Financial Problem?

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by amdx, Jun 30, 2011.

  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

    In 2010 the US government spent
    3.5 Trillion dollars.
    2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.

    Here is the breakdown of the budget.

    Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)

    Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    (54.1 Million receive checks)

    Medicare, Medicaid and
    Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion

    Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion

    Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion

    Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion

    That's 88% of the budget.

    So were do we cut?

    Mikek

    Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
    amdx, Jun 30, 2011
    #1
  2. amdx

    amdx Guest

    On 6/30/2011 2:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx<> wrote:
    >
    >> In 2010 the US government spent
    >> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >>
    >> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >>
    >> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >>
    >> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >> (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >>
    >> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
    >>
    >> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >>
    >> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
    >>
    >> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >>
    >> That's 88% of the budget.
    >>
    >> So were do we cut?
    >>
    >> Mikek
    >>
    >> Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
    >>
    >>
    >>


    > That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
    > public policy to create jobs and wealth?
    >
    > John
    >

    I don't think it's the wrong question!
    What you ask is a good question, just a different one.
    We need to end the entitlement mentality, 54.2 million get a SS check,
    then add Medicaid and Childrens Health Ins. Program, the Safety Net
    programs,and Federal Retires and Vets and I'll bet you near 80 million
    out of the 300 million people getting government checks.
    Someone will say but the Federal retires earned it, they don't deserve
    anymore than someone working in the private sector. Vets, I have some
    sympathy there, but I know several that retired from the military
    and then went back to the same job as a civilian. Somethings not right
    with that.
    Mikek
    amdx, Jun 30, 2011
    #2
  3. amdx

    amdx Guest

    On 6/30/2011 5:02 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:50:19 -0500, amdx<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/30/2011 2:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In 2010 the US government spent
    >>>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >>>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >>>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >>>>
    >>>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >>>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >>>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >>>>
    >>>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >>>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >>>>
    >>>> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >>>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> That's 88% of the budget.
    >>>>
    >>>> So were do we cut?
    >>>>
    >>>> Mikek
    >>>>
    >>>> Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >>
    >>> That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
    >>> public policy to create jobs and wealth?
    >>>
    >>> John
    >>>

    >> I don't think it's the wrong question!
    >> What you ask is a good question, just a different one.
    >> We need to end the entitlement mentality, 54.2 million get a SS check,
    >> then add Medicaid and Childrens Health Ins. Program, the Safety Net
    >> programs,and Federal Retires and Vets and I'll bet you near 80 million
    >> out of the 300 million people getting government checks.
    >> Someone will say but the Federal retires earned it, they don't deserve
    >> anymore than someone working in the private sector. Vets, I have some
    >> sympathy there, but I know several that retired from the military
    >> and then went back to the same job as a civilian. Somethings not right
    >> with that.
    >> Mikek

    >
    > If we killed all Democrats we'd have a budget surplus ;-)
    >
    > ...Jim Thompson

    Does that lead cup have any influence on the taste of your wine?
    Mikek
    amdx, Jul 1, 2011
    #3
  4. amdx

    amdx Guest

    On 6/30/2011 8:42 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:38:19 -0500, amdx<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/30/2011 5:02 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:50:19 -0500, amdx<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 6/30/2011 2:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx<> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In 2010 the US government spent
    >>>>>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >>>>>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >>>>>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >>>>>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >>>>>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >>>>>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >>>>>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's 88% of the budget.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So were do we cut?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Mikek
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
    >>>>> public policy to create jobs and wealth?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> John
    >>>>>
    >>>> I don't think it's the wrong question!
    >>>> What you ask is a good question, just a different one.
    >>>> We need to end the entitlement mentality, 54.2 million get a SS check,
    >>>> then add Medicaid and Childrens Health Ins. Program, the Safety Net
    >>>> programs,and Federal Retires and Vets and I'll bet you near 80 million
    >>>> out of the 300 million people getting government checks.
    >>>> Someone will say but the Federal retires earned it, they don't deserve
    >>>> anymore than someone working in the private sector. Vets, I have some
    >>>> sympathy there, but I know several that retired from the military
    >>>> and then went back to the same job as a civilian. Somethings not right
    >>>> with that.
    >>>> Mikek
    >>>
    >>> If we killed all Democrats we'd have a budget surplus ;-)
    >>>
    >>> ...Jim Thompson

    >> Does that lead cup have any influence on the taste of your wine?
    >> Mikek

    >
    > I only drink from the finest crystal ;-) Do you disagree with my
    > premise? It certainly would do exactly as I say, would it not ?:)
    >
    > ...Jim Thompson

    You lost the social graces that you had just a few years ago.
    Mikek
    amdx, Jul 1, 2011
    #4
  5. amdx

    amdx Guest

    On 7/1/2011 5:55 AM, brent wrote:
    > On Jun 30, 3:16 pm, amdx<> wrote:
    >> In 2010 the US government spent
    >> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >>
    >> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >>
    >> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >>
    >> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >> (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >>
    >> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
    >>
    >> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >>
    >> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
    >>
    >> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >>
    >> That's 88% of the budget.
    >>
    >> So were do we cut?
    >>
    >> Mikek
    >>
    >> Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

    >
    > When the private sector refuses to buy government debt the govt. will
    > either become totalitarian by increasing taxes to the breaking point
    > or they will figure out what to cut.
    >
    > Some day the youngsters (under age 30) are going to figure out how
    > incredibly rigged the system is against them and tell all the older
    > people with the excessive benefits to go starve themselves.


    I'm telling every youngster (even over 30 :) the government
    is spending money for old people that they will have to take from
    their families to pay back. How long can the government spend 37% more
    than they take in tax revenue.
    I heard a scary scenerio, if interest rates double, (which some are
    predicting) 14% of every tax dollar collected will go to service
    the debt.
    Mikek
    amdx, Jul 1, 2011
    #5
  6. amdx

    PeterD Guest

    On 7/1/2011 10:16 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
    > On Jun 30, 3:16 pm, amdx<> wrote:
    >> In 2010 the US government spent
    >> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >>
    >> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >>
    >> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >>
    >> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >> (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >>
    >> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
    >>
    >> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >>
    >> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
    >>
    >> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >>
    >> That's 88% of the budget.
    >>
    >> So were do we cut?
    >>
    >> Mikek
    >>
    >> Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

    >
    > If you stupidly look at those spending categories as indivisible
    > entities then of course there's nothing that can be done. Examine the
    > details and you'll find more than a trillion that can be eliminated.


    Yep, and eliminate all foreign aid, subsidies to business (oil and
    agriculture), programs that the military doesn't even want (but some in
    congress do want as pork...) and you'll do a lot to balance things.

    Then starting GE and other large corporations at a flat rate on all
    earnings (US and overseas) and things start balancing better.

    Finally, implement proper import duties to prevent predatory (and
    subsidized) imports from damaging our economy, and guess what... Things
    improve again.

    BTW, Social Security was PRE-PAID by those who receive it, and cannot be
    considered an expense. Just because we allowed congress and the
    president to steal the money in the SS trust (TRUST!) funds doesn't make
    it right.

    --
    I'm never going to grow up.
    PeterD, Jul 1, 2011
    #6
  7. amdx

    DonMack Guest

    wrote in message
    news:...

    On Jun 30, 12:16 pm, amdx <> wrote:
    > In 2010 the US government spent
    > 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    > 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    > 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >
    > Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >
    > Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    > (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    > went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >
    > Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    > (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >
    > Medicare, Medicaid and
    > Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
    >
    > Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >
    > Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
    >
    > Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >
    > That's 88% of the budget.
    >
    > So were do we cut?
    >
    > Mikek
    >
    > Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258


    Social Security and Medicare have their own revenue streams. They are
    self supporting. Should the social security fall short, it holds
    government bonds. Surely the US government will honor the bonds
    purchased by social security. Or was Ronald Reagan a fucking lying
    piece of fucking shit that sold this country a worthless IOU?

    About all you can cut is the military. Everything else is essential.
    -------

    WTF? Everything else is essential but the military? Are you on crack? If we
    eliminated the military would that solve our problem? I think the military
    is much more essential than paying fat ass niggers to sit on their ass all
    day smoking weed and pumping out babies that will grow up to be just like
    them.

    We could streamline the military a bit but only a kook would think that the
    *our* welfare system is more important. 99% of the people on welfare have
    the capability to be off. Most are single black women that seem to only be
    good at getting pregnant... probably because their sugar daddy, uncle sam,
    will take care of them.

    BTW, we didn't have any problems 70 years ago when the military

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

    It really hasn't changed that much.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png

    What are the top 4 which account for more than 50% of total? Stupid liberal
    programs? Again, we had better education and health services 70% years
    ago(adjusted for technological improvements).

    You simply are against war and hence against the military. Maybe if you
    would get over that little fact you could see that all the social programs
    are just as inflated as the military. We need a cut across the board. We
    need to reduce the military size(no more wars and no more foreign bases), no
    more welfare(people survived just fine 100 years ago with SS, welfare, wic,
    medicare, etc..), no more foreign aid, etc...

    But as long as partisans like yourself run things we will never do what it
    takes.

    The only thing the government should be involved in is basic infrastructure,
    defense, and national disasters. Everything else should be left up to the
    local and state governments.

    If people like you wouldn't tie our military's balls in a knot we wouldn't
    require such a large military... Probably just a few hundred or whatever was
    required to maintain and deploy nukes.

    Of course there are some who would like the USA not to have any military...
    obviously because they want it defenseless. Some people are just jealous...
    DonMack, Jul 2, 2011
    #7
  8. amdx

    Les Cargill Guest

    wrote:
    > On Jul 1, 11:13 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."<> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> On Jul 1, 11:37 am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."<> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Problem is, there are quite a few sectors that HAVE TO buy government
    >>>> debt. The Social Security fund, for one.
    >>>> Paul Hovnanian mailto:p
    >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------

    >>
    >>> As of last year , Social Security no longer takes in more than it pays
    >>> out. So it can no longer buy government debt.

    >>
    >>> Dan

    >>
    >> But that may change. And even in the interim, the SS fund holds quite a bit
    >> of gov't paper. All of which matures and needs to be rolled over.*
    >>
    >> *Until such time as the fund needs to be drawn down to pay SS recipients.
    >> Then, the SS admin will come to the Treasurey with t-bills and begin to
    >> cash them in. That cash will have to come from someplace. Either a budget
    >> surplus (more revenue than expenditures) or the printing presses. We might
    >> be able to ignore the Chinese when they come to cash in the t-bills. But
    >> not the retirees (who vote).

    >
    > It's really pretty simple.
    >
    > 1) The gov't is in debt. It doesn't have a giant mattress full of
    > money it saved for you. Not for SS, not for anything else.
    > 2) OTOH, it is not obliged to pay anyone any particular sum of SS or
    > Medicare, etc. Benefits are arbitrary, decided by the government each
    > year. There is no guarantee.



    Perhaps not:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/tim-geithner-14th-amendment_n_887925.html

    Money shot ( Geithner reading the 14th amendment ):
    "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by
    law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties
    for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion' -- this is the
    important thing -- 'shall not be questioned," Geithner read.

    > 3) Future payments will come directly from future revenue (taxes),
    > just as today.


    Not necessarily. *Present* payments do not all come from present
    revenue - that's what's bothering people.

    > 4) Future benefits will be whatever the taxpayers can provide, plus
    > what the politicians can borrow.



    That's simply not been shown.

    > 5) If there's less money (or less available to borrow), benefits will
    > be decreased.
    >


    The real problem here is that people appear to be *imagining* scenarios
    in which the ability to borrow is constrained.

    > --
    > Cheers,
    > James Arthur


    --
    Les Cargill
    Les Cargill, Jul 2, 2011
    #8
  9. amdx

    Rich Grise Guest

    amdx wrote:
    >
    > Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    > (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    > went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >

    How are they rationalize calling the attacks on the Middle East "defense?"

    Am I really safer while the administration does its damnedest to piss off
    the whole rest of the world?

    Thanks,
    Rich
    Rich Grise, Jul 2, 2011
    #9
  10. amdx

    Charlie E. Guest

    On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT),
    wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    >It's also not true that the Treasury must default on its debt
    >payments. They've got $2.2T in revenue pouring in, more than 5x what
    >they need to make the payments on our debt and prevent default
    >indefinitely. Geithner knows that.
    >
    >(for example, 3% of 14.4T is $400B)
    >
    >

    <snip>

    The real problem is not that they would default on their payments, it
    is that they would default on their PAYCHECKS! They basically have a
    budget that says that they will spend half again as much as their
    income, and if they can't continuously borrow money, they can't spend
    that much. If they can't spend that much, SOMEONE will have to not
    get their paychecks. They can't cut out the paychecks to themselves,
    of course, so they have to decide whom to stiff. It makes better
    political theatre to cut something important, like interest payments
    on the debt, SS, or the military, instead of cutting unnecessary
    beauracracies that no one has ever heard of, so that is where they
    will cut. Same as the states always cut police and teachers (not
    administrators!) as no one would complain otherwise...

    Charlie
    Charlie E., Jul 4, 2011
    #10
  11. In <>, John Larkin wrote:
    >On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 16:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Jul 3, 7:40 pm, Charlie E. <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT),
    >>> wrote:
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> >It's also not true that the Treasury must default on its debt
    >>> >payments.  They've got $2.2T in revenue pouring in, more than 5x what
    >>> >they need to make the payments on our debt and prevent default
    >>> >indefinitely.  Geithner knows that.
    >>>
    >>> >(for example, 3% of 14.4T is $400B)
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> The real problem is not that they would default on their payments, it
    >>> is that they would default on their PAYCHECKS!  They basically have a
    >>> budget that says that they will spend half again as much as their
    >>> income, and if they can't continuously borrow money, they can't spend
    >>> that much.  If they can't spend that much, SOMEONE will have to not
    >>> get their paychecks.  They can't cut out the paychecks to themselves,
    >>> of course, so they have to decide whom to stiff.  It makes better
    >>> political theatre to cut something important, like interest payments
    >>> on the debt, SS, or the military, instead of cutting unnecessary
    >>> beauracracies that no one has ever heard of, so that is where they
    >>> will cut.  Same as the states always cut police and teachers (not
    >>> administrators!) as no one would complain otherwise...
    >>>
    >>> Charlie

    >>
    >>The US is defunct, all the natural resources are gone and the dump is
    >>broke. Let'em fanatsize about the people being the greatest resource-
    >>that and a dollar will get them a cup of coffee. Just get ready for a
    >>third world living standard.

    >
    >What resources are gone? Even gold mining is coming back.
    >
    >We have a lot of oil and huge amounts of coal and natural gas. Lots of
    >water, too.
    >
    >But the trump card is that we have, and can make a lot more, food.


    There is the matter that USA greatly decreased its exports of grains,
    especially corn, due to a major Federal subsidy program for biofuel made
    specifically from home-grown corn.

    As I hear it, switchgrass gets greatly better numbers than corn gets,
    needs less irrigation than corn needs, and grows in areas where corn
    does not. And, people don't eat switchgrass, and some livestock don't
    eat switchgrass.

    The way it appears to me, USA has a problematic corn lobby and lack
    of a significant switchgrass lobby.
    --
    - Don Klipstein ()
    Don Klipstein, Jul 4, 2011
    #11
  12. In <>, John Larkin wrote:
    >On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:26:55 +0000 (UTC), (Don
    >Klipstein) wrote:
    >
    >>In <>, John Larkin wrote:


    <SNIP stuff otherwise getting more than 4 quote symbols per line>

    >>>What resources are gone? Even gold mining is coming back.
    >>>
    >>>We have a lot of oil and huge amounts of coal and natural gas. Lots of
    >>>water, too.
    >>>
    >>>But the trump card is that we have, and can make a lot more, food.

    >>
    >> There is the matter that USA greatly decreased its exports of grains,
    >>especially corn, due to a major Federal subsidy program for biofuel made
    >>specifically from home-grown corn.
    >>
    >> As I hear it, switchgrass gets greatly better numbers than corn gets,
    >>needs less irrigation than corn needs, and grows in areas where corn
    >>does not. And, people don't eat switchgrass, and some livestock don't
    >>eat switchgrass.
    >>
    >> The way it appears to me, USA has a problematic corn lobby and lack
    >>of a significant switchgrass lobby.

    >
    >Didn't Congress recently end the ethanol subsidy?


    I put half a minute into Google, and I see that on June 14th the Senate
    voted 59-40 against repeal of the ethanol subsidy.

    Awfully heavily along party lines, with Republicans voting 90% against
    the repeal, Democrats voting 72% in favor of repeal.

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/senate/1/votes/89/

    Lots of corn-growing states have low representation in the House of
    Representatives, but as much representation each in the Senate as TX, CA
    and NY.

    And if the repeal did pass both houses of Congress, it gets sent to
    the White House. The relevant official there is from a state appearing
    to me to be a corn-growing one.

    >No matter: the price of corn keeps going up, so it will be more
    >valuable to sell as food.
    >
    >http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/corn


    It appears to me the price of corn keeps going up due to artificial
    demand from the ethanol subsidy. The effort at repealing that recently
    failed.

    --
    - Don Klipstein ()
    Don Klipstein, Jul 4, 2011
    #12
  13. In <>,
    Wanderer wrote:
    >On Jul 4, 12:57am, John Larkin
    ><> wrote:
    >> On 4 Jul 2011 04:26:55 +0 UTC, (Don K.) wrote:
    >> >In <>, John Larkin wrote:


    <SNIP to here>

    >> >>But the trump card is that we have, and can make a lot more, food.

    >>
    >> > There is the matter that USA greatly decreased its exports of grains,
    >> >especially corn, due to a major Federal subsidy program for biofuel made
    >> >specifically from home-grown corn.

    >>
    >> > As I hear it, switchgrass gets greatly better numbers than corn gets,
    >> >needs less irrigation than corn needs, and grows in areas where corn
    >> >does not. And, people don't eat switchgrass, and some livestock don't
    >> >eat switchgrass.

    >>
    >> > The way it appears to me, USA has a problematic corn lobby and lack
    >> >of a significant switchgrass lobby.

    >>
    >> Didn't Congress recently end the ethanol subsidy?
    >>
    >> No matter: the price of corn keeps going up, so it will be more
    >> valuable to sell as food.
    >>
    >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/corn
    >>
    >> John

    >
    >According to Wired magazine, the part of the corn crop used for
    >ethanol is not used for food.
    >
    >http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/06/five-ethanol-myths-busted-2/
    >http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.10/myths.html
    >
    >"Myth No. 2: Ethanol production reduces our food supply.
    >
    >False. Only 1 percent of all corn grown in this country is eaten by
    >humans. The rest is No. 2 yellow field corn, which is indigestible to
    >humans and used in animal feed, food supplements and ethanol.


    <SNIP specifics of how that is used for biofuels and animal feed>

    And grain farmers love the somewhat-popularized diet attitude that
    "grains are what food eats" - but that's another point.

    If not for the ethanol subsidy, USA's corn farming industry would grow
    a higher percentage of its corn as human-edible corn and return USA to
    its past position as a global superpower corn exporter. And some of the
    non-human-food-intended corn farming operations would return to their
    former wheat farming operations and return USA to its past position as a
    superpower wheat exporter.

    >Additionally, the food-versus-fuel debate has spurred significant
    >research and development of second-generation biofuels like cellulosic
    >ethanol that do not use food crops. Cellulosic ethanol is made from
    >the woody structural material in plants that is unusable by humans.
    >Unlike food crops, ethanol crops and cellulosic ethanol crops can grow
    >in any soil that will sustain grass.


    And unlike corn, these don't get gigabucks per year in subsidies.

    <SNIP good examples of biofuel crop-growing that are *not* getting the
    annual multigigabucks that corn-for-biofuel is getting>

    --
    - Don Klipstein ()
    Don Klipstein, Jul 4, 2011
    #13
  14. In <>,
    Fred Bloggs wrote:

    <SNIP previously quoted stuff>

    >Seriously- even a huge domestic oil find supplies the market for a
    >only few days, and over 90% of the coal output is used for domestic
    >electricity production. Your food situation is changing all the time,
    >and it is not for the better. There are areas of once major food
    >production in places like Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio totally depleted of
    >agricultural grade topsoil, for one example.


    An answer has been known for a goodly century already - crop rotation.

    Not that I believe Iowa has totally lost its ability to grow corn...

    > Then there is this pesky global warming throwing a wrench in the works.


    I agree that AGW exists. But in (what I think is) the unlikely event
    its degree of existence is that proposed by most of the proponents of its
    existence, Canada will become an agricultural superpower.
    --
    - Don Klipstein ()
    Don Klipstein, Jul 4, 2011
    #14
  15. amdx

    josephkk Guest

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:02:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:50:19 -0500, amdx <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 6/30/2011 2:42 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In 2010 the US government spent
    >>>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >>>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >>>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >>>>
    >>>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >>>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >>>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >>>>
    >>>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >>>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >>>>
    >>>> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >>>> Childrens Health Ins. Program.......... 21% or $732 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> Interest on the National Debt.............6% $196 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >>>>
    >>>> That's 88% of the budget.
    >>>>
    >>>> So were do we cut?
    >>>>
    >>>> Mikek
    >>>>
    >>>> Data from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>

    >>
    >>> That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
    >>> public policy to create jobs and wealth?
    >>>
    >>> John
    >>>

    >> I don't think it's the wrong question!
    >>What you ask is a good question, just a different one.
    >>We need to end the entitlement mentality, 54.2 million get a SS check,
    >>then add Medicaid and Childrens Health Ins. Program, the Safety Net
    >>programs,and Federal Retires and Vets and I'll bet you near 80 million
    >>out of the 300 million people getting government checks.
    >>Someone will say but the Federal retires earned it, they don't deserve
    >>anymore than someone working in the private sector. Vets, I have some
    >>sympathy there, but I know several that retired from the military
    >>and then went back to the same job as a civilian. Somethings not right
    >>with that.
    >> Mikek

    >
    >If we killed all Democrats we'd have a budget surplus ;-)
    >
    > ...Jim Thompson


    No we wouldn't, the same about of spending would go to "corporate
    welfare"!

    ?-(
    josephkk, Jul 5, 2011
    #15
  16. amdx

    josephkk Guest

    On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 15:00:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

    >On Jun 30, 3:42 pm, John Larkin
    ><> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:16:06 -0500, amdx <> wrote:
    >> >In 2010 the US government spent
    >> >3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >> >2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >> >1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.

    >>
    >> >Here is the breakdown of the budget.

    >>
    >> >Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >> >(of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >> >went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)

    >>
    >> >Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >> >(54.1 Million receive checks)

    >>
    >> >Medicare, Medicaid and
    >> >Childrens Health Ins. Program..........  21% or $732 Billion

    >>
    >> >Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion

    >>
    >> >Interest on the National Debt.............6%  $196 Billion

    >>
    >> >Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion

    >>
    >> >That's 88% of the budget.

    >>
    >> >So were do we cut?

    >>
    >> >        Mikek

    >>
    >> >Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

    >>
    >> That's sort of the wrong question. The real issue is, what is the best
    >> public policy to create jobs and wealth?
    >>
    >> John

    >
    >That's easy. The best public policy to create jobs and wealth is to
    >make it easier (less time, money, and overhead) to do those things.
    >
    >The new guy's building all sorts of costs into employing someone, plus
    >heaping inefficiencies on the businesses themselves, and raising his
    >cut of their action.
    >
    >The gain's quite high. A few percent extra load is more than enough
    >to obliterate a big share of our enterprises, or send them scurrying
    >for their lives overseas.
    >
    >And vice versa.
    >
    >Everyone *wants* to do business at home--for so many reasons it's so
    >much easier and better--they simply can't.
    >
    >Fixing this is easy.


    Yeah, sure. By the same token the "courts" never did anything about the
    perpeTraitors of "Love Canal". Nor many other ugly corporate
    externalizations of costs. They weren't actually illegal, just ethically
    ugly.

    There has to be balance and corporate accountability as well. Of course
    the biggest part of the problem is the government sponsored corporations.

    No, i am not a lover of corporations (especially nigh impossible to
    regulate mega-corporations, see cars, banks, oil vendors, and much of the
    NYSE top 100).

    ?-(
    josephkk, Jul 5, 2011
    #16
  17. amdx

    josephkk Guest

    On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:57:00 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
    <> wrote:

    >On Jul 1, 7:41 am, amdx <> wrote:
    >> On 7/1/2011 5:55 AM, brent wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Jun 30, 3:16 pm, amdx<>  wrote:
    >> >> In 2010 the US government spent
    >> >> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >> >> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >> >> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.

    >>
    >> >> Here is the breakdown of the budget.

    >>
    >> >> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >> >> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >> >> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)

    >>
    >> >> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >> >> (54.1 Million receive checks)

    >>
    >> >> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >> >> Childrens Health Ins. Program..........  21% or $732 Billion

    >>
    >> >> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion

    >>
    >> >> Interest on the National Debt.............6%  $196 Billion

    >>
    >> >> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion

    >>
    >> >> That's 88% of the budget.

    >>
    >> >> So were do we cut?

    >>
    >> >>          Mikek

    >>
    >> >> Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

    >>
    >> > When the private sector refuses to buy government debt the govt. will
    >> > either become totalitarian by increasing taxes to the breaking point
    >> > or they will figure out what to cut.

    >>
    >> > Some day the youngsters (under age 30) are going to figure out how
    >> > incredibly rigged the system is against them and tell all the older
    >> > people with the excessive benefits to go starve themselves.

    >>
    >>    I'm telling every youngster (even over 30 :) the government
    >> is spending money for old people that they will have to take from
    >> their families to pay back. How long can the government spend 37% more
    >> than they take in tax revenue.

    >
    >Huh? If the gvt takes in 2.2 T$ and spends 3.5 T$ then that is
    >(3.5-2.2)/2.2= 60% more spending than revenues...
    >
    >You seem to have heartburn with entitlements while conveniently
    >ignoring they're funded by government managed trusts into which the
    >receipients paid for 30-40 years.


    There are no such trusts IDIOT!!! SS is a transfer payments system and
    has been so since the very beginning. The politicians have conned the
    sheeple with that old "insurance/trust fund" gag since the beginning.

    Start here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act#Creation:_The_Social_Security_Act

    The text of the original act by Congress is here (item 2 in the above
    articles references):

    http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/35actinx.html

    It's your nation too, learn what the laws really say.
    >
    >If you have a problem with government payouts breaking the bank then
    >take a look at your really badly governed country, and not the
    >recipients.
    >
    >The Bush administration defamed social security for the stated purpose
    >of establishing private investment accounts.This was obviously a ploy
    >to drum up trillions of dollars for the private investment sector and
    >had absolutely nothing to do with looking out for anyone's interests.
    >SS is rock solid into the foreseeable future.
    >
    >And as for the sorry-assed so-called young people, seems they got
    >where they are using a heck of lot government investment in a bloated
    >and failed education system and programs to fund their overpriced
    >college loans...
    >
    >
    josephkk, Jul 5, 2011
    #17
  18. amdx

    josephkk Guest

    On Fri, 1 Jul 2011 19:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden
    <> wrote:

    >On Jul 1, 6:24 pm, "" <> wrote:
    >> On Jul 1, 8:57 pm, Fred Bloggs <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > SS is rock solid into the foreseeable future.

    >>
    >> >ns...

    >>
    >> Wrong.  In 2010 Social Security took in less than it paid out.
    >>
    >>                                                   Dan

    >
    >Yes, but Social Security has enough assets in bonds to pay benefits
    >for the next 26 years. But I guess that could change if collections
    >don't keep up with payouts. All I know is SS is a sacred cow, and most
    >politicians avoid the problem since they want to keep their high
    >paying jobs.
    >
    >-Bill


    The actual pay isn't all that much. The major compensation comes from
    corruption.

    www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf

    ?-)
    josephkk, Jul 5, 2011
    #18
  19. amdx

    josephkk Guest

    On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:37:15 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
    <> wrote:

    >brent wrote:
    >
    >> On Jun 30, 3:16 pm, amdx <> wrote:
    >>> In 2010 the US government spent
    >>> 3.5 Trillion dollars.
    >>> 2.2 Trillion dollars was collected in tax revenue.
    >>> 1.3 Trillion was borrowed and will ultimately be paid by the children.
    >>>
    >>> Here is the breakdown of the budget.
    >>>
    >>> Defense..................................20% or $705 Billion.
    >>> (of this 4.8% or $170 Billion
    >>> went the Afganistan and Iraq wars)
    >>>
    >>> Social Security..........................20% or $707 Billion
    >>> (54.1 Million receive checks)
    >>>
    >>> Medicare, Medicaid and
    >>> Childrens Health Ins. Program..........  21% or $732 Billion
    >>>
    >>> Safety Net Programs......................14% or $496 Billion
    >>>
    >>> Interest on the National Debt.............6%  $196 Billion
    >>>
    >>> Payments to Fed. Retires and Vet...........7% or $245 Billion
    >>>
    >>> That's 88% of the budget.
    >>>
    >>> So were do we cut?
    >>>
    >>> Mikek
    >>>
    >>> Data fromhttp://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

    >>
    >> When the private sector refuses to buy government debt the govt. will
    >> either become totalitarian by increasing taxes to the breaking point
    >> or they will figure out what to cut.

    >
    >Problem is, there are quite a few sectors that HAVE TO buy government debt.
    >The Social Security fund, for one. And banks (regulated) need to hold a
    >certain amount of reserve in ultra safe forms (T-bills, etc.) That's what
    >all this "quantitative easing" was about.


    Riiight. Show the legislation that provides this. Better, read the
    actual SS legislation then tell us what it says (but not before reading).

    See reference item #2 in the wikipedia article.
    >
    >Secure debt instruments will always be in high demand by various sectorsof
    >the financial community. And our government will be pressured to keep them
    >turning over.
    >
    >From insurance companies to wealthy heirs with piles of cash, these people
    >need someplace to park their money in return for a guaranteed rate of
    >return. In part, that's what drove the mortgage-backed security mess.
    >People with money and influence pressured the investment banking community
    >to produce a 'perfect' instrument (in part by lobbying to keep mortgage
    >debt as a special class of debt with stricter bankruptcy terms) with all
    >risk engineered out. That didn't work as well as they planned. So now, it's
    >back to the government to provide them with safe cash flow and no risk to
    >their capital.
    josephkk, Jul 5, 2011
    #19
  20. amdx

    josephkk Guest

    On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:59:00 -0700, John Larkin
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 16:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Jul 3, 7:40 pm, Charlie E. <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT),
    >>> wrote:
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> >It's also not true that the Treasury must default on its debt
    >>> >payments.  They've got $2.2T in revenue pouring in, more than 5x what
    >>> >they need to make the payments on our debt and prevent default
    >>> >indefinitely.  Geithner knows that.
    >>>
    >>> >(for example, 3% of 14.4T is $400B)
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> The real problem is not that they would default on their payments, it
    >>> is that they would default on their PAYCHECKS!  They basically havea
    >>> budget that says that they will spend half again as much as their
    >>> income, and if they can't continuously borrow money, they can't spend
    >>> that much.  If they can't spend that much, SOMEONE will have to not
    >>> get their paychecks.  They can't cut out the paychecks to themselves,
    >>> of course, so they have to decide whom to stiff.  It makes better
    >>> political theatre to cut something important, like interest payments
    >>> on the debt, SS, or the military, instead of cutting unnecessary
    >>> beauracracies that no one has ever heard of, so that is where they
    >>> will cut.  Same as the states always cut police and teachers (not
    >>> administrators!) as no one would complain otherwise...
    >>>
    >>> Charlie

    >>
    >>The US is defunct, all the natural resources are gone and the dump is
    >>broke. Let'em fanatsize about the people being the greatest resource-
    >>that and a dollar will get them a cup of coffee. Just get ready for a
    >>third world living standard.

    >
    >What resources are gone? Even gold mining is coming back.
    >
    >We have a lot of oil and huge amounts of coal and natural gas. Lots of
    >water, too.
    >
    >But the trump card is that we have, and can make a lot more, food.
    >
    >John


    And being primarily a food exporter instead of a tech products exporter is
    a much lower standard of living.

    ?-(
    josephkk, Jul 5, 2011
    #20

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. praveen

    DC DC converter problem (loading problem)

    praveen, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,072
    John Smith
    Dec 10, 2004
  2. praveen

    DC DC converter problem (loading problem)

    praveen, Dec 11, 2004, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    634
    Frank Bemelman
    Dec 11, 2004
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,168
    John Gill
    Apr 26, 2004
  4. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    210
    Gary Tait
    Nov 2, 2007
  5. JosephKK

    Financial meltdown

    JosephKK, Nov 20, 2008, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    228
    MooseFET
    Nov 20, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page