet the important part in this is not merely the attack. It is the part that is left away from us. It is the part that Houthi forces cannot create (and allegedly operate) drones and ballistic missiles. There is no infrastructure, there is no knowledge and there is no manufacturing options. There is only one setting, Iran is delivering and optionally operating the events. There is an additional side that involves Hezbollah, but that evidence is too slim to consider even whilst Iran is the larger culprit, Hezbollah is for now not off the hook. 

Yet the media is all but silenced on the involvement of Iran. Those idiots had no issues spouting innuendo, nonsense and fabrication regarding the journalist no one cares about (Jamal Khashoggi), but in case of Iran all these settings are not working, there is a need to keep Iran out of the limelight and I wonder why that is. Consider the knowledge we have, the smuggling we see and the non activities against Iran. Why is the media keeping us in the dark? Who are they catering for? All questions that we do not see answered. And even as some players (read: BBC) are now handing us the Children in Yemen, they did not do it until 3 hours after I posted my blog, which was 10 hours after the ABC posted it. So the BBC who tends to lead was now 13 hours late on Children used by Houthi forces, another filter on Yemen, and I reckon that too many were posting, so they could no longer hold off, they merely delayed and posted the minimal numbers with the occasional error in calculations. Too many people are filtering the events Iran is a part of. Too many are not mentioning Iran driven events and many are not questioning certain events and it has been going on since before 14 September 2019, but that too was not decently looked at, was it?

Civis Tantum was to some degree acceptable in those days 2000 years ago, but today the press states again and again that they are all fair and balanced, shining light on the darkness that threatens democracy and whatever other claim they can make. So, when you see these questions, all whilst we see them not come from them, with all the other failings from drone strikes to hacking and even the ICIJ, a much larger failing is given to us, we are merely told what those looking over their shoulders allow them to tell us, so how is that independent and revealing?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2020 · 19:21

The anger of driven injustice

We all have that, at times it is injustice that drives us, it is one thing to set a marker in one direction, yet the anger hits us what those same greed driven fucks (read: journalists) get stupid people (read: Ambassadors and politicians) to be the joy toy of the public, which journalism an then flame and exploit. Now, we all accept that there are good journalists and bad journalists, so we have two locations to hang them. Do you think this is funny? Read on and I’ll give you a gasser.

Many journalists do not stack up to too much, in my personal view they are currently on the same level as drug pushers. It is not all their fault; to some extent their producers and editors set the tone on how they are perceived. For me the realisation came in 2012, the media was so up in arms to get Sony advertisement, that they ignored issues that would optionally hit well over 30 million gamers and they ignored the facts and the settings given to them, some went out to trivialise this as ‘there was a board meeting, there is a memo and it is not as bad as it seems’, but the setting was given, they chose a memo that could be made null and void at any board meeting  against the terms of agreement, a legally binding document between the consumer and Sony. In the end nothing happened because the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) did not go through and that was the moment gamers would be (almost) squeezed to death. It was perhaps the first clear sign that media hands over control to Share holders, stake holders and advertisers. They will not call it that way, they would set to ‘specific filtering of what our viewers want’ and it is an arbitrary filter that seemingly aligns near perfectly to their share holders, stake holders and advertisers needs, this is how I personally see it.

So when I see ‘Saudi Arabia rebuked at UN over Jamal Khashoggi killing, abuses’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/saudi-arabia-rebuked-jamal-khashoggi-killing-abuses-200915161217960.html) with the optional heated thought “who the fuck does Ambassador Carsten Staur think he is?”, I have made mention on several blogs on the fact that there is no evidence. This does not make Saudi Arabia innocent, yet it also shows no evidence of guilt. And to add to this, this happened in the nation with the most incarcerated journalists in the world. So when we see this event, I tend to get a little angry. For your consideration, where was Staur in the matter of Lydia Cacho (1.2 million results), Erick Kabendera (126,000 results) and Roberto Jesús Quiñones (4.43 million results). Yet when we look for Jamal Khashoggi we get well over 7 million search results and this was a lot higher. In November 2018 I gave the readers “Jamal Khashoggi got 60 million hits in Google Search this morning”, this was at ‘Two Issues in play’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/11/20/two-issues-in-play/) so all these search results that suddenly went somewhere else, the exploitation of some journalist that most will not give a fuck about (apologies for rudeness). I will do you one better, for the most the world had no idea who Jamal Khashoggi was 2 years ago. This is not about his visibility, it is about those pushing for visibility and someone is buttering someones bread rather thickly. 

So when I am given “The Saudi journalist was lured into the Saudi consulate to handle marriage paperwork. Within minutes, the one-time royal insider turned critic was strangled and his body dismembered, according to Turkish and US officials” I demand that these idiots show acceptable evidence or are forced in to abdicating their positions. Where is the evidence he was strangled, where is the evidence he was dismembered (optionally to fit into a dog food tin). And the journalists forget, ever since the Leveson enquiry, you do not have any level of trust, you cannot and will not police yourself and as such, you are tainted by tabloid tactics, most journalists are part of a digital age trying to flame people into becoming click bitches on articles, in that they are adhering to soft calls into the ears of producers (as I personally see it) and set the articles to a larger stage of non-trust.

As such the stage of “In the third joint statement to the council targeting Riyadh since the killing, the mainly European countries renewed a call for “transparency and holding all those responsible accountable”” I get to be angry. Do I think the Saudi Arabia is innocent? I doubt that thy are on several given issues, yet the stage of condemning on non evidence all whilst we are supposed to be nations of law is just a little too fucked up for me to accept. And in all this the actual guilty party (as I personally see it) is the pool of journalists who are for the most the bitches of share holders, stake holders and advertisers, they made their own bed, so now they get to enjoy the shit they shuffle in. 

And consider that the stage is now that a journalist is not ever believed, only by those requiring flamed articles to be alive, so as such the profession of journalist is no longer something to write home about, neither is that of Ambassador (if Carsten Staur is to be believed), so when the people rely on any kind of news, are we even surprised that they rely on Facebook? 

This is the stage manipulators of news created, now that there is no way back, we see a settling stage of those merely agreeing to the needs of corporations. How did we sign on for that?

So if you feel angry, make yourself a list of the elements and the why and then start looking on who is keeping you actually informed on the matters that anger you. I am not asking you to agree with me, I am merely telling you to investigate the evidence that some claim to have and investigate the claim, when you see language that is evasive in nature and we see the supporting statement ‘It is a complex issue’ you know that you are being misdirected.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 14, 2014 · 16:23

Sacking the editor?

That is the question that is currently on my mind. What to do about Martin Ivens, should he be sacked, should he be allowed vindication, should he be prosecuted? You see, it is time that the editors are held responsible for what they do, that they are being held up into the light for what was said, exploited and then forgotten, just so that these people can prostitute events for circulation. What do you think?

Why Martin Ivens? That is of course the question that needs answering. It all started with the news on March 19th when I wrote ‘Any sport implies corruption! In this I looked at the events when the Guardian (one of several papers) reported on allegations against Qatar. As stated before it is about evidence and ‘more likely than not’, I also personally speculated on the chance that it was more likely that several advertisement players wanted change as Qatar was just inconvenient. And let’s face it, the press catering to advertisement dollars is not that far-fetched, if you doubt that, then consider the Sony events from November 2013.

The big issue becomes July 28th when we see the issues explode a little further when even Reuters stated “Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported that some of the “millions of documents” it had seen linked payments by former FIFA executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam to officials to win backing for Qatar’s World Cup bid“, so here we have it. I think that if Martin Ivens wants to keep his job, he needs to publish these ‘millions of documents‘, if he cannot, or does not, then we should consider prosecuting Martin Ivens for slander and he should be held accountable for serious breaches of journalistic integrity, which should be done by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), but in light of what we have seen, they will not be up to the task, unwilling to do anything and in the end, they will become the joke that Hacked-off proclaimed them to be from day one.

Yet, can we attack Martin Ivens like that? Yes, we can! However, Martin Ivens has every right to vindicate himself by publishing the data (millions of records) that they saw. What are the chances that we get just a lame excuse? Time will tell, but as we have looked at the events in the last two years, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be held to account.

But should it be Martin Ivens? If we see the CNN article that I used in the July article, we see “Sarah Baxter, deputy editor of the Sunday Times, told CNN in an interview. Qatar commits to labour reforms the impact of changing World Cup dates ‘We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved. There is clear evidence linking payments to people who have influence over the decision of who hosted the World Cup’“, in my mind it should be both, but in the end, as Martin Ivens did not go against this, it seems to make him an accessory to the event, guilty by omission. In the end this all might remain academic if IPSO does not act, because a complaint needs to be filed, yet consider how soccer is dragged through the mud here, without the evidence that the Sunday Times claims to have, the scope of events regarding FIFA will change to the larger degree.

This is however not the end, there are additional issues with the investigation as we saw delay upon delay and now the ‘verdict’ also calls issues into question. A more reliable source (at http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30044791), asks some of these question: “But Garcia’s statement, issued less than four hours after the report was published, has reopened the debate about the validity of the bidding process for both the 2018 and 2022 competitions“, a second statement “‘Fifa has no choice but to publish Michael Garcia’s report in full if it expects anyone to believe their claims that there has been no cover-up over allegations of corruption in the World Cup bidding process,’ said British MP Clive Efford, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Sport.”

That part is spot on in my mind, let’s not forget that in my mind, the jobs of both Martin Ivens and Sarah Baxter are on the line as I see it, especially in a time when the bulk of all journalism is regarded by many to have no integrity left.

The final statement that opens the barn is: “In view of the fact Michael Garcia has now stated he is not happy with the findings and is to appeal, I await with interest to see what further disclosures will be made,” said Boyce“, which beckons a few more issues. Why report on something that is not satisfactory? What findings? Which evidence? It seems interesting that the 430 page report is set into a 42 page summary, when we see the Guardian we see the implied event that someone else wrote the summary. Why? Why did both reports not come from Michael Garcia (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/13/farce-fifa-michael-garcia-erroneous-ethics-report), why do we see the following quote “Garcia’s dramatic intervention came just hours after Eckert had confirmed the Guardian’s revelation that Russia and Qatar would be cleared of substantive wrongdoing and would not be stripped of the tournaments despite a whirlwind of speculation“, so are some people now spinning in regards to possible advertisers missing out on big business dollars for media? Because, as I see it, the issues remains, was all this about inconvenience or actual corruption, and if the second, why does the summary not bear out the full report if corruption has been proven? Yet overall there are valid questions too, when I see the quote “Russian bid executives claimed that all their emails were wiped from their rented computers. Alexei Sorokin, who runs Russia’s 2018 organising committee, denied a deliberate cover-up“, I do wonder how such incompetence is even allowed in such a prestigious environment. Where were the back-ups? Would the achievement of success not warrant back-ups for a job well done and these documents would have been kept as evidence that a job was well done? Would these documents not show the value of Alexei Sorokin to his government?

So even as the guilt is not proven, the ‘claim‘ of ‘millions of documents‘ still requires scrutiny, because if this is not adhered to, we are confronted with more than one level of corruption, possible corruption of ethics by the press, possible corruption of standards by FIFA and possible corruption from bidders unproven due to incompetence.

I hope that the true investigators will speak out on evidence, for the simple consequence of inaction could be the beginning of a wave of mistrust into sports. The one place where acts of corruption could have a long term effect, who wants to watch a sport series, where a foundation of trust can no longer be relied upon, if that happens what would we end up watching?

 

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 1, 2013 · 16:46

Biased Journalism on USA shutdown?

We have seen reports of all forms. We see information management in what I have called bad news managing. This has happened in the Netherlands. Is it Biased Journalism, or is this journalism based upon the information handed to them?

The second part would be fair enough, because the journalist is dealing with what is handed to them. However, when we look at the canons of Journalism and their codes of ethics some questions come to the front of the lines. Truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity are three of the elements and there are more than just these three. I am not willing to attack truthfulness. It is in my view an empty gesture to do so. This is all based upon information that the Journalist gets handed. Accuracy might be an issue. They might have passed on the exact information they were handed, yet how accurate was it? Was the information tested in any way? Then there is objectivity. I am not sure if that is a valid point. Let us face the fact that objectivity is in the eyes of the beholder and as such there is more than one viewpoint. In all honesty, any article would need to be viewed from more than one side and the news as we usually watch it on TV is actually not that equipped to do just that. Newspapers are!

I have illustrated in earlier blogs that some of the mentioned information seemed inaccurate to me. This happens, I do not claim to be correct, but it seemed too upbeat to me and as such I questioned it. I was not alone, but not too many public contributors were, and in more than one occasion my view was the correct one. So when I saw the NOS news today, more questions rose in my mind and it is time to ask a few more and some other questions.

The most questionable part was the news on the US Shutdown as that danger approaches within the next 24 hours. What I saw as an issue was the way some parties were illustrated. First of all, it is important to know that I am leaning strongly towards the republican view. Not stating so beforehand would be wrong in my mind. The issue I had was with the NOS newscast of the US shutdown. It was not incorrect, but there were issues that have not been mentioned, which were at the centre of it all.

I see this all as the republican move to stop the abundant of irresponsible spending by a democratic party run government. Yes, we know that this is not about the fiscal cliff this time, but the government budget is directly linked to this. The democrats have taken the debt out of acceptable proportions.

Let us not forget that the US has a 17,000 BILLION dollar debt, this comes down to 340 billion dollars per state. In addition, if we look back to the Californian change in 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor, former governor Gray Davis was confronted with a recall because the state shortfall was only 10% of the 340 Billion. That was directly due to the dot com boom collapse and a large group of companies were suddenly in a position no longer able to pay taxation, which meant that California, one of the richest states was suddenly without cash. Now the simple logic that follows, if one of the richest states cannot pay 10% of the outstanding debt, how can the others pay at all? This is the big cake that gets layers after layer of icing. With each layer it is presented as something that can be dealt with, but both democrat and republicans have no real solution. This is at the core of it all. So it is not just about the government budget, it is the issue that the budget is not realistic and that it is only adding to the debt. So when I see the part where Democrat Nita Lowey is talking about a compromise, then I end up splitting my guts with laughter. For two administrations there has not been any decent level of compromise. The republican view is that spending MUST go down by a lot. We could view the state by state comparison, especially against the Netherlands. Most states are larger than the Netherlands and none have a realistic approach to dealing with a 340 billion dollar debt. Now compare that to the Netherlands having to cut 6 billion and the view is almost complete. We all have to tighten the belt and within the USA this would last for no less three generations. The view I am proclaiming to be correct does have issues as well. It is however the view I behold. After Detroit, which already has gone bust, almost two dozen cities are facing the same problem in the US. Fresno, Compton and Oakland are three of them and they are all in California (one of the three rich states). If we would take a deeper look at the 50+ largest cities, then we see healthcare and retirement cost issues that make Detroit look like a joke. It is the healthcare part that is at the centre of it all. The Republicans are utterly convinced that Obama Care will not solve it at all. It will just add to the massive debts. What has been propagated as a solution to all, is in the realistic view of many a non-solution that will push forward debts and invoices that cannot be paid for in the end and as such people will face even more hardship down the line. Not to mention the fact that healthcare professionals might end up seeking greener pastures outside of the US.

The budget shortage is not new. This has been going on since 1995 (at least), however, in those days former president Clinton had two advantages. The first was that the government coffers had a cash surplus. Second was that the dot com boom was going nice. Consultancy firms were going strong, the incomes were really nice and consultants were making loads of cash by selling concepts. So, people were buying ideas and not an existing product. No matter what the reason was (like 9/11), it was the spending that the Bush administration started which gave the treasury such a negative jolt. It was nowhere near the spending that President Obama did, but he did not start this, so let us be fair about it. Against the current administration it must be stated that the no true legislation has been passed stopping Wall street the way it should, so there is no evidence that this will not happen again. And we are all aware that the economic thrashing started all with the Wall Street Clam bake ‘lets go hedge funds’ that was a huge part of the predicament we have now.

The question from the NOS ‘Is there no talking with the Republicans?‘ is not the only question and the one sided part of it is not correct. The linked question is ‘Can US overspending not be contained?‘ is the side the Republicans are dealing with. That part does not seem to be addressed by anyone. We see that side when we look at all the other places, including the Netherlands, the UK and Australia. They all have their own budget ghosts to deal with.

The Dutch government has its own cross to bear trying to find solutions to a 6 billion cutting spree. Too much talking and for too long no results. If we take all these sides (in all the talked about nations), then perhaps another method should be found. The first part is to cut ALL political incomes by 20% and no overtime payment at all (not sure if they get that to begin with). That should make a decent cut in the cost to the national treasuries and might make for quicker decisions. In my view I see no solution in any way to lower taxation. I think that this approach is an unrealistic one. What might be a solution is to change it all to a two tiered tax system with only 27% and 39%. That might work, but only if ALL tax deductibility’s are removed. This has two benefits. The system becomes simpler, and over all, with no deductibility’s left it becomes a clear approach. In addition there is a need to make all commerce taxable at the point of sale (the location of the purchaser’s keyboard). This must be where the buyer physically is. This is to take a stance on that Google, Amazon, et al approach, where on-line companies seem to be selling it all from an empty office in Ireland at taxation levels which should be regarded as a joke.

The system has to be changed. We have heard so many voices that a solution can be made, whilst ZERO results have been achieved for close to a decade. When we see administrations of entire cities go bust, it is time to just end whining about a solution that remains no more than a concept.

By the way, when we look at spending it all, what has been the end result? The fact that the US, the bulk of the Commonwealth and the Netherlands are spending way too much (compared to what is coming in though taxation) is out of proportions. That is why the republicans are putting their foot down and so far there is no evidence that they are holding the wrong position.

What is the right position? That is the question and I do not know whether the Republican position will be the correct one either. Yet, staying with the Democratic view whilst we have almost a decade of evidence that it is not working seems to be a flawed point of view. That view is reinforced by the Heritage foundation where it was quoted “While federal revenues are recovering from the recent recession, spending is growing sharply, resulting in four consecutive years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion.”

So the US government has been spending more than a trillion more then it received. Consider that in 2011 the total revenue was set at 2.3 trillion, spending 43% more then you get each year is not a good idea. Consider that the recession is not done by a long-shot; overspending 40% annually will have long term consequences.

If we accept that a government is not a profit based organisation then we could consider that a government would collect taxation at 105%-110% of what it needs. When you spend money and then only collect 71% you are going to need guarantees that things will go wrong. So when I stated that it will take 3 generations to get rid of the debt I was not kidding. In addition, the 17 trillion was just the national debt. The total debt is set at 60 trillion (roughly). This means that every state in the US would have to come up with 1.2 trillion dollars to deal with it. (I know it is not fair, but I need to show an example).

If we consider the three richest states and considering the 2012 numbers (from http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax) we see the following:

The collected taxation from California was 112.3, New York 71.5 and Texas 48.5, all in billions of dollars. So whether we use either the 340 billion or the larger 1.2 trillion, only 3 of the 50 states have any chance of paying it to any effect. Viewing these numbers, do the math and we see that things must change (by a lot). The Heritage foundation is also showing that current entitlements are double the defence budget. How does this relate to Obama care? Will the info they state gives us that the additional costs by 2019 which was set at 100 billion, which is a little over 12% of all collected annual taxes. So, another 100 billion needed whilst there is no income against that. The slide states “Obama care imposes numerous tax hikes which total more than $500 billion over 10 years. Obama care’s higher tax rates on income and investment will slow economic growth, leaving hardworking American families and businesses worse off.”

These are the issues that the republicans are fighting. We have seen enough ‘evidence’ to know that most economic recovery for Europe will not commence until 2015. So, as the GOP (Republican Party) is watching these developments, whilst they are watching the additional entitlement costs go up even further, costs, which are pushing their sense of humour all the way to the basement of Congress. This means that there are additional issues stopping the America from regaining its status of ‘economic superpower’. So these are some of the elements that are not too ‘illuminated’ as the US government squabble goes on. The only bonus I see at present, is that when the government shuts down, they should consider not paying any of the elected Democrats and Republicans for these days either. It might at least save the treasury a few dollars.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,