Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
Apr 11, 2013, 12:11:55 AM4/11/13
to
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/obama-sends-congress-377t-
spending-plan-riles-both-sides/
President Obama found himself weathering bipartisan broadsides Wednesday
as he sent Congress his 2014 budget proposal, which in its effort to
please both sides of the aisle has ended up angering both.
The budget arrived on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning, delivered 65 days
after the legal deadline. The $3.77 trillion spending plan, which is over
2,000 pages, tries to curb deficits by further raising taxes on top
earners and reining in the growth of Social Security.
Obama called his plan "a fiscally responsible blueprint for middle class
jobs and growth," during remarks he made Wednesday morning in the White
House Rose Garden.
"If you're serious about deficit reduction, then there's no excuse to keep
these loopholes open," he said.
He also said he's "already met Republicans more than half way."
But Republicans argue they already consented to increased taxes as part of
the fiscal crisis deal and have expressed little interest in negotiating
another hike. And liberal Democrats -- particularly powerful advocacy
groups -- have launched a series of campaigns to oppose the changes to
Social Security.
The president's proposal being unveiled Wednesday includes an additional
$1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, bringing total
deficit savings to $4.3 trillion, based on the administration's
calculations. It projects that the deficit for the 2014 budget year, which
begins Oct. 1, would fall to $744 billion. That would be the lowest gap
between spending and revenue since 2008.
The president's plan tracks an offer he made to House Speaker John
Boehner, R-Ohio, during December's budget negotiations, which Boehner
ended up walking away from because of his opposition to higher taxes on
the wealthy.
The Obama budget proposal will join competing budget outlines already
approved by the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-run Senate.
The most sweeping proposal in Obama's budget is a switch in the way the
government calculates the annual cost-of-living adjustments for the
millions of recipients of Social Security and other government benefit
programs. The current method of measuring increases in the consumer price
index would be modified to track a process known as chained CPI.
The new method takes into account changes that occur when people
substitute goods rising in price with less expensive products. It results
in slightly lower annual reading for inflation.
The switch in the inflation formula would cut spending on government
benefit programs by $130 billion over 10 years, although the
administration said it planned to protect the most vulnerable, including
the very elderly. The change would also raise about $100 billion in higher
taxes because the current CPI formula is used to adjust tax brackets each
year. A lower inflation measure would mean more money taxed at higher
rates.
In the tax area, Obama would raise an additional $580 billion by
restricting deductions for the top 2 percent of family incomes. The budget
would also implement the "Buffett Rule" requiring that households with
incomes of more than $1 million pay at least 30 percent of their income in
taxes. Charitable giving would be excluded.
Obama's plan is not all about budget cuts. It also includes an additional
$50 billion to fund infrastructure investments, including $40 billion in a
"Fix It First" effort to provide immediate investments to repair highways,
bridges, transit systems and airports nationwide.
Obama's budget would also provide $1 billion to launch a network of 15
manufacturing innovation institutes across the country, and it earmarks
funding to support high-speed rail projects.
The president also is proposing establishment of program to offer
preschool to all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families, with
the money to support the effort coming from increased taxes on tobacco
products.
The administration said its proposals to increase spending would not
increase the deficit but rather are paid for either by increasing taxes or
making deeper cuts to other programs.
Among the proposed cuts, the administration wants to trim defense spending
by an additional $100 billion and domestic programs by an extra $100
billion over the next decade.
The budget proposes cutting $400 billion from Medicare and other health
care programs over a decade. The cuts would come in a variety of ways,
including negotiating better prescription drug prices and asking wealthy
seniors to pay more.
It would obtain an additional $200 billion in savings by scaling back farm
subsidies and trimming federal retiree programs.
Congress and the administration have already secured $2.5 trillion in
deficit reduction over the next 10 years through budget reductions and
with the end-of-year tax increase on the rich. Obama's plan would bring
that total to $4.3 trillion over 10 years.
It is unlikely that Congress will get down to serious budget negotiations
until this summer, when the government once again will be confronted with
the need to raise the government's borrowing limit or face the prospect of
a first-ever default on U.S. debt.
As part of the administration's effort to win over Republicans, Obama will
have a private dinner at the White House with about a dozen GOP senators
Wednesday night. The budget is expected to be a primary topic, along with
proposed legislation dealing with gun control and immigration.
Early indications are that the budget negotiations will be intense.
Republicans have been adamant in their rejection of higher taxes, arguing
that the $600 billion increase on top earners that was part of the late
December agreement to prevent the government from going over the "fiscal
cliff" were all the new revenue they will tolerate.
The administration maintains that Obama's proposal is balanced with the
proper mix of spending cuts and tax increases.
Obama has presided over four straight years of annual deficits totaling
more than $1 trillion, reflecting in part the lost revenue during a deep
recession and the government's efforts to get the economy going again and
stabilize the financial system.
The Obama budget's $1.8 trillion in new deficit cuts would take the place
of the automatic $1.2 trillion in reductions required by a 2011 budget
deal. That provision triggered $85 billion in automatic cuts for the
current budget year, and those reductions, known as a "sequester," would
not be affected by Obama's new budget.
The budget plan already passed by the GOP-controlled House would cut
deficits by a total $4.6 trillion over 10 years on top of the $1.2
trillion called for in the 2011 deal. The budget outline approved by the
Democratic-controlled Senate tracks more closely to the Obama proposal,
although it does not include changes to the cost-of-living formula for
Social Security.
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
spending-plan-riles-both-sides/
President Obama found himself weathering bipartisan broadsides Wednesday
as he sent Congress his 2014 budget proposal, which in its effort to
please both sides of the aisle has ended up angering both.
The budget arrived on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning, delivered 65 days
after the legal deadline. The $3.77 trillion spending plan, which is over
2,000 pages, tries to curb deficits by further raising taxes on top
earners and reining in the growth of Social Security.
Obama called his plan "a fiscally responsible blueprint for middle class
jobs and growth," during remarks he made Wednesday morning in the White
House Rose Garden.
"If you're serious about deficit reduction, then there's no excuse to keep
these loopholes open," he said.
He also said he's "already met Republicans more than half way."
But Republicans argue they already consented to increased taxes as part of
the fiscal crisis deal and have expressed little interest in negotiating
another hike. And liberal Democrats -- particularly powerful advocacy
groups -- have launched a series of campaigns to oppose the changes to
Social Security.
The president's proposal being unveiled Wednesday includes an additional
$1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, bringing total
deficit savings to $4.3 trillion, based on the administration's
calculations. It projects that the deficit for the 2014 budget year, which
begins Oct. 1, would fall to $744 billion. That would be the lowest gap
between spending and revenue since 2008.
The president's plan tracks an offer he made to House Speaker John
Boehner, R-Ohio, during December's budget negotiations, which Boehner
ended up walking away from because of his opposition to higher taxes on
the wealthy.
The Obama budget proposal will join competing budget outlines already
approved by the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-run Senate.
The most sweeping proposal in Obama's budget is a switch in the way the
government calculates the annual cost-of-living adjustments for the
millions of recipients of Social Security and other government benefit
programs. The current method of measuring increases in the consumer price
index would be modified to track a process known as chained CPI.
The new method takes into account changes that occur when people
substitute goods rising in price with less expensive products. It results
in slightly lower annual reading for inflation.
The switch in the inflation formula would cut spending on government
benefit programs by $130 billion over 10 years, although the
administration said it planned to protect the most vulnerable, including
the very elderly. The change would also raise about $100 billion in higher
taxes because the current CPI formula is used to adjust tax brackets each
year. A lower inflation measure would mean more money taxed at higher
rates.
In the tax area, Obama would raise an additional $580 billion by
restricting deductions for the top 2 percent of family incomes. The budget
would also implement the "Buffett Rule" requiring that households with
incomes of more than $1 million pay at least 30 percent of their income in
taxes. Charitable giving would be excluded.
Obama's plan is not all about budget cuts. It also includes an additional
$50 billion to fund infrastructure investments, including $40 billion in a
"Fix It First" effort to provide immediate investments to repair highways,
bridges, transit systems and airports nationwide.
Obama's budget would also provide $1 billion to launch a network of 15
manufacturing innovation institutes across the country, and it earmarks
funding to support high-speed rail projects.
The president also is proposing establishment of program to offer
preschool to all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families, with
the money to support the effort coming from increased taxes on tobacco
products.
The administration said its proposals to increase spending would not
increase the deficit but rather are paid for either by increasing taxes or
making deeper cuts to other programs.
Among the proposed cuts, the administration wants to trim defense spending
by an additional $100 billion and domestic programs by an extra $100
billion over the next decade.
The budget proposes cutting $400 billion from Medicare and other health
care programs over a decade. The cuts would come in a variety of ways,
including negotiating better prescription drug prices and asking wealthy
seniors to pay more.
It would obtain an additional $200 billion in savings by scaling back farm
subsidies and trimming federal retiree programs.
Congress and the administration have already secured $2.5 trillion in
deficit reduction over the next 10 years through budget reductions and
with the end-of-year tax increase on the rich. Obama's plan would bring
that total to $4.3 trillion over 10 years.
It is unlikely that Congress will get down to serious budget negotiations
until this summer, when the government once again will be confronted with
the need to raise the government's borrowing limit or face the prospect of
a first-ever default on U.S. debt.
As part of the administration's effort to win over Republicans, Obama will
have a private dinner at the White House with about a dozen GOP senators
Wednesday night. The budget is expected to be a primary topic, along with
proposed legislation dealing with gun control and immigration.
Early indications are that the budget negotiations will be intense.
Republicans have been adamant in their rejection of higher taxes, arguing
that the $600 billion increase on top earners that was part of the late
December agreement to prevent the government from going over the "fiscal
cliff" were all the new revenue they will tolerate.
The administration maintains that Obama's proposal is balanced with the
proper mix of spending cuts and tax increases.
Obama has presided over four straight years of annual deficits totaling
more than $1 trillion, reflecting in part the lost revenue during a deep
recession and the government's efforts to get the economy going again and
stabilize the financial system.
The Obama budget's $1.8 trillion in new deficit cuts would take the place
of the automatic $1.2 trillion in reductions required by a 2011 budget
deal. That provision triggered $85 billion in automatic cuts for the
current budget year, and those reductions, known as a "sequester," would
not be affected by Obama's new budget.
The budget plan already passed by the GOP-controlled House would cut
deficits by a total $4.6 trillion over 10 years on top of the $1.2
trillion called for in the 2011 deal. The budget outline approved by the
Democratic-controlled Senate tracks more closely to the Obama proposal,
although it does not include changes to the cost-of-living formula for
Social Security.
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Moses
Apr 11, 2013, 11:46:46 AM4/11/13
to
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 12:56:11 PM4/11/13
to
"Moses" <Moses.of.t...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
The words are the same but they are totally different
Your post indicates that you don't have any understanding nor do you have a
clue as to the differences.
Deficits and debt don't depending on what was done with the money.
Unfunded wars that harm our country are bad.
A seriously flawed and unfunded prescription plan is not good.
Thoughtless tax cuts poorly timed are bad.
To see examples of financial mismanagement read the history of the
Republican bush,jr administration
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 1:30:12 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
who will loan you the money.
There currently seems to be a never ending willingness to loan money
to our government, so our government thinks nothing of borrowing 46
cents on every dollar spent. Our government thinks nothing of
spending 25% of GDP, more than any other president since WWII.
If there IS a never ending supply of borrowed money then we will be
OK.... up to a point (more on that further down). HOWEVER Greece just
found out about running up to the wall and having difficulty finding
someone who will loan them more money.
NOW about borrowing up to a point. We have to pay interest on the
money that we borrow. So far that is fine because money is cheap.
HOWEVER, in just 20 short years, there will be only 2 workers for each
retiree.
Two children who are currently in preschool will, in 20 years, be
married, trying to start a family, trying to buy their starter house,
trying to pay off their college loans, trying to save for their
children's college fund, trying to make ends meet, paying their share
of the interest on the national debt...AND.. they will be paying the
SS benefits and medical bills of their very own retiree.
> "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
>
> news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> National finances are not the same as personal finances.
They are EXACTLY the same. You, the individual, and the government
> news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> National finances are not the same as personal finances.
can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
who will loan you the money.
There currently seems to be a never ending willingness to loan money
to our government, so our government thinks nothing of borrowing 46
cents on every dollar spent. Our government thinks nothing of
spending 25% of GDP, more than any other president since WWII.
If there IS a never ending supply of borrowed money then we will be
OK.... up to a point (more on that further down). HOWEVER Greece just
found out about running up to the wall and having difficulty finding
someone who will loan them more money.
NOW about borrowing up to a point. We have to pay interest on the
money that we borrow. So far that is fine because money is cheap.
HOWEVER, in just 20 short years, there will be only 2 workers for each
retiree.
Two children who are currently in preschool will, in 20 years, be
married, trying to start a family, trying to buy their starter house,
trying to pay off their college loans, trying to save for their
children's college fund, trying to make ends meet, paying their share
of the interest on the national debt...AND.. they will be paying the
SS benefits and medical bills of their very own retiree.
wy
Apr 11, 2013, 1:45:47 PM4/11/13
to
On 11 Apr, 13:30, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
>
> >news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> > >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> > >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> > National finances are not the same as personal finances.
>
> They are EXACTLY the same. You, the individual, and the government
> can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
> who will loan you the money.
You, as an individual, can only borrow as much as your collateral will
> On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
>
> >news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> > >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> > >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> > National finances are not the same as personal finances.
>
> They are EXACTLY the same. You, the individual, and the government
> can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
> who will loan you the money.
allow.
>
> There currently seems to be a never ending willingness to loan money
> to our government, so our government thinks nothing of borrowing 46
> cents on every dollar spent. Our government thinks nothing of
> spending 25% of GDP, more than any other president since WWII.
>
> If there IS a never ending supply of borrowed money then we will be
> OK.... up to a point (more on that further down). HOWEVER Greece just
> found out about running up to the wall and having difficulty finding
> someone who will loan them more money.
>
> NOW about borrowing up to a point. We have to pay interest on the
> money that we borrow. So far that is fine because money is cheap.
> HOWEVER, in just 20 short years, there will be only 2 workers for each
> retiree.
>
> Two children who are currently in preschool will, in 20 years, be
> married, trying to start a family, trying to buy their starter house,
> trying to pay off their college loans, trying to save for their
> children's college fund, trying to make ends meet, paying their share
> of the interest on the national debt...AND.. they will be paying the
> SS benefits and medical bills of their very own retiree.
world population. Phew! Saved by a virus!
Moses
Apr 11, 2013, 1:45:28 PM4/11/13
to
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 1:49:54 PM4/11/13
to
"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b1b94ad-c022-4e5e...@d8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Frank
Apr 11, 2013, 2:01:09 PM4/11/13
to
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 2:01:45 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 1:49 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
But, But, But, wadaboutBush, wadaboutBush.
If you go read a history of my posts during the Bush / Senator Stevens
era you will read that I claimed that
Bush spent like a drunken sailor
Stevens makes Byrd look like a miser.
NOW, try and dispute what I wrote.
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If you go read a history of my posts during the Bush / Senator Stevens
era you will read that I claimed that
Bush spent like a drunken sailor
Stevens makes Byrd look like a miser.
NOW, try and dispute what I wrote.
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 2:03:56 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 1:45 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On 11 Apr, 13:30, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
>
> > >news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > > > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> > > >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> > > >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > > > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > > > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > > > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > > > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > > > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> > > National finances are not the same as personal finances.
>
> > They are EXACTLY the same. You, the individual, and the government
> > can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
> > who will loan you the money.
>
> You, as an individual, can only borrow as much as your collateral will
> allow.
>
>
Bull shit.
> On 11 Apr, 13:30, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
>
> > >news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > > > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> > > >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> > > >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > > > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > > > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > > > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > > > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > > > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> > > National finances are not the same as personal finances.
>
> > They are EXACTLY the same. You, the individual, and the government
> > can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
> > who will loan you the money.
>
> You, as an individual, can only borrow as much as your collateral will
> allow.
>
>
You have proven in the past that you are financially ignorant.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 2:09:41 PM4/11/13
to
"Frank" <frankdo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kk6tke$gaa$2...@dont-email.me...
left for him to clean up.
The cleanup is not free. Republican obstruction does not help.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 2:10:21 PM4/11/13
to
news:1f1577a3-30b9-40bd...@w3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Why?
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 2:11:20 PM4/11/13
to
news:c9e1a4a6-3911-4b4d...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
You want to see financial ignorance?
Look in a mirror
Look in a mirror
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 2:23:43 PM4/11/13
to
Frank
Apr 11, 2013, 2:25:13 PM4/11/13
to
That's your story and you're sticking to it ;)
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 2:35:45 PM4/11/13
to
news:kk6v1i$sbo$1...@dont-email.me...
The "mess" is not worse.
Republican wars are nearly over.
Prescription plan will be fixed. It's in the works.
Taxes need to be made fairer but Republican protection of America's
billionaires continues.
Business is up
Tax collections are up
The deficit is down.
All going in the right direction.
Fixing the Republican dmaage is a costly bujsiness.
Republican wars are nearly over.
Prescription plan will be fixed. It's in the works.
Taxes need to be made fairer but Republican protection of America's
billionaires continues.
Business is up
Tax collections are up
The deficit is down.
All going in the right direction.
Fixing the Republican dmaage is a costly bujsiness.
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 2:40:08 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 2:35 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Frank" <frankdotlogu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
I agree that we are "going in the right direction", BUT at a snails
pace. This has been the worst recovery after a recession ... ever.
2011 GDP growth: 1.8%
2012 GDP growth: 2.2%
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
> "Frank" <frankdotlogu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:kk6v1i$sbo$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/11/2013 2:09 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> >> "Frank" <frankdotlogu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:kk6v1i$sbo$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/11/2013 2:09 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> >>news:kk6tke$gaa$2...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On 4/11/2013 1:49 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> >>>> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> On 4/11/2013 1:49 PM, Sid9 wrote:
pace. This has been the worst recovery after a recession ... ever.
2011 GDP growth: 1.8%
2012 GDP growth: 2.2%
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 3:11:18 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 10, 11:11 pm, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
wrote:
this is what is driving the deficit, pure and simple. remember,
cheney said deficits do not matter.
yes it was bushes fault and it still is: The Iraq war says economist
Joseph Stiglitz, is the first U.S. war financed entirely on
credit.:There’s no such thing as a free war Stiglitz said. The U.S.
and the world will be paying the price for decades to come
http://theweek.com/article/index/40617/briefing-the-iraq-money-pit
Briefing: The Iraq money pit
What has all that money bought for the U.S.—and the Iraqis?
By The Week Staff | May 1, 2008
The war in Iraq is costing the U.S. $12 billion a month, and no one
can say when the spending will stop. What has all that money bought
for the U.S.—and the Iraqis?
How much has the war cost so far? About $600 billion since 2003, and
the total is rising fast. Because of soaring fuel costs and the high
price of repairing or replacing damaged equipment, the U.S. is
spending about $12 billion a month this year, up from $4 billion a
month in 2003. About $1.5 billion of the monthly total covers
reconstruction, and perhaps an additional $4.5 billion flows to
private contractors doing everything from serving food to guarding
diplomats. The remainder covers fuel, ammunition, and equipment, as
well as the cost of paying, feeding, housing, and providing medical
care to more than 150,000 U.S. military personnel. The $600 billion
figure does not include such costly consequences as higher oil prices,
the interest on the billions borrowed to pay for the war (see below),
and the burden of long-term care and benefits for Iraq war veterans.
So what’s a more realistic figure? Anywhere from $1 trillion to $5
trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently said
that the war’s cost would amount to $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion by
2017. Harvard researcher Linda Bilmes and Nobel Prize–winning
economist Joseph Stiglitz, in their book The $3 Trillion War, say that
the war’s long-term cost will range from $2 trillion to $5 trillion.
Iraq is already the second most expensive war in U.S. history. Only
World War II cost more, about $5 trillion, adjusted for inflation. As
a point of perspective, consider what the $600 billion we’ve spent
already could have purchased, says Bilmes. “The money spent on the war
could have fixed Social Security for 75 years or provided health
insurance to all American children,” she says. Has the money been
well spent? In many cases, no. Audits and oversight groups have found
that tens of billions have been squandered in waste, fraud, and
corruption. Contractors hired to rebuild the country’s infrastructure
or provide security have overcharged the U.S. for everything from soft
drinks—$45 a can—to gasoline. Millions of dollars in no-bid
reconstruction contracts were diverted to things such as Super Bowl
tickets, prostitutes, watches, and jewelry. And much of the
reconstruction work has been substandard. The U.S., for example, paid
$72 million to Parsons, a U.S. contractor, to build a police academy
in Baghdad. But the building was so badly put together that raw sewage
seeps from its walls and ceilings. “This became the lens through which
Iraqis now see America—incompetence, profiteering, arrogance,” said
House Democrat Henry Waxman of California, a vocal critic of the war.
Are the Iraqis chipping in for reconstruction? Barely, and that’s a
sore point with Congress. With oil nearing $120 a barrel, the Iraqi
government is looking at a $70 billion windfall in oil revenues this
year—twice what it expected when it drew up its $48 billion budget for
2008. But instead of financing the reconstruction of Iraq’s decrepit
electrical grid, sewer systems, roads, and public buildings, most of
the money is going unspent. “The Iraqis have translated their oil
revenues into budget surpluses rather than effective services,” said
Missouri Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton. Congress has cut off further
funds for reconstruction and is looking into ways to prod the Iraqi
government into shouldering more of the load. Why is reconstruction
going so slowly? In part because it’s hard to work in a combat zone,
where unguarded workers can be killed by snipers and bombs. The
largest share of any reconstruction contract in Iraq goes to security.
But corruption plays a large role, too. The former head of Iraq’s anti-
corruption commission recently told Congress that at least $18 billion
of Iraq’s own funds has been lost to corruption, with much of the
money ending up in the hands of Shiite militias and Sunni insurgent
groups. That total doesn’t include the losses from oil smuggling and
theft. When the U.S. renovated Iraq’s oil pipelines, it failed to
install meters to monitor the flow of oil. So no one can say how much
oil has been siphoned off illegally. Is life at least better for the
Iraqi people? By some measures, unquestionably. Recent polls show that
45 percent of Iraqis expect conditions to improve over the next 12
months, up from 29 percent in 2007. Unlike in the Saddam Hussein era,
when political opponents were killed or tortured and only state-
sponsored media were permitted, Iraq now has 268 privately owned
newspapers and 54 commercial TV stations. Thanks to the surge of
28,000 additional U.S. forces and peacekeeping deals with “Sunni
awakening” groups, war-related deaths among Iraqi civilians have
dropped to fewer than 600 a month, compared to almost 1,800 a month in
2006. But more than 60,000 Iraqis have died in the sectarian violence
thus far, and many portions of the country remain dangerous. In
Baghdad, electricity is available less than 12 hours a day, and many
areas have no running water or sewer systems. Unemployment stands at
around 33 percent, and inflation is soaring. About 2 million Iraqis
have fled Iraq, mostly to Syria and Jordan, and many vow not to go
back. Meanwhile, the political impasse between the government and
Sunnis and insurgent Shiite groups keeps the country stuck in a
primitive, largely dysfunctional state. Americans “are the best in
destroying things,” said 26-year-old Zaid Saleem, who mans a stall in
a Baghdad market. “But they are the worst in rebuilding.”
The credit card war The Iraq war, says economist Joseph Stiglitz, is
“the first U.S. war financed entirely on credit.” When the war
started, the Bush administration said it would cost no more than $60
billion. But the U.S. budget was already in deficit, so the
administration had to borrow money to finance the invasion. About 40
percent of the money was borrowed from China and other international
investors—the first time since the Revolutionary War that foreigners
financed a U.S. war. At the same time, the administration and Congress
lowered taxes instead of raising them, as is customary in wartime. The
Federal Reserve kept interest rates low, which encouraged middle-class
Americans to go on a consumption binge financed by credit cards and
home-equity loans. Today, say Stiglitz and other economists, the bills
for the country’s spending spree are starting to come due, in the form
of higher prices, a weakened dollar, and lower living standards.
“There’s no such thing as a free war,” Stiglitz said. “The U.S.—and
the world—will be paying the price for decades to come.”
wrote:
this is what is driving the deficit, pure and simple. remember,
cheney said deficits do not matter.
yes it was bushes fault and it still is: The Iraq war says economist
Joseph Stiglitz, is the first U.S. war financed entirely on
credit.:There’s no such thing as a free war Stiglitz said. The U.S.
and the world will be paying the price for decades to come
http://theweek.com/article/index/40617/briefing-the-iraq-money-pit
Briefing: The Iraq money pit
What has all that money bought for the U.S.—and the Iraqis?
By The Week Staff | May 1, 2008
The war in Iraq is costing the U.S. $12 billion a month, and no one
can say when the spending will stop. What has all that money bought
for the U.S.—and the Iraqis?
How much has the war cost so far? About $600 billion since 2003, and
the total is rising fast. Because of soaring fuel costs and the high
price of repairing or replacing damaged equipment, the U.S. is
spending about $12 billion a month this year, up from $4 billion a
month in 2003. About $1.5 billion of the monthly total covers
reconstruction, and perhaps an additional $4.5 billion flows to
private contractors doing everything from serving food to guarding
diplomats. The remainder covers fuel, ammunition, and equipment, as
well as the cost of paying, feeding, housing, and providing medical
care to more than 150,000 U.S. military personnel. The $600 billion
figure does not include such costly consequences as higher oil prices,
the interest on the billions borrowed to pay for the war (see below),
and the burden of long-term care and benefits for Iraq war veterans.
So what’s a more realistic figure? Anywhere from $1 trillion to $5
trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently said
that the war’s cost would amount to $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion by
2017. Harvard researcher Linda Bilmes and Nobel Prize–winning
economist Joseph Stiglitz, in their book The $3 Trillion War, say that
the war’s long-term cost will range from $2 trillion to $5 trillion.
Iraq is already the second most expensive war in U.S. history. Only
World War II cost more, about $5 trillion, adjusted for inflation. As
a point of perspective, consider what the $600 billion we’ve spent
already could have purchased, says Bilmes. “The money spent on the war
could have fixed Social Security for 75 years or provided health
insurance to all American children,” she says. Has the money been
well spent? In many cases, no. Audits and oversight groups have found
that tens of billions have been squandered in waste, fraud, and
corruption. Contractors hired to rebuild the country’s infrastructure
or provide security have overcharged the U.S. for everything from soft
drinks—$45 a can—to gasoline. Millions of dollars in no-bid
reconstruction contracts were diverted to things such as Super Bowl
tickets, prostitutes, watches, and jewelry. And much of the
reconstruction work has been substandard. The U.S., for example, paid
$72 million to Parsons, a U.S. contractor, to build a police academy
in Baghdad. But the building was so badly put together that raw sewage
seeps from its walls and ceilings. “This became the lens through which
Iraqis now see America—incompetence, profiteering, arrogance,” said
House Democrat Henry Waxman of California, a vocal critic of the war.
Are the Iraqis chipping in for reconstruction? Barely, and that’s a
sore point with Congress. With oil nearing $120 a barrel, the Iraqi
government is looking at a $70 billion windfall in oil revenues this
year—twice what it expected when it drew up its $48 billion budget for
2008. But instead of financing the reconstruction of Iraq’s decrepit
electrical grid, sewer systems, roads, and public buildings, most of
the money is going unspent. “The Iraqis have translated their oil
revenues into budget surpluses rather than effective services,” said
Missouri Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton. Congress has cut off further
funds for reconstruction and is looking into ways to prod the Iraqi
government into shouldering more of the load. Why is reconstruction
going so slowly? In part because it’s hard to work in a combat zone,
where unguarded workers can be killed by snipers and bombs. The
largest share of any reconstruction contract in Iraq goes to security.
But corruption plays a large role, too. The former head of Iraq’s anti-
corruption commission recently told Congress that at least $18 billion
of Iraq’s own funds has been lost to corruption, with much of the
money ending up in the hands of Shiite militias and Sunni insurgent
groups. That total doesn’t include the losses from oil smuggling and
theft. When the U.S. renovated Iraq’s oil pipelines, it failed to
install meters to monitor the flow of oil. So no one can say how much
oil has been siphoned off illegally. Is life at least better for the
Iraqi people? By some measures, unquestionably. Recent polls show that
45 percent of Iraqis expect conditions to improve over the next 12
months, up from 29 percent in 2007. Unlike in the Saddam Hussein era,
when political opponents were killed or tortured and only state-
sponsored media were permitted, Iraq now has 268 privately owned
newspapers and 54 commercial TV stations. Thanks to the surge of
28,000 additional U.S. forces and peacekeeping deals with “Sunni
awakening” groups, war-related deaths among Iraqi civilians have
dropped to fewer than 600 a month, compared to almost 1,800 a month in
2006. But more than 60,000 Iraqis have died in the sectarian violence
thus far, and many portions of the country remain dangerous. In
Baghdad, electricity is available less than 12 hours a day, and many
areas have no running water or sewer systems. Unemployment stands at
around 33 percent, and inflation is soaring. About 2 million Iraqis
have fled Iraq, mostly to Syria and Jordan, and many vow not to go
back. Meanwhile, the political impasse between the government and
Sunnis and insurgent Shiite groups keeps the country stuck in a
primitive, largely dysfunctional state. Americans “are the best in
destroying things,” said 26-year-old Zaid Saleem, who mans a stall in
a Baghdad market. “But they are the worst in rebuilding.”
The credit card war The Iraq war, says economist Joseph Stiglitz, is
“the first U.S. war financed entirely on credit.” When the war
started, the Bush administration said it would cost no more than $60
billion. But the U.S. budget was already in deficit, so the
administration had to borrow money to finance the invasion. About 40
percent of the money was borrowed from China and other international
investors—the first time since the Revolutionary War that foreigners
financed a U.S. war. At the same time, the administration and Congress
lowered taxes instead of raising them, as is customary in wartime. The
Federal Reserve kept interest rates low, which encouraged middle-class
Americans to go on a consumption binge financed by credit cards and
home-equity loans. Today, say Stiglitz and other economists, the bills
for the country’s spending spree are starting to come due, in the form
of higher prices, a weakened dollar, and lower living standards.
“There’s no such thing as a free war,” Stiglitz said. “The U.S.—and
the world—will be paying the price for decades to come.”
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 3:12:16 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 10:46 am, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:
of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people
would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office.
Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the
Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that
"deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs
throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the
American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the
government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped
never to have to repay.
As a result, the average American was never forced to confront whether
pouring money borrowed from China into the corrupt Iraqi security
services was worth it, or whether it made more sense to rebuild
infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say, Philadelphia.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34251.htm
How the US Public was Defrauded by the Hidden $ Cost of the Iraq War
and Occupation George Bush sold the war as quick and cheap; it was
long and costly. Even now, the US is paying billions to private
contractors By Michael Boyle March 11, 2013 "Information Clearing
House" - "The Guardian" -- When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003,
the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to
overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This
estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn
between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may
eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term
costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.
The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the
extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's
ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design.
A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the
war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed
as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in
Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both
Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never
admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get
rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay
almost nothing for it.
The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept
hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the
occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or
emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual
budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield
the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the
war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the
scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular
appropriations.
With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon
was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and
cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.
More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war
with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not
face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their
recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans
followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't
matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush
years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep
spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the
occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
Most Americans were not asked to make any sacrifice for the Iraq war,
while its real costs were confined to the 1% of the population who
fought and died there. As a result, the average American was never
forced to confront whether pouring money borrowed from China into the
corrupt Iraqi security services was worth it, or whether it made more
sense to rebuild infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say,
Philadelphia.
One consequence of the way that the true costs of the Iraq war was
hidden from the American people was an explosion of fraud, waste and
abuse. The recent final report of the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir) estimates that the US lost to corruption
or waste at least $8bn of the $60bn devoted to reconstructing Iraq.
Much of the reconstruction expense had no useful political effect: as
Spencer Ackerman has pointed out, Iraqi officials cannot point to a
single completed project that the US managed during the course of the
occupation. The hundreds of ill thought-out projects and half-baked
ideas that marred the American reconstruction effort provides a
powerful explanation for why the US campaign for "hearts and minds"
never worked, and why Iraq is hardly a pro-American bastion in the
Middle East today.
An occupation conducted through under-scrutinized emergency
appropriations enabled dozens, if not hundreds, of private companies
to act like pigs at the trough – wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous
expenses while the insurgency raged around them. These private
companies were able to behave so rapaciously because they were so
desperately needed by the US government to run the Iraq war without
revealing its true cost to the American public.
Another factor that was kept hidden from the American public was the
skyrocketing costs of deploying US troops abroad. According to a
Congressional Research Service estimate (pdf), the average annual
operational cost per US soldier in Iraq was $462,000 between 2005 and
2009. To control costs and avoid imposing a draft, the US resorted to
a parallel army of private contractors, numbering 100,000 people or
more at the height of the war.
Yet, this policy backfired, as private contractors cost nearly as much
and wasted millions – by one estimate, losing $12m a day between the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advantage they had was that
they allowed the American people to be lulled into thinking that the
Iraq war had cost them nothing.
The extent to which the US hid the costs of the war by relying on
private contractors has left a disastrous legacy within Iraq itself.
Many of these contractors behaved recklessly; sometimes, they even
shot at crowds when they felt trapped or threatened. Thus private
military contracting help to turn the population even more against the
US and the occupation.
Even after the US withdrawal, Iraq has had to contend with dozens of
private security companies, many still under US contract, running
operations in contravention of Iraqi law. An estimate in February 2012
revealed there were 109 separate private security companies, with
36,000 men under arms, still operating in Iraq months after the
American army had gone home. While US attention has drifted from Iraq,
the costs of this reckless war are still being incurred. The American
embassy in Baghdad remains a heavily-armed fortress: a relic of the
imperial ambitions that the US had in that country.
Through 2012, the US is projected to have spent $17.7bn (pdf) on
police training and civilian reconstruction projects in Iraq. This at
a time when hundreds of states and towns across the US face harsh
budget cuts in essential services and care for their poor and sick.
The Iraq war provides many lessons, but among the most important is
that the promise of a cheap and easy war never turns out to be true.
The Bush administration sold the American people a bill of goods with
Iraq, offering them a short and glorious war while secretly running up
a tab that future generations will be left with. Along with
Afghanistan, the war in Iraq added $1.4tn to the national debt.
The dishonesty of this approach is due to a fundamental fact about the
United States: that while its leaders may have grand international
ambitions, most Americans have no appetite for, or interest in, nation-
building abroad. This mismatch between our leaders and ourselves means
that our politicians will lie to us about running their wars on the
cheap while finding ways to pass on the costs to those not yet born.
That lesson should be remembered by any American who sees a future
president promise, as George Bush did, that such embarking on such a
conflict today will "lift a terrible threat from the lives of our
children and grandchildren".
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
>
>
> <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
> > Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
yes it still is bushes fault: the Bush administration masked the cost
> > Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
of the war with deficit spending to ensure that the American people
would not face up to its costs while President Bush was in office.
Despite their recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the
Republicans followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that
"deficits don't matter" and spent freely on domestic programs
throughout the Bush years. The Bush administration encouraged the
American people to keep spending and "enjoy life", while the
government paid for the occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped
never to have to repay.
As a result, the average American was never forced to confront whether
pouring money borrowed from China into the corrupt Iraqi security
services was worth it, or whether it made more sense to rebuild
infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say, Philadelphia.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34251.htm
How the US Public was Defrauded by the Hidden $ Cost of the Iraq War
and Occupation George Bush sold the war as quick and cheap; it was
long and costly. Even now, the US is paying billions to private
contractors By Michael Boyle March 11, 2013 "Information Clearing
House" - "The Guardian" -- When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003,
the Bush administration estimated that it would cost $50-60bn to
overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a functioning government. This
estimate was catastrophically wrong: the war in Iraq has cost $823.2bn
between 2003 and 2011. Some estimates suggesting that it may
eventually cost as much as $3.7tn when factoring in the long-term
costs of caring for the wounded and the families of those killed.
The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the
extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's
ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design.
A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the
war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed
as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in
Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both
Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never
admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get
rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay
almost nothing for it.
The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept
hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the
occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or
emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual
budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield
the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the
war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the
scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular
appropriations.
With the Iraq war treated as an "off the books" expense, the Pentagon
was allowed to keep spending on high-end military equipment and
cutting-edge technology. In fiscal terms, it was as if the messy wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq were never happening.
More fundamentally, the Bush administration masked the cost of the war
with deficit spending to ensure that the American people would not
face up to its costs while President Bush was in office. Despite their
recent discovery of outrage over the national debt, the Republicans
followed the advice of Vice-President Dick Cheney that "deficits don't
matter" and spent freely on domestic programs throughout the Bush
years. The Bush administration encouraged the American people to keep
spending and "enjoy life", while the government paid for the
occupation of Iraq on a credit card they hoped never to have to repay.
Most Americans were not asked to make any sacrifice for the Iraq war,
while its real costs were confined to the 1% of the population who
fought and died there. As a result, the average American was never
forced to confront whether pouring money borrowed from China into the
corrupt Iraqi security services was worth it, or whether it made more
sense to rebuild infrastructure in Diyala, rather than, say,
Philadelphia.
One consequence of the way that the true costs of the Iraq war was
hidden from the American people was an explosion of fraud, waste and
abuse. The recent final report of the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir) estimates that the US lost to corruption
or waste at least $8bn of the $60bn devoted to reconstructing Iraq.
Much of the reconstruction expense had no useful political effect: as
Spencer Ackerman has pointed out, Iraqi officials cannot point to a
single completed project that the US managed during the course of the
occupation. The hundreds of ill thought-out projects and half-baked
ideas that marred the American reconstruction effort provides a
powerful explanation for why the US campaign for "hearts and minds"
never worked, and why Iraq is hardly a pro-American bastion in the
Middle East today.
An occupation conducted through under-scrutinized emergency
appropriations enabled dozens, if not hundreds, of private companies
to act like pigs at the trough – wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous
expenses while the insurgency raged around them. These private
companies were able to behave so rapaciously because they were so
desperately needed by the US government to run the Iraq war without
revealing its true cost to the American public.
Another factor that was kept hidden from the American public was the
skyrocketing costs of deploying US troops abroad. According to a
Congressional Research Service estimate (pdf), the average annual
operational cost per US soldier in Iraq was $462,000 between 2005 and
2009. To control costs and avoid imposing a draft, the US resorted to
a parallel army of private contractors, numbering 100,000 people or
more at the height of the war.
Yet, this policy backfired, as private contractors cost nearly as much
and wasted millions – by one estimate, losing $12m a day between the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only advantage they had was that
they allowed the American people to be lulled into thinking that the
Iraq war had cost them nothing.
The extent to which the US hid the costs of the war by relying on
private contractors has left a disastrous legacy within Iraq itself.
Many of these contractors behaved recklessly; sometimes, they even
shot at crowds when they felt trapped or threatened. Thus private
military contracting help to turn the population even more against the
US and the occupation.
Even after the US withdrawal, Iraq has had to contend with dozens of
private security companies, many still under US contract, running
operations in contravention of Iraqi law. An estimate in February 2012
revealed there were 109 separate private security companies, with
36,000 men under arms, still operating in Iraq months after the
American army had gone home. While US attention has drifted from Iraq,
the costs of this reckless war are still being incurred. The American
embassy in Baghdad remains a heavily-armed fortress: a relic of the
imperial ambitions that the US had in that country.
Through 2012, the US is projected to have spent $17.7bn (pdf) on
police training and civilian reconstruction projects in Iraq. This at
a time when hundreds of states and towns across the US face harsh
budget cuts in essential services and care for their poor and sick.
The Iraq war provides many lessons, but among the most important is
that the promise of a cheap and easy war never turns out to be true.
The Bush administration sold the American people a bill of goods with
Iraq, offering them a short and glorious war while secretly running up
a tab that future generations will be left with. Along with
Afghanistan, the war in Iraq added $1.4tn to the national debt.
The dishonesty of this approach is due to a fundamental fact about the
United States: that while its leaders may have grand international
ambitions, most Americans have no appetite for, or interest in, nation-
building abroad. This mismatch between our leaders and ourselves means
that our politicians will lie to us about running their wars on the
cheap while finding ways to pass on the costs to those not yet born.
That lesson should be remembered by any American who sees a future
president promise, as George Bush did, that such embarking on such a
conflict today will "lift a terrible threat from the lives of our
children and grandchildren".
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 3:14:01 PM4/11/13
to
rarely needs to be paid down. As Adam Smith noted in The Wealth of
Nations, no government in history ever has paid off its public debt:
Government Debt and Deficits Are Not the Problem, Private Debt Is
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 3:16:49 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 1:01 pm, Frank <frankdotlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/2013 1:49 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On 4/11/2013 1:49 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
why it's quite laughable now to listen to the Fox News crew blast
President Obama over the budget deficit. They all cheered for Bush's
dumb war, which he prosecuted while cutting taxes.
http://news.yahoo.com/folly-iraq-invasion-needs-more-public-scrutiny-050208047.html
FOLLY OF IRAQ INVASION NEEDS MORE PUBLIC SCRUTINY
By Cynthia Tucker | Cynthia Tucker – 9 hrs ago
Ten years ago, on March 20, 2003, the administration of George W. Bush
launched its disastrous invasion of Iraq. It's a war most Americans --
including many Republicans who enthusiastically supported it -- are
working assiduously to forget.
Not so fast. An examination of the lies, the hypocrisy and the power-
mongering that led us into that act of grand folly may help us to
avoid similar impulses in the coming decades. Besides, there are
lasting consequences that cannot be shoved into history's dustbin.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead. So are an estimated 100,000 Iraqis and
more than 4,400 Americans. Countless other Americans are forever
maimed, some of them suffering mental traumas from which they will
never fully recover.
That's the human toll. It doesn't include the billions of dollars that
were wasted. While the official calculations of the cost to the
treasury are in the $800 billion range, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz
has put the cost to the U.S. economy at $3 trillion. That's why it's
quite laughable now to listen to the Fox News crew blast President
Obama over the budget deficit. They all cheered for Bush's dumb war,
which he prosecuted while cutting taxes.
But the most disastrous long-term consequence of the war may be its
effect on Iran. The United States gave Saddam nominal support for
years because he served as a check on Iran, his bitter enemy. Now
Shiites run Iraq, as they do Iran, and Tehran has great influence in
Baghdad.
So how is it that so many cheered the invasion? Why did so few voice
any dissent? Why was it that those who did argue against the war were
vilified as traitors?
I vividly recall the months leading to the war because I was among
those who insisted at the outset that the drive to oust Saddam was
foolish. (At first, I assumed Bush was merely posturing. Even he, I
thought, wouldn't do something that stupid.) For my trouble, I was
denounced as a fifth columnist, an appeaser, a liberal bed-wetter,
etc.
Among those attacking my anti-invasion stance were comfortable,
affluent professionals whose sons and daughters would never have
considered volunteering for military service. I was dumbfounded by the
nonchalance -- and hypocrisy -- with which they endorsed a war that
would be fought by young men and women largely from the working
classes.
I was also deeply disappointed -- taken aback, actually -- by the
complicity of the major news media, whose supposedly intrepid
journalists, instead of ferreting out official dishonesty, caved
before it. The nation's best newspapers ran numerous front-page
stories trumpeting the Bush administration's lies about Saddam, his
alleged WMDs and his supposed collusion with Osama bin Laden. There
were no similarly placed stories about the Project for the New
American Century, the group of neo-cons who were pushing for Saddam's
ouster years before 9/11.
Andrew Bacevich, a well-respected foreign policy scholar and early
opponent of the war, lists a misplaced faith in the U.S. military as
among several reasons for the lack of critical questioning from the
media or political leaders.
"It was taken for granted that we would win and we would win easily,"
Bacevich, a Boston University professor and retired military officer,
told me. "For anyone to question the effectiveness of the U.S.
military in those days was tantamount to failing to support the
troops, and no politician or person who cared about their public
reputation dared do anything that would suggest failure to support the
troops."
Bacevich also points out that, unlike the war in Vietnam, which was
also fueled by official dishonesty, few public figures who led the
nation into Iraq have paid any price. Not only was Lyndon Johnson's
career cut short and legacy diminished, but his leading foreign policy
strategists were also forced into public contrition.
Not so with Bush's minions. Vice President Darth, ah, Dick Cheney
remains adamant that Saddam was in league with anti-U.S. terrorists,
even though all credible intelligence officials have said otherwise.
John McCain, for his part, bludgeoned Chuck Hagel recently because
Hagel came to oppose the war.
It's much too early to forget the folly of Iraq. Too few of us have
learned any lessons from it.
(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is
a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached
at cyn...@cynthiatucker.com.)
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 3:18:26 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 1:03 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:45 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Apr, 13:30, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > > > > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> > > > >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> > > > >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > > > > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > > > > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > > > > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > > > > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > > > > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> > > > National finances are not the same as personal finances.
>
> > > They are EXACTLY the same. You, the individual, and the government
> > > can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
> > > who will loan you the money.
>
> > You, as an individual, can only borrow as much as your collateral will
> > allow.
>
> Bull shit.
>
> You have proven in the past that you are financially ignorant.
>
>
>
after raiding the treasury for massive tax cuts for wealthy
> On Apr 11, 1:45 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Apr, 13:30, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Moses" <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:kk6lt...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> > > > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 04:11:55 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> > > > > <leroysoet...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> > > > >> Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends Congress
> > > > >> $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>
> > > > > So what if the debt raises to $100T. You don't have to pay for it. You see
> > > > > we just keep spending money until we can't borrow any more then default on
> > > > > the debt and start all over again. Deficits and the debt don't matter. So
> > > > > max out your credit cards, get a 2nd mortgage on your house and file for
> > > > > bankruptcy because in the end we are all dead anyway.
>
> > > > National finances are not the same as personal finances.
>
> > > They are EXACTLY the same. You, the individual, and the government
> > > can borrow as much money as you want to *as long as* there is someone
> > > who will loan you the money.
>
> > You, as an individual, can only borrow as much as your collateral will
> > allow.
>
> Bull shit.
>
> You have proven in the past that you are financially ignorant.
>
>
>
parasites, and two bungled wars, one un-needed and based on lies. "THE
CONSERVATIVES" are trying to raid social security instead of being
self responsible and paying us back:))))
you will notice its "CONSERVATIVE" governments in europe that
advocate bailing out irresponsible "CONSERVATIVE" run banks that went
bust, with stolen money from innocent savers.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 3:19:48 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 1:25 pm, Frank <frankdotlogu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/11/2013 2:09 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Frank" <frankdotlogu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> On 4/11/2013 2:09 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:kk6tke$gaa$2...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 4/11/2013 1:49 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> >>> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> On 4/11/2013 1:49 PM, Sid9 wrote:
stupidity, we are sick of "CONSERVATIVE" lies. bush invaded, and bush
bungled the invasion, because "THE CONSERVATIVE" was sick with greed,
and lusted after another countries wealth, iraqs oil.
At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush
administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction
resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces
units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator
spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were
shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist
leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Advertise on NYTimes.com
How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad
By DAVID ROHDE and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: August 12, 2007
Correction Appended
Two years after the Taliban fell to an American-led coalition, a group
of NATO ambassadors landed in Kabul, Afghanistan, to survey what
appeared to be a triumph — a fresh start for a country ripped apart by
years of war with the Soviets and brutal repression by religious
extremists.
Losing the Advantage
Misjudgments in Iraq’s Shadow
Reach of War
With a senior American diplomat, R. Nicholas Burns, leading the way,
they thundered around the country in Black Hawk helicopters, with
little fear for their safety. They strolled quiet streets in Kandahar
and sipped tea with tribal leaders. At a briefing from the United
States Central Command, they were told that the Taliban were now a
“spent force.”
“Some of us were saying, ‘Not so fast,’ ” Mr. Burns, now the under
secretary of state for political affairs, recalled. “While not a
strategic threat, a number of us assumed that the Taliban was too
enmeshed in Afghan society to just disappear.”
But that skepticism had never taken hold in Washington. Since the 2001
war, American intelligence agencies had reported that the Taliban were
so decimated they no longer posed a threat, according to two senior
intelligence officials who reviewed the reports.
The American sense of victory had been so robust that the top C.I.A.
specialists and elite Special Forces units who had helped liberate
Afghanistan had long since moved on to the next war, in Iraq.
Those sweeping miscalculations were part of a pattern of assessments
and decisions that helped send what many in the American military call
“the good war” off course.
Like Osama bin Laden and his deputies, the Taliban had found refuge in
Pakistan and regrouped as the American focus wavered. Taliban fighters
seeped back over the border, driving up the suicide attacks and
roadside bombings by as much as 25 percent this spring, and forcing
NATO and American troops into battles to retake previously liberated
villages in southern Afghanistan.
They have scored some successes recently, and since the 2001 invasion,
there have been improvements in health care, education and the
economy, as well as the quality of life in the cities. But
Afghanistan’s embattled president, Hamid Karzai, said in Washington
last week that security in his country had “definitely deteriorated.”
One former national security official called that “a very diplomatic
understatement.”
President Bush’s critics have long contended that the Iraq war has
diminished America’s effort in Afghanistan, which the administration
has denied, but an examination of how the policy unfolded within the
administration reveals a deep divide over how to proceed in
Afghanistan and a series of decisions that at times seemed to relegate
it to an afterthought as Iraq unraveled.
Statements from the White House, including from the president, in
support of Afghanistan were resolute, but behind them was a halting,
sometimes reluctant commitment to solving Afghanistan’s myriad
problems, according to dozens of interviews in the United States, at
NATO headquarters in Brussels and in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
At critical moments in the fight for Afghanistan, the Bush
administration diverted scarce intelligence and reconstruction
resources to Iraq, including elite C.I.A. teams and Special Forces
units involved in the search for terrorists. As sophisticated Predator
spy planes rolled off assembly lines in the United States, they were
shipped to Iraq, undercutting the search for Taliban and terrorist
leaders, according to senior military and intelligence officials.
As defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed credit for toppling
the Taliban with light, fast forces. But in a move that foreshadowed
America’s trouble in Iraq, he failed to anticipate the need for more
forces after the old government was gone, and blocked an early
proposal from Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and Mr.
Karzai, the administration’s handpicked president, for a large
international force. As the situation deteriorated, Mr. Rumsfeld and
other administration officials reversed course and cajoled European
allies into sending troops.
When it came to reconstruction, big goals were announced, big projects
identified. Yet in the year Mr. Bush promised a “Marshall Plan” for
Afghanistan, the country received less assistance per capita than did
postconflict Bosnia and Kosovo, or even desperately poor Haiti,
according to a RAND Corporation study. Washington has spent an average
of $3.4 billion a year reconstructing Afghanistan, less than half of
what it has spent in Iraq, according to the Congressional Research
Service.
The White House contends that the troop level in Afghanistan was
increased when needed and that it now stands at 23,500. But a senior
American commander said that even as the military force grew last
year, he was surprised to discover that “I could count on the fingers
of one or two hands the number of U.S. government agricultural
experts” in Afghanistan, where 80 percent of the economy is
agricultural. A $300 million project authorized by Congress for small
businesses was never financed.
Underlying many of the decisions, officials say, was a misapprehension
about what Americans would find on the ground in Afghanistan. “The
perception was that Afghans hated foreigners and that the Iraqis would
welcome us,” said James Dobbins, the administration’s former special
envoy for Afghanistan. “The reverse turned out to be the case.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the administration’s
policy, saying, “I don’t buy the argument that Afghanistan was starved
of resources.” Yet she said: “I don’t think the U.S. government had
what it needed for reconstructing a country. We did it ad hoc in the
Balkans, and then in Afghanistan, and then in Iraq.”
In interviews, three former American ambassadors to Afghanistan were
more critical of Washington’s record.
“I said from the get-go that we didn’t have enough money and we didn’t
have enough soldiers,” said Robert P. Finn, who was the ambassador in
2002 and 2003. “I’m saying the same thing six years later.”
Zalmay Khalilzad, who was the next ambassador and is now the American
ambassador to the United Nations, said, “I do think that state-
building and nation-building, we came to that reluctantly,” adding
that “I think more could have been done earlier on these issues.”
And Ronald E. Neumann, who replaced Mr. Khalilzad in Kabul, said, “The
idea that we could just hunt terrorists and we didn’t have to do
nation-building, and we could just leave it alone, that was a large
mistake.”
A Big Promise, Unfulfilled
After months of arguing unsuccessfully for a far larger effort in
Afghanistan, Mr. Dobbins received an unexpected call in April 2002.
Mr. Bush, he was told, was planning to proclaim America’s commitment
to rebuild Afghanistan.
“I got a call from the White House speech writers saying they were
writing a speech and did I see any reason not to cite the Marshall
Plan,” Mr. Dobbins recalled, referring to the American rebuilding of
postwar Europe. “I said, ‘No, I saw no objections’, so they put it in
the speech.”
On April 17, Mr. Bush traveled to the Virginia Military Institute,
where Gen. George C. Marshall trained a century ago. “Marshall knew
that our military victory against enemies in World War II had to be
followed by a moral victory that resulted in better lives for
individual human beings,” Mr. Bush said, calling Marshall’s work “a
beacon to light the path that we, too, must follow.”
Mr. Bush had belittled “nation building” while campaigning for
president 18 months earlier. But aware that Afghans had felt abandoned
before, including by his father’s administration after the Soviets
left in 1989, he vowed to avoid the syndrome of “initial success,
followed by long years of floundering and ultimate failure.
“We’re not going to repeat that mistake,” he said. “We’re tough, we’re
determined, we’re relentless. We will stay until the mission is done.”
The speech, which received faint notice in the United States, fueled
expectations in Afghanistan and bolstered Mr. Karzai’s stature before
an Afghan grand council meeting in June 2002 at which Mr. Karzai was
formally chosen to lead the government.
Yet privately, some senior officials, including Mr. Rumsfeld, were
concerned that Afghanistan was a morass where the United States could
achieve little, according to administration officials involved in the
debate.
Within hours of the president’s speech, Mr. Rumsfeld announced his own
approach at a Pentagon news conference.
“The last thing you’re going to hear from this podium is someone
thinking they know how Afghanistan ought to organize itself,” he said.
“They’re going to have to figure it out. They’re going to have to grab
ahold of that thing and do something. And we’re there to help.”
But the help was slow in coming. Despite Mr. Bush’s promise in
Virginia, in the months that followed his April speech, no detailed
reconstruction plan emerged from the administration. Some senior
administration officials lay the blame on the National Security
Council, which is charged with making sure the president’s foreign
policy is carried out.
The stagnation reflected tension within the administration over how
large a role the United States should play in stabilizing a country
after toppling its government, former officials say.
After the fall of the Taliban in December 2001, Mr. Powell and Ms.
Rice, then the national security adviser, argued in confidential
sessions that if the United States now lost Afghanistan, America’s
image would be damaged, officials said. In a February 2002 meeting in
the White House Situation Room, Mr. Powell proposed that American
troops join the small international peacekeeping force patrolling
Kabul and help Mr. Karzai extend his influence beyond the capital.
Mr. Powell said in an interview that his model was the 1989 invasion
of Panama, where American troops spread out across the country after
ousting the Noriega government. “The strategy has to be to take charge
of the whole country by military force, police or other means,” he
said.
Richard N. Haass, a former director of policy planning at the State
Department, said informal talks with European officials had led him to
believe that a force of 20,000 to 40,000 peacekeepers could be
recruited, half from Europe, half from the United States.
But Mr. Rumsfeld contended that European countries were unwilling to
contribute more troops, said Douglas J. Feith, then the Pentagon’s
under secretary for policy. He said Mr. Rumsfeld felt that sending
American troops would reduce pressure on Europeans to contribute, and
could provoke Afghans’ historic resistance to invaders and divert
American forces from hunting terrorists. Mr. Rumsfeld declined to
comment.
Some officials said they also feared confusion if European forces
viewed the task as peacekeeping while the American military saw its
job as fighting terrorists. Ms. Rice, despite having argued for fully
backing the new Karzai government, took a middle position, leaving the
issue unresolved. “I felt that we needed more forces, but there was a
real problem, which you continue to see to this day, with the dual
role,” she said.
Ultimately, Mr. Powell’s proposal died. “The president, the vice
president, the secretary of defense, the national security staff, all
of them were skeptical of an ambitious project in Afghanistan,” Mr.
Haass said. “I didn’t see support.”
Mr. Dobbins, the former special envoy, said Mr. Powell “seemed
resigned.”
“I said this wasn’t going to be fully satisfactory,” he recalled. “And
he said, ‘Well, it’s the best we could do.’ ”
In the end, the United States deployed 8,000 troops to Afghanistan in
2002, with orders to hunt Taliban and Qaeda members, and not to engage
in peacekeeping or reconstruction. The 4,000-member international
peacekeeping force did not venture beyond Kabul.
As an alternative, officials hatched a loosely organized plan for
Afghans to secure the country themselves. The United States would
train a 70,000-member army. Japan would disarm some 100,000 militia
fighters. Britain would mount an antinarcotics program. Italy would
carry out changes in the judiciary. And Germany would train a 62,000-
member police force.
But that meant no one was in overall command, officials now say. Many
holes emerged in the American effort.
There were so few State Department or Pentagon civil affairs officials
that 13 teams of C.I.A. operatives, whose main job was to hunt
terrorists and the Taliban, were asked to stay in remote corners of
Afghanistan to coordinate political efforts, said John E. McLaughlin,
who was deputy director and then acting director of the agency. “It
took us quite awhile to get them regrouped in the southeast for
counterterrorism,” he said of the C.I.A. teams.
Sixteen months after the president’s 2002 speech, the United States
Agency for International Development, the government’s main foreign
development arm, had seven full-time staffers and 35 full-time
contract staff members in Afghanistan, most of them Afghans, according
to a government audit. Sixty-one agency positions were vacant.
“It was state-building on the cheap, it was a duct tape approach,”
recalled Said T. Jawad, Mr. Karzai’s chief of staff at the time and
Afghanistan’s current ambassador to Washington. “It was fixing things
that were broken, not a strategic approach.”
A Shift of Resources to Iraq
In October 2002, Robert Grenier, a former director of the C.I.A.’s
counterintelligence center, visited the new Kuwait City headquarters
of Lt. Gen David McKiernan, who was already planning the Iraq
invasion. Meeting in a sheet metal warehouse, Mr. Grenier asked
General McKiernan what his intelligence needs would be in Iraq. The
answer was simple. “They wanted as much as they could get,” Mr.
Grenier said.
Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, Mr. Grenier said in an interview,
“the best experienced, most qualified people who we had been using in
Afghanistan shifted over to Iraq,” including the agency’s most skilled
counterterrorism specialists and Middle East and paramilitary
operatives.
That reduced the United States’ influence over powerful Afghan
warlords who were refusing to turn over to the central government tens
of millions of dollars they had collected as customs payments at
border crossings.
While the C.I.A. replaced officers shifted to Iraq, Mr. Grenier said,
it did so with younger agents, who lacked the knowledge and influence
of the veterans. “I think we could have done a lot more on the Afghan
side if we had more experienced folks,” he said.
A former senior official of the Pentagon’s Central Command, which was
running both wars, said that as the Iraq planning sped up, the
military’s covert Special Mission Units, like Delta Force and Navy
Seals Team Six, shifted to Iraq from Afghanistan.
So did aerial surveillance “platforms” like the Predator, a remotely
piloted spy plane armed with Hellfire missiles that had been effective
at identifying targets in the mountains of Afghanistan. Predators were
not shifted directly from Afghanistan to Iraq, according to the former
official, but as new Predators were produced, they went to Iraq.
“We were economizing in Afghanistan,” said the former official, who
requested anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly.
“The marginal return for one more platform in Afghanistan is so much
greater than for one more in Iraq.”
The shift in priorities became apparent to Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon’s
former comptroller, as planning for the Iraq war was in high gear in
the fall of 2002. Mr. Rumsfeld asked him to serve as the Pentagon’s
reconstruction coordinator in Afghanistan. It was an odd role for the
comptroller, whose primary task is managing the Pentagon’s $400
billion a year budget.
“The fact that they went to the comptroller to do something like that
was in part a function of their growing preoccupation with Iraq,” said
Mr. Zakheim, who left the administration in 2004. “They needed
somebody, given that the top tier was covering Iraq.”
In an interview, President Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen
J. Hadley, insisted that there was no diversion of resources from
Afghanistan, and he cited recently declassified statistics to show
that troop levels in Afghanistan rose at crucial moments — like the
2004 Afghan election — even after the Iraq war began.
But the former Central Command official said: “If we were not in Iraq,
we would have double or triple the number of Predators across
Afghanistan, looking for Taliban and peering into the tribal areas.
We’d have the ‘black’ Special Forces you most need to conduct
precision operations. We’d have more C.I.A.”
“We’re simply in a world of limited resources, and those resources are
in Iraq,” the former official added. “Anyone who tells you differently
is blowing smoke.”
A Piecemeal Operation
As White House officials put together plans in the spring of 2003 for
President Bush to land on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham
Lincoln and declare the end of major combat operations in Iraq, the
Pentagon decided to make a similar, if less dramatic, announcement for
Afghanistan.
On May 1, hours before Mr. Bush stood beneath a “Mission Accomplished”
banner, Mr. Rumsfeld appeared at a news conference with Mr. Karzai in
Kabul’s threadbare 19th-century presidential palace. “We clearly have
moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and
stabilization and reconstruction activities,” he said. “The bulk of
the country today is permissive, it’s secure.”
The Afghanistan announcement was largely lost in the spectacle of Mr.
Bush’s speech. But the predictions of stability proved no less
detached from events on the ground.
Three weeks later, Afghan government workers who had not been paid for
months held street demonstrations in Kabul. An exasperated Mr. Karzai
publicly threatened to resign and announced that his government had
run out of money because warlords were hoarding the customs revenues.
“There is no money in the government treasury,” Mr. Karzai said.
At the same time, the American-led training of a new Afghan Army was
proving far more difficult than officials in Washington had expected.
The new force, plagued by high desertion rates, had only 2,000
soldiers. The Germans’ effort to train police officers was off to an
even slower start, and the British-led counternarcotics effort was
dwarfed by an explosion in the poppy crop. Already, small groups of
Taliban fighters had slipped back over the border from Pakistan and
killed aid workers, stalling reconstruction in the south.
A senior White House official said in a recent interview that in
retrospect, putting different countries in charge of different
operations was a mistake. “We piecemealed it,” he said. “One of the
problems is when everybody has a piece, everybody’s piece is made
third and fourth priority. Nobody’s piece is first priority. Stuff
didn’t get done.”
A month after his announcement in Kabul, Mr. Rumsfeld’s aides
presented a strategy to the White House aimed at weakening warlords
and engaging in state-building in Afghanistan. In some ways, it was
the approach Mr. Rumsfeld had rejected right after the invasion.
Pentagon officials said that Mr. Rumsfeld’s views began to shift after
a December 2002 briefing by Marin Strmecki, an Afghanistan expert at
the Smith Richardson Foundation, who argued that Afghanistan was not
ungovernable and that it could be turned into a moderate, Muslim force
in the region.
Mr. Strmecki said that the United States needed to help Afghans create
credible national institutions and that Pashtuns, Afghanistan’s
largest ethnic group and historically the Taliban’s base of support,
needed a more prominent role in the government. Mr. Rumsfeld,
according to aides, was impressed by Mr. Strmecki’s emphasis on
training Afghans to run their own government and hired him.
Then another personnel change helped alter Afghanistan policy. Mr.
Khalilzad, an Afghan-American who was a senior National Security
Council official and a special envoy to Iraq exiles, was appointed
ambassador to Afghanistan.
Mr. Khalilzad said he accepted the job after Mr. Bush promised to
greatly expand resources in Afghanistan. “We had gotten the president
to a significant increase,” Mr. Khalilzad recalled.
A leading neo-conservative, Mr. Khalilzad could get Ms. Rice or — if
need be — Mr. Bush on the phone. He had been a counselor to Mr.
Rumsfeld and had worked for Dick Cheney when Mr. Cheney was the first
President Bush’s defense secretary. “Zal could get things done,” said
Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, a former American military commander in
Afghanistan.
When Mr. Khalilzad arrived in Kabul on Thanksgiving 2003, he brought
nearly $2 billion — twice the amount of the previous year — as well as
a new military strategy and private experts to intensifying
rebuilding.
They started a reconstruction plan dubbed “accelerating success” that
involved the kind of nation-building once dismissed by the
administration. General Barno expanded “Provincial Reconstruction
Teams” to build schools, roads and wells and to win the “hearts and
minds” of Afghans. The teams amounted to a much smaller version of the
force that Mr. Powell had proposed 18 months earlier.
By January 2004, Afghanistan had reached a compromise on a new Afghan
Constitution. With American backing, Mr. Karzai weakened several
warlords. In October 2004, Mr. Karzai, who had been appointed
president, was elected. At the same time, NATO countries steadily sent
more troops to Afghanistan, and soon Mr. Rumsfeld, needing for troops
for Iraq, proposed that NATO take over security for all of
Afghanistan.
By spring 2005, Afghanistan seemed to be moving toward the success Mr.
Bush had promised. But then, fearing that Iraq was spinning out of
control, the White House asked Mr. Khalilzad to become ambassador to
Baghdad.
A Lingering Threat
Before departing Afghanistan, Mr. Khalilzad fought a final battle
within the administration. It revealed divisions within the American
government over Pakistan’s role in aiding the Taliban, a delicate
subject as the administration tried to coax Pakistan’s president, Gen.
Pervez Musharraf, to cooperate.
In an interview on Afghan television, Mr. Khalilzad noted that
Pakistani journalists had recently interviewed a senior Taliban
commander in Pakistan. He questioned Pakistan’s claim that it did not
know the whereabouts of senior Taliban commanders — a form of
skepticism discouraged in Washington, where the administration’s line
had always been that General Musharraf was doing everything he could.
“If a TV station can get in touch with them, how can the intelligence
service of a country, which has nuclear bombs, and a lot of security
and military forces, not find them?” Mr. Khalilzad asked.
Pakistani officials publicly denounced Mr. Khalilzad’s comments and
denied that they were harboring Taliban leaders. But Mr. Khalilzad had
also exposed the growing rift between American officials in Kabul and
those in Islamabad.
Mr. Grenier said that when he was the C.I.A. station chief in
Islamabad the issue of fugitive Taliban leaders was repeatedly raised
with senior Pakistani intelligence officials in 2002. “The results
were just not there,” he recalled. “And it was quite clear to me that
it wasn’t just bad luck.”
Pakistani had backed the Taliban throughout the 1990s as a
counterweight to an alliance of northern Afghan commanders backed by
India, Pakistan’s bitter rival. Pakistani officials also distrusted
Mr. Karzai.
Deciding that the Pakistanis would not act on the Taliban, Mr. Grenier
said he had urged them to focus on arresting Qaeda members, who he
said were far more of a threat to the United States.
“From our perspective at the time, the Taliban was a spent force,” he
said, adding, “We were very much focused on Al Qaeda and didn’t want
to distract the Pakistanis from that.”
But Mr. Khalilzad, American military officials and others in the
administration argued that the Taliban were crossing from Pakistan
into Afghanistan and killing American troops and aid workers.
“Colleagues in Washington at various levels did not recognize that
there was the problem of sanctuary and that this was important,” Mr.
Khalilzad said.
But it was not until 2006, after ordering a study on Afghanistan’s
future, that Mr. Bush strenuously pressed General Musharraf on the
Taliban. Later, Mr. Bush told his aides he worried that “old school
ties” between Pakistani intelligence and the Taliban endured, despite
the general’s assurances. The Pakistanis, one senior American
commander said, were “hedging their bets.”
“They’re not sure that we are staying,” he added. “And if we are gone,
the Taliban is their next best option” to remain influential in
Afghanistan.
As 2005 ended, the Taliban leaders remained in hiding in Pakistan,
waiting for an opportunity to cross the border. Soon, they would find
one.
To Afghans, a Fickle Effort
In September 2005, NATO defense ministers gathered in Berlin to
complete plans for NATO troops to take over security in Afghanistan’s
volatile south. It was the most ambitious “out of area” operations in
NATO history, and across Europe, leaders worried about getting support
from their countries. Then, American military officials dropped a
bombshell.
The Pentagon, they said, was considering withdrawing up to 3,000
troops from Afghanistan, roughly 20 percent of total American forces.
NATO’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said he had protested
to Mr. Rumsfeld that a partial American withdrawal would discourage
others from sending troops.
In the end, the planned troop reduction was abandoned, but chiefly
because the American ground commander at the time, Lt. Gen. Karl W.
Eikenberry, concluded that the Taliban were returning and that he
needed to shift troops to the east to try to stop them. But the
announcement had sent a signal of a wavering American commitment.
“The Afghan people still doubt our staying power,” General Eikenberry
said. “They have seen the world walk away from them before.”
To sell their new missions at home, British, Dutch and Canadian
officials portrayed deployments to Afghanistan as safe, and better
than sending troops to Iraq. Germany and Italy prevented their forces
from being sent on combat missions in volatile areas. Those regions
were to be left to the Americans, Canadians, British and Dutch.
Three months after announcing the proposed troop withdrawal, the White
House Office of Management and Budget cut aid to Afghanistan by a
third.
Ms. Rice said that much of the money allocated to Afghanistan the
previous year had not been spent. “There was an absorption problem,”
she said.
Mr. Neumann, then the ambassador, said he had argued against the
decision.
Even so, American assistance to Afghanistan dropped by 38 percent,
from $4.3 billion in fiscal 2005 to $3.1 billion in fiscal 2006,
according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
By February 2006, Mr. Neumann had come to the conclusion that the
Taliban were planning a spring offensive, and he sent a cable to his
superiors.
“I had a feeling that the view was too rosy in Washington,” recalled
Mr. Neumann, who retired from the State Department in June. “I was
concerned.”
Mr. Neumann’s cable proved prophetic. In the spring of 2006, the
Taliban carried out their largest offensive since 2001, attacking
British, Canadian and Dutch troops in southern Afghanistan.
Hundreds of Taliban swarmed into the south, setting up checkpoints,
assassinating officials and burning schools. Suicide bombings
quintupled to 136. Roadside bombings doubled. All told, 191 American
and NATO troops died in 2006, a 20 percent increase over the 2005
toll. For the first time, it became nearly as dangerous,
statistically, to serve as an American in Afghanistan as in Iraq.
Mr. Neumann said that while suicide bombers came from Pakistan, most
Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan were Afghans. Captured
insurgents said they had taken up arms because a local governor
favored a rival tribe, corrupt officials provided no services or their
families needed money.
After cutting assistance in 2006, the United States plans to provide
$9 billion in aid to Afghanistan in 2007, twice the amount of any year
since 2001.
Despite warnings about the Taliban’s resurgence from Mr. Neumann, Mr.
Khalilzad and military officials, Ms. Rice said, “there was no doubt
that people were surprised that the Taliban was able to regroup and
come back in a large, well-organized force.”
Divisions Over Strategy
In July 2006, NATO formally took responsibility for security
throughout Afghanistan. To Americans and Europeans, NATO is the
vaunted alliance that won the cold war. To Afghans it is little more
than a strange, new acronym. And NATO and the Americans are divided
over strategy.
The disagreement is evident on the wall of the office of Gen. Dan K.
McNeill, the commander of the 35,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan, where
he keeps a chart that is a sea of yellow and red blocks. Each block
shows the restrictions that national governments have placed on their
forces under his command. Red blocks represent tasks a country will
not do, like hunting Taliban or Qaeda leaders. Yellow blocks indicate
missions they are willing to consider after asking their capitals for
approval.
In Washington, officials lament that NATO nations are unwilling to
take the kinds of risks and casualties necessary to confront the
Taliban. Across Europe, officials complain the United States never
focused on reconstruction, and they blame American forces for mounting
air attacks on the Taliban that cause large civilian casualties,
turning Afghans against the West.
The debate over how the 2001 victory in Afghanistan turned into the
current struggle is well under way.
“Destroying the Al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan was an extraordinary
strategic accomplishment,” said Robert D. Blackwill, who was in charge
of both Afghanistan and Iraq policy at the National Security Council,
“but where we find ourselves now may have been close to inevitable,
whether the U.S. went into Iraq or not. We were going to face this
long war in Afghanistan as long as we and the Afghan government
couldn’t bring serious economic reconstruction to the countryside, and
eliminate the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistan.”
But Henry A. Crumpton, a former C.I.A. officer who played a key role
in ousting the Taliban and became the State Department’s
counterterrorism chief, said winning a war like the one in Afghanistan
required American personnel to “get in at a local level and respond to
people’s needs so that enemy forces cannot come in and take
advantage.”
“These are the fundamentals of counterinsurgency, and somehow we
forgot them or never learned them,” he added. He noted that “the
United States has 11 carrier battle groups, but we still don’t have
expeditionary nonmilitary forces of the kind you need to win this sort
of war.”
“We’re living in the past,” he said.
Among some current and former officials, a consensus is emerging that
a more consistent, forceful American effort could have helped to keep
the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s leadership from regrouping.
Gen. James L. Jones, a retired American officer and a former NATO
supreme commander, said Iraq caused the United States to “take its eye
off the ball” in Afghanistan. He warned that the consequences of
failure “are just as serious in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq.”
“Symbolically, it’s more the epicenter of terrorism than Iraq,” he
said. “If we don’t succeed in Afghanistan, you’re sending a very clear
message to the terrorist organizations that the U.S., the U.N. and the
37 countries with troops on the ground can be defeated.”
Carlotta Gall contributed reporting.
Correction: August 14, 2007 A front-page article on Sunday about how
security and rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan have faltered referred
incorrectly in some copies to the timing of a trip to Afghanistan by
NATO representatives. The trip occurred two years after the fall of
the Taliban, not one year. A front-page chart with the article gave an
incorrect total in some copies for the amount spent on aid and
reconstruction in Afghanistan by the United States from 2003 to 2007.
It is $19 billion, not $22 billion.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 3:20:14 PM4/11/13
to
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 4:38:20 PM4/11/13
to
news:7a84f8b6-e55c-46b3...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps some co-operation from McConnell and B�hner would help.
Their only purpose in life seems to be to deny Obama a second term.
They ought to catch up.;
They failed at that, too.
Now they want Obama and America to fail
Their only purpose in life seems to be to deny Obama a second term.
They ought to catch up.;
They failed at that, too.
Now they want Obama and America to fail
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 4:42:26 PM4/11/13
to
"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:c1ddcaf5-927d-443f...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 4:49:21 PM4/11/13
to
> Their only purpose in life seems to be to deny Obama a second term.
> They ought to catch up.;
> They failed at that, too.
> Now they want Obama and America to fail
Obama got his (actually Pelosi's) stimulus bill passed. Obama spent
> They ought to catch up.;
> They failed at that, too.
> Now they want Obama and America to fail
over twice as much, as a percentage of GDP, than what FDR spent. In 5
years, on 10.94% of GDP the Hoover Dam was built. Obama is currently
in his fifth year, Obama Spent over twice that, 25.24% of GDP, and
what does HE have to show for his spending? The worst economic
recovery after a depression.
FDR inherited a far bigger mess than what Obama inherited. It is time
for you to stop saying, "but, wadaboutBush" and stop blaming Bush,
McConnell, Böhner, and republicans in general. It is time for you to
admit that Obama is financially ignorant and incompetent, and that he
wasted his stimulus money on "shovel ready jobs that were... uh.. not
so shovel ready"
Your golden boy is a failure.
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 5:00:23 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 4:42 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
If you are referring to the Government Bureau of Economic Analysis
source illustrating how dismal the economic recovery is?
Thank You. I try to provide the data directly from the source rather
than some editorial or opinion piece that either the left or the right
will dispute because of it coming from either a right wing author or a
left wing author.
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
source illustrating how dismal the economic recovery is?
Thank You. I try to provide the data directly from the source rather
than some editorial or opinion piece that either the left or the right
will dispute because of it coming from either a right wing author or a
left wing author.
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 5:22:48 PM4/11/13
to
news:f9a138de-fd06-499b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps we would do better if McConnell and B�hner did not spend all their
time trying to slow our economy in an attempt to make Obama a failure.
McConnell and B�hner have failed....or haven't you noticed.
We are in recovery.
Where I live the economy is strong and growing
Stores are full of people.
Parking lots are full
Traffic is heavy.
Unemployment is down
We could do better,
Under Republicans we were in a state of collapse, crash and panic.
We've done a hell of a lot better then they did
Thank you President Obama
]Ask your Republican friends to get off their asses and participate
time trying to slow our economy in an attempt to make Obama a failure.
McConnell and B�hner have failed....or haven't you noticed.
We are in recovery.
Where I live the economy is strong and growing
Stores are full of people.
Parking lots are full
Traffic is heavy.
Unemployment is down
We could do better,
Under Republicans we were in a state of collapse, crash and panic.
We've done a hell of a lot better then they did
Thank you President Obama
]Ask your Republican friends to get off their asses and participate
jane
Apr 11, 2013, 5:39:34 PM4/11/13
to
> time trying to slow our economy in an attempt to make Obama a failure.
> McConnell and Böhner have failed....or haven't you noticed.
>
> We are in recovery.
I agree
> Where I live the economy is strong and growing
government web site that I provided.
It is the worst economic recovery EVER.[1]
You can't blame the republicans, because Obama got Pelosi's stimulus
plan passed that Obama CLAIMED would turn the economy around. Obama
Spent MORE than any president (as a percentage of GDP) since WWII; He
trusted Pelosi and mis-spent the money; he wasted it on fragmented
infrastructure spending when the "shovel ready was as not as ... uh...
shovel ready as we expected"
Citations:
1.
2011: 1.8%
2012: 2.2%
2012 4th quarter annuallized: 0.4%
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
jim
Apr 11, 2013, 6:22:19 PM4/11/13
to
jane wrote:
>
> I disagree. Take a look at the GDP growth rates reported on the
> government web site that I provided.
> It is the worst economic recovery EVER.
The reason for this depression is that the private sector
is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy. Before
2008 the private sector was expanding their debt at $1
trillion every 3 months. That's a huge amount of extra
spending fueling the economy. After 2008 the private
sector went from spending more than income to spending
less than income. That's going to continue for years.
http://misc.mortgagebrokers.ie/images/blogimages/2010/October2010/US%20Private%20Debt%20to%20GDP.jpg
Sid9
Apr 11, 2013, 6:52:35 PM4/11/13
to
news:52752ccf-75ad-4937...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>> Perhaps we would do better if McConnell and B�hner did not spend all
Don't bother me any more.
>> their
>> time trying to slow our economy in an attempt to make Obama a failure.
>> McConnell and B�hner have failed....or haven't you noticed.
>> time trying to slow our economy in an attempt to make Obama a failure.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 7:53:27 PM4/11/13
to
On Apr 11, 3:42 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
agreed.
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 7:57:04 PM4/11/13
to
his own fault, but a of it was congress. considering that the u.s. i a
much bigger, more populated, and complex society than in FDR's time,
as real economicsts understand, he would have to spend way more than
FDR ever did. plus its well known that FDR under spent also.
but its still bushs policies that are driving this mess.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 8:00:36 PM4/11/13
to
she is shilling for keynes, but she is either to dumb, or to captured
by a idiotology, and is in reality, a paid shill, who will do what
ever it takes to embarrass the opposition, who need no help in that
matter.
Jeff M
Apr 11, 2013, 8:32:44 PM4/11/13
to
On 4/11/2013 6:57 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
[snip]
way to getting enough votes to pass Congress?
[snip]
>> Your golden boy is a failure.
>
> his stimulus was way to small, and not well planned. much of it was
> his own fault, but a of it was congress. considering that the u.s. i a
> much bigger, more populated, and complex society than in FDR's time,
> as real economicsts understand, he would have to spend way more than
> FDR ever did. plus its well known that FDR under spent also.
> but its still bushs policies that are driving this mess.
Didn't the stimulus package accumulate a lot of pork and earmarks on its
>
> his stimulus was way to small, and not well planned. much of it was
> his own fault, but a of it was congress. considering that the u.s. i a
> much bigger, more populated, and complex society than in FDR's time,
> as real economicsts understand, he would have to spend way more than
> FDR ever did. plus its well known that FDR under spent also.
> but its still bushs policies that are driving this mess.
way to getting enough votes to pass Congress?
Nickname unavailable
Apr 11, 2013, 10:16:27 PM4/11/13
to
reality, many times pork is not pork, and its needed, and creates
jobs. in reality, i could tell he was dead set against any stimulus,
and he put together a poor small one to shut up the progressive base.
obama is not a liberal, or a progressive, he is clearly a right
winger.
he constantly shills for privatization of the commons, he clearly is
a ideologue who believes only in market solutions. any legislation has
added spending, the trick was to make the spending that needed to be
done, the hallmark of the legislation, and then sell it to the public,
and fight for all that he could, he did nether.
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 11, 2013, 11:53:23 PM4/11/13
to
>> Their only purpose in life seems to be to deny Obama a second term.
>> They ought to catch up.;
>> They failed at that, too.
>> Now they want Obama and America to fail
>
> Obama got his (actually Pelosi's) stimulus bill passed. Obama spent
> over twice as much, as a percentage of GDP, than what FDR spent. In 5
> years, on 10.94% of GDP the Hoover Dam was built. Obama is currently
> in his fifth year, Obama Spent over twice that, 25.24% of GDP, and
> what does HE have to show for his spending? The worst economic
> recovery after a depression.
>
> FDR inherited a far bigger mess than what Obama inherited. It is time
> for you to stop saying, "but, wadaboutBush" and stop blaming Bush,
> McConnell, B�hner, and republicans in general. It is time for you to
>> They ought to catch up.;
>> They failed at that, too.
>> Now they want Obama and America to fail
>
> Obama got his (actually Pelosi's) stimulus bill passed. Obama spent
> over twice as much, as a percentage of GDP, than what FDR spent. In 5
> years, on 10.94% of GDP the Hoover Dam was built. Obama is currently
> in his fifth year, Obama Spent over twice that, 25.24% of GDP, and
> what does HE have to show for his spending? The worst economic
> recovery after a depression.
>
> FDR inherited a far bigger mess than what Obama inherited. It is time
> for you to stop saying, "but, wadaboutBush" and stop blaming Bush,
> admit that Obama is financially ignorant and incompetent, and that he
> wasted his stimulus money on "shovel ready jobs that were... uh.. not
> so shovel ready"
>
> Your golden boy is a failure.
>
Looks like the MORE the Federal government spends of the GDP the less
> wasted his stimulus money on "shovel ready jobs that were... uh.. not
> so shovel ready"
>
> Your golden boy is a failure.
>
robust any recovery is..... Obama spends more than FDR and Obama's
recovery is NON existent. FDR's recovers was nothing till the sale of
war material to Europe began in 1937.
But the bright spot is the 1921 Depression where the Federal government
cut it's budget and cut wasteful spending and the recovery was swift (18
months) and it was measurable as a real recovery. It wasn't like this
Obama and Jimmy Carter STAGFLATION that the BIG Government Socialists
are giving us today.
--
*Rumination*
#55.0.1 - Now we are milking a dead cow.....
Gunner Asch
Apr 13, 2013, 10:44:14 AM4/13/13
to
>
>> Stores are full of people.
>> Parking lots are full
>> Traffic is heavy.
>> Unemployment is down
>>
>> We could do better,
>>
>> Under Republicans we were in a state of collapse, crash and panic.
>> We've done a hell of a lot better then they did
>> Thank you President Obama
>> ]Ask your Republican friends to get off their asses and participate
down
Parking lots are nearly empty
Traffic was just rated as very light on the freeways
Unemployment is at 23.5% and holding
Under Republicans...California was a a bright shining star on the west
coast.
Under Democrats..people leaving this shithole are wearing out the
eastbound freeways.
Sucks to be a Democrat and trying to cherry pick..doesnt it?
Gunner
BIG BIRD
Apr 13, 2013, 12:23:09 PM4/13/13
to
"Gunner Asch" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1lrim89h7nvkqguhg...@4ax.com...
:
: Odd..in Democrat run California.....the shops are continuing to close
: down
: Parking lots are nearly empty
: Traffic was just rated as very light on the freeways
: Unemployment is at 23.5% and holding
:
: Under Republicans...California was a a bright shining star on the west
: coast.
:
: Under Democrats..people leaving this shithole are wearing out the
: eastbound freeways.
:
: Sucks to be a Democrat and trying to cherry pick..doesnt it?
:
: Gunner
:
: Parking lots are nearly empty
: Traffic was just rated as very light on the freeways
: Unemployment is at 23.5% and holding
:
: Under Republicans...California was a a bright shining star on the west
: coast.
:
: Under Democrats..people leaving this shithole are wearing out the
: eastbound freeways.
:
: Sucks to be a Democrat and trying to cherry pick..doesnt it?
:
: Gunner
stop ass fuckin that hillbilly sheep gomer and listen up!!!
what yall sayin ?
california is gonna be like texass, mississippi,alabammy,gawgia, and the rest of
the poverty stricken, dick suckin
hillbilly states ??
ROTFLMAO
hey ass gunner,
them people ain't gonna suck that filthy,slimy,stinkin, angry,, old,rich white
dick the way you trailer trash hillbillies do boy
they'll kill them mother fuckers first
Gronk
Apr 15, 2013, 1:07:24 AM4/15/13
to
BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> But the bright spot is the 1921 Depression where the Federal government
> cut it's budget and cut wasteful spending and the recovery was swift (18
> months) and it was measurable as a real recovery. It wasn't like this
False correlation. It was the transition from a wartime to a peacetime
>
> But the bright spot is the 1921 Depression where the Federal government
> cut it's budget and cut wasteful spending and the recovery was swift (18
> months) and it was measurable as a real recovery. It wasn't like this
economy.
Gronk
Apr 15, 2013, 1:11:04 AM4/15/13
to
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/18/business/la-fi-cal-jobs-20130319
California unemployment rate holds at 9.8%, highest in U.S.
Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
Along with the other nonsense like empty parking lots (as if you've
been all over California..)
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 15, 2013, 1:47:06 AM4/15/13
to
It isn't why they lowered spending and waste and taxes, it's the fact
they did it and doing it did help end the DEPRESSION in 18 months.
SO you whine about the facts all you want but you can't change the facts.
We are 5 years into Obama's "spend more" policy and in 1921 they solved
the same thing in just 18 months by spending less.
Gunner Asch
Apr 15, 2013, 4:03:08 AM4/15/13
to
On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:11:04 -0600, Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
wrote:
>Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.survivalism
>Subject: Re: Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends
>Organization: 2.0
>Message-ID: <kkg258$ivm$1...@news.mixmin.net>
>References: <kk6sv1$d7c$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6tke$gaa$2...@dont-email.me> <kk6u44$mos$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6v1i$sbo$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6vl0$2o6$1...@dont-email.me> <7a84f8b6-e55c-46b3...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <c1ddcaf5-927d-443f...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <kk7734$qa3$1...@dont-email.me> <f9a138de-fd06-499b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <kk79eq$bq6$1...@dont-email.me> <52752ccf-75ad-4937...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <1lrim89h7nvkqguhg...@4ax.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
>Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net; posting-host="oQ87ltmrSrrSg1JtnDLcGUX/WYM";
> logging-data="19446"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@mixmin.net"
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1
>In-Reply-To: <1lrim89h7nvkqguhg...@4ax.com>
>Bytes: 2844
>Lines: 40
>Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com misc.survivalism:1642053 alt.politics.usa.republican:3266488 alt.politics.economics:1129248 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6363423
insurance. Thats the U3 number
I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
Its composed of people who have used up their unemployment and still
cant find work, who are working less than 30hrs a week and those who
have given up looking
You really dont know much....do you? Gronk...thats a very good name
for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
Diego..yes.
This might help you....
http://www.nojobsurvivor.com/No-Job-News/unemployment-situation-u3-u6-rates.html
UPDATED April 5, 2013 The economy created a a dismal number of jobs
despite the unemployment dropping to the lowest in 4 years. If the
pace of job growth is maintained, unemployment rates won't return to
pre-recession levels until after 2019!
Nearly half a million people dropped out of the labor force.
The number of unemployed remained static in January the government
reported today. The U-3 unemployment edged down to 7.6% in
February. The U-6 unemployment rate declined at 13.8%. The US
economy added 88,000 jobs last month. Total U-3 Unemployment was 11.7
million persons.
That is NATION WIDE...not just in California btw. As you
noted..California is the leader.
Want to know why much of it is occurring?
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/article_b51bd364-8862-11e2-8cbd-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2013/02/12/jobs-arent-leaving-california-for-texas-but-people-are/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/24/residents-leave-california-in-droves-over-last-two-decades-study-finds/
http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-California/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/california-residents-businesses-consider-bailing-on-golden-state-over-taxes/
They are taking their companies and moving the hell out of California.
Unfortunately..they are not..not taking the workers with them.
Hence,..California is #1 in those without jobs. And its not..not going
to get better anytime soon. Not with Democraps running the state.
Gunner
wrote:
>Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.survivalism
>Subject: Re: Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama sends
> Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
>Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:11:04 -0600
>Organization: 2.0
>Message-ID: <kkg258$ivm$1...@news.mixmin.net>
>References: <kk6sv1$d7c$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6tke$gaa$2...@dont-email.me> <kk6u44$mos$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6v1i$sbo$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6vl0$2o6$1...@dont-email.me> <7a84f8b6-e55c-46b3...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <c1ddcaf5-927d-443f...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <kk7734$qa3$1...@dont-email.me> <f9a138de-fd06-499b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <kk79eq$bq6$1...@dont-email.me> <52752ccf-75ad-4937...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <1lrim89h7nvkqguhg...@4ax.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 05:11:05 +0000 (UTC)
>Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net; posting-host="oQ87ltmrSrrSg1JtnDLcGUX/WYM";
> logging-data="19446"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@mixmin.net"
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17.1
>In-Reply-To: <1lrim89h7nvkqguhg...@4ax.com>
>Bytes: 2844
>Lines: 40
>Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com misc.survivalism:1642053 alt.politics.usa.republican:3266488 alt.politics.economics:1129248 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6363423
>
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Stores are full of people.
>>>> Parking lots are full
>>>> Traffic is heavy.
>>>> Unemployment is down
>>>>
>>>> We could do better,
>>>>
>>>> Under Republicans we were in a state of collapse, crash and panic.
>>>> We've done a hell of a lot better then they did
>>>> Thank you President Obama
>>>> ]Ask your Republican friends to get off their asses and participate
>>
>>
>> Odd..in Democrat run California.....the shops are continuing to close
>> down
>> Parking lots are nearly empty
>> Traffic was just rated as very light on the freeways
>> Unemployment is at 23.5% and holding
>>
>> Under Republicans...California was a a bright shining star on the west
>> coast.
>>
>> Under Democrats..people leaving this shithole are wearing out the
>> eastbound freeways.
>>
>> Sucks to be a Democrat and trying to cherry pick..doesnt it?
>
>Sucks to be a republican and make stuff up..doesnt it?
>
>http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/18/business/la-fi-cal-jobs-20130319
>California unemployment rate holds at 9.8%, highest in U.S.
Ayup...9.8% of the population of California is COLLECTING unemployment
>Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Stores are full of people.
>>>> Parking lots are full
>>>> Traffic is heavy.
>>>> Unemployment is down
>>>>
>>>> We could do better,
>>>>
>>>> Under Republicans we were in a state of collapse, crash and panic.
>>>> We've done a hell of a lot better then they did
>>>> Thank you President Obama
>>>> ]Ask your Republican friends to get off their asses and participate
>>
>>
>> Odd..in Democrat run California.....the shops are continuing to close
>> down
>> Parking lots are nearly empty
>> Traffic was just rated as very light on the freeways
>> Unemployment is at 23.5% and holding
>>
>> Under Republicans...California was a a bright shining star on the west
>> coast.
>>
>> Under Democrats..people leaving this shithole are wearing out the
>> eastbound freeways.
>>
>> Sucks to be a Democrat and trying to cherry pick..doesnt it?
>
>Sucks to be a republican and make stuff up..doesnt it?
>
>http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/18/business/la-fi-cal-jobs-20130319
>California unemployment rate holds at 9.8%, highest in U.S.
insurance. Thats the U3 number
>
>Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
>Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
Its composed of people who have used up their unemployment and still
cant find work, who are working less than 30hrs a week and those who
have given up looking
You really dont know much....do you? Gronk...thats a very good name
for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
>
>Along with the other nonsense like empty parking lots (as if you've
>been all over California..)
All over? No. All over Southern California...from Bakersfield to
>Along with the other nonsense like empty parking lots (as if you've
>been all over California..)
Diego..yes.
This might help you....
http://www.nojobsurvivor.com/No-Job-News/unemployment-situation-u3-u6-rates.html
UPDATED April 5, 2013 The economy created a a dismal number of jobs
despite the unemployment dropping to the lowest in 4 years. If the
pace of job growth is maintained, unemployment rates won't return to
pre-recession levels until after 2019!
Nearly half a million people dropped out of the labor force.
The number of unemployed remained static in January the government
reported today. The U-3 unemployment edged down to 7.6% in
February. The U-6 unemployment rate declined at 13.8%. The US
economy added 88,000 jobs last month. Total U-3 Unemployment was 11.7
million persons.
That is NATION WIDE...not just in California btw. As you
noted..California is the leader.
Want to know why much of it is occurring?
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/article_b51bd364-8862-11e2-8cbd-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2013/02/12/jobs-arent-leaving-california-for-texas-but-people-are/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/24/residents-leave-california-in-droves-over-last-two-decades-study-finds/
http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-California/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/california-residents-businesses-consider-bailing-on-golden-state-over-taxes/
They are taking their companies and moving the hell out of California.
Unfortunately..they are not..not taking the workers with them.
Hence,..California is #1 in those without jobs. And its not..not going
to get better anytime soon. Not with Democraps running the state.
Gunner
jim
Apr 15, 2013, 8:11:40 AM4/15/13
to
Gunner Asch wrote:
> Ayup...9.8% of the population of California is COLLECTING unemployment
> insurance. Thats the U3 number
> >
> >Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
>
> Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
or have left the work force.
What is astonishing is that you think that if
the federal govt takes less money from bond buyers
that somehow things will get better. How could that
possibly work?
If you get your wish to lower the federal debt
things won't get better. The unemployment rate will shoot
to well over 50%. And all your going to see as a result
is louder and more shrill squawking.
It's painful to watch morons argue with morons.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 15, 2013, 12:27:29 PM4/15/13
to
On Apr 15, 3:03 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
THE DEBT, THE DEBT, GOOD GOD WERE ARE RUNNING OUT OF MONEY, WE ARE
GOING BANKRUPT, BUY GOLD, THE DOLLAR IS WORTHLESS: America Is Not
Drowning In Debt: These 5 Charts Destroy The Biggest Myth About The US
Economy
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/america-not-drowning-debt-6-155223288.html
America Is Not Drowning In Debt: These 5 Charts Destroy The Biggest
Myth About The US Economy
By Joe Weisenthal | Business Insider – Tue, Apr 9, 2013 11:52 AM EDT
"America is drowning in debt!"
It's a phrase you hear constantly regarding the Federal government's
debt, household debt, corporate debt, financial debt, etc. Almost
nobody challenges the premise.
Capital Economics is out with a fantastic new report titled simply
"America is not drowning in debt," which methodically debunks the
myth.
The firm was kind enough to let us run some of their excellent charts.
The first two are the charts that everyone is already familiar with
that yes, debt relative to GDP looks high.
If you add up all debt (private, financial, government, etc.) we're at
about 350% debt-to-GDP.
Capital Economics
Here's a breakdown of debt by category. Government debt is close to
100% of GDP. Household debt is around 80% of GDP.
Capital Economics
But remember, solvency isn't about debt. America has assets too.
Total assets are around 1300% of GDP! That's far above total
liabilities.
Capital Economics
Domestic net worth is around 550% of GDP.
Capital Economics
So as you can see, America has massively more assets than debt.
And if you think that total debt of 350% of GDP sounds like a lot,
then 550% net worth to GDP should be really comforting.
Another myth is that America is massively in hock to foreigners.
But actually, foreign holdings of credit market debt is less than 20%
of of the total outstanding.
Capital Economics
Bottom line: The US has far more assets and net worth than debt, and
we don't really owe much to the outside world.
Hooray!
THE DEBT, THE DEBT, GOOD GOD WERE ARE RUNNING OUT OF MONEY, WE ARE
GOING BANKRUPT, BUY GOLD, THE DOLLAR IS WORTHLESS: America Is Not
Drowning In Debt: These 5 Charts Destroy The Biggest Myth About The US
Economy
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/america-not-drowning-debt-6-155223288.html
America Is Not Drowning In Debt: These 5 Charts Destroy The Biggest
Myth About The US Economy
By Joe Weisenthal | Business Insider – Tue, Apr 9, 2013 11:52 AM EDT
"America is drowning in debt!"
It's a phrase you hear constantly regarding the Federal government's
debt, household debt, corporate debt, financial debt, etc. Almost
nobody challenges the premise.
Capital Economics is out with a fantastic new report titled simply
"America is not drowning in debt," which methodically debunks the
myth.
The firm was kind enough to let us run some of their excellent charts.
The first two are the charts that everyone is already familiar with
that yes, debt relative to GDP looks high.
If you add up all debt (private, financial, government, etc.) we're at
about 350% debt-to-GDP.
Capital Economics
Here's a breakdown of debt by category. Government debt is close to
100% of GDP. Household debt is around 80% of GDP.
Capital Economics
But remember, solvency isn't about debt. America has assets too.
Total assets are around 1300% of GDP! That's far above total
liabilities.
Capital Economics
Domestic net worth is around 550% of GDP.
Capital Economics
So as you can see, America has massively more assets than debt.
And if you think that total debt of 350% of GDP sounds like a lot,
then 550% net worth to GDP should be really comforting.
Another myth is that America is massively in hock to foreigners.
But actually, foreign holdings of credit market debt is less than 20%
of of the total outstanding.
Capital Economics
Bottom line: The US has far more assets and net worth than debt, and
we don't really owe much to the outside world.
Hooray!
Gronk
Apr 19, 2013, 3:50:59 PM4/19/13
to
Gunner Asch wrote:
X-Received: by 10.224.65.6 with SMTP id g6mr12739807qai.4.1366012994068;
Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path:
news.mixmin.net!news.glorb.com!t2no54879515qal.0!news-out.google.com!ef9ni40850qab.0!nntp.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:03:13 -0500
From: Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
Organization: Coyote Engineering
Reply-To: gunne...@gmail.com
Message-ID: <26cnm811t0nc41rq1...@4ax.com>
References: <kk6v1i$sbo$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6vl0$2o6$1...@dont-email.me>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 123
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-mwAQq6tMzS++VJixlqObl5ZQVcHOWfg3M+c9nF+cGs3sxJPtI1M+883bjFWNfmrucUZhpbozYJTO2wv!4heIZMT7DUGV9pCLap2NucdDUu7l+6tu+2Vx4nH/Ch6rE7e47HfKsqx6Wq7j40ODCgTJ3Q==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7041
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: news.mixmin.net alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:1795228
alt.politics.economics:397393 alt.politics.usa.republican:363173
misc.survivalism:482189
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-jobs-unemployment-20130419,0,2972167.story
California unemployment drops to 9.4%, lowest in more than 4 years
>> Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
>
> Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
>
> I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
>
> Its composed of people who have used up their unemployment and still
> cant find work, who are working less than 30hrs a week and those who
> have given up looking
>
> You really dont know much....do you? Gronk...thats a very good name
> for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
>>
>> Along with the other nonsense like empty parking lots (as if you've
>> been all over California..)
>
> All over? No. All over Southern California...from Bakersfield to
> Diego..yes.
Then you lied.
> This might help you....
Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
You really dont know much....do you? Gunner Asch...thats a very good name
u6 2003 11.7
u6 2004 11.0
u6 2005 9.7
u6 2006 9.1
u6 2007 9.9
u6 2008 13.4
u6 2009 21.1
u6 2010 22.1
u6 2011 21.1
u6 2012 19.3
As the above shows, it almost doubled under Schwarzenegger, and is
falling under Brown. You pulled your number out of your ass.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/31/5157284/interactive-projected-population.html
The population of California will grow 19 percent between 2010 and 2030,
according to projections released Thursday by the state Department of Finance.
Some exodus...
X-Received: by 10.224.65.6 with SMTP id g6mr12739807qai.4.1366012994068;
Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path:
news.mixmin.net!news.glorb.com!t2no54879515qal.0!news-out.google.com!ef9ni40850qab.0!nntp.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:03:13 -0500
From: Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama
sends Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:03:08 -0700
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Let's go for a $20 trillion National Debt...wastrel Obama
sends Congress $3.77T spending plan, riles both sides.
Organization: Coyote Engineering
Reply-To: gunne...@gmail.com
Message-ID: <26cnm811t0nc41rq1...@4ax.com>
References: <kk6v1i$sbo$1...@dont-email.me> <kk6vl0$2o6$1...@dont-email.me>
<7a84f8b6-e55c-46b3...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
<c1ddcaf5-927d-443f...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
<kk7734$qa3$1...@dont-email.me>
<f9a138de-fd06-499b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
<kk79eq$bq6$1...@dont-email.me>
<52752ccf-75ad-4937...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
<1lrim89h7nvkqguhg...@4ax.com> <kkg258$ivm$1...@news.mixmin.net>
<c1ddcaf5-927d-443f...@m4g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
<kk7734$qa3$1...@dont-email.me>
<f9a138de-fd06-499b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
<kk79eq$bq6$1...@dont-email.me>
<52752ccf-75ad-4937...@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 123
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace:
sv3-mwAQq6tMzS++VJixlqObl5ZQVcHOWfg3M+c9nF+cGs3sxJPtI1M+883bjFWNfmrucUZhpbozYJTO2wv!4heIZMT7DUGV9pCLap2NucdDUu7l+6tu+2Vx4nH/Ch6rE7e47HfKsqx6Wq7j40ODCgTJ3Q==
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7041
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: news.mixmin.net alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:1795228
alt.politics.economics:397393 alt.politics.usa.republican:363173
misc.survivalism:482189
California unemployment drops to 9.4%, lowest in more than 4 years
>> Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
>
> Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
>
> I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
>
> Its composed of people who have used up their unemployment and still
> cant find work, who are working less than 30hrs a week and those who
> have given up looking
>
> You really dont know much....do you? Gronk...thats a very good name
> for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
>>
>> Along with the other nonsense like empty parking lots (as if you've
>> been all over California..)
>
> All over? No. All over Southern California...from Bakersfield to
> Diego..yes.
> This might help you....
Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
From http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt_archived.htm
u6 2003 11.7
u6 2004 11.0
u6 2005 9.7
u6 2006 9.1
u6 2007 9.9
u6 2008 13.4
u6 2009 21.1
u6 2010 22.1
u6 2011 21.1
u6 2012 19.3
As the above shows, it almost doubled under Schwarzenegger, and is
falling under Brown. You pulled your number out of your ass.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/31/5157284/interactive-projected-population.html
The population of California will grow 19 percent between 2010 and 2030,
according to projections released Thursday by the state Department of Finance.
Some exodus...
Gronk
Apr 21, 2013, 11:19:18 PM4/21/13
to
Gronk
Apr 26, 2013, 6:21:52 PM4/26/13
to
Gronk
May 5, 2013, 6:59:55 PM5/5/13
to
opel
May 10, 2013, 5:48:56 PM5/10/13
to
On 4/15/2013 6:11 AM, jim wrote:
> If you get your wish to lower the federal debt
> things won't get better. The unemployment rate will shoot
> to well over 50%.
BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!
> If you get your wish to lower the federal debt
> things won't get better. The unemployment rate will shoot
> to well over 50%.
opel
May 10, 2013, 5:52:28 PM5/10/13
to
On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>
> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
BULLSHIT!!!!!
> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>
> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
1. This is NOT a "depression.
2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
interest rates in doing so.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
that would have been billed by the U.S. government, Moody�s Investment
Services estimates.
Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
vice president at Moody�s.
Apple Inc.�s sale of bonds this week was the biggest corporate offering
on record.
�From a pure corporate-finance theory perspective, this was a
no-brainer,� Granovsky said.
jim
May 12, 2013, 8:57:47 AM5/12/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
> > Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
> >
> > The reason for this depression is that the private sector
> > is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>
> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>
> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>
> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> interest rates in doing so.
>
It looks just like the last depression. , only
this time the private debt expansion that preceded
the depression is bigger.
http://www.prometheusmi.com/images/pages/commentary/images/daily/2012/06/20/us_public_private_debt.png
opel
May 12, 2013, 1:23:27 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>
>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>
> Nope.
You don't learn, do you twat?
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>
>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>
>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>
> Nope.
No matter...
1. This is NOT a "depression.
2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
interest rates in doing so.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 12, 2013, 2:20:01 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 1:23 PM, opel wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> opel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>
>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>
>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
> You don't learn, do you twat?
>
> No matter...
>
>
>
> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
It's stagflation and we have seen it before.....
> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> opel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>>
>>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>
>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>
>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
> You don't learn, do you twat?
>
> No matter...
>
>
>
> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
Jeff M
May 12, 2013, 2:53:06 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 1:20 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
[snip]
growth in the latest quarter is +2.5% and continues to grow.
Unemployment is at 7.6%, a decline from it's recent flirtation with
double digits.
The definition of "stagflation" is: an inflationary period accompanied
by rising unemployment and lack of growth in consumer demand.
NO actual economic DATA points to either a "depression" or "stagflation.
Any claims to the contrary are factually incorrect.
[snip]
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>
> It's stagflation and we have seen it before.....
The most current inflation rate is 1.47%, a near-historic low. GDP
>
> It's stagflation and we have seen it before.....
growth in the latest quarter is +2.5% and continues to grow.
Unemployment is at 7.6%, a decline from it's recent flirtation with
double digits.
The definition of "stagflation" is: an inflationary period accompanied
by rising unemployment and lack of growth in consumer demand.
NO actual economic DATA points to either a "depression" or "stagflation.
Any claims to the contrary are factually incorrect.
BeamMeUpScotty
May 12, 2013, 3:26:24 PM5/12/13
to
over the last 5 years..... yes more people are laid off and it will
take 10 years or more after the economy is moving to clear out the
people that are under employed.
And the housing market will take 10 years to clear out the back-log of
existing and new foreclosures.
Prices of food have gone up more than 30% since Obama started his policies.
GDP which you conveniently ignored is at a low and will stay there.
it bounces up and down and stays below 2% because Socialism isn't going
to create a growing economy. SO far all we see from Obama is
propaganda and lies. NO growth anywhere except in Government.
--
*Rumination*
#72 - What if your next abortion is the one fetus that would evolve into
a new human adult life that is immune to cancer? When is evolution NOT
really evolution.
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
May 12, 2013, 4:24:34 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 4:03 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> isn't going to be totally resolved until the system is PUT BACK like
> it was before the 80's.
>
> That would mean those that rake in 75% of ALL income/wealth yearly,
> and have amassed over 80% of ALL wealth because of republican
> policy---are going to have to PAY a lot of it back
>
according to you, it evaporated in the huge market and economy drop, how
do you pay back what does NOT exist?
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 07:57:47 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>
>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>
>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. The private sector is deleveraging.
>> It looks just like the last depression. , only
>> this time the private debt expansion that preceded
>> the depression is bigger.
>
> The national economic disaster caused by decades of republican policy
> wrote:
>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>
>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>
>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. The private sector is deleveraging.
>> It looks just like the last depression. , only
>> this time the private debt expansion that preceded
>> the depression is bigger.
>
> isn't going to be totally resolved until the system is PUT BACK like
> it was before the 80's.
>
> That would mean those that rake in 75% of ALL income/wealth yearly,
> and have amassed over 80% of ALL wealth because of republican
> policy---are going to have to PAY a lot of it back
>
according to you, it evaporated in the huge market and economy drop, how
do you pay back what does NOT exist?
Message has been deleted
Jeff M
May 12, 2013, 6:11:51 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 2:26 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 2:53 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 1:20 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>
>>> It's stagflation and we have seen it before.....
>>
>> The most current inflation rate is 1.47%, a near-historic low. GDP
>> growth in the latest quarter is +2.5% and continues to grow.
>> Unemployment is at 7.6%, a decline from it's recent flirtation with
>> double digits.
>>
>> The definition of "stagflation" is: an inflationary period accompanied
>> by rising unemployment and lack of growth in consumer demand.
>>
>> NO actual economic DATA points to either a "depression" or "stagflation.
>> Any claims to the contrary are factually incorrect.
>>
> You are using one months data to create a trend.....
No, I'm not. But even if I were, It would still be better than the zero
> On 5/12/2013 2:53 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 5/12/2013 1:20 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>
>>> It's stagflation and we have seen it before.....
>>
>> The most current inflation rate is 1.47%, a near-historic low. GDP
>> growth in the latest quarter is +2.5% and continues to grow.
>> Unemployment is at 7.6%, a decline from it's recent flirtation with
>> double digits.
>>
>> The definition of "stagflation" is: an inflationary period accompanied
>> by rising unemployment and lack of growth in consumer demand.
>>
>> NO actual economic DATA points to either a "depression" or "stagflation.
>> Any claims to the contrary are factually incorrect.
>>
> You are using one months data to create a trend.....
month's data you appear to be using in making up your claim that we are
in a state of stagflation. Do you have any facts, any facts at all, to
support your claim?
> what have we done
> over the last 5 years..... yes more people are laid off and it will
> take 10 years or more after the economy is moving to clear out the
> people that are under employed.
slowness of that recovery is due, in major part, to intentional gridlock
in Washington.
> And the housing market will take 10 years to clear out the back-log of
> existing and new foreclosures.
"March 2013 Real Estate Data
Released - 4/10/2013
Source - realtor.com
Monthly Housing Summary
March data on the U.S. housing market shows growing optimism and
confidence among potential sellers. Realtor.com's March 2013 data
indicates that while national housing inventory decreased 15.22 percent
since last year, the number of listings increased 2.36 percent since
February 2013. This month-over-month increase indicates a renewed
willingness in sellers to put their homes on the market as list prices
increased .05 percent both year-over-year and month-over-month to a
national average list price of $190,000. The data also showed that the
median age of inventory dropped to 78 days�a decrease of 20.41 percent
since February.
A month-over-month inventory increase of 2.36 percent reflects a rise in
new property listings since February 2013, but there are drastically
fewer homes on the market compared to this time last year (15.22 percent
less). While the median age of housing inventory continues to decline
year-over-year by 12.35 percent, the amount of time houses are sitting
on the market has decreased dramatically by 20 days since February,
suggesting that a broad-based housing recovery is beginning to take hold.
A new trend in median list price has emerged in 2013. Since the
beginning of the year, a growing number of the 146 markets realtor.com
monitors have experienced an increase in list price year-over-year,
while the number of markets that have experienced a list price decrease
since last year declined. The March data shows that out of the 36
markets that registered a year-over-year decrease in median list price
in the month, only six markets had a decline that was more than 5
percent, implying that these markets appear to be within "easy striking
distance of experiencing house price appreciation in 2013.
For more information on the monthly real estate trend reports released
by realtor.com, please contact communi...@realtor.com"
> Prices of food have gone up more than 30% since Obama started his policies.
pure BS to me. Second, the President has very little to no control over
food inflation. Factors like the weather, including a major drought in
the Midwest last year, commodities speculation and energy prices are
what drives food inflation.
> GDP which you conveniently ignored is at a low and will stay there.
ignore GDP, but you did, along with any other sort of data, to make your
idiotically counter-factual assertion that we are suffering stagflation.
> it bounces up and down and stays below 2% because Socialism isn't going
> to create a growing economy.
case, people like you have so misunderstood and misapplied the word,
which you clearly don't understand the meaning of, that it now serves
primarily as an empty all-purpose smear word for the ignorant right wing.
> SO far all we see from Obama is
> propaganda and lies. NO growth anywhere except in Government.
right-wing ones. Here are some more facts for you to ignore:
"Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?
Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?
It�s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in
confusion.
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big
government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is
reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than
any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Who knew?
So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into
the whole �Obama as big spender� narrative?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama
presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% �going
from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I�ll bet you think that this is
the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently
vilified by the conservatives�but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled�for better or
for worse�with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes
the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009
budget the property of George W. Bush�and passed by the 2008 Congress�it
was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current
president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including
including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account,
even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January
20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marketwatch-
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46
trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion,
according to the Congressional Budget Office�s estimate of the budget
that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 � the final budget of Obama�s term � spending is
scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO�s latest budget
outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP
controlled House of Representatives. That�s fine if that�s what works
for you.
However, you don�t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but
if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to
date�at least when it comes to spending�you�re going to have to
acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have
to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record
for stretching a dollar.
Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to
counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by
the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the
argument Heritage is putting forth �and I have provided the link to the
Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself�Marketwatch, in using
the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.
But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the
individual mandate concept in healthcare only to rebut the same when it
was no longer politically convenient, I�m not quite sure why anyone
believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their
history of reversing course for convenience, I can�t help but wonder,
should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President
Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the
Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.
contact Rick at thepol...@gmail.com
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
jim
May 12, 2013, 8:45:25 PM5/12/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
> >>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
> >>>
> >>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
> >>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
> >>
> >> BULLSHIT!!!!!
> >>
> >> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>
> >> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >> interest rates in doing so.
> >>
> >
> > Nope.
> You don't learn, do you twat?
>
> No matter...
>
> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>
> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> interest rates in doing so.
>
>
That deleveraging looks just about exactly like the
mid 1930's only this time the debt is greater.
http://cdn.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/081711_1012_SensefromKr1.png
Without the $1+ trillion that the govt spends more
than it taxes the depression would look like the 1930's
only this time would be worse because the private debt
expansion that caused the depression is bigger.
For an explanation read:
The Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions, 1933.
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
BeamMeUpScotty
May 12, 2013, 11:22:29 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 8:45 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>
>> No matter...
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>>
>
> The private sector is reducing debt.
It's called Stagnation.....
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>
>> No matter...
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>>
>
> The private sector is reducing debt.
But it's funny to hear you telling us about it after calling me a liar
for saying the same thing. No one is spending or making money and the
idea that the economy is improving is a laugh.
The Stark market is up because Obama and the Fed are printing money, NOT
because the economy is doing anything good.
It's NOT an improvement it's an artificially government created bubble.
--
*Rumination*
#13.0.1 - Governments are parasites that will grow until they kill their
host.
jim
May 13, 2013, 6:50:53 AM5/13/13
to
BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 5/12/2013 8:45 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> opel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
> >>>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
> >>>>
> >>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >>>> interest rates in doing so.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Nope.
> >> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>
> >> No matter...
> >>
> >> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>
> >> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >> interest rates in doing so.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The private sector is reducing debt.
>
> It's called Stagnation.....
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf
opel
May 16, 2013, 1:08:34 PM5/16/13
to
On 5/12/2013 6:45 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>
>> No matter...
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>>
>
> The private sector
You don't learn, do you twat?
No matter...
1. This is NOT a "depression.
2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
interest rates in doing so.
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/12/2013 6:57 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/2013 4:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> Consider yourself lucky to have any recovery at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for this depression is that the private sector
>>>>> is no longer borrowing and spending like crazy.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>
>> No matter...
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>>
>
> The private sector
You don't learn, do you twat?
No matter...
1. This is NOT a "depression.
2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
interest rates in doing so.
opel
May 16, 2013, 1:08:53 PM5/16/13
to
jim
May 17, 2013, 7:16:04 AM5/17/13
to
opel wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Nope.
> >> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>
> >> No matter...
> >>
> >> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>
> >> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >> interest rates in doing so.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The private sector
>
> You don't learn, do you twat?
>
> No matter...
>
> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>
> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> interest rates in doing so.
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>
> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
> Services estimates.
> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
> vice president at Moody’s.
> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
buy Apple bonds to lock in a 1.5% return on investment.
The return on investment is lower than the rate of inflation.
In other words, investors are willing to pay to park
their financial assets in something safe that guarantees a
fixed return on investment.
Investors willing to invest at negative real interest only
happens in a depression.
The last time interest rates were this low was the 1930's.
Net borrowing in the private sector is negative. The lack
of borrowing is the reason why interest rates are so low.
There is a surplus of people with money looking for a fixed
safe return on investment and a shortage of borrowers that will
supply that safe fixed return.
That only happens in a depression.
That surplus of financial assets looking for a safe fixed return is
the result of a runaway credit expansion that lasted for 60 years before
it crashed and turned into a depression.
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/5/7/428250-13363801587809994-Michael-Clark.png
>
> Apple Inc.’s sale of bonds this week was the biggest corporate offering
> on record.
>
> “From a pure corporate-finance theory perspective, this was a
> no-brainer,” Granovsky said.
The markets are desperate to find borrowers. And when Congress
decides that the federal govt should also stop borrowing you
will see that this depression looks just like the Great Depression
opel
May 17, 2013, 2:28:01 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>
>>>> No matter...
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The private sector
>>
>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>
>> No matter...
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>
>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>> that would have been billed by the U.S. government, Moody�s Investment
>
>
> opel wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>
>>>> No matter...
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The private sector
>>
>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>
>> No matter...
>>
>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>
>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>> interest rates in doing so.
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>
>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>> Services estimates.
>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>> vice president at Moody�s.
>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>
> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> buy Apple bonds
And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> buy Apple bonds
Right, you have none.
You get PUNKED so damned easily, dip shit.
Now fuck off out of here.
jim
May 17, 2013, 3:24:42 PM5/17/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope.
> >>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>>>
> >>>> No matter...
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >>>> interest rates in doing so.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The private sector
> >>
> >> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>
> >> No matter...
> >>
> >> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>
> >> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >> interest rates in doing so.
> >>
> >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >>
> >> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
> >> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
> >> Services estimates.
> >> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> >> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
> >> vice president at Moody’s.
> >> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> >> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
> >
> > What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> > buy Apple bonds
>
> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
> > What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> > buy Apple bonds
>
> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
by issuing debt.
That indicates the markets are interested in selling Apple
stock low and buying Apple bonds high.
That can only happen in a depression.
opel
May 17, 2013, 3:40:36 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/2013 1:24 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The private sector
>>>>
>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>
>>>> No matter...
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>
>>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>>>> that would have been billed by the U.S. government, Moody�s Investment
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The private sector
>>>>
>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>
>>>> No matter...
>>>>
>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>
>>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>>>> Services estimates.
>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>>>> vice president at Moody�s.
>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>>>
>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
>>> buy Apple bonds
>>
>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
>
> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
> by issuing debt.
So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
>>> buy Apple bonds
>>
>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
>
> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
> by issuing debt.
> That indicates the markets are interested in selling Apple
> stock low and buying Apple bonds high.
more interested in selling Apple stock higher, but until the short
interest ratio exceeds float you won't even have a number to prove they
want to sell it "low", you idiot.
> That can only happen in a depression.
jim
May 17, 2013, 3:52:42 PM5/17/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/17/2013 1:24 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> opel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No matter...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The private sector
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>>>
> >>>> No matter...
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >>>> interest rates in doing so.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
> >>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
> >>>> Services estimates.
> >>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> >>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
> >>>> vice president at Moody’s.
> >>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> >>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
> >>>
> >>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> >>> buy Apple bonds
> >>
> >> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
> >
> > Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
> > by issuing debt.
>
> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
That is incorrect. Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
> >>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> >>> buy Apple bonds
> >>
> >> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
> >
> > Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
> > by issuing debt.
>
> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
and
Apple is not buying Apple bonds (Apple is selling).
Learn to read.
>
> > That indicates the markets are interested in selling Apple
> > stock low and buying Apple bonds high.
>
> The "markets" and you've chosen not to specify which ones, are likely
> more interested in selling Apple stock higher, but until the short
> interest ratio exceeds float you won't even have a number to prove they
> want to sell it "low", you idiot.
inflation and a lot less than what Apple equity is earning.
Alas, if only you could read and comprehend.
Here's a clue:
“From a pure corporate-finance theory perspective, this was a
no-brainer,” Granovsky said.
>
opel
May 17, 2013, 4:40:59 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/2013 1:52 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 1:24 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The private sector
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>>>>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>>>>>> that would have been billed by the U.S. government, Moody�s Investment
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 1:24 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The private sector
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>>>>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>>>>>> Services estimates.
>>>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>>>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>>>>>> vice president at Moody�s.
>>>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>>>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>>>>>
>>>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
>>>>> buy Apple bonds
>>>>
>>>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
>>>
>>> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
>>> by issuing debt.
>>
>> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
>
> That is incorrect.
You're becoming unhinged again.
>>>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
>>>>> buy Apple bonds
>>>>
>>>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
>>>
>>> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
>>> by issuing debt.
>>
>> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
>
> That is incorrect.
> Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
"(AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
> and Apple is not buying Apple bonds (Apple is selling).
in stupidity today?
> Learn to read.
Take you own advice.
>>
>>> That indicates the markets are interested in selling Apple
>>> stock low and buying Apple bonds high.
>>
>> The "markets" and you've chosen not to specify which ones, are likely
>> more interested in selling Apple stock higher, but until the short
>> interest ratio exceeds float you won't even have a number to prove they
>> want to sell it "low", you idiot.
>
> It states what the interest rate is (1.8%).
What is "it"?
The short interest ration I spoke of can be found here:
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/short-interest
Apple Inc. Short Interest
$433.26* 1.318 - 0.3%
If however you were referring to the interest rate for Apple bonds, the
following is of actual value to anyone reading your witless meandering here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324482504578454691936382274.html
Apple Inc. AAPL -0.30% sold the largest corporate-bond deal in history
Tuesday, a $17 billion offering investors hungrily gobbled up.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS +2.40% and Deutsche Bank AG DBK.XE +2.64%
sold the debt for Apple to investors in all corners of the credit
markets, from buyers overseas to municipal-bond investors to portfolio
managers who typically prefer ultrasafe government debt. Pension funds,
insurance companies and hedge funds also joined in the scramble.
Investors were also excited to add a new name to their debt
portfolios�it was Apple's first bond offer in almost 20 years. There was
$52 billion worth of orders for the deal, making it one of the most
hotly desired bond deals Wall Street has ever seen, said bankers at
Deutsche Bank.
The technology company was able to borrow at rates nearly as low as the
highest-rated triple-A firms in the world. It borrowed $5.5 billion for
10 years at an annual yield of 2.415%. It also issued three-year debt at
0.511%, five-year debt at 1.076% and 30-year debt at 3.883%. And Apple
sold floating-rate bonds that mature in three and five years at rates of
0.05 and 0.25 percentage point over the three-month London interbank
offered rate, an industry benchmark.
> That is less than
> inflation and a lot less than what Apple equity is earning.
ratio of an equity with inflation nor would they correlate it
exclusively to earnings, albeit the short interest ratio can be
expressive of feelings in the market regarding that and other measures
of an equity's performance.
> Alas, if only you could read and comprehend.
> Here's a clue:
>
> �From a pure corporate-finance theory perspective, this was a
> no-brainer,� Granovsky said.
Yes, it was a tax avoidance strategy due to the fact that, "In fiscal
year 2012, Apple paid $6 billion in federal corporate income taxes,
which is 1 out of every 40 dollars in corporate income taxes collected
by the U.S. government, said Steve Dowling, a company spokesman.
�That makes Apple one of the top corporate income tax payers in the
country, if not the largest,�
>>
>>> That can only happen in a depression.
>>
jim
May 17, 2013, 6:12:45 PM5/17/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/17/2013 1:52 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/17/2013 1:24 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> opel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> opel wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No matter...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >>>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The private sector
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No matter...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
> >>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
> >>>>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
> >>>>>> Services estimates.
> >>>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> >>>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
> >>>>>> vice president at Moody’s.
> >>>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
> >>>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> >>>>> buy Apple bonds
> >>>>
> >>>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
> >>>
> >>> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
> >>> by issuing debt.
> >>
> >> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
> >
> > That is incorrect.
>
> You're becoming unhinged again.
>
> > Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
>
> Can you even follow what was cited?
The article that was cited says that the markets are selling
> >>>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
> >>>>> buy Apple bonds
> >>>>
> >>>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
> >>>
> >>> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
> >>> by issuing debt.
> >>
> >> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
> >
> > That is incorrect.
>
> You're becoming unhinged again.
>
> > Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
>
> Can you even follow what was cited?
Apple stock back to Apple and buying Apple bonds. The article
claimed the interest rate on those bonds was 1.8% annual. That
is a negative real interest rate on those bonds.
opel
May 17, 2013, 6:25:09 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/2013 4:12 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 1:52 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 1:24 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The private sector
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>>>>>>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>>>>>>>> that would have been billed by the U.S. government, Moody�s Investment
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 1:52 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 1:24 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:16 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The private sector
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't learn, do you twat?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No matter...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. This is NOT a "depression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The private sector CONTINUES to borrow and enjoys remarkably low
>>>>>>>> interest rates in doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apple Inc. (AAPL) avoided as much as $9.2 billion in taxes by financing
>>>>>>>> part of a $55 billion stock buyback with debt rather than offshore cash
>>>>>>>> Services estimates.
>>>>>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>>>>>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>>>>>>>> vice president at Moody�s.
>>>>>>>> Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
>>>>>>>> year on the $17 billion bond offering, said Gerald Granovsky, a senior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
>>>>>>> buy Apple bonds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
>>>>> by issuing debt.
>>>>
>>>> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
>>>
>>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> You're becoming unhinged again.
>>
>>> Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
>>
>> Can you even follow what was cited?
>
> The article that was cited says that the markets are selling
> Apple stock back to Apple and buying Apple bonds.
Apple is engaging in a stock buyback, that much is true.
>>>>>>> What this means is the markets are selling Apple stock to
>>>>>>> buy Apple bonds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And your _proof_ of that exact transaction is where?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your linked article says Apple is financing a stock buyback
>>>>> by issuing debt.
>>>>
>>>> So Apple is doing that, not the markets, you stunningly dimwitted oaf.
>>>
>>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> You're becoming unhinged again.
>>
>>> Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
>>
>> Can you even follow what was cited?
>
> The article that was cited says that the markets are selling
> Apple stock back to Apple and buying Apple bonds.
> The article
> claimed the interest rate on those bonds was 1.8% annual.
There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
The real numbers were contained in the article I just cited and that YOU
snipped:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324482504578454691936382274.html
Apple Inc. AAPL -0.30% sold the largest corporate-bond deal in history
Tuesday, a $17 billion offering investors hungrily gobbled up.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS +2.40% and Deutsche Bank AG DBK.XE +2.64%
sold the debt for Apple to investors in all corners of the credit
markets, from buyers overseas to municipal-bond investors to portfolio
managers who typically prefer ultrasafe government debt. Pension funds,
insurance companies and hedge funds also joined in the scramble.
Investors were also excited to add a new name to their debt
portfolios�it was Apple's first bond offer in almost 20 years. There was
$52 billion worth of orders for the deal, making it one of the most
hotly desired bond deals Wall Street has ever seen, said bankers at
Deutsche Bank.
The technology company was able to borrow at rates nearly as low as the
highest-rated triple-A firms in the world. It borrowed $5.5 billion for
10 years at an annual yield of 2.415%. It also issued three-year debt at
0.511%, five-year debt at 1.076% and 30-year debt at 3.883%. And Apple
sold floating-rate bonds that mature in three and five years at rates of
0.05 and 0.25 percentage point over the three-month London interbank
offered rate, an industry benchmark.
> That is a negative real interest rate on those bonds.
Well to be fair I don't like the 3 year rate of .5%, but given the
demand they seem to have sold anyway.
So you're partly right, but not at the number you cited.
> That only happens in a depression.
See how that works?
jim
May 17, 2013, 7:18:56 PM5/17/13
to
opel wrote:
> >>
> >> You're becoming unhinged again.
> >>
> >>> Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
> >>
> >> Can you even follow what was cited?
> >
> > The article that was cited says that the markets are selling
> > Apple stock back to Apple and buying Apple bonds.
>
> Apple is engaging in a stock buyback, that much is true.
>
> > The article
> > claimed the interest rate on those bonds was 1.8% annual.
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>
> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
opel
May 17, 2013, 7:34:01 PM5/17/13
to
maturity dates and interest rates.
> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
opel
May 17, 2013, 7:45:59 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
>> >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>> >
>> >There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>
> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
>> >
>> >There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>
> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
about what is in the article.
You can not accurately calculate bond interest rate from only two terms,
annual payments and total bond cost.
http://www.money-zine.com/calculators/investment-calculators/bond-yield-calculator/
This bond yield calculator can help you figure out the current bond
yield, as well as the bond yield to maturity. The calculator requires
several inputs including the current bond price, par value, coupon rate
and years until maturity.
Bond Yield Calculator
Current Bond Price ($)
Bond Par Value ($)
Bond Coupon Rate (%)
Years Until Maturity (Years)
Years Until Maturity (Years)
The years until maturity is simply the number of years remaining until
the bond reaches maturity. The years until maturity are needed to
calculate the bond yield to maturity.
Current Bond Yield (%)
The current bond yield is the effective rate of interest paid to the
bondholder. This calculation is based on the price paid for the bond
and the interest payments made on the bond.
Bond Yield to Maturity (%)
The bond yield to maturity is the total yield realized by the bearer of
the bond, if they were to hold the bond until its maturity date. The
bond yield to maturity considers the difference in the bond's current
price and its par value, as well as the rate of interest paid on the bond.
Therefore each issuance would need to be calculated to maturity
individually and then the totals of all those units could be averaged,
for whatever witless value that would be to anyone.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324482504578454691936382274.html
jim
May 17, 2013, 8:44:03 PM5/17/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> You're becoming unhinged again.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Apple is not selling Apple stock (Apple is buying)
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you even follow what was cited?
> >>>
> >>> The article that was cited says that the markets are selling
> >>> Apple stock back to Apple and buying Apple bonds.
> >>
> >> Apple is engaging in a stock buyback, that much is true.
> >>
> >>> The article
> >>> claimed the interest rate on those bonds was 1.8% annual.
> >>
> >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >>
> >> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
> >
> > There is all the information one needs to calculate the
> > annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>
> Bonds are not generally "put together", they're sold with varying
> maturity dates and interest rates.
>
> > Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>
> Only a total moron would average all the bonds together as a lump sum.
>
jim
May 17, 2013, 8:46:08 PM5/17/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
> >> >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >> >
> >> >There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
> > There is all the information one needs to calculate the
> > annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
> >
> > Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>
> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
> about what is in the article.
>
madly cutting and pasting
to try to cover his ignorance
opel
May 17, 2013, 9:19:33 PM5/17/13
to
On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
>>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
>>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>>
>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
>> about what is in the article.
>>
>
>
> A fool will spin in circles
> madly cutting and pasting
> to try to cover his ignorance
Yes, your 1.8% was ignorance, now why are you still spinning?
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
>>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
>>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>>
>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
>> about what is in the article.
>>
>
>
> A fool will spin in circles
> madly cutting and pasting
> to try to cover his ignorance
It's an identifiable trait of yours, and I've made you do it before. ;-)
RichTravsky
May 18, 2013, 2:07:44 AM5/18/13
to
Gronk wrote:
>
> Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:11:04 -0600, Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Stores are full of people.
> >>>>> Parking lots are full
> >>>>> Traffic is heavy.
> >>>>> Unemployment is down
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We could do better,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Under Republicans we were in a state of collapse, crash and panic.
> >>>>> We've done a hell of a lot better then they did
> >>>>> Thank you President Obama
> >>>>> ]Ask your Republican friends to get off their asses and participate
> >>>
> >>> Odd..in Democrat run California.....the shops are continuing to close
> >>> down
> >>> Parking lots are nearly empty
> >>> Traffic was just rated as very light on the freeways
> >>> Unemployment is at 23.5% and holding
> >>>
> >>> Under Republicans...California was a a bright shining star on the west
> >>> coast.
> >>>
> >>> Under Democrats..people leaving this shithole are wearing out the
> >>> eastbound freeways.
> >>>
> >>> Sucks to be a Democrat and trying to cherry pick..doesnt it?
> >>
> >> Sucks to be a republican and make stuff up..doesnt it?
> >>
> >> http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/18/business/la-fi-cal-jobs-20130319
> >> California unemployment rate holds at 9.8%, highest in U.S.
> >
> > Ayup...9.8% of the population of California is COLLECTING unemployment
> > insurance. Thats the U3 number
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-jobs-unemployment-20130419,0,2972167.story
> California unemployment drops to 9.4%, lowest in more than 4 years
>
> >> Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
> >
> > Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
> >
> > I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
> >
> > Its composed of people who have used up their unemployment and still
> > cant find work, who are working less than 30hrs a week and those who
> > have given up looking
> >
> > You really dont know much....do you? Gronk...thats a very good name
> > for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
> >>
> >> Along with the other nonsense like empty parking lots (as if you've
> >> been all over California..)
> >
> > All over? No. All over Southern California...from Bakersfield to
> > Diego..yes.
>
> Then you lied.
>
> > This might help you....
>
> Snicker..you really are the stupid one arent you? <VBG>
>
> I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
>
> You really dont know much....do you? Gunner Asch...thats a very good name
> for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
>
> From http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt_archived.htm
>
> u6 2003 11.7
> u6 2004 11.0
> u6 2005 9.7
> u6 2006 9.1
> u6 2007 9.9
> u6 2008 13.4
> u6 2009 21.1
> u6 2010 22.1
> u6 2011 21.1
> u6 2012 19.3
>
> As the above shows, it almost doubled under Schwarzenegger, and is
> falling under Brown. You pulled your number out of your ass.
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/31/5157284/interactive-projected-population.html
> The population of California will grow 19 percent between 2010 and 2030,
> according to projections released Thursday by the state Department of Finance.
>
> Some exodus...
Take a look at the thread on Duhbya and WMDs. Another snout smacking for
him there.
>
> Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:11:04 -0600, Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Gunner Asch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Stores are full of people.
> >>>>> Parking lots are full
> >>>>> Traffic is heavy.
> >>>>> Unemployment is down
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We could do better,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Under Republicans we were in a state of collapse, crash and panic.
> >>>>> We've done a hell of a lot better then they did
> >>>>> Thank you President Obama
> >>>>> ]Ask your Republican friends to get off their asses and participate
> >>>
> >>> Odd..in Democrat run California.....the shops are continuing to close
> >>> down
> >>> Parking lots are nearly empty
> >>> Traffic was just rated as very light on the freeways
> >>> Unemployment is at 23.5% and holding
> >>>
> >>> Under Republicans...California was a a bright shining star on the west
> >>> coast.
> >>>
> >>> Under Democrats..people leaving this shithole are wearing out the
> >>> eastbound freeways.
> >>>
> >>> Sucks to be a Democrat and trying to cherry pick..doesnt it?
> >>
> >> Sucks to be a republican and make stuff up..doesnt it?
> >>
> >> http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/18/business/la-fi-cal-jobs-20130319
> >> California unemployment rate holds at 9.8%, highest in U.S.
> >
> > Ayup...9.8% of the population of California is COLLECTING unemployment
> > insurance. Thats the U3 number
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-jobs-unemployment-20130419,0,2972167.story
> California unemployment drops to 9.4%, lowest in more than 4 years
>
> >> Obviously you pulled that 23.5% number out of your ass.
> >
> > Snicker..you really are the stupid one arnt you? <VBG>
> >
> > I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
> >
> > Its composed of people who have used up their unemployment and still
> > cant find work, who are working less than 30hrs a week and those who
> > have given up looking
> >
> > You really dont know much....do you? Gronk...thats a very good name
> > for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
> >>
> >> Along with the other nonsense like empty parking lots (as if you've
> >> been all over California..)
> >
> > All over? No. All over Southern California...from Bakersfield to
> > Diego..yes.
>
> Then you lied.
>
> > This might help you....
>
> Snicker..you really are the stupid one arent you? <VBG>
>
> I strongly suggest you review what the California U6 number is.
>
> You really dont know much....do you? Gunner Asch...thats a very good name
> for a neanderthal who has as much brain matter as a ruddabega.
>
> From http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt_archived.htm
>
> u6 2003 11.7
> u6 2004 11.0
> u6 2005 9.7
> u6 2006 9.1
> u6 2007 9.9
> u6 2008 13.4
> u6 2009 21.1
> u6 2010 22.1
> u6 2011 21.1
> u6 2012 19.3
>
> As the above shows, it almost doubled under Schwarzenegger, and is
> falling under Brown. You pulled your number out of your ass.
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/31/5157284/interactive-projected-population.html
> The population of California will grow 19 percent between 2010 and 2030,
> according to projections released Thursday by the state Department of Finance.
>
> Some exodus...
Take a look at the thread on Duhbya and WMDs. Another snout smacking for
him there.
jim
May 18, 2013, 6:38:56 AM5/18/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
> >>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
> >>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
> >>>
> >>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
> >>
> >> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
> >> about what is in the article.
> >>
> >
> >
> > A fool will spin in circles
> > madly cutting and pasting
> > to try to cover his ignorance
>
> Yes, your 1.8% was ignorance,
1.8% is the annual interest Apple is paying on
its recent bond sale. That means the markets
are willingly paying negative real interest.
Negative real interest rates only happens in a
depression when there are too few who are
willing to borrow and too many wanting
to lend.
Jeff M
May 18, 2013, 8:03:06 AM5/18/13
to
[snip]
"wring"? That's funny!
>>>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring
[snip]
"wring"? That's funny!
opel
May 18, 2013, 12:26:24 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 4:38 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
>>>>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
>>>>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
>>>> about what is in the article.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A fool will spin in circles
>>> madly cutting and pasting
>>> to try to cover his ignorance
>>
>> Yes, your 1.8% was ignorance,
>
> Ignorance to you, perhaps.
>
> 1.8% is the annual interest Apple is paying on
> its recent bond sale.
YOU are LYING, and EVERYONE knows it!
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
>>>>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
>>>>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
>>>> about what is in the article.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A fool will spin in circles
>>> madly cutting and pasting
>>> to try to cover his ignorance
>>
>> Yes, your 1.8% was ignorance,
>
> Ignorance to you, perhaps.
>
> 1.8% is the annual interest Apple is paying on
> its recent bond sale.
opel
May 18, 2013, 12:26:41 PM5/18/13
to
jim
May 18, 2013, 2:03:36 PM5/18/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/18/2013 4:38 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> opel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
> >>>>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
> >>>>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
> >>>> about what is in the article.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A fool will spin in circles
> >>> madly cutting and pasting
> >>> to try to cover his ignorance
> >>
> >> Yes, your 1.8% was ignorance,
> >
> > Ignorance to you, perhaps.
> >
> > 1.8% is the annual interest Apple is paying on
> > its recent bond sale.
>
> YOU are LYING, and EVERYONE knows it!
number and you wouldn't know the difference.
opel
May 18, 2013, 2:32:22 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 12:03 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 4:38 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
>>>>>>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
>>>>>>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
>>>>>> about what is in the article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A fool will spin in circles
>>>>> madly cutting and pasting
>>>>> to try to cover his ignorance
>>>>
>>>> Yes, your 1.8% was ignorance,
>>>
>>> Ignorance to you, perhaps.
>>>
>>> 1.8% is the annual interest Apple is paying on
>>> its recent bond sale.
>>
>> YOU are LYING, and EVERYONE knows it!
>
> If I was going to lie,
You already did.
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 4:38 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2013 5:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no 1.8% mentioned in the above article, you're lying.
>>>>>>> There is all the information one needs to calculate the
>>>>>>> annual interest rate for all the bonds put together.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why am I not surprised you can't see that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
>>>>>> about what is in the article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A fool will spin in circles
>>>>> madly cutting and pasting
>>>>> to try to cover his ignorance
>>>>
>>>> Yes, your 1.8% was ignorance,
>>>
>>> Ignorance to you, perhaps.
>>>
>>> 1.8% is the annual interest Apple is paying on
>>> its recent bond sale.
>>
>> YOU are LYING, and EVERYONE knows it!
>
> If I was going to lie,
> I could just make up a
> number
> and you wouldn't know the difference.
Just like this:
jim
May 18, 2013, 4:44:35 PM5/18/13
to
opel wrote nothing new:
opel
May 18, 2013, 4:52:40 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote nothing new:
>
Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>
>
> opel wrote nothing new:
>
Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
jim
May 18, 2013, 7:54:55 PM5/18/13
to
costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
Why you keep snipping out and
running away from your own cite?
opel
May 18, 2013, 8:28:26 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>
>>
>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>
>
> You posted the article that indicated that it was
> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
Liar.
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>
>>
>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>
>
> You posted the article that indicated that it was
> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>
>
> Why you keep snipping out and
> running away from your own cite?
found in that article.
jim
May 18, 2013, 10:22:16 PM5/18/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> opel wrote nothing new:
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
> >> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
> >
> >
> > You posted the article that indicated that it was
> > costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
>
> Liar.
can't understand how to compute interest rates.
>
> > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
> >
> >
> > Why you keep snipping out and
> > running away from your own cite?
>
> You're lying and misrepresenting it - the number "1.8%" is nowhere to be
> found in that article.
opel
May 18, 2013, 10:44:01 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 8:22 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>>>
>>>
>>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
>>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
>>
>> Liar.
>
> You call it a lie because you
> can't understand how to compute interest rates.
You denied the varying duration and interest rates of their many bond
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>>>
>>>
>>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
>>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
>>
>> Liar.
>
> You call it a lie because you
> can't understand how to compute interest rates.
issuances.
>>
>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-02/apple-avoids-9-2-billion-in-taxes-with-debt-deal.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Why you keep snipping out and
>>> running away from your own cite?
>>
>> You're lying and misrepresenting it - the number "1.8%" is nowhere to be
>> found in that article.
>
> The numbers to calculate the interest rate are there.
>
fates and interest rates.
Damn you're one dumb fuck.
Btw, I will hammer you into infinity on this, so enjoy!
jim
May 19, 2013, 6:31:04 AM5/19/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/18/2013 8:22 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> opel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
> >>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
> >>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
> >>
> >> Liar.
> >
> > You call it a lie because you
> > can't understand how to compute interest rates.
>
> You denied the varying duration and interest rates of their many bond
> issuances.
>
your ignorance.
opel
May 19, 2013, 1:39:09 PM5/19/13
to
On 5/19/2013 4:31 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 8:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>>>>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
>>>>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> You call it a lie because you
>>> can't understand how to compute interest rates.
>>
>> You denied the varying duration and interest rates of their many bond
>> issuances.
>>
>
> No I didn't.
Sure did.
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/18/2013 8:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>>>>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
>>>>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> You call it a lie because you
>>> can't understand how to compute interest rates.
>>
>> You denied the varying duration and interest rates of their many bond
>> issuances.
>>
>
> No I didn't.
You went with 1.8%.
Now marinate in reality again:
jim
May 19, 2013, 3:09:15 PM5/19/13
to
opel wrote:
>
> On 5/19/2013 4:31 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > opel wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/18/2013 8:22 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> opel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> opel wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
> >>>>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
> >>>>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liar.
> >>>
> >>> You call it a lie because you
> >>> can't understand how to compute interest rates.
> >>
> >> You denied the varying duration and interest rates of their many bond
> >> issuances.
> >>
> >
> > No I didn't.
> Sure did.
>
> You went with 1.8%.
How does that "deny the varying duration and
interest rates of their many bond issuances."?
Oh I get it you weren't lying, your just ignorant.
opel
May 19, 2013, 4:01:48 PM5/19/13
to
On 5/19/2013 1:09 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/19/2013 4:31 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 8:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>>>>>>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
>>>>>>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You call it a lie because you
>>>>> can't understand how to compute interest rates.
>>>>
>>>> You denied the varying duration and interest rates of their many bond
>>>> issuances.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No I didn't.
>> Sure did.
>>
>> You went with 1.8%.
>
> Yes that would be the net interest for the entire sale.
No it would not.
>
>
> opel wrote:
>>
>> On 5/19/2013 4:31 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> opel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2013 8:22 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/18/2013 5:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> opel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2013 2:44 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> opel wrote nothing new:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor did I need to, given I've said it all and run you into the ground
>>>>>>>> like a 1.8% scale lawn dart, lol...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You posted the article that indicated that it was
>>>>>>> costing Apple a net interest rate of 1.8% annually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You call it a lie because you
>>>>> can't understand how to compute interest rates.
>>>>
>>>> You denied the varying duration and interest rates of their many bond
>>>> issuances.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No I didn't.
>> Sure did.
>>
>> You went with 1.8%.
>
> Yes that would be the net interest for the entire sale.
Btw, not only did you shoot from the hip and get it wring, you lied
about what is in the article.
jim
May 19, 2013, 4:35:02 PM5/19/13
to
annual interest cost for the entire bond sale.
Are you saying the article was wrong.
opel
May 19, 2013, 4:46:13 PM5/19/13
to
"Based on current rates, Apple will pay interest of about $308 million a
You do realize that "current rates" are at best transitory and expected
to rise, don't you?
That's why you were presented with the actual TOOLS to calculate the
Real interest rates, you bovine beefwit.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages