U.S. in for Economic Trouble

[Diggin' Bear]

Well, well. It looks like our biggest trading partner feels pretty good about shutting down supplies to...well...us!

HONG KONG — China, which has been blocking shipments of crucial minerals to Japan for the last month, has now quietly halted shipments of those materials to the United States and Europe, three industry officials said on Tuesday.

The Chinese government office that oversees rare earth policy, which operated with considerable independence for many years, was moved early last year into the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. That ministry, formed only two years ago to draft plans for global leadership in many industries, has emerged as a bastion of economic nationalism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/bu...al/20rare.html

So, once again, Trench's first observation proves true. Suppliers WILL control how consumers approach the market.

Anybody here want to be in second place? Not me!

And while I'm on this particular warpath, how about this little news item:

http://www.onorbit.com/node/2590

Our friends in Europe will announce their plans for manned space flight WITHOUT the US tomorrow morning. Anyone wonder why they might forge ahead without us?

Think the burgeoning market for space-related resources might be heating up? Hmm....

Second place again.

Suppliers and market dominators ALWAYS determine who wins - period.

[Tripe Face]

Originally Posted by Trench Worker

I liked Mockingbird's pie chart. It shows how huge the entitlements are. I wonder what that chart looked like seventy years ago.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not "entitlements" that makes it sound like the people who recieve them don't deserve them.

The people who get most SS benefits spent a lifetime working and putting money INTO the system, now they are taking money out.

Medicare and Medicaid are paid for by taxes, again, the people who get those benefits are the people who FUNDED those benefits.

Are those programs big and costly? Yes, but don't blame the taxpayers who fund these programs for a little demographic reality called "the Baby Boom".

I am with those who say the problems can be largely taken care of when the economy grows at a healthy pace. But I disagree with giving money to those who have the most in hopes that they'll invest it in American companies who will hire American workers.

I believe in JFK's theory about "a rising tide lifts all boats." Pump the stimulus money into the working class. They'll use it to but a new sofa or a hire a guy to remodel the kitchen. That money bubbles up though the economy and the rich still get richer... but life gets better for the rest of us too.

[Scarlet Termite]

Originally Posted by Tripe Face

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not "entitlements" that makes it sound like the people who recieve them don't deserve them.

The people who get most SS benefits spent a lifetime working and putting money INTO the system, now they are taking money out.

Medicare and Medicaid are paid for by taxes, again, the people who get those benefits are the people who FUNDED those benefits.

Are those programs big and costly? Yes, but don't blame the taxpayers who fund these programs for a little demographic reality called "the Baby Boom".

I am with those who say the problems can be largely taken care of when the economy grows at a healthy pace. But I disagree with giving money to those who have the most in hopes that they'll invest it in American companies who will hire American workers.

I believe in JFK's theory about "a rising tide lifts all boats." Pump the stimulus money into the working class. They'll use it to but a new sofa or a hire a guy to remodel the kitchen. That money bubbles up though the economy and the rich still get richer... but life gets better for the rest of us too.

Absolutely!

[Diggin' Bear]

Originally Posted by Tripe Face

Pump the stimulus money into the working class. They'll use it to but a new sofa or a hire a guy to remodel the kitchen. That money bubbles up though the economy and the rich still get richer... but life gets better for the rest of us too.

And there's your flaw. The stimulus didn't go to the people. It went to...somebody! The government and the Treasury Department hired several subcontractors to handle the distribution and oversight of the funds, and because of that the subcontractors are refusing to tell anyone - including Congress! - where they put the dough. They claim they're immune to FOIA requests...and they're stonewalling a lot of elected officials.

Doesn't it make more sense to avoid 'giving the people the money' in the first place? As in - NOT TAXING THEM MORE?

The dangerous part about taxation is the lack of oversight and the very real possibility somebody in government will misappropriate it.

By the way, nothing I've said here is new or a revelation. Mike Taibbi is doing a great job talking about this very thing in Rolling Stone. You should read his stuff.

[Tripe Face]

Originally Posted by Diggin' Bear

And there's your flaw. The stimulus didn't go to the people. It went to...somebody! The government and the Treasury Department hired several subcontractors to handle the distribution and oversight of the funds, and because of that the subcontractors are refusing to tell anyone - including Congress! - where they put the dough.

I didn't mean THE stimulus money, I was dealing in a hypothetical.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by Diggin' Bear

The stimulus didn't go to the people. It went to...somebody!

A lot of it went to fund a one-year only income tax cut. And much of it went to help states in distress pay bills (and avoiding state tax increases). More went to increase unemployment benefits, the homebuyer tax credit, home energy credit, business tax credits, Medicaid funding, etc.

If you want more details on what the money was/is being used for, you might want to check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Act

[Trench Worker]

The word "entitlement" isn't mine. It's the universally accepted name for social programs. In fact, the dictionary defines "entitlement" as "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group". So while someone being silly may interpret "entitlement" as a bad word, it is one of a few universally accepted descriptors for government funded social programs. Any other interpretation is merely assigning derision where derision wasn't intended.

Having said that, it is a fact, entitlements are going to ruin us financially. But have heart, that's a condition that will be encountered the world over. The question is how entitlements came to be such a run away train. The answer can be summed in one word: politicians. Politicians have used entitlements and taxes to acquire votes and to maintain power. So here's the equation: Entitlements = Financial Ruin. Politicians = Entitlements. Therefore, Politicians = Financial Ruin.

Vote with extreme caution this November.

[Meaty Urologist]

Originally Posted by Pro

If you want more details on what the money was/is being used for, you might want to check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_Act

Ooh I love Wikipedia! They let me edit the pages!

[Diggin' Bear]

Here's an interesting take on entitlements, and it comes from a building in downtown DC that has NOTHING to do with politics of the Demo/Repub type:

In May, the International Monetary Fund ranked the United States second among countries that must reduce deficits caused by entitlements or face grave financial problems when government debt equals 100 percent of the gross domestic product by 2015. In short, there is no time to waste; the next Congress must reform entitlements.

Retirees are now eligible for Social Security checks and health care benefits through Medicare or Medicaid. According to the Heritage Foundation, these programs make up 41 percent of all noninterest federal spending. But that percentage will grow massively in the next two decades as 10,000 baby boomers a day retire and apply for promised benefits. More than a few of these coming beneficiaries won't need such benefits, yet the rich and very rich will continue receiving benefits like subsidized prescription drugs through Medicare Part D.

But the fact these entitlement programs pay certain benefits to some who don't need them isn't the heart of the problem. These programs are unaffordable because far more benefits have been promised than taxpayers can support, barring ruinous tax increases. Social Security's revenues are expected to fall short of promised benefits this year; the same day of reckoning comes in 2017 for Medicare.

[Trench Worker]

DB, one correction. You are recommending that people read Matt Taibi, not Mike Taibi. Mike, of course, is the NBC correspondent. His son, Matt, is the writer. They are, oddly enough, estranged -- they don't talk -- for reasons I do not know.

[Tripe Face]

Originally Posted by Trench Worker

The word "entitlement" isn't mine. It's the universally accepted name for social programs. In fact, the dictionary defines "entitlement" as "a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group". So while someone being silly may interpret "entitlement" as a bad word, it is one of a few universally accepted descriptors for government funded social programs. Any other interpretation is merely assigning derision where derision wasn't intended.

If it were UNIVERSALLY accepted, I and people like me wouldn't object to it... we do... so there you are wrong. And if you think it's silly, I think you are silly to feel like you are "entitled" to free speech.

One more point, WITHOUT entitlements, or as I'd like to refer to them, citizen's programs financial ruin would be likely for America's oldest generation.

[Tripe Face]

Originally Posted by Trench Worker

DB, one correction. You are recommending that people read Matt Taibi, not Mike Taibi. Mike, of course, is the NBC correspondent. His son, Matt, is the writer. They are, oddly enough, estranged -- they don't talk -- for reasons I do not know.

Because Matt, like so many journalists today, makes up his mind about he feels about a story before he even begins covering it... and therefore his stuff is as slanted as anything that Fox News or John Stossel or Michael Moore does.

[s'news]

Originally Posted by Trench Worker

You really are obtuse aren't you.

Name the "other fees and taxes" that are paid by the 48% of the population that don't pay federal income taxes. Tell me what percentage of the gross federal tax revenues those "other fees and taxes" account for. And prove it with a relatively believable and factual reference.

Then I can try taking you seriously.

As I've already said, most comes from the income tax. But the feds get a share from most everybody in various ways.

A few...

http://www.ehow.com/list_6575637_lis...ise-taxes.html

Among the fuels taxed are diesel, kerosene, automobile gasoline, aviation gasoline and all liquefied fuels including petroleum, coal, natural gas and biomass.

The government also charges an excise tax for harmful environmental oil spills and for chemicals that deplete the ozone.

Federal excise taxes on tobacco products are significant. Taxes have increased three times from 2005 to 2009. In order to help fund the Children's Health Insurance Reactivation Act (CHIRPA)

The federal government charges an excise tax on local phone service.

The government taxes air transportation for people and products and the use of international airports. Federal transportation excise taxes help support an airport trust fund. Also, a federal security surcharge on each ticket aids in funding the Department of Homeland Security

[s'news]

As to allegely being "obtuse," I don't see it on my end.

Definition of OBTUSE

1
a : not pointed or acute : blunt b (1) of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2) : having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> — see triangle illustration c of a leaf : rounded at the free end

2
a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

— ob·tuse·ly adverb
— ob·tuse·ness noun

[Trench Worker]

Wow, Tripe Face, the more you write the less sense you make.

First off, here's the DEFINITION of the word "entitlement":

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement

"Universal" means something like "applicable or common to all purposes". "Entitlement" is a word applicable and common to defining government funded social programs -- by law certain people are ENTITLED to receive government funds. Therefore any objections someone has about the word being applied to define what it appropriately defines is the result of their own ignorance. Period. An "entitlement" is a government program providing member benefits to a defined group. Social Security is a government program providing member benefits to a defined group. Therefore, Social Security is an entitlement.

End of foolishness.

I, though, object to the never-before-heard of term "citizens programs". That's socialist-speak if I have ever heard it.

And you're saying that Mike Taibbi doesn't speak to his son because he doesn't approve of his son's journalistic approach? Please. I know Mike Taibbi. I don't think that's even remotely the case. That's you making an assertion you think you can get away with because you can then claim that you were speaking "hypothetically". And, having read Matt Taibbi, I know that he's actually (on occasion) a very good journalist. His piece on Goldman Sachs was excellent and I linked to it here a week or so after it came out.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by Trench Worker

An "entitlement" is a government program providing member benefits to a defined group. Social Security is a government program providing member benefits to a defined group. Therefore, Social Security is an entitlement.

By that definition, wouldn't veterans benefits also be considered "entitlements"?

And, no, Social Security is not - yet - an entitlement. Not as long as contributions (specific taxes) meet or exceed expenditures. That day may be fast approaching, but as of now, it is paying for itself.

[The Mockingbird]

This goes to the fundamental issue of whether the government should be there to serve as a safety net for people. Some people say no, and they argue that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have agreed to paying for a government safety net.

That may be so, but I doubt the Founding Fathers would let a guy starve to death because bad luck left him without enough food to eat for the winter, either.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Originally Posted by The Mockingbird

...I doubt the Founding Fathers would let a guy starve to death because bad luck left him without enough food to eat for the winter, either.

Are you forgetting these people owned slaves?

[The Mockingbird]

Not all of them.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Originally Posted by Trench Worker

Shak, I was wrong then. I wrote what I did based on reading one of these newsletters that was incredibly doomsday-ish. TAFKA and I got into a debate. He was essentially correct about the direction of the stock market. And I read TAFKA with great respect as a result. I have since kind of filtered out the guy who stoked my anxiety to the point that I wrote what I did.

Thanks for that Trench!

And yes, I agree that the markets are not a temperature gauge for the current health of the economy, BUT they are a good indication of where investors think the economy is heading. Overwhelmingly, investors seem to think the economy is going to be improving within the next year or so.

[Lazlo Toth]

Originally Posted by Pro

By that definition, wouldn't veterans benefits also be considered "entitlements"?

And, no, Social Security is not - yet - an entitlement. Not as long as contributions (specific taxes) meet or exceed expenditures. That day may be fast approaching, but as of now, it is paying for itself.

I'm not sure what the issue is over the word entitlement. I hear and think it refers to something to which you are entitled. A veteran is entitled to those benefits. A person who has been taxed to pay for Social Security is entitled to receive those benefits.

[The Mockingbird]

Talk radio has made "entitlement" into a loaded word. They use it to refer to people that felt "entitled" for the government to support them with welfare.

The extension of this is that any "entitlements" are only collected by people with their hands out trying to get something for nothing.

You have to love innuendo.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by Lazlo Toth

I'm not sure what the issue is over the word entitlement. I hear and think it refers to something to which you are entitled. A veteran is entitled to those benefits. A person who has been taxed to pay for Social Security is entitled to receive those benefits.

Does that mean I'm "entitled" to vote?