Refineries being closed due to low demand for fuel...
Lone Haranguer
Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain prices
at a level where they can make a profit.
Which company would keep operating a facility that loses money or is not
competitive?
LZ
elmer
over 50 supertankers parked off their shores waiting for higher prices
to unload to refineries. The tank farms are full. They alluded to
hundreds of supertankers parked of cruising off our shores simarily.
The Traders/producers are simply buying but not taking possession of
huge quantities of oil and with holding them from the market until they
can bid the prices up. It is amazing that if a Saudi Sheik were to
sneeze it would be an excuse for them to bid up the price.
There is a reason the ICE is in London. We simply would not allow such a
racket to go on. They are there because they are immoral and lacking
morals they seek haven that would allow ungoverned and unpoliced assault
on People. This is their idea of a Free Market. The Law of the Jungle.
There is no Free Market. There is no Supply and Demand. It is simply the
wealthy Manipulators victimizing everybody else.
When the glut of oil crashes they will simply regroup. We will suffer a
devastated economy. All this economy is waiting on is the one more straw.
The Saudis are wanting compensation if they have to drop production
because of decreased demand. Let them pound some of their sand.
Ron Recer
news:7mt668F...@mid.individual.net...
> http://www.svherald.com/content/2009/11/20/fuel-demand-week-refineries-shutting-down
>
> Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain prices at
> a level where they can make a profit.
And how does closing refineries cause the price of crude oil to go up? Also
keep in mind that not all refiners are producers and many producers don't
have refineries.
Ron
elmer
reduced if they produced more. All the doomsday peak oil and eco idiot
stuff has just added costs to consumers and huge profits for the
Manipulators is partially responsible for the last wreck in our economy.
None of them are losing money. One unit or another might have a
manipulated loss but the whole outfit is making gazillions.
No one has stopped buying fuel. The ones out of jobs may be
reconsidering starting their car though.
Lone Haranguer
> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7mt668F...@mid.individual.net...
>> http://www.svherald.com/content/2009/11/20/fuel-demand-week-refineries-shutting-down
>>
>> Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain prices at
>> a level where they can make a profit.
>
> And how does closing refineries cause the price of crude oil to go up?
Em! I didn't say crude would necessarily rise. I only spoke of refined
products and oil companies own a lot of outlets.
Also
> keep in mind that not all refiners are producers and many producers don't
> have refineries.
The article only deals with refined product and so do my comments.
Just deal with what I posted and don't jump the rails.
LZ
Zandermax
elmer
Technobarbarian
"elmer" <e...@f.udd> wrote in message
news:8JdOm.31434$X01....@newsfe07.iad...
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> http://www.svherald.com/content/2009/11/20/fuel-demand-week-refineries-shutting-down
>> Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain prices at
>> a level where they can make a profit.
>>
>> Which company would keep operating a facility that loses money or is not
>> competitive?
>> LZ
> there were at least a couple of reports in the Daily Mail, London, of over
> 50 supertankers parked off their shores waiting for higher prices
> to unload to refineries. The tank farms are full.
If the tank farms are full what are they supposed to do? Buy a bunch of
50 gallon drums and fill them up? As a way to store oil supertankers are
probably the most expensive option available. And some of these are empty
tankers which is also a money losing proposition.
Here's a cite for anyone who's interested:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1229337/Petrol-prices-Oil-tankers-loitering-British-coast-lie-wait-price-hikes.html
TB
Lone Haranguer
> Ron Recer wrote:
>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7mt668F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> http://www.svherald.com/content/2009/11/20/fuel-demand-week-refineries-shutting-down
>>>
>>>
>>> Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain
>>> prices at a level where they can make a profit.
>>
>> And how does closing refineries cause the price of crude oil to go
>> up? Also keep in mind that not all refiners are producers and many
>> producers don't have refineries.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>> Which company would keep operating a facility that loses money or is
>>> not competitive?
>>> LZ
>>
>>
> It creases a choke on supply. The price of fuels would be greatly
> reduced if they produced more.
They are producing less because usage is down.
All the doomsday peak oil and eco idiot
> stuff has just added costs to consumers and huge profits for the
> Manipulators is partially responsible for the last wreck in our economy.
Then you should be barking at the "no drilling" Democrats.
> None of them are losing money. One unit or another might have a
> manipulated loss but the whole outfit is making gazillions.
Do you have access to the books? How much profit they make is
irrelevant unless you consider the return on investment.
If their shareholders can make more in tax-free municipal bonds, that is
where they would be putting their money.
Now tell us what the percentage is for return on investment among the
oil companies.
> No one has stopped buying fuel.
Millions are no longer commuting to work so those people's usage has
obviously dropped. Unless you think they are going on long
drives now, just for the hell of it.
The ones out of jobs may be
> reconsidering starting their car though.
But you said no one has stopped buying fuel.... You need to think
before you post.
LZ
elmer
of the overall picture. I'm sure I could come up with lawyereeze to
cover all the aspects and disclaimers neccessary but it would be a 34
page read.
Reuturn on investment in oil vs municipal bonds? We can see what is
rather than delve into why a lot easier sometimes. They have their own
reasons an pr for us.
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>It is a conspiracy and most likely Clintons fault.
LOL! If he only hadn't gotten that blow job <g>
Hunter
nothermark
LZ has it right. Current business practice is to maintain or increase
returns. If buying municiple bonds pays off better than running a
factory/refinery/burger joint etc then dump loss and buy bonds. Looks
better next quarter. If that screws the public it's their fault. If
it is part of collapsing the economy it's the government's fault.
Zandermax
"Hunter Hampton" <airstrea...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:ad0jg5hc7oqle279l...@4ax.com...
Sure but what would be left for LZ to be envious of?
Frank Howell
Current business practice? You mean they didn't do this in the past? They
just lost money and took no corrective action so that they wouldn't screw
the public? Valero Energy corporation's Delaware City oil refinery was
losing about 1 million dollars every day this year. So if they decided that
the losses were becoming insurmountable and decide to close the refinery,
that's screwing the public?
Ok maybe just a little bit too much sarcasm, but from your posts it seems
that you view all corporations with disdain.
My guess is that you have no stock in any corporation, but that is just a
guess.
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
Or committed perjury....as he later admitted.
LZ
Mike Hendrix
---------------------------
Linus, this is an interesting subject. Thanks for posting the link.
What has my mind spinning at the moment is --------
I recall all the "extreme right wingers" carping about regulations
being the reasons for not building more refineries ----------. At
least I think it was the extreme right wingers, if was others please
accept my apologies.
Here we are seeing EXCESS capacity thus it would seem that there would
be no reason/need to build new refineries.
Since Valero is actually closing refineries I suspect some other
refineries are in the same fix. It appears that we do not need to be
building new refineries but -------- closing existing ones.
I would like to see someone like TX Bill expound on what we are not
seeing.
mike
--
Ron Recer
> Ron Recer wrote:
>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7mt668F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> http://www.svherald.com/content/2009/11/20/fuel-demand-week-refineries-shutting-down
>>>
>>> Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain prices
>>> at a level where they can make a profit.
>>
>> And how does closing refineries cause the price of crude oil to go up?
>
> Em! I didn't say crude would necessarily rise. I only spoke of refined
> products and oil companies own a lot of outlets.
>
> Also
>> keep in mind that not all refiners are producers and many producers don't
>> have refineries.
>
> The article only deals with refined product and so do my comments.
>
> Just deal with what I posted and don't jump the rails.
> LZ
Ok, I misunderstood your comment.
Ron
Ron Recer
news:0067c97b$0$16813$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
profit to stay in business long term.
Ron
Bruce S
Mark is anti-business, and anti profit.
Bruce
Ron Recer
news:hq8jg5pqfd6u277go...@4ax.com...
I think the excess capacity is due primairly to the economy. Business
doesn't need the fuel to deliver the goods it isn't producing and can't
sell. Laid off workers don't need the fuel to drive to the jobs they no
longer have.
Ron
Bruce S
What you are not seeing is that it is inappropriate government regulation
that is deciding refining capacity, not market forces. Just because demand
is down today does not mean that we should cheer a lack of new refining
capacity - that decision should be based strictly on profit and loss, not
government interference in the market.
Bruce
Carl A. in FL
have state tax, environmental, health, and labor laws of their own, on
top of the federal burden.
Nowadays it doesn't make much sense to be in the refining business in
the USA, and especially not on the East Coast. The pipeline
transportation costs from a relatively business-friendly low tax state
to the East Coast are much lower than the tax and regulatory cost burden
found in, f.e. NJ or DE.
--
Carl A. in FL
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/index.htm
nothermark
Bad day to buy a lottery ticket. ;-)
I like corporations, I don't like the way they are usually currently
run. When the focus was on long view making a steady profit while
taking care of the workers and community everybody won. The shift in
the 1980's to maximizing shareholder return and tying the upper level
folks pay to stock price redirected American business down a path of
economic self destruction. We see it as foreign companies swallow our
once great business's, stagnate wages and shrinking benefits for
workers, and increased foreign debt from the trade imbalance.
Lone Haranguer
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:12:00 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.svherald.com/content/2009/11/20/fuel-demand-week-refineries-shutting-down
>>
>> Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain prices
>> at a level where they can make a profit.
>>
>> Which company would keep operating a facility that loses money or is not
>> competitive?
>> LZ
> ---------------------------
> Linus, this is an interesting subject. Thanks for posting the link.
>
> What has my mind spinning at the moment is --------
>
> I recall all the "extreme right wingers" carping about regulations
> being the reasons for not building more refineries ----------. At
> least I think it was the extreme right wingers, if was others please
> accept my apologies.
It was true at the time when our economy was humming and we lacked
capacity to refine more crude.
>
> Here we are seeing EXCESS capacity thus it would seem that there would
> be no reason/need to build new refineries.
Lumber prices are down too so we should stop planting trees. Aluminum
window prices are down too so we should close the mines and stop imports,
Fewer houses being built lessens demand and causes prices to fall.
>
> Since Valero is actually closing refineries I suspect some other
> refineries are in the same fix. It appears that we do not need to be
> building new refineries but -------- closing existing ones.
The reason for closing them is because 10.2% (actually more) of the work
force is no longer commuting to work.
I guess this makes the envirowackos and the global warming freaks happy.
Think of all the gas that is no longer being burned.
>
> I would like to see someone like TX Bill expound on what we are not
> seeing.
I hope he contributes too so I can learn his take on the article. I
thought it was pretty clear.
LZ
>
> mike
nothermark
wrote:
Wrong again. There is no question that busienss's need to be
profitable. That is why I oppose legilators that get stupid and
employers and unions that get greedy. That does not mean I do not see
a need for unions or regulation. History has shown workers cannot
depend on employers to maintan decent wages, working conditions or the
environment.
There can be a reasonable balance but we have let greed and envy drive
the system out of balance so we are selling ourselves to foreign
investors and mortgaging our future for short term gain. Our grand
children will not thank us.
nothermark
elmer
nothermark
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
What I should have added was that the refiners probably have a choice.
They can also do a shutdown and update the facility so it would be
profitable. That would probably be a multi year project so the
economy would have time to come back.
What we cannot tell is whether that is a viable option or not. Too
often the attitude is to dump it now and build and pollute another
site later. Perhaps that is not currently viable but the way they
throw around tax exemptions it may well be. I expect this is an old
plant that really needs updating and could set up a chain of updates
that would be a reasonable long term goal if companies planned long
term anymore.
BTW, NJ is going to have to fix it's economic problems fairly soon. If
it doesn't it will win the race for the first state to go bankrupt.
That will require reducing taxes and reducing the cost of government
workers. More interesting things to watch.
nothermark
ongoing sniping, if you mean Bruce. You are somewhat right about the
rest.
Chuck Norris
Some government idiot has proposed storing CO2 in old mines and the
like. As I understand, we have a salt mine west of Phoenix being used
for either gas or oil storage.
We could operate on Al Gore and drain him of lies and gas, and have
plenty of storage.
--
"Liberals refuse to allow facts to conflict with their preconceived
notions."
And its corollary
"A Conservative believes what he sees; a Liberal sees what he
believes.
Chuck Norris
nothermark
letting out all his hot air would lead to global warming!
;-)
Frank Howell
NJ will never beat California.
--
Frank Howell
Bruce S
And (taking an idea from another thread) think what he would be worth in
liquid fat alone.
Bruce
Peter Pan
If you had a wife as scary as Hillary, wouldn't you lie too?
Lone Haranguer
Definitely. However I wouldn't have married her in the first place and
he had plenty of time to dump her so he could engage in his recreational
activities without fear of being castrated as he slept.
LZ
Chuck Norris
Finally GW has been debunked as total provable FRAUD. Al Gore and a
number of others should be sued and they may be.
--
NASCAR: The new Wrestling
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
>http://214e.sl.pt
>
>My guess is that you have no stock in any corporation, but that is just a
>guess.
I surely take no stock in anything he says.
Chuck Norris
afterall, what you are replying to.
On 22 Nov 2009 19:16:01 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>Wrong again. There is no question that busienss's need to be
>profitable. That is why I oppose legilators that get stupid and
>employers and unions that get greedy. That does not mean I do not see
>a need for unions or regulation. History has shown workers cannot
>depend on employers to maintan decent wages, working conditions or the
>environment.
>
Bullpucky. I have worked in Arizona for all but 2 of the last 48
years. Right to work state. Most of the time at Motorola. They paid
very well, had great benefits and a profit sharing plan (which has
funded a number of retirements). Only once was a union drive
instituted and it was summarily bounced out.
BTW, I worked there 3 different times.
>There can be a reasonable balance but we have let greed and envy drive
>the system out of balance so we are selling ourselves to foreign
>investors and mortgaging our future for short term gain. Our grand
>children will not thank us.
What's this "we" bullshit? It is the government congress (both partys
but mostly dems) which has, against our wills, put us in bankruptcy.
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>---------------------------
>Linus, this is an interesting subject. Thanks for posting the link.
>
>What has my mind spinning at the moment is --------
>
>I recall all the "extreme right wingers" carping about regulations
>being the reasons for not building more refineries ----------. At
>least I think it was the extreme right wingers, if was others please
>accept my apologies.
Democrat instituted regs have stifled new refineries for over 25
years. And when owners try to upgrade old ones, a new regulation is
passed to screw that effort also. There is a refinery approved in
Yuma, AZ and another in So. Dak. I don't know about the status of
either.
We have enough oil and gas within out borders to keep us going for
over 100 years. Some estimates are that the reserves equal the total
amount of oil used back through history. And we have 100 years of
Nat. Gas resources. Now add to that Nuclear power to replace all
those damn dams and we are free of the GD ragheads & Chavez. Then
they will dry up and blow away. Mebbe
>
>Here we are seeing EXCESS capacity thus it would seem that there would
>be no reason/need to build new refineries.
Two years ago the states and feds saw an EXCESS capacity in tax
revenue so they kicked up spending on trivial shit including a number
of entitlements. Now tax revenues have dryed up and as a result,
everyone is hurting. Governments NEVER thonk in future. No
contingency funds at all.
Now th asshole in the WH has quadrupled the debt and we are totally
unable to repay. That's the fact, Jack!
Chuck Norris
>What I should have added was that the refiners probably have a choice.
>They can also do a shutdown and update the facility so it would be
>profitable. That would probably be a multi year project so the
>economy would have time to come back.
Nice thought BUT, you dems have added regulation/laws that make the
chore of updating virtually impossible.
>
>What we cannot tell is whether that is a viable option or not. Too
>often the attitude is to dump it now and build and pollute another
>site later. Perhaps that is not currently viable but the way they
>throw around tax exemptions it may well be. I expect this is an old
>plant that really needs updating and could set up a chain of updates
>that would be a reasonable long term goal if companies planned long
>term anymore.
Have you ever been near a newer refinery. You can eat off the propery
without fear of harm.
>
>BTW, NJ is going to have to fix it's economic problems fairly soon. If
>it doesn't it will win the race for the first state to go bankrupt.
>That will require reducing taxes and reducing the cost of government
>workers. More interesting things to watch.
The gov. of NJ has admitted the state is doomed. How are they going
to "FIX" the economic problems?
Naive idiot lib!
nothermark
<hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2009 19:49:01 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>
>>What I should have added was that the refiners probably have a choice.
>>They can also do a shutdown and update the facility so it would be
>>profitable. That would probably be a multi year project so the
>>economy would have time to come back.
>
>Nice thought BUT, you dems have added regulation/laws that make the
>chore of updating virtually impossible.
really? not arguing, just wondering. There are degree's of
impossible. OTOH it would fit the greenies ideas to do such a thing.
>
>>
>>What we cannot tell is whether that is a viable option or not. Too
>>often the attitude is to dump it now and build and pollute another
>>site later. Perhaps that is not currently viable but the way they
>>throw around tax exemptions it may well be. I expect this is an old
>>plant that really needs updating and could set up a chain of updates
>>that would be a reasonable long term goal if companies planned long
>>term anymore.
>
>Have you ever been near a newer refinery. You can eat off the propery
>without fear of harm.
I would expect it to be run that way. I also realize that things
happen and that putting a new refinery on an old site keeps the site
from being used to build schools and houses as was done with Love
Canal.
>
>>
>>BTW, NJ is going to have to fix it's economic problems fairly soon. If
>>it doesn't it will win the race for the first state to go bankrupt.
>>That will require reducing taxes and reducing the cost of government
>>workers. More interesting things to watch.
>
>The gov. of NJ has admitted the state is doomed. How are they going
>to "FIX" the economic problems?
>
>Naive idiot lib!
Name calling from a right wing nutcase?
The fix is for either the state legislatures to move to limit the cost
of government or to have a Federal Bankruptcy Judge do it for them. At
least part of the answer will be to slash workers salaries. I think
this is legal new ground. Whoever gets to Court first will set the
precedents. Should be interesting to watch.
nothermark
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
Dunno. Then there is NY, MI and Mississippi to name a few contenders.
All depends on who can fnd the most one time fixes.
Mike Hendrix
>>
>>> BTW, NJ is going to have to fix it's economic problems fairly soon. If
>>> it doesn't it will win the race for the first state to go bankrupt.
>>> That will require reducing taxes and reducing the cost of government
>>> workers. More interesting things to watch.
>>
>>NJ will never beat California.
>
>Dunno. Then there is NY, MI and Mississippi to name a few contenders.
>All depends on who can fnd the most one time fixes.
Does anyone have any opinions on what will happen when a state finally
does go belly up ------- we know it is coming, and probably sooner
rather than later.
What will happen to the state workers retirement? What are the other
devastating impacts that we have not thought about?
mike
Lone Haranguer
in the state that printed it and a big hassle when you want to
exchange it for real money. You couldn't cash it in unless you were
leaving the country and money orders were limited to $50....at least for EM.
It was a court martial offense to possess U.S. currency.
Our 1st Sgt was a major crook and used to pay people to cash in scrip
and write money orders for him. He had the dice table and card game
concessions within our squadron area and wasn't bashful about it. He
was a boozer too but could play the violin really well. He made it a
ritual to play the violin for every crew member when they flew the last
mission of their tour. He showed up in a pouring rain at 0300 when I
returned on my 50th. Staggering drunk but played
"After the Ball is Over" at my request. Did a pretty good job too.
Then we all repaired to the debriefing room where we could drink
Canadian whiskey at government expense. After debriefing we went up to
the officer's huts and drank until 0800. Amazing that I still remember
climbing up in the back of the truck that served as a bus. The AO had
forgotten to leave the Hq keys so I returned them to the 1st Sgt's desk
before heading to our hut and flopping on my bunk.
LZ
bill horne
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:07:02 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>>
>>>>> BTW, NJ is going to have to fix it's economic problems fairly soon. If
>>>>> it doesn't it will win the race for the first state to go bankrupt.
>>>>> That will require reducing taxes and reducing the cost of government
>>>>> workers. More interesting things to watch.
>>>> NJ will never beat California.
>>> Dunno. Then there is NY, MI and Mississippi to name a few contenders.
>>> All depends on who can fnd the most one time fixes.
>>
>> Does anyone have any opinions on what will happen when a state finally
>> does go belly up ------- we know it is coming, and probably sooner
>> rather than later.
>> What will happen to the state workers retirement? What are the other
>> devastating impacts that we have not thought about?
>>
>> mike
>>
> They'll probably start printing scrip like we used in Korea. Only good
> in the state that printed it and a big hassle when you want to
> exchange it for real money. You couldn't cash it in unless you were
> leaving the country and money orders were limited to $50....at least for
> EM.
> It was a court martial offense to possess U.S. currency.
California has already issued IOU's.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Lone Haranguer
LZ
nothermark
Interesting story.
They already have monoply scrip - have you noticed the new colorful
bills printed in Washington?
nothermark
wrote:
>On 23 Nov 2009 20:07:02 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
Worker retirement is probably the single biggest expense in most of
the states in trouble. It will have to be part of the answer. My
question is whether they will target the folks who gamed he system
then spread the hit or just hit everybody for a percentage.
State workers will also be hit with some reduction and wage freezes.
If they don't like it they can take a job in private industry. I hear
the plant in China that build laptop keyboards is hiring.
In NY it takes a Constitutional amendment to do that and the
legislature won't touch it. I assume a Federal Court can. Whatever
happens will be interesting as the folks with money are leaving rather
than pay the taxes.
The Federal government is also broke they won't be bailing folks out
plus social security is going to go to draw down mode in a couple of
years so they will have to pay back what they have been borrowing.
Frank Howell
There is no bankruptcy option for states. They either have to grow revenue
or reduce spending or a combination of the two. If they default on their
bonds then borrowing money will increase in cost.
State workers retirements are generally one of the causes of distressed
budgets. Very generous. In Oregon, they recently had a retirement system
that workers could retire after 20 years at over 80% salary. That has been
revised when people woke up. Even so the system still has problems such as
the workers 401k program is guaranteed by law to earn 8% and if it doesn't
the public must make up the difference. Most of us live in a 4% world not
8%.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
The warrants were a reasonable facsimile.
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
unlike scrip or Monopoly money which have denominations.
LZ
Peter Pan
news:vqhng5ttj6ef522pt...@4ax.com...
thats funny, a way of cost saving for federal universal healthcare is
pushing major costs from the federal govt onto the states, so the state
govts/retirees are gonna get screwed worse than they are now....
John Kinney
Let's see.
LZ thinks that refineries are being closed so that oil companies can keep
their prices up.
> Keeping supplies tight is one way for oil companies to maintain prices
> at a level where they can make a profit.
Mike Hendrix thinks he remembers RORT cons whining that federal
regulations inhibiting the oil companies from building more refineries.
> I recall all the "extreme right wingers" carping about regulations being
> the reasons for not building more refineries ----------. At least I
> think it was the extreme right wingers, if was others please accept my
> apologies.
Chuckie Norris doesn't know what he thinks. First he whines that
"democrat regs" prevented building even more apparently unnecessary
refineries.
> Democrat instituted regs have stifled new refineries for over 25 years.
Then he posits naively that the US has enough oil and gas "within our
borders" to last 100 years, ignoring that the expense of tapping those
reserves would send energy prices skyrocketing.
> We have enough oil and gas within out borders to keep us going for over
> 100 years.
Then he says we should switch to nuclear energy (also expensive), abandon
the cheap energy hydroelectric plants (those damn dams) and put the oil
companies out of business.
> Now add to that Nuclear power to replace all those damn dams and we are
> free of the GD ragheads & Chavez.
Then he cites an imaginary excess of tax revenues during the
Bush/Cheney/Rove maladministration as being wasted on "trivial shit". I
guess that covers the Bush/Cheney/Rove mandate for "no child left behind",
the education initiative that nearly 3/4 of Americans said either did
nothing or made things worse in education [Gallup:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygtzo5v]
> Two years ago the states and feds saw an EXCESS capacity in tax revenue
> so they kicked up spending on trivial shit including a number of
> entitlements.
Then he whined about government not maintaining a "contingency" reserve.
He ignores that any US goverment actually attempting such a practice would
have been savaged by Faux News and the Republican cult for not reducing
taxes. When you increase the national debt as much as Reagan and Bush 1
(from a little over 30% of GNP to a little under 70%), and then Bush 2
(from just under 60% to just under 80%) [http://zfacts.com/p/318.html],
it's a little bit difficult to build a contingency reserve.
> Now tax revenues have dryed up and as a result, everyone is hurting.
> Governments NEVER thonk in future. No contingency funds at all.
Finally, he complains about Obama taking the drastic steps necessary to
avoid another great depression, and insists that "we" are unable to pay
the debt. I suspect that Chuckie's children (and yours and mine) will
find a way to pay it, as you and I are paying off the Bush/Cheney/Rove
debacle today.
> Now th asshole in the WH has quadrupled the debt and we are totally
> unable to repay. That's the fact, Jack!
Now Brucie wanders in and also blames government regulations for defining
production capacity instead of the profit-and-loss. This almost makes
sense if the market in this case were not almost entirely dominated by an
international cartel. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel]
> What you are not seeing is that it is inappropriate government regulation
> that is deciding refining capacity, not market forces.
After this, Ron Recer makes the first comment that actually does make
sense. And since Obama hasn't had time to ruin the economy, we have to
put that on the Bush/Cheney/Rove watch:
> I think the excess capacity is due primairly to the economy. Business
> doesn't need the fuel to deliver the goods it isn't producing and can't
> sell. Laid off workers don't need the fuel to drive to the jobs they no
> longer have.
Then zandermax trolls bait in front of LZ, who rises to it like a brook
trout rising to a fisherman's lure.
> It is a conspiracy and most likely Clintons fault.
The Ron Recer posts something else sensible, confronting LZ over one of
his typical god-like proclamations...
And on and on... Just a typical day in the RORT political troll farm.
Regards, John Kinney
Mike Hendrix
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
>Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:07:02 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>> Does anyone have any opinions on what will happen when a state finally
>> does go belly up ------- we know it is coming, and probably sooner
>> rather than later.
>>
>> What will happen to the state workers retirement? What are the other
>> devastating impacts that we have not thought about?
>>
>> mike
>
>There is no bankruptcy option for states. They either have to grow revenue
>or reduce spending or a combination of the two. If they default on their
>bonds then borrowing money will increase in cost.
Yea, I know that Frank but ------ and it is a big BUT ----- States
absolutely have to do some things ----- like operate prisons, Supreme
Courts, Highway Patrols, the legislature etc., They also have
obligations for retirement payments. So these things have to be paid.
>State workers retirements are generally one of the causes of distressed
>budgets. Very generous. In Oregon, they recently had a retirement system
>that workers could retire after 20 years at over 80% salary.
You are shitting me! 80% after 20-years. If Oregon did that then
they owe the money. When a worker gives up other opportunities to
work in that job the retirement is part of his compensation package.
The worker gives up an immediate larger pay check for a future
payment.
The Federal Government has done that as well.
>That has been revised when people woke up.
How many years was that available. I would imagine that a bunch of
folks jumped on that band wagon.
>Even so the system still has problems such as
>the workers 401k program is guaranteed by law to earn 8% and if it doesn't
>the public must make up the difference. Most of us live in a 4% world not
>8%.
WOW! Oregon sounds like the new California. Weren't folks streaming
out of California to Oregon at one time? It sounds like those folks
brought their mentality north.
mike
--
elmer
Of course then Retirees will have all that Social Security income?
Retirement is a vital part of most People's income unless they expect to
die the day after retirement. Of Course Global or Foreign Big Business
like this a lot.
There are millions of Baby Boomers now starting to retire, early because
of elimination, of American jobs and pressures, of Big Business to
maximize the profits, of Wall Street.
Millions of Baby Boomers could mean big big bucks for products and
services for them if they HAVE RETIREMENT INCOMES FROM PENSIONS.
If they only have Social Security and 401K piddling incomes guess what.
They won't be buying anything excpt beans and taters.
elmer
Lobbyist got everything they wanted except new refineries, that would
mean more production and lower prices to Consumers? LOL
Bruce S
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:32:51 -0800, "Frank Howell"
> <fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:07:02 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone have any opinions on what will happen when a state
>>> finally does go belly up ------- we know it is coming, and probably
>>> sooner rather than later.
>>>
>>> What will happen to the state workers retirement? What are the
>>> other devastating impacts that we have not thought about?
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> There is no bankruptcy option for states. They either have to grow
>> revenue or reduce spending or a combination of the two. If they
>> default on their bonds then borrowing money will increase in cost.
>
> Yea, I know that Frank but ------ and it is a big BUT ----- States
> absolutely have to do some things ----- like operate prisons, Supreme
> Courts, Highway Patrols, the legislature etc., They also have
> obligations for retirement payments. So these things have to be paid.
Actually they should declare that they can no longer to pay for ANY unfunded
federal mandates. Thus dropping Medicaid, welfare, federal highway
maintenance, and anything else ordered by the Feds, but not paid for by the
Feds.
Bruce
nothermark
wrote:
I believe all those programs are funded by or matched with Federal
dollars.
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" bruce...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Actually they should declare that they can no longer to pay for ANY
>> unfunded federal mandates. Thus dropping Medicaid, welfare, federal
>> highway maintenance, and anything else ordered by the Feds, but not
>> paid for by the Feds.
>>
>> Bruce
>
> I believe all those programs are funded by or matched with Federal
> dollars.
Well, since the Feds have absolutely NO Constitutional authority to order
the States to spend money on Federal programs, the States should all refuse
to spend even a dime on any federal program. As long as the Feds are
bankrupting the country, they should be sent the bills.
Bruce
Mike Hendrix
Bruce, I am thinking that there are a lot of adjustments on the
horizon. When courts mandate the level of care/whatever that must be
provided in prisons that really puts an unreasonable burden on
jails/prisons.
I remember growing up in Florida with NO air conditioning. Now folks
think they can't go to school or work without air conditioning. If
there isn't money to fund air conditioning then it is going to have to
go away.
I remember when we had rental houses. Some of them were rented
through HUD. Each year someone from HUD came by to inspect the
houses. Any crack in the ceiling had to be patched no matter how
small --- even hair line cracks. (roach/mouse crap might fall
through)...... every pin hole in every screen had to be fixed
(replaced). Those folks who were having their rent paid for by HUD
were getting places that were so much better than those not being
subsidized by HUD.
The point being that the "government" and government programs are
providing waaaaaaaaay tooooooooo much. Way above subsistence. They
were and are putting people in places that are probably better than
working folks can afford.
There is just something wrong with that.
Providing free meals for kids in school is just another example. The
Federal & State government has got to quit this stuff.
The Federal Government has got to get smaller ------ much smaller. As
a result State Government will be more controllable as will local
government.
mike
--
Lone Haranguer
30 years ago a judge in Morrison county, MN ordered county jail
prisoners to be released or transferred when the temperatures reached 80
degrees because the jail had no air conditioning and keeping them in hot
cells would be cruel and unusual punishment. Meanwhile most people in
the county who didn't have an office job did not have air conditioning
in their place of employment. Most county residents did not have AC in
their homes at that time either.
One thing to keep in mind in the voting booth is that it's Democrats who
appoint these liberal judges. That alone should be enough to keep you
from voting for Democrats.
LZ
nothermark
<hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I wish you guys would learn to snip all but the last post, which is,
>afterall, what you are replying to.
>
>
>On 22 Nov 2009 19:16:01 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>
>>
>>Wrong again. There is no question that busienss's need to be
>>profitable. That is why I oppose legilators that get stupid and
>>employers and unions that get greedy. That does not mean I do not see
>>a need for unions or regulation. History has shown workers cannot
>>depend on employers to maintan decent wages, working conditions or the
>>environment.
>>
>Bullpucky. I have worked in Arizona for all but 2 of the last 48
>years. Right to work state. Most of the time at Motorola. They paid
>very well, had great benefits and a profit sharing plan (which has
>funded a number of retirements). Only once was a union drive
>instituted and it was summarily bounced out.
>
>BTW, I worked there 3 different times.
Bravo! You could have done the same thing at Kodak here. Some places
pay well because of the unions. Some places pay well to keep the
unions out. You got the benefit without the dues. Lucky you.
Frank Howell
Unless you are in a state where state workers are represented by unions with
strong ties to a Democratic state government. Then you get both, but it was
breaking the state budget and unsustainable and modifications were made to
PERS(public employess retirement system). There were many court cases
involved before the final outcome.
>
> The Federal Government has done that as well.
>
>
>> That has been revised when people woke up.
>
> How many years was that available. I would imagine that a bunch of
> folks jumped on that band wagon.
>
>> Even so the system still has problems such as
>> the workers 401k program is guaranteed by law to earn 8% and if it
>> doesn't the public must make up the difference. Most of us live in a
>> 4% world not 8%.
>
> WOW! Oregon sounds like the new California. Weren't folks streaming
> out of California to Oregon at one time? It sounds like those folks
> brought their mentality north.
>
> mike
Maybe in the old days. My brother, who lives in Garden Grove Ca, was
recently laid off by Alcoa. His unemployment benefits will run 92 weeks. I
believe he gets a little over $500 a week. Why migrate?
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
LZ
Frank Howell
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:32:51 -0800, "Frank Howell"
> <fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:07:02 -0600, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone have any opinions on what will happen when a state
>>> finally does go belly up ------- we know it is coming, and probably
>>> sooner rather than later.
>>>
>>> What will happen to the state workers retirement? What are the
>>> other devastating impacts that we have not thought about?
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> There is no bankruptcy option for states. They either have to grow
>> revenue or reduce spending or a combination of the two. If they
>> default on their bonds then borrowing money will increase in cost.
>
> Yea, I know that Frank but ------ and it is a big BUT ----- States
> absolutely have to do some things ----- like operate prisons, Supreme
> Courts, Highway Patrols, the legislature etc., They also have
> obligations for retirement payments. So these things have to be paid.
If that was all, then it would be simple to live within their means, but
it's not that simple.
The problem is that in every election there are anywhere from 1 to 4 bond
propositions, and they pass. These are not little bonds, but ones with price
tags of say 10 billion. They don't seem to know that these bonds are paid
out of the General Fund.
As of 12/2008 California had authorized 141billion dollars in bonds. 56
billion of that total have not been issued, which leaves about 57 billion
that are outstanding and that debt is being serviced at the tune of 21
billion a year out of the General Fund.
snip
> mike
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
And this is precisely the problem. In order to win an election each party
must trump the other in terms of what goodies they offer in trade for votes.
Bush did so with the prescription drug bill on 2003. Only after passage did
they offer the real cost of $534 billion. Bush got reelected. Obama wouldn't
have had to promise anything in 2008 and he would have been elected, but of
course he had to promise the biggest Pinata of all. Health Care for all.
The rot is so naked now, that know one really blinks when Louisiana is
offered the bribe of 100 million but holds out for 300 million in exchange
for it's vote.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
Not if you're servicing any debt. Sales tax starts at 8.25% but can go up to
10.25% depending on county taxes. Also Calif instituted an additional income
tax withholding increase. It's kinda like a forced loan and interest free at
that. Of course you'll get it back, maybe in the form of a warrant, but you
will get it back. "The warrants in the mail."
The University of California increased tuition fees by 32% or $2500. That
makes it about $10000 a year before books, board and room.
Calif only pays 21 billion a year to service debt. Plenty of room for more
as future state bailouts will come at election time.
--
Frank Howell
Chuck Norris
>
>Bravo! You could have done the same thing at Kodak here. Some places
>pay well because of the unions. Some places pay well to keep the
>unions out. You got the benefit without the dues. Lucky you.
.
I worked at Stromberg Carlson from Jan. 2 1971 to April ??, 1972. I
was manager of a part of the semiconductor production group which was
mainly concerned with the telephone system at Disney World.
One of my group was a union goon. Nice enough guy but hard core
union. Of course, as a manager, I was not subject to his
rules...directly.
He was also a "numbers runner" for the local Mafia folks. Interesting
that he could afford a new 'top of the line' Caddy every year on the
~$230/week he was paid. He had 5 great little kids andn he gave the
"old" car to his wife.
I was soooooo glad to get out of that town and head home to Arizona.
Since then I have been back and realize the area is really pretty (in
summer) but the situation I was in was not good.
--
NASCAR: The new Wrestling
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
Don't you realize that a bill sent to the feds is a bill sent to YOU?
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>
>Bruce, I am thinking that there are a lot of adjustments on the
>horizon. When courts mandate the level of care/whatever that must be
>provided in prisons that really puts an unreasonable burden on
>jails/prisons.
Prisoners are now ENTITLED to better care than Medicare folks.
>
>I remember growing up in Florida with NO air conditioning. Now folks
>think they can't go to school or work without air conditioning. If
>there isn't money to fund air conditioning then it is going to have to
>go away.
>
>I remember when we had rental houses. Some of them were rented
>through HUD. Each year someone from HUD came by to inspect the
>houses. Any crack in the ceiling had to be patched no matter how
>small --- even hair line cracks. (roach/mouse crap might fall
>through)...... every pin hole in every screen had to be fixed
>(replaced). Those folks who were having their rent paid for by HUD
>were getting places that were so much better than those not being
>subsidized by HUD.
>
>The point being that the "government" and government programs are
>providing waaaaaaaaay tooooooooo much. Way above subsistence. They
>were and are putting people in places that are probably better than
>working folks can afford.
>
>There is just something wrong with that.
>
>Providing free meals for kids in school is just another example. The
>Federal & State government has got to quit this stuff.
>
>The Federal Government has got to get smaller ------ much smaller. As
>a result State Government will be more controllable as will local
>government.
>
>mike
--
NASCAR: The new Wrestling
Chuck Norris
Bruce S
> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> nothermark wrote:
>>> "Bruce S" bruce...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually they should declare that they can no longer to pay for ANY
>>>> unfunded federal mandates. Thus dropping Medicaid, welfare,
>>>> federal highway maintenance, and anything else ordered by the
>>>> Feds, but not paid for by the Feds.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> I believe all those programs are funded by or matched with Federal
>>> dollars.
>>
>> Well, since the Feds have absolutely NO Constitutional authority to
>> order the States to spend money on Federal programs, the States
>> should all refuse to spend even a dime on any federal program. As
>> long as the Feds are bankrupting the country, they should be sent
>> the bills.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
> Don't you realize that a bill sent to the feds is a bill sent to YOU?
Of course I do, and that was a big part of my point. As soon as the first
state refuses to pay for any unfunded mandates, every state will do the
same. Since the Feds cannot afford those bills (that is the reason the
passed the bills on to the states in the first place), all that spending
will come to a halt. It will be done as a threat - "If you States won't
spend what we order you to spend, we will stop all highway and school
funding as well", but that is also a good thing. Of course, the Libs will
blame the 'heartless' Conservatives for 'starving' the poor, and causing
pain and suffering in the country, but in the end, if the courts do their
jobs, we will all be better off.
Bruce
Lone Haranguer
electronics dept I managed was union with a hard-core
union steward who usually had a bitch he presented every day. He was a
real rabble-rouser while on the clock too. After a couple of years
I was also given the watch department to manage. The watch department
was non-union. When the groups started eating lunch together, the union
people found out that the non-union people had profit-sharing which they
did not. The non-union people had a 1 hour lunch break while the union
folks had 30 minutes. It only took a couple of weeks before the union
people wanted to know if they could vote to get out of the union. Nope.
Years later the former union steward approached me at a wedding we were
both invited to and sheepishly apologized for being such a horse's ass.
He said he was young and didn't know any better but had since seen the
light.
LZ
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Don't you realize that a bill sent to the feds is a bill sent to YOU?
>
>Of course I do, and that was a big part of my point. As soon as the first
>state refuses to pay for any unfunded mandates, every state will do the
>same. Since the Feds cannot afford those bills (that is the reason the
>passed the bills on to the states in the first place), all that spending
>will come to a halt. It will be done as a threat - "If you States won't
>spend what we order you to spend, we will stop all highway and school
>funding as well", but that is also a good thing. Of course, the Libs will
>blame the 'heartless' Conservatives for 'starving' the poor, and causing
>pain and suffering in the country, but in the end, if the courts do their
>jobs, we will all be better off.
>
>Bruce
>
Yup. Unfortunately, when the conservatives try to fix the mess the
bastard in the WH has created, it will be the poorest in the society
to be hurt the most. The reason being that they have reaped the most
during the last 40+ years and have contributed NOTHING. All they do
is take and eventually they will have to contribute.
I hope they are preparing for the inevitability. Of course they
won't, rather there will be fighting in the streets.
Ron Recer
news:007eb0a3$0$7043$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Chuck Norris wrote:
>> "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> nothermark wrote:
>>>> "Bruce S" bruce...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually they should declare that they can no longer to pay for ANY
>>>>> unfunded federal mandates. Thus dropping Medicaid, welfare,
>>>>> federal highway maintenance, and anything else ordered by the
>>>>> Feds, but not paid for by the Feds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>> I believe all those programs are funded by or matched with Federal
>>>> dollars.
>>>
>>> Well, since the Feds have absolutely NO Constitutional authority to
>>> order the States to spend money on Federal programs, the States
>>> should all refuse to spend even a dime on any federal program. As
>>> long as the Feds are bankrupting the country, they should be sent
>>> the bills.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>> Don't you realize that a bill sent to the feds is a bill sent to YOU?
>
> Of course I do, and that was a big part of my point. As soon as the first
> state refuses to pay for any unfunded mandates, every state will do the
> same.
I doubt that will happen. Most if not all federal funds a state receives
has rules attached that forces the state to do certain things to be legible
to receive those funds. Thus a state might tell the feds they aren't going
to fund certain education unfunded mandates amounting to say $100 million
and the feds say fine we are cutting off the $1 billion you currently get
for education.
It is all tied together. If a state wants federal funds they are forced to
cover many if not all unfunded mandates. No state can do without federal
funds. Thank your US Congressmen and Senators for this! It is both parties
and they have done it over many years.
Ron
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
Ron, you make a very good point. It seems we have painted ourselves
into a corner. And you are correct ---- both parties have allowed
this to happen ---- probably for different reasons.
Something is going to happen. States & the Federal Gov and not spend
more than they take in forever. There has got to be a day of
reckoning ----- how and when that "adjustment" will take place is what
is wonder about.
I suspect someone who can unravel what form the "fix/outcome" will be
can position themselves to weather the fallout that WILL happen.
While I like Bruce's idea of States rebelling and just not cow towing
to the National Mandates -------- like you I am afraid that states are
receiving so much money from "uncle sugar" that "uncle sugar" can
control them like a dog on a leash.
There are so many mandates now that they alone can crush a local/state
economy.
Something is going to happen. I just do not know what.
mike
--
Frank Howell
That's the way I see it. If you don't do what the master wants, no gruel.
This of course is one of the problems that sending money to the Feds leads
to. Top down decisions made by which ever party is in power. Take away that
money and they lose their power. Why any one would view in favor this form
of subservience and obsequience to the Federal Government is byond me.
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
I suspect both did so for the same reason. Short term gain for long term
pain.
>
> Something is going to happen. States & the Federal Gov and not spend
> more than they take in forever. There has got to be a day of
> reckoning ----- how and when that "adjustment" will take place is what
> is wonder about.
You're right1 It has to happen as even the Federal Government has limits of
power and what they can get away with.
>
> I suspect someone who can unravel what form the "fix/outcome" will be
> can position themselves to weather the fallout that WILL happen.
>
> While I like Bruce's idea of States rebelling and just not cow towing
> to the National Mandates -------- like you I am afraid that states are
> receiving so much money from "uncle sugar" that "uncle sugar" can
> control them like a dog on a leash.
>
> There are so many mandates now that they alone can crush a local/state
> economy.
Which will lead to more Fed subservience as they will offer bailouts with
new terms and conditions.
>
> Something is going to happen. I just do not know what.
>
> mike
>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>> Since the Feds cannot afford those bills (that is the reason the
>>> passed the bills on to the states in the first place), all that
>>> spending will come to a halt. It will be done as a threat - "If
>>> you States won't spend what we order you to spend, we will stop all
>>> highway and school funding as well", but that is also a good thing.
>>> Of course, the Libs will blame the 'heartless' Conservatives for
>>> 'starving' the poor, and causing pain and suffering in the country,
>>> but in the end, if the courts do their jobs, we will all be better
>>> off.
>>>
>>> Bruce
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:33:02 -0600, "Ron Recer" <RonR...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> It is all tied together. If a state wants federal funds they are forced to
>> cover many if not all unfunded mandates. No state can do without federal
>> funds. Thank your US Congressmen and Senators for this! It is both parties
>> and they have done it over many years.
>
> Ron, you make a very good point. It seems we have painted ourselves
> into a corner. And you are correct ---- both parties have allowed
> this to happen ---- probably for different reasons.
>
> Something is going to happen. States & the Federal Gov and not spend
> more than they take in forever. There has got to be a day of
> reckoning ----- how and when that "adjustment" will take place is what
> is wonder about.
>
> I suspect someone who can unravel what form the "fix/outcome" will be
> can position themselves to weather the fallout that WILL happen.
>
> While I like Bruce's idea of States rebelling and just not cow towing
> to the National Mandates -------- like you I am afraid that states are
> receiving so much money from "uncle sugar" that "uncle sugar" can
> control them like a dog on a leash.
>
> There are so many mandates now that they alone can crush a local/state
> economy.
>
> Something is going to happen. I just do not know what.
>
> mike
http://www.joelscoins.com/exhibger2.htm
****************
LZ
Lone Haranguer
might get both parties attention.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
On November 1 100 Billion Mark would buy 3 pounds of meat.
Bread is 3 Billion Mark a loaf.
On November 15 100 Billion Mark would buy 2 glasses of beer
Bread is 80 Billion Mark a loaf.
On November 15 a new currency, the Rentenmark was introduced. The
Rentenmark was theoretically backed by all land and industry owned by
the government. One new Rentenmark was worth a Trillion of the old
Marks. Prices stabilized under the new currency, however the wealth of
most of the nation's citizens had been destroyed.
> ****************
> LZ
Mike Hendrix
------------------
Linus, that ain't going to work for folks like you and I. We have to
worry about getting anything.
mike
--
Mike Hendrix
Linus, I suspect some variant of this is what will happen. However,
this time I suspect there will be major differences ----- I just can't
predict what. Since the Chinese and Saudi Arabia own so much of our
currency they will take a MAJOR hit when this happens.
If it weren't for that fact I suspect we would already be seeing
astronomical inflation. So how will this inevitable inflation come to
pass?
Somehow, we have got to stop "borrowing" at the Federal, state, local
and personal level. Of course that causes an economic slow down.
Talk about fix & hard spot.
mike
--
bill horne
> Something is going to happen. States & the Federal Gov and not spend
> more than they take in forever. There has got to be a day of
> reckoning ----- how and when that "adjustment" will take place is what
> is wonder about.
>
> I suspect someone who can unravel what form the "fix/outcome" will be
> can position themselves to weather the fallout that WILL happen.
I'm just sitting here with my gold, guns, and gardens....and doing
what I usually do. Which today, meant going to Walmart for some milk
and bullets. And to the library for some books to read while sitting
in the gun tower down near the moat bridge.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Lone Haranguer
November 14, 1923
1. German mark worthless (4+ Trillion marks per dollar)
2. Bank interest rate over 900%
3. German stock market at 26,890,000 at the peak
4. The value of the Daimler company was about $980 million and a car
cost $3 million - the whole company was only worth 327 of its cars.
*********************
Where Obama is leading us.
LZ
bill horne
I'm doing my part - I haven't borrowed since 1975. Can I get a bonus
or a rebate or some beer coupons or something?
Lone Haranguer
I guess that would start the revolution.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
LZ
bill horne
Naw, I'm 'fraid I'd hurt myself cooking 'em up.
Lone Haranguer
purchases. You're killing the economy, the bank's money is moldering
and the
new Nerdifaris are rusting in the lots. Ammo buying alone won't get the
economy back up to speed.
LZ
bill horne
Hey. I've bought a TV, a dishwasher, tires, a cooktop, a gun, and some
RAM - and I'm gonna go support Black Friday at Walmart.
Lone Haranguer
addition to the house.
I may even float a loan for part of it. Technically I floated a loan on
the walking shoes too since I put them on my PenFed card.
LZ
Ron Recer
news:id4rg5peufvuanhoi...@4ax.com...
Mike, I think you need to say some state and the Federal Gov. My state, OK,
and I am sure there are others, don't spend more than they take in. Our
constitution prohibits deficit spending. So far this fiscal year state
government has reduced their monthly budget by 5% almost every month due to
decreased revenues. If revenues fall further, budgets will be cut more.
Most bonds sold by OK are revenue bonds. That is the bonds will be paid off
with revenue generated by whatever the bonds were used to build. Other
bonds are linked to a specific tax or revenue source and are not obligations
of the state general fund.
State retirements are funded while the employee works, not out of state
revenues after the employee retires.
Some states, like CA, apparently can deficit spend and have spent themselves
into the poor house. Too bad for them. The left coast loses again!
Ron
nothermark
I saw the same thing at Sylvania's TV plant in Batavia. Last I knew
the building was used to make Sorrell boots. ;-)
Any system that strains the limits eventually fails.
nothermark
Actually it's better than that. The feds collect fuel taxes and then
send some back to the states to fix the Federal highways. If Bruce
gets his wish the feds will still collect the taxes but AZ will not
maintain their roads so fewer folks and less merchandise will go
there.
Folks really need to think through what they propose.
bill horne
I don't consider my PenFed card much different from my power meter -
both tally up what I use, and I pay them off every month when the
bills arrive. The card is just a dollar meter.
Lone Haranguer
interest free. They like me so much they called me last week (twice)
and wanted me to borrow money on something. I guess their coffers are
full to bursting.
LZ
LZ
bill horne
And from now until the bill, the power company is loaning me
kilowatts, interest free.
matt_colie
Ron,
All the liberal ruled states are going that way. I invested heavily in
land in Michigan. I own most of it outright. I still might end up
walking away as the property and income taxes are going to make staying
here non-economic.
November 15 - Sunday Detroit News/ Free Press: : : :
Two (2) sections of homes for sale.
The Employment section has two (2) whole pages of jobs open. A few years
ago this section was as heavy as the sports section. The section cover
is all about why you should be a truck driver.
The Free Press editorial section has a cover story about why the
residents of this state need to pay more in taxes.
Governor Jennifer Grandholm
State of the State Address
January 25, 2006
"In five years, you�re going to be blown away by the strength and
diversity of Michigan�s transformed economy."
Yeah - Right - just over a million jobs have been "Blown Away". She
thinks she can get almost 10000 (1%) into jobs making and installing
electric pinwheels.
I hear I can dry camp for free in Quartzsite. Now I just have to pay
for the gas to get there.
"If a man is not a liberal when he is 18, he has no heart.
If a man is not a conservative when he is 40, he has no brain."
Winston Churchill
Matt
Lone Haranguer
power bill has a lot of little extra nibbles on it that I don't find on
my PenFed
card. Instead I find rebates which have already been subtracted from
the total bill. Good luck with finding that on your power bill.
LZ
Ron Recer
news:i2wPm.7639$Xb5....@newsfe19.iad...
> diversity of Michigan�s transformed economy."
>
> Yeah - Right - just over a million jobs have been "Blown Away". She
> thinks she can get almost 10000 (1%) into jobs making and installing
> electric pinwheels.
>
> I hear I can dry camp for free in Quartzsite. Now I just have to pay for
> the gas to get there.
>
> "If a man is not a liberal when he is 18, he has no heart.
> If a man is not a conservative when he is 40, he has no brain."
> Winston Churchill
>
> Matt
In my opinion the 'rust belt' can thank the unions for a lot of their
problems. Here unemployment just went over 7% last month. Part of that is
blamed on people from other parts of the country coming here looking for
jobs!
Ron