Jump to content

How bad are America's finances?


Recommended Posts

I would ask both of you a pertinent question, and I want anyone reading this I do NOT believe in subsidies!

 

THE QUESTION-------->The subsidies that are paid to farmers, does that LOWER the cost of the final product to the consumer? Since most farmers are not rich, I am going to believe that it does, or certainly allows more farmers to stay in businees, meaning because of their product being added to the whole, it does push the cost of the total product down.

 

Let me put it this way------------>if the subsidies have no effect on cost at the delivery point to the consumer, than the question on if/or if not to cut them is a no brainer.

 

BUTTTTTTTTTTTT, if it does effect cost at the delivery point, it will open a very, very, VERY large can of worms. Should we now subsidize the poorer people directly, since their food bill has gone up significantly? At what level of income should be give them no help? While it shouldn't, what if that program ends up costing MORE than farm subsidies......and since the government would handle it, the odds are 50/50 they would, lol. ORRRRRRRRRRRR, should we just cut everyone loose? Which of you thinks that would happen if the price at the delivery point went up-)

 

Farm subsidies are a quagmire no matter which way you look at them. So is a lot of other government spending. Years upon years of spending bills, subsidies, special interest groups, etc........to be unraveled will take stronger people than what we have in Washington now. We have seen that with this budget deal. The strong suggest we cut away, the weak suggest we raise taxes to pay for all of this idiocy to keep everyone happy......who doesn't have to pay for it.

 

Personally, I do not believe there will ever be much agreement between the two groups as long as they can print money. If you take that away from them and force them to live within the means of the countrys bank account, you would see more harmony. Instead of blaming one another, the only chance they would have then is to make deals............which is what the writers of the constitution envisioned. That is the way to go, balanced budget. so they have to do what is best for the country as whole, and not what is best for their followers.

I'd like to address in reverse order.

 

Washington may not be able to print more money for much longer. We print money mainly by selling treasuries. At some point, the interest required to sell treasuries will go up and existing holders of treasuries (China, private investors) may not want to hold on to our debt obligations. The rest of the world is not happy with our quantitative easing and having the dollar as the dominant currency in the world. Wall street wasn't always the center of the financial world, and within 50 years it will likely be in Asia.

 

I agree with ljcdad, this isn't a strong or weak decision. Difficult choices need to be made on a lot of issues, and the role of government (federal, state, and local) all need to be considered. A rise in prices would hurt the economy overall, especially the lower and middle class. Groceries already hold a larger % of a families budget in a low or middle class economy. A guy making 300K doesn't eat 6x more calories than a guy making 50K.

 

To see what effect a subsidy has, we'd need to look at who is recieving the subsidy and historical pricing on similar goods without subsidies. Right now, it does not feel like the local family farm is getting a lot of subsidy. I think they belong to co-ops who can bargain like the big corporate food giants. I think there is some elasticity and substitutes in food pricing - if beef goes up I buy more chicken or pork.

 

A subsidy only work if we have a price ceiling as well. If the gov't pays a farmers $1 for a pound of wheat, what is to stop the farmer from charging $8 or $10 for that same wheat? How do we know that subsidies are keeping prices down on groceries?

 

As usual, I have many more questions than I have ideas..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's keep doing the same thing. If we change it, we'd be forcing Grandma to eat kitty food.

 

Or that's what the democrats say whenever talk of entitlement reform is broached.

 

We can't keep doing the same thing. The discussion will soon by on the terms of our creditors instead of US citizens. See Greece, soon Italy. Again, the root causes of the issues go back at least 30 years. Throw a rock in the air, you are bound to hit someone guilty.

 

A. Kitty food is underated.

B. I wish there was a thread or two where we could talk about the idiocy of the other party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your going back to the starve the beast theory that doesn't work and is not a constitutionally based discussion about the direction of the founders. In fact the founders distinctly set up taxation and borrowing in the constitution in almost direct conflict with what you assume they wanted. B

 

Lets take a little look back at our last attempt to starve the beast.

 

In 2000 we had a significant surplus in Public debt. After tax cuts designed to starve the beast, we got involved in two wars, significant revenue losses due to recession and tax cuts and the spending continued. And we had to raise the debt ceiling how many times because of a failed "Starve the Beast" under Bush

 

And here we are.

 

I don't think our current federal financial system is what the founding fathers invisioned. Leaving the gold standard, the creation of the federal reserve, GSE, Social Security, Medicare - these are all 20th century ideas.

 

"Starving the Beast" doesn't work because we can keep going to the capital markets and get more cash. At some point we may find the cupboard bare and we really won't have an option. At that point taxes will have to rise dramatically and services will have to be cut dramatically. That is the point of this thread. The sooner we do both, the less severe it will have to be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't keep doing the same thing. The discussion will soon by on the terms of our creditors instead of US citizens. See Greece, soon Italy. Again, the root causes of the issues go back at least 30 years. Throw a rock in the air, you are bound to hit someone guilty.

(We, American voters, are the guilty ones. We put the idiots in office and "gave" responsibility for taking care of all our problems, in their hands.When in reality, you can't hide from your responsibilities.)

 

A. Kitty food is underated.(Meow. Tuna that tastes like tuna.)

B. I wish there was a thread or two where we could talk about the idiocy of the other party.(Which "other" party? How can you tell the difference?)

 

Sorry, this was supposed to not be about partisan politics.

Is it partisan if you dislike them all?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another large component of America's spending is Defense.

 

Some is waste.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/business/30military.html

 

"Audit of Pentagon Spending Finds $70 Billion in Waste"

 

 

 

Some is foreign bases

 

http://www.fpif.org/reports/the_cost_of_the_global_us_military_presence

 

"The final bill: The United States spends approximately $250 billion annually to maintain troops, equipment, fleets, and bases overseas."

 

 

 

I am not one of these "close 'em all" guys ...after all my eldest son lives in South Korea and the American presence there is essential.

 

But I'm also sure that we could reduce our presence in most places..and eliminate it in some.

 

Agree on a lot of this as well. It looks like the last debt ceilign deal whacked $200B initially from defense, and could take out another $400B if some agreements aren't reached. We need to reduce the size of our military and modernoze the equipment to allow our military to be more flexible and tactical. The days of giant tanks and month long mobilizations are over. We need to be able to quickly respond to 2-3 different theatres in the world within 48 hours.

 

We need to be less involved in a lot of area all over the world. At the same time, do we want to add more 18-40 year olds to the job pool?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st - thanks for the variety of links. I never thought I'd see you post something from Cato.

 

I haven't looked very hard at farm subsidies. From what I recall reading, there are twice as many farmers over age 65 than under 35. The top 2% of US farms produce 50% of the food. Most of the corporate subsidies are for 5 crops, including wheat, corn, and cotton. Very little if any subsidies go to meat or veggies.

 

Things I'd like to know - how do our grocery prices compare to other countires? Can individual farmers as a Co-op produce the same efficiencies of scale as a corporation - Monsanto or Archer Midland? What percentage of our food do we export and are the subsidies in effect lowering the price for foreing countries? If we held back subsidies to agricultural and increased food stamps or other food aid, would that be more or less beneficial to the poor and middle class?

 

Farming seems to be following manufacturing in the US, and this is probably not good. World population is growing exponentially and there will be limited food supplies. How we address pricing and supply going forward could be much more improtant in the coming years.

 

 

New Zealand seems to be the poster child for subsidy elimination.

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411

 

"Evidence from New Zealand indicates that the answer is an emphatic no on both counts. In 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies, which then consisted of 30 separate production payments and export incentives. This was a truly striking policy action, because New Zealand's economy is roughly five times more dependent on farming than is the U.S. economy, measured by either output or employment. Subsidies in New Zealand accounted for more than 30 percent of the value of production before reform, somewhat higher than U.S. subsidies today. And New Zealand farming was marred by the same problems caused by U.S. subsidies, including overproduction, environmental degradation and inflated land prices."

 

"A report last year from the country's main farmers' group, the Federated Farmers of New Zealand, documents the positive change and growth in that country's agriculture industry since subsidies ended. While land prices initially fell after reform, by 1994 they had rebounded, and they remain high today. The mass of farm bankruptcies some had expected never occurred; just 1 percent of farms have gone out of business.

 

Meanwhile, the value of farm output in New Zealand has soared 40 percent in constant dollar terms since the mid-1980s. Agriculture's share of New Zealand's economic output has risen slightly, from a pre-reform 14 percent to 17 percent today. Since subsidies were removed, productivity in the industry has averaged 6 percent growth annually, compared with just 1 percent before reform. Farming in New Zealand scores well on the export "report card," with producers competing successfully in world markets against subsidized farm production in much of the rest of the world."

 

A more comprehensive treatment here

 

http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml

 

 

I believe that food prices would be only marginally impacted..if at all.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too

 

"Nor do farm subsidies contribute to lower food costs. Two-thirds of food production is unsubsidized and thus relatively unaffected by subsidies. Of the remaining one-third, price reductions caused by crop subsidies are balanced by conservation programs that raise prices. Furthermore, food prices are based not only on crop prices, but also on food processing, transportation, and marketing costs. Bruce Babcock, professor of economics at Iowa State University, has calculated that eliminating farm subsidies would have virtually no effect on food prices."

 

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_06/article1.aspx

 

"A reasonable formula for approximating how the price of a food item would change because of a change in the price of a raw ingredient is to multiply the percent change in the price of the raw ingredient by the share of the price of the food item that is represented by the cost of the raw ingredient. For example, corn represents perhaps 38 percent of the cost of producing a market-ready hog. The cost of a market-ready hog represents 28 percent of the final retail price of pork. This means that corn represents approximately 10.64 percent of the retail price of pork.

Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.

It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent. But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double. The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth."

 

 

 

So it comes down to political will.

 

With the US Senate giving disproportionate power to sparsely settled rural states an elimination of agricultural subsidies may be politically impossible in the US.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree on a lot of this as well. It looks like the last debt ceilign deal whacked $200B initially from defense, and could take out another $400B if some agreements aren't reached. We need to reduce the size of our military and modernoze the equipment to allow our military to be more flexible and tactical. The days of giant tanks and month long mobilizations are over. We need to be able to quickly respond to 2-3 different theatres in the world within 48 hours.

(48 hours? That will get those first few hundred killed within 60 hours. What is the right number...dunno. Maybe it depends on the theater, the weather, the opponent, the expected firefight, the clarity of targets, the intermingling of innocents, the defensibility of potential bases, the support/aggression of the neighboring political areas, etc....... There is some wisdom in being the biggest player, with the biggest, baddest toys, but also slowest to act. We should act where and when we should. But it should never be before we are clear on the mission and the combatants and non-violent action cannot resolve the conflict.)

 

We need to be less involved in a lot of area all over the world.

(Agreed.)

 

At the same time, do we want to add more 18-40 year olds to the job pool?

(Really? Didn't you mean the "unemployment pool"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Zealand seems to be the poster child for subsidy elimination.

 

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411

 

"Evidence from New Zealand indicates that the answer is an emphatic no on both counts. In 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies, which then consisted of 30 separate production payments and export incentives. This was a truly striking policy action, because New Zealand's economy is roughly five times more dependent on farming than is the U.S. economy, measured by either output or employment. Subsidies in New Zealand accounted for more than 30 percent of the value of production before reform, somewhat higher than U.S. subsidies today. And New Zealand farming was marred by the same problems caused by U.S. subsidies, including overproduction, environmental degradation and inflated land prices."

 

"A report last year from the country's main farmers' group, the Federated Farmers of New Zealand, documents the positive change and growth in that country's agriculture industry since subsidies ended. While land prices initially fell after reform, by 1994 they had rebounded, and they remain high today. The mass of farm bankruptcies some had expected never occurred; just 1 percent of farms have gone out of business.

 

Meanwhile, the value of farm output in New Zealand has soared 40 percent in constant dollar terms since the mid-1980s. Agriculture's share of New Zealand's economic output has risen slightly, from a pre-reform 14 percent to 17 percent today. Since subsidies were removed, productivity in the industry has averaged 6 percent growth annually, compared with just 1 percent before reform. Farming in New Zealand scores well on the export "report card," with producers competing successfully in world markets against subsidized farm production in much of the rest of the world."

 

A more comprehensive treatment here

 

http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml

 

 

I believe that food prices would be only marginally impacted..if at all.

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too

 

"Nor do farm subsidies contribute to lower food costs. Two-thirds of food production is unsubsidized and thus relatively unaffected by subsidies. Of the remaining one-third, price reductions caused by crop subsidies are balanced by conservation programs that raise prices. Furthermore, food prices are based not only on crop prices, but also on food processing, transportation, and marketing costs. Bruce Babcock, professor of economics at Iowa State University, has calculated that eliminating farm subsidies would have virtually no effect on food prices."

 

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/spring_06/article1.aspx

 

"A reasonable formula for approximating how the price of a food item would change because of a change in the price of a raw ingredient is to multiply the percent change in the price of the raw ingredient by the share of the price of the food item that is represented by the cost of the raw ingredient. For example, corn represents perhaps 38 percent of the cost of producing a market-ready hog. The cost of a market-ready hog represents 28 percent of the final retail price of pork. This means that corn represents approximately 10.64 percent of the retail price of pork.

Suppose that the removal of farm programs caused the price of corn to increase by 5 percent. The price of pork would then increase by about 0.53 percent. That is, pork chops that cost $3.00 per pound with farm subsidies would increase in price by less than two cents per pound. If corn prices were to rise by 10 percent with the removal of subsidies, then pork chops would cost only three cents per pound more than they currently do. Because corn represents a smaller share of the final value of beef and dairy products, retail prices for these products would go up by a smaller amount (in percentage terms) than the price of pork.

It is difficult to come up with examples in which subsidized U.S. commodities have a greater than 10 percent share of final retail value. And at this maximum share, it would take a doubling of commodity prices to increase consumer prices by 10 percent. But no credible analyst has ever estimated that farm payments result in such a large supply expansion that their withdrawal would cause commodity prices to double. The idea that U.S. commodity policy is really a cheap food policy is a myth."

 

 

 

So it comes down to political will.

 

With the US Senate giving disproportionate power to sparsely settled rural states an elimination of agricultural subsidies may be politically impossible in the US.

 

Thanks for the info - this was great. New Zealand may be a country I pay more attention to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe MarginalEconomics can tell us how much money should be available, pre-paid, in social security, before politicians spent it on general budget items.

 

I.e., if the social security withholding had never been accessed for anything but what it was designated for, would we sill have such a large portion of total spending designated for that entitlement? And what happened to the medicare/medicaid withholding from my paycheck?

 

Are you reading this Marginal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe MarginalEconomics can tell us how much money should be available, pre-paid, in social security, before politicians spent it on general budget items.

 

I.e., if the social security withholding had never been accessed for anything but what it was designated for, would we sill have such a large portion of total spending designated for that entitlement? And what happened to the medicare/medicaid withholding from my paycheck?

 

Are you reading this Marginal?

How long do you want the money to last?

 

IIRC, most of the money that was taken from SS was in the form of SS purchasing T-Bills. I think they now hold $5T or so. I'll look for a link.

 

Long term, the problem is generally that we don't have enough workers to support retirees going forward. Here is the trustee report - 2011 SSA: Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs

 

 

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

 

The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare

.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long do you want the money to last?

 

IIRC, most of the money that was taken from SS was in the form of SS purchasing T-Bills. I think they now hold $5T or so. I'll look for a link.

 

Long term, the problem is generally that we don't have enough workers to support retirees going forward. Here is the trustee report - 2011 SSA: Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs

 

 

.

 

The point I wanted to make would be the health (financial assets) of SS if it had never been tampered with other than appropriate deductions. Interest on principal, payments in from payroll deductions, employer contributions, etc.....

 

My intent is to show the 1.4 trillion in annual spending for entitlements including SS, Medicare and Medicaid, would/should be a significantly lessened burden on federal revenues if the politicians had not spent it on other priorities. If it was my bank, I think fraud would be an applicable charge.

 

If I lie to the government, I go to jail.

If the government lies to me, it's politics.

 

If I cheat on my taxes, they seize my assets.

If the government likes somebody that does it, they become Treasury Secretary.

If I can't pay my bills, I get evicted.

If the government can't pay their bills, they print more paper. That makes every dollar I earn and own from that point onward, worth less so I have to work longer/harder and sacrifice more and pay more taxes, just to keep up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I wanted to make would be the health (financial assets) of SS if it had never been tampered with other than appropriate deductions. Interest on principal, payments in from payroll deductions, employer contributions, etc.....

 

My intent is to show the 1.4 trillion in annual spending for entitlements including SS, Medicare and Medicaid, would/should be a significantly lessened burden on federal revenues if the politicians had not spent it on other priorities. If it was my bank, I think fraud would be an applicable charge.

 

If I lie to the government, I go to jail.

If the government lies to me, it's politics.

 

If I cheat on my taxes, they seize my assets.

If the government likes somebody that does it, they become Treasury Secretary.

If I can't pay my bills, I get evicted.

If the government can't pay their bills, they print more paper. That makes every dollar I earn and own from that point onward, worth less so I have to work longer/harder and sacrifice more and pay more taxes, just to keep up.

 

 

I guess you did not understand the answer.

The money is in Treasury Bills...no one took it..do not believe what you hear on the radio.

Try and deal with facts.

 

Perhaps some education is in order to try and correct the misinformation believed by the right wingers here.

 

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

 

"As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

 

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity."

Edited by Aces
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you did not understand the answer.

The money is in Treasury Bills...no one took it..do not believe what you hear on the radio.

Try and deal with facts.

 

Perhaps some education is in order to try and correct the misinformation believed by the right wingers here.

 

http://www.ssa.gov/o...ta/fundFAQ.html

 

"As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

 

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity."

 

Thanks for all the reassuring words. Now, explain why Obama scared the blue-hairs with threats their SS check may be unpaid? We're supposed to be comforted in the knowledge that our SS is funded with Federal T-bill products?

 

" the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government." S&P was not so impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because that's the way politics works. He's as guilty of bad politics as anyone. Remember the Death panels from Bachman and Palin. Why scare the blue hairs with Obama's going to let them die without medication?

 

We live in a world where our electorate are what Dewey would call illiterate Voters. (Did i name drop. Opppsss, Sorry that i found his theories on the electorate and education in general insightful.) They want soundbites and Grandpa by the fireplace spinning yarns. (required Reagan blast)

 

I have gotten emails every morning since Obama's election from some group Ron Paul sold his mailing list too about how any day now they'll take all the guns away. Still any day now. People believe this stuff. It makes the world a hard place to live in. 90 percent of Americans don't even know why the Constitution was written and they throw it out there as an intellectual crutch.

 

The way politics works?

 

And everyone blasts every attempt to right the ship. Including you. The Tea party, in my opinion, isn't perfect, but I refuse to be convinced by the pro-Obama clan that they are motivated by or even condone racism. Are there "any" racists in the Tea Party. Sure. Are there "any" racists in the tank with Obama. Absolutely! Some have specifically boasted they voted for the first "black' president.Just because he was black (bi-racial, to be correct).

But it's the Tea party, by their very structure, or lack of it, that makes accusations of their prejudices all but wrong at the outset. How can a "gelatinous mass" of individuals, whose only association is a drive to return America and the politicians elected to act responsibly on their behalf, be racist? I see more opposition to the Tea Party than I do to the blatantly irresponsible abuses foisted upon this country by the politicians the Tea Party opposes.

 

Try holding those in power to a standard higher than you seem to hold those who are working to fix the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me tell you how bad Americas finances are----------->I live in a middle class area full of small business owners, people who are managers, mid level bankers, and some blue collar mixed in. I can say that when we talk, everyone is worried about their jobs, the economy, the debt. Almost everyone knows when outside in the backyard, what the stock market did, if the unemployment rate went up, if gas went up or down. Economic topics are what goes across backyard fences, not what the Cubs, the Bears, the White Sox, the Blackhawks, or anything like that did or did not do.

 

I can also tell you that only 1 person proclaims they will vote for Obama next time; and that is out of the 9 who admitted they did last time. If Presidential votes are cast on pocketbook issues, Mr Obama has really off the reservation.

 

The 1 person who insists she will vote for him again is a middle aged grammar school teacher. No surprise there, until you understand that 2 of the other 9 that voted for him are also teachers and are going to throw him under the bus and vote for the republican candidate, no matter who it is. (their words, not mine)

 

I am retired, I work, and I own a small Mickey Mouse business to boot. I do ok; some would say better than ok. The people around me are not as diversified, and I am here to tell you, THEY ARE SCARED TO DEATH.

 

Perception becomes reality if you say it enough, because people start to believe it. I don't know what the reality is as I am not in their checkbooks or investments, but if words mean anything, nobody is going to buy much of anything they have to take a loan on around here, and that tells me the economy is again sliding into recession.

 

TRANSLATION--------->Obama is a 1 termer, and lets hope whomever replaces him........democrat or republican.........can turn this country around and give it confidence once more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad ...another discussion thread ruined.

 

 

Leave.

 

 

Yup .......pretty simplistic.. inaccurate.....and a waste of five minutes.

 

 

Broad brush, pal.

 

Pick a point and "correct it".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds like your typical automatic regurgitation. If you are not going to add to the discussion, why post?

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...