Worried About the National Debt?

[BigAl]

Billions,,,,,,,,,,,,,You must be having a good laugh about now.

Billions,,,,that my friend is a good one.

Billions.

I guess it's hard to wrap your mind around the word Trillion.

I know I have a hard time of it, as do most of us.

These guys in Washigton are trying to corner the market on Monetary Cloth Type Paper.

They are doing a fine job of it.

You are right about one thing.

Obama is way ahead of you on this one.

Weaken America from within, we have to stop sticking our noses in other countries affairs, that is his scheme.

Can't say it would be a bad thing to leave the world to kill itself off.

Chamberlain would love this one.

Just like before WWII, we butted out, Japan got the ball rolling,,,,,,,, well that did not turn out so well,,,,,,,, after I think about it.

AL

[Tropic traveler]

America's Stupidest Family

A real plan, rather than a rant, might get us somewhere.

AGAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS I ASK YOU:

Why do you post this tripe?  What is your point?  Are you looking for a response?  I think you are a Bezerker, long on rants, short on knowledge and insight. 
 
Would you drop this crap, please?

or maybe this (again your words) explains the problem:

Possibly you could grow a brain and review the issue in more than juvenile terms... then again, it takes a long time to grow a mature brain... you may have a lot of catching up to do.

OK, the place to begin with major cuts is defense spending.  Coupled with veterans benefits, defense spending tops 860 billion, more actually, when you factor in the interest paid on debt acquired to support the defense budget.
 
Eisenhower was right... beware the military-industrial complex.  The US defense budget is almost as large as all other defense budgets in the world combined.  We don't need to be guarding other first world countries like Germany, France, Japan, and Korea while they pay next to nothing for defense.  We don't need 11 carrier strike groups in a day and age where terrorism is the issue.
 
It will take decades to reduce the budget.  First, the companies that build military hardware for the government must start building non military applications for the government.  This will enable Congress to keep up the pork for their districts.  Once building non military applications, the companies can be weaned off the government tit.
 
As the total number of defense personnel drops, so will veterans benefits.  I figure you could easily pull 300 billion out of defense without harming the security of this nation.

Thank you SE!!
Finally something positive from you. Scariest thing of all about what you said is I actually agree! Your thoughts on defense spending are great but there are bigger targets as well.
SS and Medicare..... For all the hoopla about what to "replace" Medicaid with I sure don't hear a lot of talk about how to reduce the cost of medical care at ALL levels. That would make private insurance AND government insurance cheaper WITHOUT cutting services. Why we don't focus on reducing the cost {waste & ineffiency wise} BEFORE developing sweeping changes to the present systems in place is beyond me.
Let's give competition a chance in the medical services field before we make a bad mistake with Gov't run healthcare.
Means testing would be a good start for fixing SS. My former employer was a very wealthy man who took home approx. $30K a month from the dealership he owned. And yup, he took his SS check every month as well. Raising the age to receive SS would be a big help too.

Lots of other options to consider as well but SS, Medicaid, & Defense spending are & have always been the big 3.
The adults do need to take over!

[3fan4life]

OK, the place to begin with major cuts is defense spending.  Coupled with veterans benefits, defense spending tops 860 billion, more actually, when you factor in the interest paid on debt acquired to support the defense budget.
 
Eisenhower was right... beware the military-industrial complex.  The US defense budget is almost as large as all other defense budgets in the world combined.  We don't need to be guarding other first world countries like Germany, France, Japan, and Korea while they pay next to nothing for defense.  We don't need 11 carrier strike groups in a day and age where terrorism is the issue.
 
It will take decades to reduce the budget.  First, the companies that build military hardware for the government must start building non military applications for the government.  This will enable Congress to keep up the pork for their districts.  Once building non military applications, the companies can be weaned off the government tit.
 
As the total number of defense personnel drops, so will veterans benefits.  I figure you could easily pull 300 billion out of defense without harming the security of this nation.

Well Eagle I thank you for finally giving an answer.

Personally I think that there isn't a SINGLE Government department or program that doesn't have fat that can be trimmed from its budget.

But I am a little "confused" , it seems that you have reversed yourself on this issue:

OK... what else?  Ahhh... defense budget... it came in at 792 billion dollars without the Iraq "off budget" spending.  This is 27 percent of the total budget and it does not include military related spending such as weapons research, veterans affairs ($34 billion), Iraq, or Dept of Energy expenditures.  When you stick those in, the budget pushes 1 trillion dollars for defense related spending... or 34 percent of total spending.
But, what the hell... let's chop it back to 10 percent.  The current military strength of the US would have to drop from 1.452 million troops to... oh... let's throw out some weapons programs and keep 25 percent of the personnel... our new troop levels would be down to 363,000.  You think anyone would notice this?  Especially since we already don't have enough troops in Iraq or Afghanistan so that they can actually protect one another?  Nah... no one would notice, I don't think.  Well... someone might notice this.

With the ability to FLIP FLOP like that have you ever thought of running for Congress? 

[Sludge]

Fact is, all the pieces of the pie must be cut.  Im a defense guy, but why do we maintain like 50,000 troops in Germany?  Our southern border needs some help.  Surely they could help with that.  I can understand having some facilities there but not that many living there.  We pay them the same pay scale, but the cash that they spend gets pumped into the German economy.  Its welfare of a sort on a national stage.  There are surely other places that can be closed/reduced.  

SS, well that was never intentioned to support over half of the population and not for long at that.  We have to stop thinking of it and medicare like we do.  Yup your going to hear me say it... Means Testing.  Look, if you are making say over $200k in retirement.  Why do you need that SS check.  Its just golf money at that point.  Yea, ya paid it in... I pay it in too, but I dont ever expect to get any back unless we fix it.  I pay into taxes and it gets given to welfare recips too.  No difference to me.  

Then we have stuff like the Department of Education.  Just get rid of it.  Let the states manage that.

Department of Energy.  Is another to be looked at for some cutting.
IRS.  Wow if we went to a national sales tax at a fixed rate, then the drug money would also get taxed, so would all the cash transactions to illegals, farm hands, ... Yup, we are going to cut jobs but it has to be done and think of the burden it would lift off of companies.  I view about half of corporate accounting expenditures as a tax.  Hey, it was spent to please the gov.  Its a tax of a sort.

Foreign aid.  Dont do away with it, but come on... im sure there are cuts there

Duplication of services.. thats another...

Pay and pensions for congress and senate members...  already mentioned, but it should be limited greatly.  Especially the pensions and office space etc we pay for after they LEAVE office.

Man this list could get long if I keep going and im just a dumb ass farmer.   Heck, I havent even touched welfare...

[razor]

the solution is simple, STOP SPEND MORE THAN THAN THE GOVERNMENT BRINGS IN.  the way to do that is adopt a budget that  equals the revenue.  If we were to go back to a past budget that equals revenue of 2010 the gov doesn't shut down but everything that has been created or increased since whatever year that budget comes from, goes away.  If some program that is really needed is eliminated then look for  something else to cut. But that is where we have to go to get this under control.  Then we can really get down to discussing what is  really needed.

When you figure out you're in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging!!

[Sludge]

Your going to have to go back way farther than 2010...

[x]

Your going to have to go back way farther than 2010...

Sludge is certainly correct about that.  You have to go back to 2001 in the first year of the Bush administration to see that climbing surpluses in the Clinton administration were turned to budget deficits by 2002.



Now, the federal budget has been increasing by most accounts, and as can be seen in the chart below.  This is inflation adjusted using 2000 dollars.



You might be inclined to say that government spending is out of control, but when measured against GDP, the rate of government spending has been almost the same since 1940, something under or around 20 percent of GDP.  In this light, increased government spending is a reflection of increased economic activity, increased population, and a natural outcome to providing increased services for same.



No question that the deficit was caused by increased spending for Afghanistan and Iraq, new prescription support, but mostly by Bush era tax cuts.  The graph below shows the contribution of each.  From the first chart you can see that tax cuts have added about 300 billion to the deficit yearly (Bush made no corresponding spending cuts), 100 billion by the A&I wars, and about 400 billion by the economic downturn.

These three factors alone add 1 trillion to the annual deficit.  And don't forget that it was Congress and Bush Jr that implemented the 700 billion dollar bank bailout program.



Instead of just looking at the annual deficit, it is also worth looking at overall debt.  The next charts show total debt as in inflation adjusted dollars (2010) and as a percent of GDP.  It is the black line that matters because it includes social security debt.



What's interesting is that the total debt begins to climb dramatically starting with Ronald Reagan and continuing with Bush, Sr.  Reagan ran the debt up to nearly 4 trillion dollars.  It still went up under Clinton but less so because of budget surpluses.  Then, it exploded under Bush Jr.  The next chart shows what this looks like.



George Bush ran it up another 6 trillion dollars with an ill advised war coupled with tax cuts and unpaid for prescription medication additions to Medicare.  Add the 2 trillion in interest rung up on the Reagan/Bush debt and you hit 12 trillion.  And what can Obama do?  Not much until the huge gaps between revenues and expenditures created by Bush Jr. are fixed.



So... what to do?  Killing the economy even further by instituting draconian budget cuts as proposed by the tea party will only make the deficit worse, as revenues drop even more.  A combination of defense spending cuts, tax increases, and a continued stimulus program is what will be required to bring down the deficits.  Budgets put forth by guys like Ryan are so much eyewash... they don't add up.

I agree with Tropic Traveler that something needs to be done about social security and medicaid/medicare... but these don't get done in 10 years... more like 30 to 50 years.  You cannot cut the promises of decades for those that have paid into the system and have an expectation of benefits, especially those within 10 years of retirement.  Social security wage caps need to be removed and options to make mandatory contributions to private plans are options.
 
Universal health care is the way to fix medicare/medicaid.  It makes US companies more competitive in the world.  It creates a larger pool of payers that lowers overall costs for everyone.  Not at all simple to do but in the end, the only way to deal with medicare/medicaid.

[LandElephant]

Ok, I'll jump in this fray.  You want suggestions here are mine:

1.) Go back to 1983 and pass the legislation to put a "Lock Box" on the government being able to borrow from Social Security.  The original national debt of 14.3 Trillion has 4.6 Trillion owed to Social Security.  Let the excess funds be held to cover down years and to pay back SSN.  That meets the promise to the citizens that have been paying into it for all these years.

Raise the SSN and FICA payment by 1% for cost of inflation.  Everyone right now pays 12.2% or more out of their checks to these two program.  With business part I believe it's 15.6%.  It's not tax deductable.  Once solvent then allow the government to borrow, but neve let it get lower that projected needs for a minimum of 10 years.

2.) See number 1 because it's controlled by the Social Security Department.

3.) Defense spending.  Trim waste fraud and abuse.  Stop dictating where companies can build there facilities and manpower.  I.E Boeing.

4.) Trim Federal Government employment.  It's taxes dollars that pay for these people.  Don't hire if you don't have the money.

5.) Legislate firm limits on campaigain spending and PAC lobbying.  It's notihing more that a bribe.

What I don't agree with is veteran cuts.  The first group that takes it in the shorts are the veterans.  If you think I can live on my military retirement of 23 years you are freaking nuts. Unemployment pays more that what this country thing my military service is worth.  Medical benefits.  It's nothing more that a glorified Medicare policy.

I don't give a rats ass which party is in power.  They are 500 plus HOGS at the trough and they need to go on a diet.

OBTW, please don't thank me for my service.  I believe I've made that point very clear in previous post.

As respectfully as possible I've submitted this post,

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant
USMC Ret. MSGT

[musclehead]

For those that think that they are getting killed with taxes, the Bureau of Economic research says that actual tax rates are the same as they were in 1958.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-05-05-tax-cut-record-low_n.htm

Again, I don't understand people who call themselves patriots, who would watch this country go down the drain, because they don't want to pay taxes.  There is a disconnect somewhere, starting with the very richest.

47% of average americans dont pay taxes. the pay through out the year but they have enough breaks they get a refund.

we will pay our share of taxes, however I would get more satifaction out of my slice if i could take it out back throw the cash in a burning barrel and roast some marshmellows.

google took advantage of a tax shelter for their overseas profits and paid less then 3% on them. G.E. paid no taxes last year. don't get me wrong whatever you can keep is a good thing, but from the left all we hear about is "big insert sector of the economy oil, pharma, steel whatever" isn't paying their fair share.

its all about the taxes isn't it? what about the spending. our president said he would cut the deficit by half by the end of his first term. has he made any progress on this?

we will argue til we're blue in the face, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.

[G-Man]

That's a stupid chart.

The problem is NOT insufficient revenue to the government.  The problem IS overspending.  Period.

So...what spending do you propose eliminating?

How about Billions in aide that never go further than the pockets of terrorist harboring and funding Arab leaders to start with?  How about the billions in aide we send to countries we're making rich with our gasoline money anyway?  Let's just start with these one or two freaking cuts and move forward from there!  

[G-Man]

Right on bovine.  

I'd cut medicaid. Unless you need it. Give it to the workers out of a job and need health care for them and families. NOT give it to the ones that just dont want to work or to the 'baby factory' moms. Cant tell you how many abuse the system here. They dont have a car but have a 'card' so they call. Medicaid only gives us $70 (or close to it) out of a $800 ambulance cost. We eat the rest.  

But THAT'S just it Fudgie,....the libs don't believe that there are everyday people out there looking to beat the system.  THEY believe that it is the providers that are trying to beat the system.  

In the hospital clinic where I worked and my wife still works, they had to create a transportation office.  A staffed office with employees and computers, desks, paperclips, etc. (at the hospitals expense), because Medicaid provides for transportation to and from the clinics.  Everything from Ambulette to a bus and train metrocard card.  "Patients" were checking in with the clerk in the clinic and then going over to the transportation office to get their car fare while they waited to be seen.  Then the nurse would call the patient's name and they'd be gone.  They were registering just to get the metrocards!!!  They had to change the system in the clinic so no metrocards are given to patients until after they are seen by the doc.

This is just one tiny exapmle of the millions of ways they poor and innocent figure out to beat the system.

[Bob E.]

That's a stupid chart.

The problem is NOT insufficient revenue to the government.  The problem IS overspending.  Period.

So...what spending do you propose eliminating?

How about Billions in aide that never go further than the pockets of terrorist harboring and funding Arab leaders to start with?  How about the billions in aide we send to countries we're making rich with our gasoline money anyway?  Let's just start with these one or two freaking cuts and move forward from there!  

On these points, you'll get no arguement from me here.  I do believe some of our foreign aid is necessary, but certainly the money we are spending on corrupt governments like Iraq and Afghanistan...and to a point, Pakistan...should be up for review.  Unfortunately, we need to pay off Pakistan in order to have supply routes for our troops waging war in Afghanistan.  So we can't cut them off entirely...but....

[Bob E.]

For those that think that they are getting killed with taxes, the Bureau of Economic research says that actual tax rates are the same as they were in 1958.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-05-05-tax-cut-record-low_n.htm

Again, I don't understand people who call themselves patriots, who would watch this country go down the drain, because they don't want to pay taxes.  There is a disconnect somewhere, starting with the very richest.

47% of average americans dont pay taxes. the pay through out the year but they have enough breaks they get a refund.

I've seen this figure and, while I don't doubt it has some validity, I'd wonder who makes up that 47%.  Keep in mind, we currently have about 9% unemployment with real unemployment/underemployment approaching 20-25%.  That's a large portion of that 47%.  Throw in the elderly living off of Social Security and savings like Roth IRA's and such, and there's another large portion.  Then add in people living below the poverty line, which is around 14% or so, if I remember correcly.  And finally, hedge fund managers and their ilk that have no "income" but make their money off of "capital gains" that are not taxed as income but at the lower 15% rate.  And what about spouses who chose not to work (like my wife) or children, or kids in college with no real income?  Are they included in that 47% figure?

[LandElephant]

Oh, I would like to add that you conviently left off the Debt created by President Obama's administration.  By choice?

Since 1976 when President Carter was in office we have been hearing about reigning in debt and controlling social security.  Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush administrations all have tried to make attempts in one way or another turn the debt around and protect the two holy cows SSN and Medicare.

But, let's not forget that they set policy or aggendas not write law and regulations.  Start looking at the HOGS in Congress and Senate and lets place some blame there also.  Bush bashing is one thing.  Telling the WHOLE story is another.

No so respectfully submitted,

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

[Bob E.]

Right on bovine. 

I'd cut medicaid. Unless you need it. Give it to the workers out of a job and need health care for them and families. NOT give it to the ones that just dont want to work or to the 'baby factory' moms. Cant tell you how many abuse the system here. They dont have a car but have a 'card' so they call. Medicaid only gives us $70 (or close to it) out of a $800 ambulance cost. We eat the rest. 

But THAT'S just it Fudgie,....the libs don't believe that there are everyday people out there looking to beat the system.  THEY believe that it is the providers that are trying to beat the system. 

I'm not sure that's entirely true.  At least that's not what I believe.  Libs, as you call them, tend to recognize that there are people who do abuse the system.  However, differences are that "libs" believe that while this is a problem that should be addressed, it isn't the main driver of the overall cost.  Second, libs aren't willing to destroy the entire system to address this issue.

[Tropic traveler]

I would like to see the deficit charts overlayed with what party had power in the congress & senate instead of prez. That would tell the real story.
What the higher/lower tax rate charts fail to capture is the supression/stimulation factor of the tax rates. That is much harder to quantify but certainly can be a huge factor.
I'll say it again, the problem IS the over-spending, not the under-taxing.
I'll never support higher taxes at any level unless government can show me that all the waste & fraud is squeezed out of the budgets. Yeah, right.... 
Shame on any who want more tax money from us until they can.

[Robert]

Subject:  .The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

 "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are
official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt
entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth
hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a
coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

 It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has
been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,
Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and
insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint
Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause
dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official
capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and
Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal
Government exists today in name only.
 

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the
receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the
United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an
established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This
act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office
of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International
Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:
"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing
the United States."
http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_bankruptcy.htm

[x]

Oh, I would like to add that you conviently left off the Debt created by President Obama's administration.  By choice?

Since 1976 when President Carter was in office we have been hearing about reigning in debt and controlling social security.  Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush administrations all have tried to make attempts in one way or another turn the debt around and protect the two holy cows SSN and Medicare.

But, let's not forget that they set policy or aggendas not write law and regulations.  Start looking at the HOGS in Congress and Senate and lets place some blame there also.  Bush bashing is one thing.  Telling the WHOLE story is another.

No so respectfully submitted,

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

No, I don't think I left out Obama's debt.  The reason that the debt ceiling needs to be raised is the deficits that are being incurred during Obama's tenure.  The point I am making is that it was Bush Jr policies, coupled with Bush Jr's ill advised Iraq war and the global recession set the stage for the huge deficits we are experiencing today.  Actual contributions to the deficit caused by Obama's programs are modest by comparison.
 
In addition to tax increases and cutting defense spending, it will also be necessary to monetize the debt, ie, inflate the dollar.

[G-Man]

Right on bovine. 

I'd cut medicaid. Unless you need it. Give it to the workers out of a job and need health care for them and families. NOT give it to the ones that just dont want to work or to the 'baby factory' moms. Cant tell you how many abuse the system here. They dont have a car but have a 'card' so they call. Medicaid only gives us $70 (or close to it) out of a $800 ambulance cost. We eat the rest. 

But THAT'S just it Fudgie,....the libs don't believe that there are everyday people out there looking to beat the system.  THEY believe that it is the providers that are trying to beat the system. 

I'm not sure that's entirely true.  At least that's not what I believe.  Libs, as you call them, tend to recognize that there are people who do abuse the system.  However, differences are that "libs" believe that while this is a problem that should be addressed, it isn't the main driver of the overall cost.  Second, libs aren't willing to destroy the entire system to address this issue.

Then why does Obamacare defund the providers reimbursments, yet does nothing about these all of these little entitlements that can be scammed repeatedly. 

I'm not sure where you grew up or reside presently, but being a residient of and working in New York City has demonstrated, repeatedly, the ingenuity of those who wish to get something for nothing.  How about the selling of WIC vouchers or food vouchers like concert tickets on the street.  Or creating injuries and ailments requiring Drs. notes to avoid workfare instead of wellfare.  Or admissions into the psych unit ("I want to hurt myself" is all all it takes) to avoid gang or drug related "squabbles".  I could go on and on.  THIS is the nonsense that goes on to the tune of billions. 

Healthcare is expensive....Why?.....Because it's worth it.  What is worth more than your life and your health?  It is expensive (in many ways) to become a doctor, it expensive to run a facility, it is expensive to diagnose and treat because the tests and drugs are expensive,  because the research and developement of these labs and drugs are expensive, etc.   By decreasing provider reimbursment, you decrease access.  And this only affects the ones who really need the help.  For every action, there is a reaction, and rationing is the only reaction to decreased reimbursment.

[musclehead]

I'm up for some draconian budget cuts myself. how about you guys?

[Bob E.]

Then why does Obamacare defund the providers reimbursments, yet does nothing about these all of these little entitlements that can be scammed repeatedly. 

I'm not sure where you grew up or reside presently, but being a residient of and working in New York City has demonstrated, repeatedly, the ingenuity of those who wish to get something for nothing.  How about the selling of WIC vouchers or food vouchers like concert tickets on the street.  Or creating injuries and ailments requiring Drs. notes to avoid workfare instead of wellfare.  Or admissions into the psych unit ("I want to hurt myself" is all all it takes) to avoid gang or drug related "squabbles".  I could go on and on.  THIS is the nonsense that goes on to the tune of billions. 

Healthcare is expensive....Why?.....Because it's worth it.  What is worth more than your life and your health?  It is expensive (in many ways) to become a doctor, it expensive to run a facility, it is expensive to diagnose and treat because the tests and drugs are expensive,  because the research and developement of these labs and drugs are expensive, etc.   By decreasing provider reimbursment, you decrease access.  And this only affects the ones who really need the help.  For every action, there is a reaction, and rationing is the only reaction to decreased reimbursment.

As I understand it, the Affordable Care Act does not defund the provider reimbursements.  But you are correct in that it did not include the "doc fix" that congress passes separately on a regular basis to adjust the reimbursments.  The cuts were actually to the Medicare Advantage program, which is the part of Medicare that was already partially privatized.  And those cuts are actually designed to reduce the costs of the private insurance companies that participate in this program. 

Second, the Affordable Care Act, as is true of most major legislation, only provided the major framework of the law and did not include the minutia of all of the details of enacting the law.  That is typically left up to the departments/agencies that are responsible for carrying out the law.  The republicans were already complaining it was a 2300 page document.  Can you imagine how big it would have been had all of the regs been included?  But certainly, there should be some regs put in place by the department of health and human services, or Medicare, or whomever to try and stem fraudulent charges and enforce those rules.

And you are right, health care is expensive.  The main reason the cost is an issue though is because the rate of the increase in that cost is far exceeding the rate of inflation and is taking up a larger and larger portion of our nation's GDP, which is draining our economy.  That is the main issue that needs addressed...the rate of growth.  And since this rate of growth is not exclusive to Medicare, I'd guess that people scamming Medicare is not the main driver of that growth.