It's cold and windy today yet this weekend is supposed to be 80+ degrees and sunny. I hear the hammock calling my name!
While on the topic of bizarre fluctuations, I ran across this little tidbit below as I was doing a bit o' research yesterday on the NYS Economic Development budget. One of the "major initiatives" that NYS is planning to close the budget gap is to reduce tourism and marketing funding.
Funding for tourism and marketing programs, including “I Love New York” Tourism, Local Tourism Matching Grants, International Trade, Explore New York and Business Marketing will be reduced or eliminated. Even after these actions, $17 million will be available to support various tourism and marketing programs, such as “I Love NY” Tourism Advertising, Local Tourism Matching Grants and International Trade.
So let me get this straight: we're cutting funding for tourism programs like "I Love NY" in order to ensure that money is available for tourism programs like "I Love NY"? Is there such a thing as peek-a-boo funding? Now you see it/now you don't?
I Love NY. I Love NY not. I Love NY. I Love NY not. I Love NY. I Love NY not. I Love NY. I Love NY not. I Love NY. I Love NY not. I Love NY.
In related news: Virginia is still for losers. It's so embarrassing to have a typo in your slogan, no?
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, March 10, 2008
U.S. Economy Could Fall Casualty to Wars
That's today's headline on CNN.com. The article goes on to say that:
Check my math because I'm not great at these things but, assuming out of the 300M people in the U.S. that 80% are footing the bill for this through their taxes (i.e., 240M), does that mean that each person is spending roughly $50/month today (or $600/year) and that figure will rise to over $11K annually per capita in a decade (in today's dollars)? Please point out my error and tell me that I'm wrong.
Is this a good reason to strive to earn more so that the hit to my wallet doesn't seem that gigantic or a stronger incentive to earn significantly less (i.e., live off the government and lower my taxes) so that I don't have to personally fund this colossal nightmare?
- In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years
- By 2017, it is projected to cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion
- Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line
- These numbers don't include the war's cost to the rest of the world
- Estimating all economic and social costs might push the U.S. war bill up toward $5 trillion by 2017
- These calculations are conservative and don't encompass many "hidden" items in the U.S. budget
Check my math because I'm not great at these things but, assuming out of the 300M people in the U.S. that 80% are footing the bill for this through their taxes (i.e., 240M), does that mean that each person is spending roughly $50/month today (or $600/year) and that figure will rise to over $11K annually per capita in a decade (in today's dollars)? Please point out my error and tell me that I'm wrong.
Is this a good reason to strive to earn more so that the hit to my wallet doesn't seem that gigantic or a stronger incentive to earn significantly less (i.e., live off the government and lower my taxes) so that I don't have to personally fund this colossal nightmare?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)