Federal Budget Dilemma

Started by Possumpoint, May 08, 2012, 05:15:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kramarat

Thanks! I'm gonna throw it up on my FB page.

bob long

Possumpoint, are you a liberal? To say someone is wrong without a single fact or data point to support their
argument is what liberals do.

The facts are that manufacturing has been declining for decades as a % of GDP and during that time we have had periods of good growth and periods of stagnation. The  current decline/slow growth is not driven by a loss in manufacturing jobs and we don't need manufacturing to return for the economy to start growing again period. We also do don't need manufacturing to have "good paying jobs." The loss of union based manufacturing jobs over that time has probably contributed to an increasing pay gap between college graduates and non college graduates, but the overall standard of living today is much better than it was in the 60's when manufacturing was a dominant part of the economy.


When the economy starts growing again, presumably when we get rid of the current administration, it will not be led by manufacturing but most likely by energy, healthcare and technology. The component of manufacturing that will grow in the US will be high tech, high skill, precision, manufacturing not the old assembly line jobs. People may not like this trend but that is way it is and if the government tries to force the return of heavy manufacturing through trade barriers and other misguided policies, it will tank the economy even further just like it did during the Great Depression.

Here is a link to a report with global trends that shows manufacturing as a percent of the economy is declining not only in the US.

http://ncf.uschamber.com/blog/2012/03/manufacturing%E2%80%99s-declining-share-gdp
Bob Long

In His Own Words 58 Reasons to Not Re-elect Barack Obama One for Each State

bob long

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 31, 2012, 05:32:16 PM
Um, I think the "government" budgeted NOTHING AT ALL.

tbone

The Democrat Senate never passed a budget so it is not a law.  There is still a budget and there is actual spending that is reported. It is sickening to look at but here is a link.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET

My point was simply that the "Stimulus" was supposed to be one time spending that would go away.  But that did not happen and through accounting slight of hand the Feds buried it in future spending projections.
Bob Long

In His Own Words 58 Reasons to Not Re-elect Barack Obama One for Each State

taxed

Bob, who gave you thumbs up to post a link to your book?
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Possumpoint

Quote from: bob long on June 08, 2012, 06:41:09 AM
Possumpoint, are you a liberal? To say someone is wrong without a single fact or data point to support their
argument is what liberals do.

The facts are that manufacturing has been declining for decades as a % of GDP and during that time we have had periods of good growth and periods of stagnation. The  current decline/slow growth is not driven by a loss in manufacturing jobs and we don't need manufacturing to return for the economy to start growing again period. We also do don't need manufacturing to have "good paying jobs." The loss of union based manufacturing jobs over that time has probably contributed to an increasing pay gap between college graduates and non college graduates, but the overall standard of living today is much better than it was in the 60's when manufacturing was a dominant part of the economy.


When the economy starts growing again, presumably when we get rid of the current administration, it will not be led by manufacturing but most likely by energy, healthcare and technology. The component of manufacturing that will grow in the US will be high tech, high skill, precision, manufacturing not the old assembly line jobs. People may not like this trend but that is way it is and if the government tries to force the return of heavy manufacturing through trade barriers and other misguided policies, it will tank the economy even further just like it did during the Great Depression.

Here is a link to a report with global trends that shows manufacturing as a percent of the economy is declining not only in the US.

http://ncf.uschamber.com/blog/2012/03/manufacturing%E2%80%99s-declining-share-gdp
If you fail to understand I was challenging your premise that we can recover without manufacturing and why, I can't help you. I suggest you take a class in reading comprehension. I will not resort to questioning your politics, I don't know your posts well enough.

As to the chart presented, it fails to detail manufacturing in third world countries where it has grown. That segment is covered with a world wide average that revels nothing. The countries covered are shall we say old guard who are in decline.

The point I'll recover is that as we try to expand our energy fields and sources, without our industry producing the required steel, heavy equipment, valves, and pipe we are expanding some other country's manufacturing. Those are jobs and money lost to our workers. Develop a manufacturing base with competitive wages and we've gone a long way to restoring our economic base.

TowardLiberty

#20
Quote from: Possumpoint on June 09, 2012, 05:07:21 AM


The point I'll recover is that as we try to expand our energy fields and sources, without our industry producing the required steel, heavy equipment, valves, and pipe we are expanding some other country's manufacturing.

Not if we can get the resources with less cost from them than producing it ourselves.

And if it is cheaper to produce it ourselves then we would be leaving money on the table in importing these wares. It goes without saying that we import what we do because there is an advantage in doing so.

And when we get resources from other nations and use them to expand production here there is something gained that would be lost by tying the labor and capital in production processes here that yield a smaller return.

It almost sounds like you are making an anti-trade argument. It seems like you are suggesting that when we import something rather than produce it that there is a loss to the domestic economy...

But if that is true then how is it that some other entrepreneur doesn't begin a domestic production process and undercut the importer?

It must be that the importer is adding value by bringing in a good that would be more expensive otherwise.

And this act allows resources to be freed up and used in other employments.
Quote

Those are jobs and money lost to our workers. Develop a manufacturing base with competitive wages and we've gone a long way to restoring our economic base.

And what would be lost by a tariff that destroys wealth and living standards?

Are you suggesting protectionism here?

Shooterman

Quote from: TowardLiberty on June 21, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Not if we can get the resources with less cost from them than producing it ourselves.

And if it is cheaper to produce it ourselves then we would be leaving money on the table in importing these wares. It goes without saying that we import what we do because there is an advantage in doing so.

And when we get resources from other nations and use them to expand production here there is something gained that would be lost by tying the labor and capital in production processes here that yield a smaller return.

It almost sounds like you are making an anti-trade argument. It seems like you are suggesting that when we import something rather than produce it that there is a loss to the domestic economy...

But if that is true then how is it that some other entrepreneur doesn't begin a domestic production process and undercut the importer?

It must be that the importer is adding value by bringing in a good that would be more expensive otherwise.

And this act allows resources to be freed up and used in other employments.
And what would be lost by a tariff that destroys wealth and living standards?

Are you suggesting protectionism here?

Uh, TL, my young friend, with all due respect, may I suggest wealth and the standard of living has been pretty well decimated in this country as it is. We've needed no help along those lines. The countries we are importing from, in many, if not most cases, protect their exports with different forms of protectionism, but like the dumb focks we are, we say 'gee, ain't free trade great?' Is it free if they protect their economies and we play grab ass? I don't think so.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Shooterman on June 21, 2012, 06:03:45 PM
Uh, TL, my young friend, with all due respect, may I suggest wealth and the standard of living has been pretty well decimated in this country as it is. We've needed no help along those lines. The countries we are importing from, in many, if not most cases, protect their exports with different forms of protectionism, but like the dumb focks we are, we say 'gee, ain't free trade great?' Is it free if they protect their economies and we play grab ass? I don't think so.
Hey Shooter!

With likewise respect, I submit that our standard of living is not declining for any reason connected to international trade. Rather it is connected to the debasement of the currency and the multitude of policies that restrict competition, protect or redistribute wealth and redirect economic activity to inefficient investments: ie the waste involved in the maintenance of an empire etc.

And it is true that other nations protect certain industries.

But this is no argument that therefore we should follow. To the extent other nations protect certain industries they are limiting the gains from trade, creating inefficiencies in their own economy and reducing living standards.

That another person wants to jump off a cliff is no reason you should follow!

Shooterman

Quote from: TowardLiberty on June 21, 2012, 06:11:36 PM
Hey Shooter!

With likewise respect, I submit that our standard of living is not declining for any reason connected to international trade. Rather it is connected to the debasement of the currency and the multitude of policies that restrict competition, protect or redistribute wealth and redirect economic activity to inefficient investments: ie the waste involved in the maintenance of an empire etc.

And it is true that other nations protect certain industries.

But this is no argument that therefore we should follow. To the extent other nations protect certain industries they are limiting the gains from trade, creating inefficiencies in their own economy and reducing living standards.

That another person wants to jump off a cliff is no reason you should follow!

Granted, TL, all of what you say has merit. I only suggest we have debased our currency by borrowing money from countries we have supported with 'free trade', and/or printing more money, until we can go 'round the mulberry bush' forever, but tell the poor schmucks that have been focked, that they are SOL, and that does absolutely nothing for them.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

Solar

Quote from: Shooterman on June 21, 2012, 06:43:51 PM
Granted, TL, all of what you say has merit. I only suggest we have debased our currency by borrowing money from countries we have supported with 'free trade', and/or printing more money, until we can go 'round the mulberry bush' forever, but tell the poor schmucks that have been focked, that they are SOL, and that does absolutely nothing for them.
Wait till inflation hits once our economy recovers, that's the chickens come home to roost.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Shooterman on June 21, 2012, 06:43:51 PM
Granted, TL, all of what you say has merit. I only suggest we have debased our currency by borrowing money from countries we have supported with 'free trade', and/or printing more money, until we can go 'round the mulberry bush' forever, but tell the poor schmucks that have been focked, that they are SOL, and that does absolutely nothing for them.
Thanks.

I just see it as separate issues.

The monetary debasement you speak of is a product of government spending and monetary policy. The policy accommodates debt and deficits in a way a sound money wouldn't.

And separate from that is the individual to individual buying and selling that occurs across national borders.

For this reason the "trade deficit" is a misnomer and an abstraction. It is not a debt for it is not a sum owed to anyone.

Rather it is the public debt that drives the policy of inflation.

Shooterman

Quote from: Solar on June 21, 2012, 07:07:07 PM
Wait till inflation hits once our economy recovers, that's the chickens come home to roost.

Inflation, as you well know, is too much money chasing too few goods. By pumping more and more worthless dollars into the economy, we may see some growth, but growth based on what? Certainly not being productive and exporting anything of value. I will say again, pushing hamburgers around on a grill is not growth on a national scale.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

olde reb

Hello to all.  As a first post, I hate to pop your balloon but the economy cannot be stabilized with or without a balanced budget.  The economic scheme set up with the Federal Reserve is a Ponzi scheme; it is inherently unstable and will self destroy.

In the process, 100 percent of deficit spending becomes profit for the Fed which is hidden by the FRBNY's handling of the Treasury auctions. I will paste a brief analysis of how it operates below.  There is an embedded Link to a much more detailed article but it will probably be deleted.

I could post the entire RIP OFF writing if I knew how.

Reb

************************



HIDDEN PROFIT FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE


The headlines screamed that we needed to increase the National Debt (stimulus) to prevent an economic collapse.  Wait a minute. Is that the whole story? 

Much is said of how the increase of the National Debt ceiling is inflationary, and it surely is. But the gain by the United States government is only temporary.  The real profit goes to the Federal Reserve but that profit is hidden from Congress and the public.

A popular concept is that the government will "borrow" from the Federal Reserve.  This involves giving a Treasury security to the Fed as collateral and the Fed will credit an account of the government in the amount of the security. The government then spends the (book-entry) funds while the Fed (theoretically) holds the collateral. Voila !! Additional (fiat) money has been injected into the economy of the Nation.

Observe that the Fed holds the collateral. When the collateral matures, government must pay the Fed to redeem the security. The fiat money spent by government must be re-acquired and paid to the Fed. But the government has already spent the money and the bank account is zero.

So the Fed can sell the collateral at the Treasury auctions. If the funds went to the government, the Fed would essentially give up the security. Bankers are not known to generously give up money.

Also, if the funds went to the government, they would be used to pay off the debt of the security that had been issued and that would negate the existence of the debt and further it eliminates any inflation from the currency in circulation being increased.  Since this does not happen, the funds from deficit spending cannot go to the government.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has the responsibility of handling all accounting and funds for Treasury auctions. The funds from deficit spending go into the FRBNY but they are not recorded as coming out. These items are not included in the ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS nor are they identified in any government record

Receipts from the Treasury auctions totaled $8.4 trillion in 2010. $7 trillion was used to roll-over preexisting securities and $1.4 trillion was received from deficit spending as detailed above.  That $1.4 trillion ($4 billion every day--7/12) disappeared in the catacombs of the FRBNY.

Profit of the Fed legally belongs to the government. Concealment of funds belonging to the government is identified as embezzlement and subject to one year incarceration per count. Ref. 18 USC section 641.  Nonpayment of monies belonging to the government is a separate crime and subject to five years incarceration. Ref. 18 USC section 1001. Anyone knowing of such an offense who "relieves, comforts or assists the offender...to prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."  Ref. 18 USC section 3.

Do your congressional members know of the Fed's concealment of profit ?  Perhaps you would want to contact them and to inform them of their involvement.

Footnote:  (This writing is excerpted from  RIP OFF BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE,   rip-off by the Federal Reserve (revised)  The document has a new number. Scribd deleted the original after 9000 hits.)


Solar

Quote from: olde reb on July 16, 2012, 08:58:42 AM
I could post the entire RIP OFF writing if I knew how.

Reb
I'm glad you didn't, it would be a copyright violation.
Welcome to the forum Olde Reb, glad to have you on board.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

tbone0106

Quote from: Shooterman on June 21, 2012, 06:03:45 PM
Uh, TL, my young friend, with all due respect, may I suggest wealth and the standard of living has been pretty well decimated in this country as it is. We've needed no help along those lines. The countries we are importing from, in many, if not most cases, protect their exports with different forms of protectionism, but like the dumb focks we are, we say 'gee, ain't free trade great?' Is it free if they protect their economies and we play grab ass? I don't think so.

With all due respect, Shooterman, we're not so innocent when it comes to protectionism. Two examples: the ethanol racket and the sugar racket. Both commodities are protected by tariffs and other mechanisms, and both are ludicrously expensive for us to buy because of it. Both commodities could be imported and used in our economy at roughly half what domestic production costs.

The sugar racket is the older one, put in place to protect a few thousand cane farmers in the south and a few thousand beet farmers in the north. As a direct result of this tariff, as just one example, LifeSavers are no longer made in the US. Sugar costs here vary, but run 50-100% higher than in Canada, where LifeSavers are now made. With the plentiful availability of cheap foreign sugar, there is no logical reason to protect US sugar producers. There is actually no logical reason for sugar to be produced in the US under any circumstances. But needless to say, the big US sugar cartels are HUGE political donors -- to both parties.

The ethanol racket is the newer, but much more sinister and damaging, one. The greens in government took a three-pronged approach: (1) directly subsidize ethanol production, (2) protect producers against foreign ethanol with a tariff, and (3) guarantee a market for ethanol by mandating its blending into motor fuel. The direct subsidies finally expired last Jan. 1, but the tariff and the mandate remain. The most insidious aspect of the ethanol racket, however, is one nowhere enshrined in law -- it is literally wrecking the farm commodity market and causing massive price inflation at the grocery store cash register. Literally 40% of the corn grown in the US is now diverted into ethanol production, thanks mainly to the three-fold increase in price -- directly caused and supported by the federal mandate and tariff.

I've written about this elsewhere on the board, but it's worth repeating... These two examples of government stupidity are intertwined. Back in the early 1980s, technology and a glut of corn combined to show many food producers that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) could serve as a substitute for cane sugar or beet sugar in many foods, especially in soda pop. One after another, companies switched to HFCS because it was so much cheaper than real sugar -- as a direct result of government meddling. Now we have the ironic spectacle of soda pop makers re-introducing their old sugar-based drinks in competition with their HFCS-sweetened stuff because HFCS may soon be more expensive than tariff-protected cane or beet sugar -- AGAIN as a direct result of government meddling.