Re: Economist excerpt...
Edwin Hurwitz
DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
> Pulled this from my account with The Economist:
>
> Where the cutting should begin
>
> America�s deficit problem is in essence a spending problem, so
> spending must bear the brunt of adjustment. An ageing population and
> health-care inflation are inexorably driving up the cost of the
> country�s three big entitlements: Social Security (pensions), Medicare
> and Medicaid (health care for the elderly and the poor, respectively).
> Mr Obama has long promised that health reform would cover the
> uninsured without adding to the deficit, while reining in long-term
> costs. Unfortunately, the prospects for controlling costs are tenuous.
> Achieving large savings will require action on many fronts. Raising
> the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare would save money
> while encouraging Americans to work longer, thereby expanding economic
> potential. Medicaid could be converted to block grants, compelling
> states to assume more of the burden of cost control. Other spending
> should also be vigorously squeezed, to stop federal funds being wasted
> on highways of dubious value or trade-distorting farm subsidies.
>
> Still, cold arithmetic suggests that spending cuts alone cannot
> deliver enough. Changes to entitlements take effect only gradually.
> And the scope for slashing non-defence discretionary spending is
> limited, since it makes up merely one-sixth of total outlays. So
> Americans are stuck with a budgetary conundrum: they seem to be opting
> for more government, at least in health care, yet they do not seem
> prepared to pay for it. Their leaders have indulged this fantasy. Mr
> Obama has foolishly sworn off higher taxes on 95% of households, and
> Republicans will not countenance them for anybody. This newspaper
> strongly prefers small government and low taxes, but if Americans are
> to have bigger government and a sustainable budget, tax revenues will
> have to rise.
How about just letting us buy cheaper drugs and not giving so much money
to non-performing corporate executives.
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
Ray O'Hara
"DG" <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote in message
news:uf1og555nri8koe66...@4ax.com...
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> look like a fight while our economy is collapsing.
>
> As for the TARP, I can't wait to see where all that money went. Hank
> Paulson might wind up in court if they find the goods. 700 billion
> and the taxpayers aren't allowed to know where it went... Please...
>
TARP was the work of your hero the Spender-in-Chief , Der Uberchimpenfuhrer
G.W.Bush.
Ray
> Pulled this from my account with The Economist:
>
> Where the cutting should begin
>
> America’s deficit problem is in essence a spending problem
Bummer we wasted a couple trillion or so in Iraq, huh.
DGDevin
Actually it's two trillion, or it will be by the time the interest on that
particular borrowed fortune is paid, or so them Congressional budget do0ds
say.
Ray
> time I was complaing about taking assets from the competent and giving
> them to the incompetent.
While cheering on a $2 trillion or so war of choice.
JimK
wrote:
>Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>I'm all for cheaper pharmaceuticals. Our politicians want to make it
>look like a fight while our economy is collapsing.
>
>As for the TARP, I can't wait to see where all that money went. Hank
>Paulson might wind up in court if they find the goods. 700 billion
>and the taxpayers aren't allowed to know where it went... Please...
I don't think we'll find out everything about TARP until after the
statutes of limitation have expired on all the potential crimes.
JimK
JimK
wrote:
>Not my hero... Since you follow me so closely, you will recall at the
>time I was complaing about taking assets from the competent and giving
>them to the incompetent.
>
Who are you referring to when you talk about the incompetents? Because
if you mean the big financial institutions like Goldman, JP Morgan,
etc., I think they're laughing all the way to the bank (sorry)....and
they're laughing at us.
JimK
octoad
"DG" <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote in message
> Goldman, JPM, AIG are the incompetents... They made wrong bets and
> for some reason we get the bill.
You can't possibly be serious including GS and JPM in the same sentence as
AIG.
AIG is a total disaster. Their selling phony credit default swaps (with no
way to pay them off) cost the company (and the taxpayers) literally more
than a hundred billion dollars.
Goldman, on the other hand, is rolling in the dough. They won the Wall St
wars, becoming the most powerful financial force on the planet. They're the
antithesis of the outfits that "made the wrong bets", they're involved in
everything, and they're busy creating new financial WMD's that will destroy
the world (but give them huge profits) in the not too distant future. Most
of those responsible for regulating Wall St are Goldman alums. They've paid
back their TARP money. Their bonuses will be in the tens of billions this
year.
Goldman did almost everything right from their pirate/criminal/thief/screw
everyone as long as we dominate perspective.
Goldman rules the world. They have zero in common with AIG. You do know
this, right???
O
JimK
wrote:
>JimK wrote:
>Goldman, JPM, AIG are the incompetents... They made wrong bets and
>for some reason we get the bill.
That doesn't sound too incompetent to me. Wouldn't you like to get a
deal like they did? Check out their earnings results lately? They
borrow money from the government at 0% and lend it back to the
government by buying Treasuries with a guaranteed rate of return. So
who are the incompetent ones?
JimK
Ray O'Hara
"JimK" <jkez...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:es4og59gbs0bctrkh...@4ax.com...
we deserved to be laughed at.
wait until the Dems screw up. and the congress is screwing up, when Carter
was in the Dem congress killed him, they will kill Obame too.
The Blue Dogs are DINOs{Dems in name only}
Joker
And they're high-fiving their boys on the inside, Geitner and
Bernanke.
Joker
> JimK wrote:
>
> for some reason we get the bill.
>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/
Goldman-Sachs made the wrong bets? No. They stacked the deck and came
out huge winners. And you want us to believe you know something about
finance and the economy? Sheesh, you apparently don't even know who
runs the Treasury and the Fed. How else could you come up with "for
some reason we get the bill." As if it were some mysterious accident.
Here's a mysterious clue: the running of the the Treasury and the Fed
has been "outsourced" to Goldman-Sachs. Now see if you can figure out
the "reason we get the bill."
I'm not optimistic...but, go on, knock yourself out.
Ray O'Hara
"DG" <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote in message
> "octoad" wrote:
>>
>>"DG" wrote
>>
>>> Goldman, JPM, AIG are the incompetents... They made wrong bets and
>>> for some reason we get the bill.
>>
>>You can't possibly be serious including GS and JPM in the same sentence as
>>AIG.
>>
>>AIG is a total disaster. Their selling phony credit default swaps (with
>>no
>>way to pay them off) cost the company (and the taxpayers) literally more
>>than a hundred billion dollars.
>
>
>
> Some claimed that Paulson strong armed them into taking the money yet
> not one of them had the balls to say "no".
>
>
a bunch of weak willed pansies the lot of them
annoying
> In article <ce2ng5paanr0eos2q...@4ax.com>,
> DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
>
>> Pulled this from my account with The Economist:
>>
>> Where the cutting should begin
>>
>> spending must bear the brunt of adjustment. An ageing population and
>> health-care inflation are inexorably driving up the cost of the
And why not stop the thinking that we need all the drugs we take?
Think of diabetes alone.
annoying
annoying
> On Nov 23, 11:24 pm, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
>> Pulled this from my account with The Economist:
>>
>> Where the cutting should begin
>>
>
> Bummer we wasted a couple trillion or so in Iraq, huh.
anyway...shred the emails.
$687 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Iraq since 2003.
Fiscal year ending 2009.
Edwin Hurwitz
annoying <jackst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> > In article <ce2ng5paanr0eos2q...@4ax.com>,
> > DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
> >
> >> Pulled this from my account with The Economist:
> >>
> >> Where the cutting should begin
> >>
> >> America�s deficit problem is in essence a spending problem, so
> >> spending must bear the brunt of adjustment. An ageing population and
> >> health-care inflation are inexorably driving up the cost of the
> >> country�s three big entitlements: Social Security (pensions), Medicare
No, not really. But that is a huge issue that is separate from those who
crash the economy while making shitloads of cash. The argument is that
they take big risks so that they should get big rewards. So, they should
also go down in flames when their actions lead to a fiasco.
> And why not stop the thinking that we need all the drugs we take?
> Think of diabetes alone.
True that. But there's no profit in that. It goes to the whole problem
here that profit gets to be the most important factor in any equation.
We need a new math.
DGDevin
>> Bummer we wasted a couple trillion or so in Iraq, huh.
> hey genius...try some accuracy...I know its hard for your type, but
> try anyway...shred the emails.
>
> $687 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Iraq since
> 2003. Fiscal year ending 2009.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2450753720071024
U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs
Wed Oct 24, 2007
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost
taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest
costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a
study released on Wednesday.
With President George W. Bush indicating a large contingent of U.S. troops
likely will be engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the total tab for the wars
from 2001 through 2017.
CBO estimated that interest costs alone from 2001-2017 could total more than
$700 billion.
So far, Congress has given Bush $604 billion for the two wars, with about
$412 billion spent in Iraq, according to CBO, which is Congress' in-house
budget analyst. In Iraq alone, the United States is spending about $11
billion a month, with costs escalating.
Bush is seeking another $196 billion for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan
through September 30 and Congress is expected to debate that request over
the next few months.
CBO estimated that between 2008 and 2017, the wars could cost slightly more
than $1 trillion, assuming overall troop strength is cut to 75,000 by 2013.
Currently, there are about 170,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and another 26,000 in
Afghanistan.
Finance charges for the money already spent on the war will total $415
billion from 2001 to 2017, according to CBO. For the next decade, "interest
outlays would increase by a total of $290 billion over that 10-year period,"
CBO told the House Budget Committee, which is reviewing long-term war costs.
"To put it all on our credit cards with no accountability, with no plan to
pay for it, I think is the height of irresponsibility," said Rep. James
McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat who serves on the budget panel and is an
outspoken war critic. "It will be just one more toxic legacy of this
disastrous war we will have to leave our kids to clean up."
With national elections about a year away and public discontent with the
Iraq war running deep, Democrats are highlighting the huge costs of the Iraq
war as they seek $22 billion more than Bush wants for domestic social
programs such as health care and education.
Bush has vowed to veto the added funding.
CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war,
about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq."
JimK
<everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-27 09:37:43 +0900, "DGDevin" <dgd...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> annoying wrote:
>>
>>>> Bummer we wasted a couple trillion or so in Iraq, huh.
>>> hey genius...try some accuracy...I know its hard for your type, but
>>> try anyway...shred the emails.
>>>
>>> $687 billion dollars have been allocated to the war in Iraq since
>>> 2003. Fiscal year ending 2009.
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2450753720071024
>>
>> U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs
>> Wed Oct 24, 2007
>>
>> "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost
>> taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest
>> costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a
>> study released on Wednesday.
>
>
>
>combat on the layaway plan! I love it!
I'm beginning to think Mick Jagger was talking about these wars at
Altamont:
"People, people....who's fighting and what for?"
JimK
annoying
manipulated.
The question is WHAT HAVE WE SPENT.
There is no way to know what we will spend. Anyone saying they know the
answer is estimating.
Call me crazy, but accuracy, in my world, is still the standard.
Attempting to fudge numbers to strengthen an opinion is sickening.
Your ears must be filled with sand as so to not be able to listen even
to a written word.
When will the masses think for themselves....? the info is there...it's
everywhere.
I understand the above bloviation is just that.
I still think.
DGDevin
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2450753720071024
>>
>> U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs
>> Wed Oct 24, 2007
>>
>> "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could
>> cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the
>> huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed
>> money, according to a study released on Wednesday.
>
>
>
> combat on the layaway plan! I love it!
Actually "layaway" is when you don't get your war until you've saved up
enough money to pay for it--Bush put it all on the national credit card.
DGDevin
> This is exactly like the glbal warming argument which has proven to be
> manipulated.
The global warming *argument* has been manipulated? And by the
Congressional Budget Office?
> The question is WHAT HAVE WE SPENT.
> There is no way to know what we will spend. Anyone saying they know
> the answer is estimating.
Are you under the impression that borrowed money isn't real? Borrow a
hundred thousand bucks (pretend your credit score would allow that) and see
if whoever loaned you the money managed to figure out in advance how much
interest they would make off you and thus what you would end up paying. See
how that works?
> Call me crazy, but accuracy, in my world, is still the standard.
> Attempting to fudge numbers to strengthen an opinion is sickening.
What "opinion" do you claim the Congressional Budget Office was expressing
with this study?
> Your ears must be filled with sand as so to not be able to listen even
> to a written word.
Listen to a written word..., WTF?
> When will the masses think for themselves....? the info is
> there...it's everywhere.
>
> I understand the above bloviation is just that.
> I still think.
Do you post stoned, or drunk, or what? 'Cause nobody could be as bent as
you without either chemical help or maybe a depressed skull fracture.