114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 08:22 pm
Well, you guys constantly moan about manufacturing moving out of country. Make up your mind. Do you want manufacturing jobs or not? Or is the work too demeaning for you?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 09:19 pm
okie wrote :

Quote:
ci and hamburger, isn't it correct that the devaluation of the dollar is not all negative, as it eventually helps us to compete with other countries in manufacturing and other products and raise our exports?


of course , but would you be willing to work for 2/3 rd of your current wage ; that's equal to the recent devaluation of the u.s. dollar .
you know what has happened to the price of oil , right ? it's been going up and the same is likely going to happen to all other imports .

it's the same as if you as an individual try to live better than what you can afford to pay for . so you start borrowing money .
the lender wants to be repaid - and i'm sure you know that much of the u.s. treasury bonds are being held by saudi-arabia and china .
they do want their interest and they also want to repaid for the treasury bills they bought (they are essentially IOU's - i'm sure you kow that) .
now you(the u.s.) have to start repaying that money with interest .
you have two choices :
either you start cutting back on your spending - less vacation spending , no vacation condo , no second car ...
or you have to borow even more money - i'm sure you know what the final outcome is ! you are broke and the lender comes and takes your belongings - house , car , furniture etc .

that's really what's happening when chinese and saudi banks that are "investing" in american banks and properties .
they are slowly beginning to own parts of it - and parts of america .
now , at the level of 5 % that's not bad , but will the u.s. have the money to repay the lenders who have bought the u.s. treasury bills or will the lenders use the u.s. treasury bills they are owning to continue to buy parts of the u.s. economy ?

you can't buy prosperity by cheapening your money . countries tried that over the centuries and didn't have much sucess with it .
canada went through a very painful period in the 70's and 80's when the canadian $ was worth about 60 cents u.s. !
we had spent more money than we could afford .
so we had tax increases (including a federal sales tax) , a cut in all kinds of benefits and luckily an increase in the price of oil(which brought canada additional monies from export) - so that during the last few years we slowly started to climb out of the hole again .
it certainly was NOT pleasant !
but these things can happen quickly again - our curent government has started to cut back taxes and most people think that's just wonderful .
we still have a fairly large natinal debt and i think it would be better to pay down the debt - but that's not much of a vote getter !

it's getting late , so i'm signing off !
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 09:34 pm
okie wrote:
ci and hamburger, isn't it correct that the devaluation of the dollar is not all negative, as it eventually helps us to compete with other countries in manufacturing and other products and raise our exports?



okie, Think for a moment if you can; if the US dollar is losing value, what do you think is happening and why?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 09:41 pm
Where did I say it was a great thing overall? I merely pointed out that inasmuch as a part of the scenario can enable us to do something, why not take advantage of it?

As in any market, an effect can have both positive and negative effects. I think the same principle applies to the value of the dollar. For example, a rise in cost of imported oil can make domestic oil more competitive and spur economic activity here in that industry. It costs us at the pump, but adds jobs in that sector. Everything in a market involves a set of tradeoffs.

In regard to oil and trade deficits, it is all the more reason to drill in places like ANWR and offshore, and to quit locking up areas in the country and instead keep those areas open to drilling. Complaining gets old unless you offer solutions to fix the problem.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 09:52 pm
okie: I merely pointed out that inasmuch as a part of the scenario can enable us to do something, why not take advantage of it?

Take advantage of what? Please spell it out, because I need to have you clarify it for me.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 07:05 am
okie wrote:

In regard to oil and trade deficits, it is all the more reason to drill in places like ANWR and offshore, and to quit locking up areas in the country and instead keep those areas open to drilling.


How much money would oil from offshore and ANWR save us per barrel okie?

I already know the answer (we've talked about this before), but I'm curious if you remember.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 10:26 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie: I merely pointed out that inasmuch as a part of the scenario can enable us to do something, why not take advantage of it?

Take advantage of what? Please spell it out, because I need to have you clarify it for me.


I just mentioned some. Can you read?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 10:53 am
Take advantage of what? Your idea that oil is the answer is no answer.

Please explain. Do you undersand anything about macroeconomics?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 11:12 am
oil is one important area of many areas. There is not space enough here to discuss all areas. I think it is common sense to produce our own oil as much as possible, instead of importing all of it. Apparently, you don't agree, nor do your Democrat representatives. Therefore when you discuss energy, you have little credibility as far as I am concerned, nor do the Democrats.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 11:15 am
Rush is just now talking about 11,000 earmarks in the budget. Great budgetary restraint by your Democrats, ci.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 12:37 pm
okie wrote:
Rush is just now talking about 11,000 earmarks in the budget. Great budgetary restraint by your Democrats, ci.


Based on the report by 'Citizens Against Government Waste', I assume. And a great example why you shouldn't listen to Rush.

He reports only parts of the truth... like the bit that Citizens Against Government Waste counted 11,043 earmarks in this year's budget, compared with 9,963 in the fiscal 2006 budget.


Sounds bad, doesn't it? However, have a look at the actual news item on their website:

Quote:
Citizens Against Government Waste today released an analysis of earmarks in the fiscal 2008 appropriations bills. There are 8,967 projects worth $7.5 billion in H.R. 2764 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008), which, combined with the 2,076 projects worth $6.6 billion in the fiscal 2008 Defense Appropriations Act, brings the total to 11,043 projects worth $14.1 billion. The last year in which all of the appropriations bills were enacted was 2006, when CAGW found 9,963 projects worth $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book.



And here's the historical trend:

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/pagebuilder/185860.jpg



In summary: pork barrel spending cut by more than 50%. Same source as Limbaugh's. Amazing, eh?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 01:03 pm
Only because of Bush veto's. Don't try riding that high horse 'round here, it's a long fall.

The Dem's are worse then the Republicans only because they said they would not do it, while the Rep's never said that. Both are guilty of huge spending.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 01:11 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Only because of Bush veto's.


Is that true? You can certainly back that up, then... And maybe explain why Bush refused to veto all that spending during the last 6 years?


However, more from the Citizens Against Government Waste (about the 2007 budget):

Quote:
This year's Pig Book breaks a run of seven consecutive years of record dollar amounts of pork, culminating in $29 billion in the 2006 Congressional Pig Book. This lesser barrel of pork can be attributed to the efforts of Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who prevented the enactment of nine appropriations bills in December, 2006, and the subsequent moratorium on earmarks announced and enforced by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairmen David Obey (D-Wis.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) in H. J. Res. 20, the bill that funds the government for the remainder of fiscal 2007.


(They mysteriously don't attribute all the cuts to Bush vetoes. Probably leftists. All of them.)
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 01:35 pm
It should also be noted that Bush the pig leader never saw a spending bill or earmark submitted during the reign of the republicans in congress that he did not like. He never once picked up the veto pen. However, since the democrats are now in power he has discovered both fiscal resposibility and the veto pen.
Ain't politics grand.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 01:55 pm
I'm certainly not going to defend Bush on spending. Thanks for delving into this further, oe.

A little more research on this might be in order, as the following site's numbers don't seem to match at all, but only go into 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/01/27/GR2006012700168.html

Spending not looking good for either party in Congress, except for perhaps the Republicans in the 90's.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_S/s1.cfm
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 02:09 pm
au1929 wrote:
It should also be noted that Bush the pig leader never saw a spending bill or earmark submitted during the reign of the republicans in congress that he did not like. He never once picked up the veto pen. However, since the democrats are now in power he has discovered both fiscal resposibility and the veto pen.
Ain't politics grand.


Republican pork must have tasted better, go figure.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 02:18 pm
Only to 2004, but the trend is clear; Bush doesn't cut spending. Not only that, but the war funds aren't included in those graphs.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 02:24 pm
C.I.

Bush would never cut spending for his war. The cuts are all in domestic spending. OH! how I and the rest of the world hate that SOB.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 02:33 pm
au, Most of us know Bush's priorities. He vetoed universal health care for our children. That should be a clue to most "thinking" people, but we know there are still a few who support this monster we call our president.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 02:35 pm
au1929 wrote:
C.I.

Bush would never cut spending for his war. The cuts are all in domestic spending. OH! how I and the rest of the world hate that SOB.


So, have you interviewed EVERY person on the planet to come up with that statement?
How do you know the "rest of the world" hates him, or that even a majority of the worlds inhabitants hate him?

Since you havent polled EVERY person on the planet, you dont know.

When you have polled EVERY person on the planet, and can produce indisputable proof of that poll, then you can make the claim you made.
Till then, you cant honestly make the claim that "I and the rest of the world hate that SOB".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/16/2025 at 04:58:29