Of all the things to spend government money on, NASA has historically the best return. But like a good liberal, Obama has everything ass-backwards...

NASA = No Americans in Space Anymore?

American exceptionalism has been under attack for a long time. Now, with the Obama administration's new "plan" for NASA effectively ending nationally funded human spaceflight, we drop a torch others are grabbing.

The Bush administration instigated a flood of research and development throughout the nation by charging NASA with getting us back to the moon, and eventually to Mars. NASA began developing technologies for a new series of vehicles for this project: the Ares rockets and the Orion crew capsule, which together have been dubbed the Constellation program. Constellation represents five years of R&D and a $10-billion taxpayer investment, and it has demonstrated success. However, Obama has said that Constellation should be canceled because it was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation."

It is true that NASA projects have often fallen behind schedule and have certainly gone over budget estimates. However, NASA is charged with exploring and studying space, which happens to be, well, out in space. It costs a great deal of money and skull sweat just to get out there, even if it's only to find out that your equipment doesn't work correctly. Schedule and budget problems are to be expected, as NASA is dealing with many unknowns. And they rarely fail in conquering those unknowns; U.S. footprints and flag are on the moon.

Time and money issues aside, accusing NASA of a lack of innovation is ludicrous. According to NASA Scientific and Technical Information, NASA has filed over 6,300 patents with the U.S. government. So much new technology has come from NASA that one can hardly look around without seeing devices and techniques that originated from the space program -- exercise machines, satellite radio, scratch-resistant lenses, memory foam, shoe insoles, water filtering systems, cordless tools, home security systems, and flat-panel televisions, to name just a few. In addition to reducing our national energy consumption by such innovations as Radiant Barrier, it has been estimated that for every dollar the U.S. government has given NASA for space R&D, seven dollars are returned in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth. One NASA innovation, "safety grooving" in concrete for highways and airport landing strips, was so successful that it has been estimated to have reduced highway accidents by 85%, as well as created an entire industry, as shown by the International Grooving and Grinding Association.

Medical knowledge and technology have also benefited tremendously from NASA research. The health difficulties that humans encounter in space spawned a slew of techniques and devices that have since been adopted by doctors and hospitals throughout the U.S. medical system, and subsequently the world, saving innumerable lives and untold amounts in medical costs. Improved pacemakers, the ear thermometer, breast biopsies, ultrasound imaging systems, invisible braces -- the list goes on.

The Obama administration has publicly acknowledged the current economic problems and has sworn to do everything possible to revive the economy and "create" jobs. The administration has also sworn to do everything possible to make the U.S. medical system better for everyone. Given all that NASA has done to bolster the U.S. economy and medical system for the past fifty-plus years, and the thousands of high-paying, high-tech jobs involved with the Constellation program, it seems strange for Obama to accuse NASA of being "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation." Perhaps he thought he was talking about Social Security or Medicare.

NASA has long been planning to cancel the Shuttle program, which is understandable, considering budget constraints and the priority of the Constellation program. But to cancel both programs leaves the U.S. with no viable human space transport. The International Space Station, which represents a $100-billion investment by U.S. taxpayers, will be unreachable by scientists and astronauts from the U.S. without hitching a ride on Russian or Chinese space transport. This is unacceptable. The "space race" began when Communist Russia successfully delivered a Sputnik satellite into low-earth orbit, and it culminated with the still-unmatched feat of the U.S. putting men -- and an American flag -- on the moon. As a nation, we spent years and money and lives to remain at the forefront in space exploration because we recognized the dangers of having communist powers rule space. Now, after our Shuttles have done most of the heavy lifting for the ISS, and our taxpayers most of the heavy paying, we are going to turn it all over to Russia and China. This places our space capabilities and experiments in their hands and poses an intolerable national security risk.

Incidentally, sending an astronaut or scientist to the ISS currently costs NASA approximately $26.3 million per person. With the ending of the Shuttle program, requiring us to "purchase tickets" from Russia, the cost will jump to $51 million starting next year and climb to $55.8 million by 2013. We will not save money this way.

One possible way to cut down on the costs of human spaceflight would be for NASA to consider nuclear-powered vehicles, capable of constant acceleration for those long trips to the moon and very long trips to Mars. Constant acceleration would eliminate the need for lengthy, dreary Hohmann orbits, getting us to our destination much more quickly while significantly reducing transit costs. If NASA needs a jump-start on the technology for nuclear-powered ships, they could talk to the U.S. Navy. The Navy has been utilizing nuclear-powered ships for decades with great success, all maintained and operated by eighteen-year-old kids.

The Obama administration's plan for NASA outlines a "steady stream" of robotic missions "to scout locations and demonstrate technologies to increase the safety and capability of future human missions." Whose future human missions? The Russians' and Chinese's? With the ending of the Constellation program, there are no future human missions for the U.S., except those made possible in commercial spaceflight. While commercial spaceflight is tremendous in its future implications, it will progress only in areas that have demonstrated a possible fiscal return...and space operations are so expensive and difficult that it is highly unlikely that any true exploration would occur. Commercial space flight is space exploitation, not space exploration. For the foreseeable future, an entity like NASA -- which is nationally funded and not constrained by profits and losses -- and a project such as Constellation is the best way to extend our reach into and knowledge of space. Robotic missions are all well and good for certain applications, but one does not learn anything about putting humans in space by putting robotic vehicles in space.

In fact, the immense economic and job value of the Constellation program led to a congressional ban against its being dismantled. But NASA head Major General Charlie Bolden, an Obama appointee, has told aerospace contractors to cut back immediately on Constellation-related projects. Legislators have accused the Obama administration of trying to slip termination of Constellation "through the back door" in order to avoid a battle on Capitol Hill. "It's bordering on arrogance by the administration to boldly and brazenly go forward with this approach," says Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT). "It shows a blatant disregard for Congress."

While sneakily destroying the U.S. human spaceflight program, the White House is directing NASA to concentrate on "earth science projects" -- principally researching and monitoring climate change. So NASA will quit developing human space exploration capabilities and become what? A weather station? A prop-up for the failing global warming propaganda? It's no wonder former astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan (the first and last men on the moon) complain that abandonment of the Constellation project sets U.S. space capabilities on a "downhill slide to mediocrity."

Interestingly, Britain's Margaret Thatcher enacted a ban on human spaceflight beginning in 1986. We often hear that we should be more like the U.K. and other European countries. But Britain removed the ban in 2009. Lord Drayson, the British Minister of Science, said, "Britain should be playing a full role in space exploration...there are important benefits that come from manned spaceflight[.]" They tried the ban for nearly a quarter of a century, and now they have realized their mistake. This is one instance in which we should learn from one of our allies, yet the Obama administration is pointedly ignoring the lesson.

As a conservative, I have always considered myself firmly grounded in reality. But I don't want to be firmly grounded to Earth by Obama. Let's go back to the moon. Let's put some footprints and an American flag on Mars. Let's continue to allow our exceptional space program to inspire our children to become astronauts and scientists. Let's get out there and see what there is to see! Also, I have long planned to retire to the moon, where the low gravity will be easy on my tired old bones...and I really don't want to have to learn to speak Russian or Chinese to do so.

The New Ideological Divide

By: Peter Schiff
Monday, June 28, 2010

Despite the apparent deficit-cutting solidarity that emerged from this weekend’s G-20 meeting in Toronto, it is clear that the great powers of the industrialized world have not been this philosophically estranged since the end of the Cold War. Ironically, in this new contest, the former belligerents have switched sides – the capitalists are now the socialists, and vice versa.

We now are witnessing a struggle between two camps that I playfully call the “Stimulators” and the “Austereians.” Both warn that a worldwide depression will ensue if governments now make the wrong choices: the Stimulators say the danger lies in spending too little and the Austereians from spending too much. Each side also has their own economic champion: the Stimulators follow the banner of Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, while the Austereians are forming up behind the recently reformed former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. (It is cold comfort to witness “The Maestro” belatedly returning to the hard-money positions that characterized his earlier years.)

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Greenspan argued that the best economic stimulus would be for the world’s leading debtors (the United States, UK, Japan, Italy, et al) to rein in their budget deficits, a strategy dubbed “austerity” by the press. Greenspan explains that because lower deficits will restore confidence, diminish the threat of inflation, and allow savings to flow to private-sector investment rather than public-sector consumption, the short-term pain will lead to gains both in the mid- and long-term. Rather than redistributing a shrinking pie, this approach allows the pie to grow. Greenspan’s Austereian view has been echoed loudly in the highest policy circles of Berlin, Ottawa, Moscow, Beijing, and Canberra.

Meanwhile, in several articles for his New York Times column, including one today, Krugman has argued that those who push for austerity in the face of recession are either doing so for political expediency or out of a “crazy” fealty to archaic economic views. Krugman has apparently judged inadequate the trillions of dollars worth of deficit spending unleashed by the United States and European governments in the last 24 months. He believes our only remedy is to spend more – no matter how much debt results. Absent this, he claims, millions of workers “will never work again.” Unfortunately, Washington has clearly aligned itself with Krugman and the Stimulators.

Reading straight from the Keynesian playbook, Krugman argues that cutting government spending now will simply send the economy back into recession. He asserts that by flooding the economy with money, i.e. “stimulus,” governments can encourage consumers to spend. Once the spending creates better conditions, so the argument goes, the economy will be better positioned to withstand the spending cuts, tax hikes, and higher interest rates necessary to address the staggering deficits left behind.

Krugman proposes an enticing argument that is nevertheless built on rubbish. Economies do not grow because consumers spend; consumers spend because economies grow [for a detailed explanation of how this works, read my latest book: How an Economy Grows]. Investment capital comes from savings, and when governments borrow, savings are diverted from private investment. While it is possible for governments to invest as well, it is much more likely that the money will be spent on entitlements or “invested” in projects that may be politically advantageous but economically useless.

Any money spent by governments is not available to the private sector to invest. The Stimulators don’t make this connection because they believe money grows on trees and that a printing press is a legitimate creator of wealth. However, printing money merely encourages people to spend their savings now rather than wait for it to lose value through inflation. This is okay to Stimulators, because stimulating “demand” by any means necessary is the only goal they can see.

What really grows an economy is not more demand, but more supply [also explained in my book]. The Austereian argument is that reductions in government spending will allow the private sector to generate the additional supply of goods and services. Europe seems to understand this; unfortunately, the US does not. Judging by the recent weakness of the dollar – not only against gold, but other fiat currencies, including the pound and the euro – the markets are coming to the same conclusion.

As sovereign-debt worries initially spread throughout Europe, the dollar benefitted. However, now that Europe has demonstrated a willingness to reduce its debts, while we have committed to make ours even larger, the sovereign-debt worries are moving west.

If Greenspan and the Austereians are correct, the stimulus will fail and leave us in a much deeper hole. As long as governments create bigger deficits, we will never have a sustainable recovery. Instead, we will be chasing our tail, and wearing ourselves out in the process. When we finally realize the folly of this approach, the austerity measures that we will then be forced to adopt will make those currently proposed by the Europeans seem relatively painless.

My guess is that before year-end, our stimulus-induced recovery will falter, prompting Obama and Congress to administer even more stimulus. After all, the Stimulators have no other answer. However, given the adverse reaction this will produce in the currency and debt markets, this next jolt will likely vindicate the Austereians, as the world witnesses its greatest power careen into inflationary depression.

"the srimulus will fail,,,,"

Will fail????

HAS FAILED!!

I'm going to go out on a limb and state the obvious. It ain't over. While the heads of state have an obligation to put their best face on, we are going to see global changes in the economy. The stimulus/bailout is intended ( I believe) to create a 'managed deflation' - the economy is simply not going to grow, and there is nothing that can be done about it. It's easy to point backwards and spot all the warning signs, but at this point keeping the USA's way of life ahead of the rest of the world is the key to surviving. China has a vested interest in doing so, and they just allowed (I think for real this time) the Yuan to 'float.' It's a great time to do so for them since the economy worldwide is stalled - or in a tailspin depending on how you view things. NASA has faced cuts virtually every administration, it is an outgrowth of our wealth as a nation - both intellectually, financially, and philosophically. It will survive, just like our economy - and continue to provide innovation. We have the NASA Langely center just down the road a few miles, and I have had the good fortune to have worked for a few contractors in my life - right now I work for a company the was started by three engineers that worked there formally. The government research center is surrounded by a business park now that is home to companies that make up a great deal of the work done there - and they branch out into other fields when the technology can be applied to industry.

For the time being, deflation is our friend. The wise will position themselves accordingly.

quote Originally posted by USFiero: . China has a vested interest in doing so, and they just allowed (I think for real this time) the Yuan to 'float.' For the time being, deflation is our friend. The wise will position themselves accordingly.

China Won't Let Yuan Float So Freely After All
http://www.dailyfinance.com...-after-all/19546190/

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner went to China in April to attempt to get that nation to change its policy on valuing its currency, the yuan (also called the renminbi). Beijing has tightly linked the value of the yuan to the U.S. dollar, a policy which many economists believe undervalues the Chinese currency and gives the People's Republic an unfair advantage in world trade. About three weeks later, Chinese President Hu Jintao came to the U.S. for arms control talks, and he and President Obama spoke with each other about the currency issue as well.

The U.S. decided not to officially name China as a "currency manipulator" on April 15. That label would have carried all sorts of sanctions and could have started a trade war. But the Obama administration's decision to stick to more diplomatic efforts appeared to work: In June, China said it was loosening the yuan's tie to the dollar. The Chinese move to let the yuan float within a wider range should lead to the currency rising in value.

Now it appears that while China didn't lie about its decision, it may have exaggerated. On Wednesday, the central government in Beijing said it will keep its currency at a "basically stable and reasonable" level, the Associated Press reported. The country's foreign exchange regulator suggested that pressure for the yuan to rise is easing due to Europe's debt woes, and added that a growing purchase of dollars was easing the pressure for a strengthened yuan.

"We will dynamically manage and adjust the floating of the renminbi's exchange rate and keep it at a basically stable and reasonable level, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange said. That will work -- until it doesn't. Right now, investors are buying dollars more heavily due to fears about the euro, but a pullback on dollar purchases could put the whole matter back where it was in the early spring.

The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon

Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something's done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax — that will be real killers.

Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade.

But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. The effect this will have on hospital life-support systems is already a matter of conjecture.

Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it's not just the rich who will pay.

The lowest bracket for the personal income tax, for instance, moves up 50% — to 15% from 10%. The next lowest bracket — 25% — will rise to 28%, and the old 28% bracket will be 31%. At the higher end, the 33% bracket is pushed to 36% and the 35% bracket becomes 39.6%.

But the damage doesn't stop there.

The marriage penalty also makes a comeback, and the capital gains tax will jump 33% — to 20% from 15%. The tax on dividends will go all the way from 15% to 39.6% — a 164% increase.

Both the cap-gains and dividend taxes will go up further in 2013 as the health care reform adds a 3.8% Medicare levy for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and joint filers making more than $250,000. Other tax hikes include: halving the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000 and fixing the standard deduction for couples at the same level as it is for single filers.

Letting the Bush cuts expire will cost taxpayers $115 billion next year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and $2.6 trillion through 2020.

But even more tax headaches lie ahead. This "second wave" of hikes, as Americans for Tax Reform puts it, are designed to pay for ObamaCare and include:

The Medicine Cabinet Tax. Americans, says ATR, "will no longer be able to use health savings account, flexible spending account, or health reimbursement pretax dollars to purchase nonprescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)."

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. "This provision of ObamaCare," according to ATR, "increases the additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% to 20%, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10%."

Brand Name Drug Tax. Makers and importers of brand-name drugs will be liable for a tax of $2.5 billion in 2011. The tax goes to $3 billion a year from 2012 to 2016, then $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018. Beginning in 2019 it falls to $2.8 billion and stays there. And who pays the new drug tax? Patients, in the form of higher prices.

Economic Substance Doctrine. ATR reports that "The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks 'economic substance.'"

A third and final (for now) wave, says ATR, consists of the alternative minimum tax's widening net, tax hikes on employers and the loss of deductions for tuition:

• The Tax Policy Center, no right-wing group, says that the failure to index the AMT will subject 28.5 million families to the tax when they file next year, up from 4 million this year.

• "Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly deduct, or 'depreciate') equipment purchases up to $250,000," says ATR. "This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be 'depreciated.'"

• According to ATR, there are "literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place," plus the loss of some tax credits. The research and experimentation tax credit will be the biggest loss, "but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs."

• The deduction for tuition and fees will no longer be available and there will be limits placed on education tax credits. Teachers won't be able to deduct their classroom expenses and employer-provided educational aid will be restricted. Thousands of families will no longer be allowed to deduct student loan interest.

Then there's the tax on Americans who decline to buy health care insurance (the tax the administration initially said wasn't a tax but now argues in court that it is) plus a 3.8% Medicare tax beginning in 2013 on profits made in real estate transactions by wealthier Americans.

Not all Americans may fully realize what's in store come Jan. 1. But they should have a pretty good idea by the mid-term elections, and members of Congress might take note of our latest IBD/TIPP Poll (summarized above).

Fifty-one percent of respondents favored making the Bush cuts permanent vs. 28% who didn't. Republicans were more than 4 to 1 and Independents more than 2 to 1 in favor. Only Democrats were opposed, but only by 40%-38%.

The cuts also proved popular among all income groups — despite the Democrats' oft-heard assertion that Bush merely provided "tax breaks for the wealthy." Fact is, Bush cut taxes for everyone who paid them, and the cuts helped the nation recover from a recession and the worst stock-market crash since 1929.

Maybe, just maybe, Americans remember that — and will not forget come Nov. 2.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-22-2010).]

Ah, so China is just playing around again. They have an interest in keeping our economy viable since we enable theirs, and the rest of the worlds. Guess they didn't see things as being urgent enough to de-regulate their currency. This will only protect their economy for a short while, then cause another crisis that will impact their country the worst when no one can afford their goods anymore. And that could be good for other economies if China suffers from hyper-inflation. They will no longer have the cheapest goods anymore.

In November, vote out the politicians that ignored the banking laws that needed to be passed - the current 'protections' are a joke, fought long-overdue healthcare reform - which still isn't truly reformed either.

quote Originally posted by USFiero: Ah, so China is just playing around again. They have an interest in keeping our economy viable since we enable theirs, and the rest of the worlds. Guess they didn't see things as being urgent enough to de-regulate their currency. This will only protect their economy for a short while, then cause another crisis that will impact their country the worst when no one can afford their goods anymore. And that could be good for other economies if China suffers from hyper-inflation. They will no longer have the cheapest goods anymore.

I don't think that's what would happen. I think China could survive just fine without selling to us. In fact, I think they could dump our bonds and still be OK. Don't forget, they have 1.3 billion consumers. They could work on increasing their own citizen's quality of life, and sell their stuff domestically.

Well, China isn't "quite" there yet Bear, but getting closer. They are still dependant on us for ag products, but that won't be the case much longer. Right now, a sizable chunk of their gdp is spent on importation of foodstuffs, grain, corn etc, and they need the captal from their other exported goods to offset those ag expenditures. They have in place, a very good plan for ag production to allow them to become self sufficient within 15-20 yrs. Once that's done, the whole picture will change. They are also currently the world's #1 user of energy, specifically coal and other fossil fuels for electification of rural areas. If they go nuke in a big way, their imports of oil, coal, nat gas will fall dramatically and that will leave their gdp versus import costs in a much better condition.

Our own economy otoh, isn't so rosy. Not nearly as rosy as the white house would have us believe. When the Chairman of the Federal Reserve speaks in terms such as "Uncertain economic recovery", that doesn't do much to inspire confidence in economic growth and recovery.

quote Home sales fall, jobless claims rise By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER (AP) – 1 hour ago Associated Press July 22 2010 WASHINGTON — The economic recovery is weakening in the face of falling home sales and rising claims for unemployment benefits, new data showed Thursday. Sales of previously occupied homes fell 5.1 percent in June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.37 million, the National Association of Realtors said. Meanwhile, new claims for unemployment insurance jumped by 37,000 to a seasonally adjusted 464,000, the Labor Department said. Seasonal factors boosted new requests for benefits. Still, first-time claims remain elevated, pointing to a sluggish job market. Separately, the Conference board, a private research group, said its gauge of future economic activity dropped in June. It was the second decline in three months. The leading indicators gauge had risen almost every month since April 2009 as the economy rebounded from recession. But weakness in the housing sector, faltering consumer spending and high unemployment have raised fears about a big slowdown in growth. The housing industry has struggled the past two months since government incentives ended in April, even though home prices are low and mortgage rates have reached the lowest levels in decades. High unemployment, tight credit and a rise in foreclosures have kept many people from buying. "The economy and the housing market are going to remain stagnant for a long time," said Sam Khater, senior economist at real estate data provider CoreLogic. "There's nothing that's going to propel sales anytime soon. It's all about jobs and income growth." First-time jobless claims jumped after falling the previous week to the lowest level since August 2008. But much of that drop was driven by temporary seasonal factors and not an improving job market. Two weeks ago, General Motors and other manufacturers reported fewer temporary layoffs than usual this time of year, a Labor Department analyst said. Last week's rise partly reflects the fading of that trend. Before seasonal adjustments, claims actually fell by 13,113 to 498,022, the department said. The government seasonally adjusts most economic data to filter out the impact of recurring, non-economic factors. Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said the report suggests that businesses will add a net total of less than 100,000 new employees in July. That's not enough to quickly reduce the unemployment rate, he said. "American companies ... are just not hiring to any great extent," he said. Many are still uncertain about the durability of the recovery, he said. Requests for unemployment insurance have been stuck near 450,000 since the beginning of the year, after falling steadily from a peak of 651,000 in March 2009. The weekly claims are considered a gauge of layoffs and an indication of employers' willingness to hire. In a healthy economy with rapid hiring, claims usually fall below 400,000. The four-week average of claims, which smooths fluctuations, rose by 1,250 to 456,000, the department said. A total of nearly 4.5 million people continued claiming unemployment aid, the department said. That was a drop of 223,000 from the previous week. But that doesn't include about 3.9 million people who received extended unemployment benefits the week of July 3, the latest data available. That figure fell by about 375,000 from the previous week because Senate Republicans had blocked an extension of long-term benefits for nearly two months. The Senate voted Wednesday to continue the benefits through November, and the House is expected to approve a similar measure Thursday. That would clear it for President Barack Obama's signature. About 2.5 million people lost benefits due to the political impasse, but will now receive back payments because Congress restored the benefits retroactively. The economy began recovering last summer, but recently the rebound has shown signs of faltering. The housing market is slumping, consumers are cautious with spending and the impact of last year's $787 billion stimulus package is fading. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday the unemployment rate would gradually decline this year but at a "somewhat slower" pace than the Fed projected in the spring. The central bank forecasts the jobless rate will be between 9.2 percent and 9.5 percent in the final quarter of 2010. Bernanke said persistent unemployment is "an important drag on household spending" as it reduces incomes and causes "uncertainty about job prospects." The unemployment rate fell to 9.5 percent in June from 9.7 percent the previous month.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 07-22-2010).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I don't think that's what would happen. I think China could survive just fine without selling to us. In fact, I think they could dump our bonds and still be OK. Don't forget, they have 1.3 billion consumers. They could work on increasing their own citizen's quality of life, and sell their stuff domestically.

They can't dump us. They are married to us. The value of their money is wrapped up in ours now. It is important for them to help create use for our money.

Our money is worthless except that it is used as the common currency for exchange between countries. At this point if we go down so does China. Many countries have this same problem and are slowly weening of us. When they do we are toast. I can't wait.

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: They can't dump us. They are married to us. The value of their money is wrapped up in ours now. It is important for them to help create use for our money. Our money is worthless except that it is used as the common currency for exchange between countries. At this point if we go down so does China. Many countries have this same problem and are slowly weening of us. When they do we are toast. I can't wait.

Nor can I. Wathing this charlatan's palace of cards fall will result in the Chinese adage of "may you live in interesting times' being more true than most would care to see, but it is inevitable.

Not real sure anymore, which currency is tied to which. There is a growing belief, that ours is actually more tied to theirs than theirs joined at the hip to ours. Semantics perhaps, but they do have the capability to influence our economy far more than we have regarding theirs.

When a nation has a population (1.3 billion as of 2007) surpassing the total population of the US (approx 400 million) and Europe (831.4 million) combined, THAT is a lot of purchasing potential, but if their goal of self sufficeincy comes to pass, we would be more or less irrelevant to them--probably sooner ratherthan later.

The buzzphrase here in this country of late, is Buy American, but we lack any means to force or even encourage use of that axiom. China otoh, being of an authoritarian govt in nature, DOES have the means to force "Buy PRC". They don't even have to violate any trade or WTO treaties to do so--simply tell their people that is the official party line, and "it will be done" regardless of how much foreign goods inventory is imported in. They may have to let our goods in, but they do NOT have to force their people to purchase them.

Considering that China's financial institutions have already begun to downgrade US Treasury bond ratings from their much coveted AAA+, and their central bank has increased their purchase of Japanese debt instead of increasingly buying more US debt, I am not so sure we aren't seeing the beginning of the end of our cozy financial/economic relationship with the Red Tiger.


Anyone who believes China is NOT in the driver's seat, is deluding themselves. They hold all the aces, all the jokers, and they can see our cards to boot. No need for them to bluff--just raise and call.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 07-22-2010).]

I gotta say if the Fed won't raise interest rates its like a gift to the current administration.. not that I want rates to go up.

quote Originally posted by USFiero: In November, vote out the politicians that ignored the banking laws that needed to be passed - the current 'protections' are a joke, fought long-overdue healthcare reform - which still isn't truly reformed either.

I think that once the folks find out what is in the new refom law that BO signed, they will vote out the ones who voted for it.
Just the beginning of the garbage that is in it.


SEC Says New Financial Regulation Law Exempts it From Public Disclosure

So much for transparency.

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission
no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."

The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.

"The new provision applies to information obtained through examinations or derived from that information," said SEC spokesman John Nester. "We are expanding our examination program's surveillance and risk assessment efforts in order to provide more sophisticated and effective Wall Street oversight. The success of these efforts depends on our ability to obtain documents and other information from brokers, investment advisers and other registrants. The new legislation makes certain that we can obtain documents from registrants for risk assessment and surveillance under similar conditions that already exist by law for our examinations. Because registrants insist on confidential treatment of their documents, this new provision also removes an opportunity for brokers, investment advisers and other registrants to refuse to cooperate with our examination document requests."

Criticism of the provision has been swift. “It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” said Gary Aguirre, a former SEC staff attorney-turned-whistleblower who had accused the agency of thwarting an investigation into hedge fund Pequot Asset Management
in 2005. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/...ure/?test=latestnews

quote Originally posted by USFiero: I gotta say if the Fed won't raise interest rates its like a gift to the current administration.. not that I want rates to go up.

If you watched the video, you might notice that they've worked themselves into a trap. They have to keep interest rates low to prop up this false economy. If they raise interest rates, it will dramatically increase the cost of the debt and further collapse the housing market - prices will go down when interest rates go up because fewer people will be able to afford mortgages. Also, historically, The Fed has fought inflation by raising interest rates. If they don't raise interest rates now, it prolongs the inevitable. Eventually, inflation will start and The Fed won't be able to raise interest rates to fight it. Inflation will run away unchecked. If they raise interest rates *then*, it will be like throwing gasoline on a fire. You'll have runaway inflation AND a collapsing economy - an inflationary depression.

I really don't see a good way out of this.

Don’t Lose Sleep over Deflation

By: Michael Pento
Wednesday, July 28, 2010

After hearing the dire warnings of deflation that have become the standard talking points of most economists, American investors may be reaching for a bottle of Prozac. I believe that their anxiety is misplaced. Unfortunately, modern economists don’t understand what deflation is or why, in reality, we have much more to fear from inflation.

Moderate deflation is actually the natural trend of a productive economy. If a producer can increase his output per unit of input, then he can afford to expand his market by lowering prices while still increasing profits. In that way, deflation allows consumers to buy items that they may not have previously afforded. It also promotes savings, which is essential for investment and capital development. (For a simple description of this process, read Chapter 5 of Peter’s new book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes)

Deflation is also the normal consequence of a contracting economy. In a recession, there is a reduction in the amount of goods and services available for consumption. In order to keep prices from rising (due to shrinking supply), the central bank should allow the money supply to fall in line with the reduction in output. Also, during an economic contraction, consumers put downward pressure on prices by responsibly selling assets to pay down debt.

Many economists mistakenly claim that the Great Depression of the 1930s was caused by a 30% contraction in the money supply. The truth is that all depressions are caused by the reversal of a massive credit expansion. The reduction in money supply is part of a healing process that brings the overall level of prices back to a sustainable condition.

Looking at today’s situation, just because we have a few months of sequential declines in CPI and PPI doesn't mean that deflation has become a secular trend. Year-over-year (YOY) growth in the M2 money supply is 2%; therefore, since the money supply is still growing, we are experiencing inflation rather than deflation.

Considering that evidence of inflation abounds, the Federal Reserve has pulled off a good trick by convincing Americans that we are about to "suffer" through a protracted period of deflation. Why have we been so easily duped? In the past ten years, the monetary base has grown from $600 billion to $2 trillion. This expansion has accompanied a rise in the price of gold from below $300/oz at the beginning of the decade to around $1,200/oz today. The price of gold is the best arbiter for a currency's purchasing power. Therefore, gold is still telling us that inflation is eroding the value of our dollar.

Other commodities, like crude oil, are telling the same story. Ten years ago, a barrel of oil was trading for $25. Today, it is $78.

Since 2001, the US dollar has lost over 30% of its value against our largest trading partners and more than 7% of its value since June alone. These facts are causing the mainstream economists to wring their hands about deflation?

More recently, YOY increases in the CPI, PPI, and import prices were 1.1%, 2.7%, and 4.5% respectively. Even though these YOY increases aren't evidence of runaway inflation, they still can't be construed as deflation.

The truth is consumers should be allowed the advantages of falling prices. Aggregate hours worked are down 8% since their peak in March of 2008. Since the money supply should fall along with the decline of the number of people in the work force, price levels should be falling too. But that is not what we see today.

If the monetary base continues to stagnate and banks stop lending to the government through Treasury purchases, we could see a deflationary environment sometime in the future. But given the current policy drift, that scenario appears unlikely.

Even if deflation were to take hold, it would not be something to fear. Lower prices are beneficial for those who have been thrown out of work, and falling prices allow asset values to reach a level that can be sustained by the free market. The fact is that prices should currently be falling in order to reconcile the imbalances brought about by decades of profligate spending and borrowing. Deflation... I say bring it on!

But that is not what is occurring today. Because of the towering level of US sovereign debt, it is inflation that remains the clear and present danger.

The national debt now stands at $13.24 trillion — nearly 92% of the entire output of goods and services in the US economy this year. In its mid-session review, the OMB revised its 2011 federal budget deficit projection to $1.42 trillion, down only slightly from the $1.47 trillion estimate for this year’s deficit. Given this intractable and unsustainable level of obligations, the last thing the Fed and Administration can tolerate is to increase the burden of that debt by allowing the money supply to shrink.

A reduction in the supply of money (deflation) would cause the cost of debt to rise. An increase in the purchasing power of money also means it is more difficult to acquire the new money needed to reduce debt levels. Conversely, increasing the supply of money (inflation) reduces the cost of debt. With these incentives firmly entrenched, the last thing Americans will have to “worry” about is deflation.

Given the obvious mathematics, one wonders why Treasury yields remain at historic lows. The bond vigilantes are indeed in a coma. However, despite the mountain of complacency that their slumber has inspired, this golden age of E-Z financing can’t last forever.

Michael is a well-established specialist in the “Austrian School” of economics and a regular guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox Business, and other national media outlets. Prior to joining Euro Pacific, Michael worked for a boutique investment advisory firm that partnered with Claymore Securities Inc., to create ETFs and UITs that were sold throughout Wall Street. Earlier in his career, he worked on the floor of the NYSE.

Here is another list of the taxes will will face next year, in case the list above missed any.

quote Subject: 2011 Taxes In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011: First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011: Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates. The full list of marginal rate hikes is below: - The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15% - The 25% bracket rises to 28% - The 28% bracket rises to 31% - The 33% bracket rises to 36% - The 35% bracket rises to 39.6% Higher taxes on marriage and family. The marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut. The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011. The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013. Second Wave: Obamacare There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include: The "Medicine Cabinet Tax" Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). The "Special Needs Kids Tax" This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. The major items include: The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers. Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger business can expense half of their purchases of equipment. In January of 2011, all of it will have to be depreciated." Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs. Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available. Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses. Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut. Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed. The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families. Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA. This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there. PDF Version Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-mont...ilb...#ixzz0sY8waPq1 Now your insurance is INCOME on your W2's...... One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished! Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this? Here is a research of the summaries..... On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November.

Is this the change you voted for?

If not, I hope you'll remember the people in Congress that voted for this "CHANGE" and help CHANGE their status in Congress.

NOVEMBER IS COMING.....

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 08-02-2010).]

A certain amount of deflation is an 'adjustment' - run away deflation will send us into a spiral of diminished property and labor value that will, on one hand make US assets affordable for foreign investors, goods cheaper and labor more in line with foreign talent (can you say buh-bye outsourcing?) or on the other hand go so far that we will have less ability to buy our own products, let alone foreign, leading to more layoffs and ultimately the devaluing of the US Dollar.

I don't understand if Obama lets 'expire' the 'temporary' tax cuts that the last administration sold the public as being essential to safeguarding the economy - it obviously didn't work, and so the government had to engage in a 'stimulus' bit of Keynesian economics - and Keynes is not always wrong - which has worked to some extent - it keeps coming back to the banks that got bailed out. It was during the Clinton administration that laws were passed - with a Republican dominated congress - that allowed banks to get into all this dodgy loan business that at first fueled then brought down the economy... and the people who saw it coming were shouted down. the banking reform bill - what I have read and think i understand - doesn't do that much to hobble the banks. I'm not sure it even prevents the reckless cycle all over again.

Our economy got hurt the last couple years - I found a blog entry from 2005 on my myspace page that wondered when it would happen - and I believe a controlled (by consumers) recession is the best thing that can happen. Obama didn't cause this, it is a product of over a dozen years of reckless US consumers and the businesses that cater to them.

Having said that, the other 'developed' nations have been hit worse - that's why the US is still number one - and what I said five years ago - the best thing we can do for ourselves is to export our way of life - is happening in China.

Keith McCullough: US Economy Near Point of No Return

Friday, 13 Aug 2010 08:32 AM
By: Dan Weil

The Federal Reserve’s decision to expand its quantitative easing by purchasing more Treasuries is a dangerous one, says Keith McCullough, CEO of research firm Hedgeye.

“That could lead the country to the brink of collapse,” he wrote in a Fortune magazine column.

McCullough agrees with economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, who recently wrote that government debt in excess of 90 percent of GDP pulls down economic growth.

“It's a point from which it's almost impossible to return,” McCullough wrote.

Government debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office predicts.

“On July 2nd, we cut both our third quarter 2010 and full year 2011 GDP estimates for the U.S. to 1.7 percent,” McCullough says.

“Now, even our estimate for 2011 is still too high. There will be a downward bias to our U.S. growth estimates as long as debt-financed-deficit-spending continues to be the solution politicians and central bankers turn to as a fix to our financial crisis.”

Others have been critical of the Fed’s latest easing move too, comparing it to the Bank of Japan’s futile fight against deflation in 2001-06.

“I don’t think anyone in the market is fooled” by the distinction between Fed policy now and BOJ policy then, Stephen Stanley, a former Fed researcher who is now chief economist at Pierpont Securities, told Bloomberg.

“That is a problem, both substantively and also from a perception standpoint.”

Couple of points.

"The last thing we need is consumer spending" WTF?

"We need to be loaning money to build factories" huh?... and build what exactly that would compete with the asian factories???

No hope for GM? Fords been doing pretty good with those same labour unions haven't they?

quote Originally posted by newf: Couple of points. "The last thing we need is consumer spending" WTF? "We need to be loaning money to build factories" huh?... and build what exactly that would compete with the asian factories???

Here is a good explanation: Consumer Spending Doesn’t Drive the Economy

quote No hope for GM? Fords been doing pretty good with those same labour unions haven't they?

GM hosed their investors and creditors, with the help of the government, in the bankruptcy. You'd have to be nuts to buy the new GM stock.

Dr. Keynes Killed the Patient

By: Michael Pento
Tuesday, August 17, 2010

A morbidly obese gentleman labored into Dr. Hayek’s office suffering from severe chest pain. The patient also complained that he was unable to consume his usual 10,000 calorie-per-day diet; in fact, he was feeling so sick that he could barely scarf down 9,000 calories. He plead that his love for food remained as strong as ever, but his body just wasn’t keeping up with his demands.

After having a thorough look at the patient, the good doctor could not find anything wrong outside of the patient’s extreme portliness. After a moment of reflection, he delivered to his patient a troubling diagnosis. He explained that the chest pain stemmed from the strain the patient’s 500lb body was putting on his heart, and that the lack of appetite was his body’s attempt to protect itself from this imbalance. Dr. Hayek’s prescription was simple: the patient had to dramatically reduce his consumption while undertaking a moderate exercise program, with the goal of losing 250lbs as quickly and safely as possible. Dr. Hayek was aware that it would be a physically painful and emotionally difficult process for the man, but it was the only way to avert a life of suffering – or even a heart attack.

Unfortunately, our patient rebelled against such an austere program. He had grown very fond of his high-calorie and high-fat diet and didn’t think that now, when he was already depressed from dealing with all these ailments, was a good time to deny himself the few pleasures he had left. In his opinion, the doc’s prescription was just too simplistic. He thought there just had to be a way to have his cake and eat it – frequently. So, he waddled out of Dr. Hayek’s office as fast as he could, shouting over his shoulder: “I’m getting a second opinion!”

The overweight gentleman sauntered across the street, where he found the office of Dr. Keynes. He told the new doctor about his acute chest pain and lack of appetite, and complained about the previous doctor’s “heartless” prescription. After a cursory examination, Dr. Keynes rendered his diagnosis: the patient’s condition did not stem from the fact that his gigantic frame was causing undo strain on his heart; instead, the doctor concluded, the patient’s chest pain was merely causing a temporary lack of hunger. Furthermore, Dr. Keynes argued, the stress of cutting weight at the present time would certainly prove detrimental to the man’s already weak heart. Therefore, his prescription was for the 500lb man to each as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Anything less might cause the man to suffer a heart attack, he noted. Now the doctor did concede that, at some point in the distant future, it might be a good idea for the man to shed a few pounds. But for the present, the most import thing to do would be to consume as much as he could stomach.

The patient left Dr. Keynes’ office with a broad smile. After gorging at an all-you-can-eat buffet, he momentarily forgot about his chest pain. It looked like he had found his solution; except, a week later, he died.

The Hubris of Government

The allegory above discusses the dangers of quackery, whether medical or economic. Right now, economic quackery – in the form of Keynesianism – has overtaken Washington.

American consumers are trying their best to deleverage. In terms of the story, the patient is actually trying to lose weight. But the government is blocking deleveraging and trying to boost consumption. They are forcing food down the patient’s throat. According to the Flow of Funds Report, households reduced debt at a 2.4% annualized rate ($330 billion) during Q1 of 2010. Meanwhile, the federal government was piling on debt at an 18.5% annual rate ($1.44 trillion). Since every dollar of government debt is a promise to tax the private sector in the future with interest, this public spending spree effectively negated the Herculean efforts of the private sector to return to a sustainable path.

That’s where the arrogance of Washington is really apparent. Scores of millions of American consumers have made the decision that reducing their debt burden is in their best interests right now. But a few hundred individuals in government believe they know better than the collective wisdom of the entire free market. By leveraging up the public sector, they have used their power to confiscate our savings. In short, they are forbidding us from following the common sense path to fiscal health.

Unlike their forbears, modern-day Keynesians do not argue just for mollification in the rate of deleveraging. They seek to significantly increase debt levels in an effort to boost the aggregate demand in the economy. Apparently, only once the mythical recovery takes hold due to government spending, printing, and borrowing does a discussion of deficits become appropriate.

The US has persisted under this theory for close to a century, though with a declining quality of life. Unfortunately, the patient has now gone critical. Curiously, the world has yet to fully recognize our precarious condition, even as they provide us with life support. Washington is now entirely dependent on the reserve currency status of the dollar and the continued hibernation of bond vigilantes. Without these supports, the United States would face complete economic arrest. Rather than allowing the American people to get back on our feet, Washington is stuffing us with even more debt. It’s almost as if the feds are daring our foreign creditors to pull the plug. As a consequence, I predict that just as Dr. Keynes killed his patient, Keynesian economics will kill our economy.

Germany spurned Keynesian policy, warned Obama/Geithner about pursueing it, abandoned it entirely, and today, is the most successful and largest and fastest growing economy on the European continent.

------------------
The economy's bad, and the govt will eventually take what they can, especially metals, but they'll have a tough go of it taking my stores of lead.
..............................
GM??
Anyone with the lack of moral character to call this IPO "long-awaited" should be forced to convert 10% of their current equity into "Series B mandatory convertible junior preferred stock" and eat it for a year.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-20-2010).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The economy's bad, and the govt will eventually take what they can, especially metals, but they'll have a tough go of it taking my stores of lead.

When they show up to take your metals, tell them "Sorry, ain't got any. It was stolen (already)".

quote Originally posted by fierobear: When they show up to take your metals, tell them "Sorry, ain't got any. It was stolen (already)".

My metals are FMJ.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: FMJ.

?

lead--Full Metal Jacket.

..The train to marxist crazy town is going full blast,engineer,s Pile o loadsi & Hussein have used up the reserve ,,now want more ,,guess who will pay??,,no explanation will cover Obamanomics,,YOU PAY ,some more lose their jobs
Buy American trake the simple path ,,if possible run over a chink!!
The 60,s Marxist/socialist Radicals have come to power ,we are going down NOW..You will need rope !! But untill then keep up the charade..they take you give then give more
A few of you squeeks are WAKING UP,, the 2x4 to the side of your thick P.C. head is not here yet ,its comming FAST..
Have a 6 month supply of crying towels ...

quote Originally posted by maryjane: lead--Full Metal Jacket.

Ah!

Makes me think of...

Well, folks, now we know what happens when you have a bunch of self-important leftist academics, who have spent little or no time in the real world and the free market, run the U.S. economy...

Christina Romer's True Confessions

By Ed Lasky

Christina Romer, the departing chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, was at a complete loss of words when it came to explaining the state of the economy when she appeared at her valedictory lunch before her returns to her teaching sinecure at Berkley. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post comments:

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.

What she did have was a binder full of scary descriptions and warnings, offered with a perma-smile and singsong delivery: "Terrible recession. . . . Incredibly searing. . . . Dramatically below trend. . . . Suffering terribly. . . . Risk of making high unemployment permanent. . . . Economic nightmare."

Recall, this is the expert chosen by Obama to help oversee the economy. Ms. Romer predicted that the Obama stimulus package would keep the unemployment rate at 8 percent or less; it is now 9.5 percent. We are more in debt than ever before, no matter how that debt is measured -- in absolute terms, as a percent of GDP, or as a percent of the federal budget (assuming the Democrats would be responsible enough to actually pass one before the midterms).

In the spirit of confession, she admitted Obama's team was unprepared.

When she and her colleagues began work, she acknowledged, they did not realize "how quickly and strongly the financial crisis would affect the economy." They "failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be."

Even now, Romer said, mystery persists. "To this day, economists don't fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would." Her defense was that "almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reaction."

That miscalculation, in turn, led to her miscalculation that the stimulus package would be enough to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. Without the policy, she had predicted, unemployment would soar to 9.5 percent. The plan passed, and unemployment went to 10 percent.

Perhaps I, a humble economics major from Northwestern University and a holder of an MBA from the same, might offer some suggestions to why the economy is failing: anti-business rhetoric from Barack Obama and Democratic leaders; pro-union policies , ObamaCare, and rules and regulations that depress hiring; the prospects for cap and tax and anti-trade policies that put a clamp on the animal spirits that are needed to give a pulse to the economy. And let us not forget about the wide range of steep tax increases that are coming on New Year's Day 2011. Those won't help, Ms. Romer, and those are the responsibility of the administration where she held a powerful position.

Perhaps, the ideas behind Keynesian economics, so beloved by liberals because it encourages spending and sanctions big debt, have to be reconsidered.

Are we shocked that the team Obama assembled to run the economy (heralded as the best and the brightest by the courtier media) are so clueless when it comes to the real world? After all, so few of them-including Barack Obama-have any experience in the real world of business and industry.

Maybe Professor Romer will have time when she returns to her cosseted academic life to consider some of these factors that might account for the economy's troubles. Hopefully, she can teach her students better than she helped run the economy.

New figures are out this morning--the Official Unemployment Rate edged up from 9.5% to 9.6%.

Yeah buddy--the reccession's over. [/sarcasm]

Ms Roemer's continued inability to understand why businesses cut production and jobs is a prevalent "mystery" thru out Obama's "Economic" team.

I guess they naturally assumed everyone would just keep building up a huge unsold inventory of crap no one could afford to buy, then rent more warehouse space till it was all filled, continue manufactoring stuff at the previous rate, until the demand for even MORE storage space became acute, thus sparking a gigantic nationwide warehouse building boom of unheard of proportion and that was the base for their recovery plan.

Too bad none of them actually knew a damn thing about running a business.