world economic collapse?

112 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
With the euro-zone facing collapse caused by the debt mountain with the likes of Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland....and the British banks alone investing over $200 billion into these economies, it seems as if certain predictions a few years back are being realized....or do you think we can pull out of this??????
USA is not immune as they have invested heavily in there too.

These comedians from Australia put a humorousness slant on it!

  • Profile picture of the author gforces
    Yeah, that's good. The Aussies can always look at the funny side of things. Good on them. And at last count America's was over $14 Trillion. It doesn't take a genius to realise the world economy is in serious trouble. Collapse is eminent.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4278943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Thomas
    Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

    With the euro-zone facing collapse caused by the debt mountain with the likes of Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland....and the British banks alone investing over $200 billion into these economies,
    You'll be delighted to know that, in fact, British exposure is not that far off £200 billion (pounds, not dollars) JUST in Ireland. Exposure in the Eurozone as a whole is quite a bit larger.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279074].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I started out wondering WHY did these IDIOTS pick this format! When they started talking about the poor supporting the poor it wa like OH, OK! SCARY!

    NOT NEWS to me, but SCARY STILL!!!!!!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279442].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Peter May
    Previous Irish bailout explained below.

    It is a slow day in a damp little Irish town. The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
    On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night. The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel. The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the pub. The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him "services" on credit. The lady of the night then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note. The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town. No one produced anything. No one earned anything.
    However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works.

    Peter
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279641].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Peter May View Post

      Previous Irish bailout explained below.

      It is a slow day in a damp little Irish town. The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit...
      That's a tidy little story. I don't know about the "Irish bailout", but with the recent ones in the US, the chain doesn't run in a neat circle like that. It's more like a siphon that keeps dipping into the pool of those who can least afford it, and sucks more and more out for the benefit of those who least deserve it.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Peter,

    Sounds simple, but how often do things end up like that? And YEAH, we may borrow from banks that borrow from the government which then takes from us, so we actually borrow what we have paid, but we never get THAT back, and THAT is how FIAT currency works. BESIDES, you forgot interest on those loans.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280043].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sloanjim
    i think the US has it own massive debt problems about to reach a head as well..
    Signature

    15 Minute Forex Bar Trading System Free at
    http://www.fxscalpingmethod.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280071].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    One thing is fun. Because of the amount of globalization that has been achieved - at least when one falls, the rest will, too. Kinda like the "end of the world" stuff which people fancy because nobody wants to die on their own.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280212].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Change from debt to debit.

    If you don't have it, don't spend it, problem solved!
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280270].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Thomas
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Change from debt to debit.

      If you don't have it, don't spend it, problem solved!
      Tell that to...every single country on the planet.

      Mind you, if people/companies/countries weren't in debt, money, as we know it, would cease to exist.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280875].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gforces
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Change from debt to debit.

      If you don't have it, don't spend it, problem solved!
      You know, that is the simplest monetary rule there is. I always attempt to apply this common sense rule it my own life. Why is it that countries seem to think that this kind of common sense doesn't apply to them?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293747].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author highhopes
    It is scary that the politicians normally keep a lid on future woes. Our own Ken Clarke predicted openly about the coming collapse. this was October last year...it`s got worse since and is showing real evidence of instability right now....public dept`cuts throughout.

    World in grave danger of financial collapse, says Ken Clarke | Politics | guardian.co.uk
    Signature

    Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
    http://wwwtheearninghub.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280840].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    One of the reasons I am going back to states where metal is prevalent in the soil. There are a few states that are about ready and able to offer metal money to its citizenry when the excrement hits the air conditioning. If things collapse, you want to be in a state that is ready to do that or legislated it already. Your own metal detector doesn't hurt, either.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4282278].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I thought it already happened but folks posting here seem to be expecting a lot more to happen.


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4285008].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I thought it already happened but folks posting here seem to be expecting a lot more to happen.


      TL
      You think we had a world economic collapse? You're DREAMING! A COLLAPSE is like what GERMANY had in the last depression, around 1929. EVEN the last depression We had, around 1929, was WORSE! Right now, I have roughly the dollars that I had. SURE, it is WORTH far less, but I still APPEAR to have about the same.

      Had this happened during that depression, I would be LUCKY if I had 20% of my savings, and ALL the money in my bank account would be ******GONE******! I mean my BANK is GONE! Most of its assets are GONE! They happened to do a LOT of sub prime loans. Luckily, ANOTHER bank bought then out, via the FDIC which then insured the money. The difference is NOT due to any current person. It is due to laws put in place around 1933. They WERE weakened a LOT in 1999, but still not enough to allow the disaster of 1929.

      NOW, we CAN still have a 1929 style failure by the money becoming WORTHLESS! And THAT is where we are HEADED!

      GEEZ! What we had is what the stock market would call a CORRECTION! NOW, if the consumers lose enough faith, THEN the market will COLLAPSE! Money is ONLY good as long as its acceptance by someone you want something from is relatively reliable.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4285406].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        You think we had a world economic collapse? You're DREAMING! A COLLAPSE is like what GERMANY had in the last depression, around 1929. EVEN the last depression We had, around 1929, was WORSE! Right now, I have roughly the dollars that I had. SURE, it is WORTH far less, but I still APPEAR to have about the same.

        Had this happened during that depression, I would be LUCKY if I had 20% of my savings, and ALL the money in my bank account would be ******GONE******! I mean my BANK is GONE! Most of its assets are GONE! They happened to do a LOT of sub prime loans. Luckily, ANOTHER bank bought then out, via the FDIC which then insured the money. The difference is NOT due to any current person. It is due to laws put in place around 1933. They WERE weakened a LOT in 1999, but still not enough to allow the disaster of 1929.

        NOW, we CAN still have a 1929 style failure by the money becoming WORTHLESS! And THAT is where we are HEADED!

        GEEZ! What we had is what the stock market would call a CORRECTION! NOW, if the consumers lose enough faith, THEN the market will COLLAPSE! Money is ONLY good as long as its acceptance by someone you want something from is relatively reliable.

        Steve
        You would like to see the U.S. debt ceiling "not raised"...

        ... so that the world wide collapse can happen sooner right???



        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4285448].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          You would like to see the U.S. debt ceiling "not raised"...

          ... so that the world wide collapse can happen sooner right???



          TL
          YOU DO know that a "half truth" is STILL a lie, RIGHT?

          I want to see them pass what they apparently want to pass. They ***********HAVE*********** to do this! If they don't, there WILL be a collapse, REGARDLESS of the debt ceiling. EVERYONE must do this! Italy, Greece, Portugal, Iceland, Great britain, etc.... So what do I understand them wanting to do, which could have been done LAST WEEK!?!?!? Only ONE person is holding it up!

          RAISE the debt ceiling by HALF the requested amount! Make AT LEAST as many CUTS! Work on a BALANCED AMENDMENT!

          Funny, a person a couple weeks ago said that what we are doing, constantly having to raise the debt ceiling, is what THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES DO! OK, let's STOP IT! Let's WEAN ourselves off this STUPID DEBT! *I* have to make sure I pay it off, etc... Just last month, I paid almost $4000 more than I had to, and I do NOT deal in even MILLIONS of dollars! To put this into perspective, to do what I did last month, the US would only have to come up with a net surplus of about $600,000,000,000 That's ONLY an extra 7.2trillion a year! In about 2 years the official debt would be GONE! For ME, it would be about 8 months, if I didn't keep spending, but the trend for me IS down. And I AM saving for retirement, etc....

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286017].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            YOU DO know that a "half truth" is STILL a lie, RIGHT?

            I want to see them pass what they apparently want to pass. They ***********HAVE*********** to do this! If they don't, there WILL be a collapse, REGARDLESS of the debt ceiling. EVERYONE must do this! Italy, Greece, Portugal, Iceland, Great britain, etc.... So what do I understand them wanting to do, which could have been done LAST WEEK!?!?!? Only ONE person is holding it up!

            RAISE the debt ceiling by HALF the requested amount! Make AT LEAST as many CUTS! Work on a BALANCED AMENDMENT!

            Funny, a person a couple weeks ago said that what we are doing, constantly having to raise the debt ceiling, is what THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES DO! OK, let's STOP IT! Let's WEAN ourselves off this STUPID DEBT! *I* have to make sure I pay it off, etc... Just last month, I paid almost $4000 more than I had to, and I do NOT deal in even MILLIONS of dollars! To put this into perspective, to do what I did last month, the US would only have to come up with a net surplus of about $600,000,000,000 That's ONLY an extra 7.2trillion a year! In about 2 years the official debt would be GONE! For ME, it would be about 8 months, if I didn't keep spending, but the trend for me IS down. And I AM saving for retirement, etc....

            Steve
            First of all...

            are you saying that if the U.S. debt ceiling is not raised,

            ... it will not have the catastrophic effect on the world economy as most economists predict???



            So, I think you agree that the ceiling should be raised without any conditions as it has been all throughout our history.


            And, they'll work on a great "long term national debt reduction" deal after the fact.



            Or...


            ... should the same very people that ______ up the national budget in the first place...

            ( they were handed a 250 billion dollar yearly surplus in 2000 ) ( can't dispute )

            They controlled the WH, House & senate from 2000-2006.

            Dems had control of the house & senate in 2007-2008 but couldn't do anything because there was a GOP president but he couldn't do anything else either.

            So, I think it's safe to say that one group was in charge of the nation's finances from 2000 to Jan of 2009.


            and ...

            ...that same group,...

            ...raised the debt ceiling at least 7 times without any "fanfare" for the nation when a pres of their own party presided ... ( can't dispute )

            ...while...

            ... also doubling the national debt in 8 years... ( can't dispute )

            ...and left the nation in shambles... ( can't dispute )

            ... in Jan of 2009 for the next president of a different party...

            ... now claim...

            ... to be...


            ... the party of "fiscal responsibility" ?????????...


            ... and demand nothing but cuts and absolutely no "revenue enhancements"...



            ... to balance the budget...



            ...or the debt ceiling will not be raised??


            Is it your position, that without cuts you would not raise the dent ceiling or not???



            Let me know if you're with the hostage takers or not.


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286385].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              First of all...

              are you saying that if the U.S. debt ceiling is not raised,

              ... it will not have the catastrophic effect on the world economy as most economists predict???
              I NEVER said that, and YOU KNOW IT! I said raise it HALF the amount. Money is spent all the time for SCAMMERS! Just tell them they can't scam anymore! The buffet is CLOSED! You get the other half from THEM! It is called BALANCING THE BUDGET!

              So, I think you agree that the ceiling should be raised without any conditions as it has been all throughout our history.
              HOW do YOU know!? Do you REALLY think they JUST created a limit? MORE money has been spent on deficit in the last 3 years than every other year PUT TOGETHER!

              And, they'll work on a great "long term national debt reduction" deal after the fact.
              So we can TRUST THEM!?!?!? OK, GOT YA! Then they balanced there budget ALREADY, and we aren't even having this discussion, because there is no debt! GREAT! You can stop discussing it then! 8-) WHEW, we dodged te bullet THERE! NOW, if you can let EVERYONE else know!

              ... should the same very people that ______ up the national budget in the first place...

              ( they were handed a 250 billion dollar yearly surplus in 2000 ) ( can't dispute )
              BUDGET surplus! You are confusing things, right down to who THEY were anyway!

              Dems had control of the house & senate in 2007-2008 but couldn't do anything because there was a GOP president but he couldn't do anything else either.
              ...raised the debt ceiling at least 7 times without any "fanfare" for the nation when a pres of their own party presided ... ( can't dispute )
              But YOU disputed it EARLIER!

              It IS interesting how you blame OTHERS for the problem but want a hand in exacerbating it!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287888].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            YOU DO know that a "half truth" is STILL a lie, RIGHT?

            I want to see them pass what they apparently want to pass. They ***********HAVE*********** to do this! If they don't, there WILL be a collapse, REGARDLESS of the debt ceiling. EVERYONE must do this! Italy, Greece, Portugal, Iceland, Great britain, etc.... So what do I understand them wanting to do, which could have been done LAST WEEK!?!?!? Only ONE person is holding it up!

            RAISE the debt ceiling by HALF the requested amount! Make AT LEAST as many CUTS! Work on a BALANCED AMENDMENT!

            Funny, a person a couple weeks ago said that what we are doing, constantly having to raise the debt ceiling, is what THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES DO! OK, let's STOP IT! Let's WEAN ourselves off this STUPID DEBT! *I* have to make sure I pay it off, etc... Just last month, I paid almost $4000 more than I had to, and I do NOT deal in even MILLIONS of dollars! To put this into perspective, to do what I did last month, the US would only have to come up with a net surplus of about $600,000,000,000 That's ONLY an extra 7.2trillion a year! In about 2 years the official debt would be GONE! For ME, it would be about 8 months, if I didn't keep spending, but the trend for me IS down. And I AM saving for retirement, etc....

            Steve
            And you realize "half" a solution is NO solution at all. :rolleyes:

            If our bills aren't paid, interest rates will go up. So, everyone will be paying a "tax" on just about everything, with nothing in return.

            The debt ceiling should go up enough to pay what we ALREADY owe.

            Who are you going to stiff, the military?

            Or are you going to welch on social security payments, which aren't even part of the deficit?

            Are you going to be a dead beat and not pay people on their bonds, which used to be considered the safest investment in the World?

            And are you going to violate the 14th Amendment which says:

            Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


            Now isn't the time to be a leach on bills already approved by Congress that we legally and morally already owe. The time to cut spending is when new spending legislature is being brought TO Congress.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287099].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author highhopes
              Remember Gerald Ford's famous reply to New York City in the '70s? New York was on the verge of bankruptcy. So it appealed to Washington for a bailout. Ford, who had more sense than any major politician since, responded: Drop dead. And if he didn't actually say that, he should have. For those were "les mots justes" - exactly the reply that the occasion called for.

              Having no other recourse, NYC had to shape up. Which it did. It got rid of many of its unionized zombies...cut expenses...and the Big Apple was a better place for it. (It didn't hurt that New York was also the center of America's financial industry, which began a historic boom a few years later.)


              The problem for the USA, in a nutshell, is that there is no one to say 'drop dead.' New York had Washington. Greece has Germany. Philip II had Sir Francis Drake. Custer had Sitting Bull. But who does the USA have? Abroad, its armies meet no effective opposition. At home, its spendthrifts run wild.

              everyone is seems to be jumping on this spend now pay later concept.....individuals and countries!
              Signature

              Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
              http://wwwtheearninghub.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287325].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

                Remember Gerald Ford’s famous reply to New York City in the ’70s? New York was on the verge of bankruptcy. So it appealed to Washington for a bailout. Ford, who had more sense than any major politician since, responded: Drop dead. And if he didn’t actually say that, he should have. For those were “les mots justes” – exactly the reply that the occasion called for.

                Having no other recourse, NYC had to shape up. Which it did. It got rid of many of its unionized zombies…cut expenses…and the Big Apple was a better place for it. (It didn’t hurt that New York was also the center of America’s financial industry, which began a historic boom a few years later.)


                The problem for the USA, in a nutshell, is that there is no one to say ‘drop dead.’ New York had Washington. Greece has Germany. Philip II had Sir Francis Drake. Custer had Sitting Bull. But who does the USA have? Abroad, its armies meet no effective opposition. At home, its spendthrifts run wild.

                everyone is seems to be jumping on this spend now pay later concept.....individuals and countries!
                Even at 14 trill the debt is still manageable, but we'd better start turning it around within the next 10 years or so or it's not going to be pretty.

                Some of us would like to wind the debt down in a responsible manner instead of a knee-jerk, shoot first/ask questions later type of draconian cuts to our elderly and groups within our society -

                ...and that also will have negative domino effects on our economy.

                Some of us would like a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue increases to solve the problem.

                Our fed gov is missing out on at least 600 billion per year in income because of this massive economic downturn also.

                All The Best!!

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287452].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Kurt -

              I agree for the most part - but I disagree with the proposed ceiling increase amount.

              Until last year the debt ceiling increased by a few hundred billion at a time. Then last year it was increased by two trillion - and this proposed increase is another 2 trillion.

              This is not a partisan issue - both sides are responosible for this mess.

              National Debt Ceiling Explained in One Graphic | The Big Picture
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

              I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287371].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                Kurt -

                I agree for the most part - but I disagree with the proposed ceiling increase amount.

                Until last year the debt ceiling increased by a few hundred billion at a time. Then last year it was increased by two trillion - and this proposed increase is another 2 trillion.

                This is not a partisan issue - both sides are responosible for this mess.

                National Debt Ceiling Explained in One Graphic | The Big Picture
                If you disagree with raising the debt ceiling, who are you going to rip off and not pay? The debts are already owed. I won't respect any opinion on NOT raising the debt ceiling unless I'm told EXACTLY who won't be paid what is owed them.

                You are correct, it is (was) non-partisan, until this Congress was elected.

                To me, the answer is simple, if not easy. We go back to the same tax and spending rates that brought us a surplus in 2000. That's the only way to pay the debt (surpluses), and this means getting out of our un-paid-for wars and increasing the taxes to what they were then.

                Plus, what about our Constitution? Should we just toss it away? It clearly says that our debt should not be questioned. I interpret that to mean that we do whatever we can do to pay any and all debts approved by Congress.
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287464].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    LOL - imagine.

    All this time people were preparing and worrying about the game of global nuclear-thermal destruction..........
    and we were playing dominoes the whole time. Wonder who's gonna knock the first one over?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4286113].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sunfyre7896
    Where are they going to get the money? . . . Correct!
    Where would they get the money for the bailout when they're broke? . . . Correct! (Who really knows the answer to this)
    Why is America's economy alright? Because they're owned by China. . . Correct!

    LOL LMAO. This is hilarious and some of it is basically true. Might as well laugh if things are on the verge. What else are you going to do? I don't know. . . Correct!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287456].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Sunfyre7896 View Post

      Where are they going to get the money? . . . Correct!
      Where would they get the money for the bailout when they're broke? . . . Correct! (Who really knows the answer to this)
      Why is America's economy alright? Because they're owned by China. . . Correct!

      LOL LMAO. This is hilarious and some of it is basically true. Might as well laugh if things are on the verge. What else are you going to do? I don't know. . . Correct!
      My friend, you are "hungry for knowledge" concerning global finance.

      It's not like China holds all of our national debt.

      While most of the country's $14 trillion debt is held by private banks in the U.S., the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board estimate that, as of December, about $4.4 trillion of it was held by foreign governments that purchase our treasury securities much as an investor buys shares in a company and comes to own his or her little chunk of the organization.

      China = 891 Bill
      Japan = 883
      UK = 541
      Oil Exporters = 218
      Brazil = 188
      Carrbean Banking Center = 155
      Hong Kong = 138
      Canada = 134
      Russia = 106

      - Other countries make up the estimated 4.4 trillion.

      - Combined, that's less than 33% of our national debt owned by foreigners.

      - Social security is the owner of about 18% of the debt.

      - Miltary & gov employees pensions are owed around 8% of the debt.

      - The rest is owned by U.S. banks.

      Foreign countries are still climbing walls to buy our debt.

      Why??

      Because it's still the safest investment on the planet.

      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287882].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sunfyre7896
    But seriously, I wonder how much money we could save each year if we cut our free aid to foreign countries by half and let the U.N. and other countries take up the slack? I bet it's in the tens of billions of dollars. All that money, mostly wasted. It's not our job to save the world and to pay for their stability.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287473].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Moody's, which has threatened to downgrade the US credit rating and will if the debt ceiling isn't raised, said they think the debt ceiling should just be eliminated. Sounds like a good idea to me since it really doesn't serve any purpose and since it just may be unconstitutional in the first place.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287599].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Moody's, which has threatened to downgrade the US credit rating and will if the debt ceiling isn't raised, said they think the debt ceiling should just be eliminated. Sounds like a good idea to me since it really doesn't serve any purpose and since it just may be unconstitutional in the first place.
        WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE BLASTED TRUTH!!!!!?????

        New York, July 13, 2011 -- Moody's Investors Service has placed the Aaa bond rating of the government of the United States on review for possible downgrade given the rising possibility that the statutory debt limit will not be raised on a timely basis, leading to a default on US Treasury debt obligations. On June 2, Moody's had announced that a rating review would be likely in mid July unless there was meaningful progress in negotiations to raise the debt limit.



        In conjunction with this action, Moody's has placed on review for possible downgrade the Aaa ratings of financial institutions directly linked to the US government: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Federal Farm Credit Banks. We have also placed on review for possible downgrade securities either guaranteed by, backed by collateral securities issued by, or otherwise directly linked to the US government or the affected financial institutions.



        RATIONALE FOR REVIEW



        The review of the US government's bond rating is prompted by the possibility that the debt limit will not be raised in time to prevent a missed payment of interest or principal on outstanding bonds and notes. As such, there is a small but rising risk of a short-lived default.



        Moody's considers the probability of a default on interest payments to be low but no longer to be de minimis. An actual default, regardless of duration, would fundamentally alter Moody's assessment of the timeliness of future payments, and a Aaa rating would likely no longer be appropriate. However, because this type of default is expected to be short-lived, and the expected loss to holders of Treasury bonds would be minimal or non-existent, the rating would most likely be downgraded to somewhere in the Aa range.



        The specific rating that would be assigned at the conclusion of the review once such a default is cured would depend on (1) the speed with which the default is cured; (2) an assessment of the likely effect on future borrowing costs; and (3) whether there is a change in process for raising the debt limit that would preclude another default. A return to a Aaa rating would be unlikely in the near term, particularly if there were no progress on the third consideration.



        While the debt limit has been raised numerous times in the past, and sometimes the issue has been contentious, bond interest and principal have always been paid on time. If the debt limit is raised again and a default avoided, the Aaa rating would likely be confirmed. However, the outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative at the conclusion of the review unless substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction. To retain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal government debt to GDP and debt to revenue beginning within the next few years.
        Lest you think this is some @#$%^&*() bias:

        http://www.moodys.com/research/Moody...ocid=PR_221800

        GOT THAT!?!?!? MOODY'S! The VERY firm that is being QUOTED! That last statement says that they want this REDUCED! If they said ANYTHING to the contrary, it would be MORONIC and could DESTROY the very FOUNDATION of their company! Their business is to ensure that they have adequately represented the ability of a company to pay IN KIND! 3% is supposed to be 3%, NOT 3% of 40%! Not 3% of 20%, but 3%! ANY stock on the market today could increase the price of their shares 10 fold in an INSTANT! ALL they need to do is a 1 for 10 reverse stock split. It would be nothing new! It is LEGAL! It requires little if any approval! Did th stock REALLY go up 1000%? NOPE! Frankly, our creditors are too smart for such a MORONIC trick!

        BTW it is unconstitutional and illegal to have no limit. The preamble says "promote the general welfare". That INCLUDES not devaluing our currency and STEALING!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287760].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Steve, did you go off your meds again? Just checking because you know how I worry about you.

          There's nothing in what I posted that isn't the truth. What you posted I already knew. Yes, they want to see a substantial plan to reduce the debt. They also think we would be better off without a debt ceiling. These two thoughts are not mutually exclusive.

          By the way, your suggestion that not having a credit ceiling is unconstitutional is ridiculous. lol

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          WHY DON'T YOU TELL THE BLASTED TRUTH!!!!!?????



          Lest you think this is some @#$%^&*() bias:

          http://www.moodys.com/research/Moody...ocid=PR_221800

          GOT THAT!?!?!? MOODY'S! The VERY firm that is being QUOTED! That last statement says that they want this REDUCED! If they said ANYTHING to the contrary, it would be MORONIC and could DESTROY the very FOUNDATION of their company! Their business is to ensure that they have adequately represented the ability of a company to pay IN KIND! 3% is supposed to be 3%, NOT 3% of 40%! Not 3% of 20%, but 3%! ANY stock on the market today could increase the price of their shares 10 fold in an INSTANT! ALL they need to do is a 1 for 10 reverse stock split. It would be nothing new! It is LEGAL! It requires little if any approval! Did th stock REALLY go up 1000%? NOPE! Frankly, our creditors are too smart for such a MORONIC trick!

          BTW it is unconstitutional and illegal to have no limit. The preamble says "promote the general welfare". That INCLUDES not devaluing our currency and STEALING!


          Steve
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287855].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Steve, did you go off your meds again? Just checking because you know how I worry about you.

            There's nothing in what I posted that isn't the truth. What you posted I already knew. Yes, they want to see a substantial plan to reduce the debt. They also think we would be better off without a debt ceiling. These two thoughts are not mutually exclusive.

            By the way, your suggestion that not having a credit ceiling is unconstitutional is ridiculous. lol
            You ought to get off the S.A. That dog don't hunt!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287975].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Steve, did you go off your meds again? Just checking because you know how I worry about you.

            There's nothing in what I posted that isn't the truth. What you posted I already knew. Yes, they want to see a substantial plan to reduce the debt. They also think we would be better off without a debt ceiling. These two thoughts are not mutually exclusive.

            By the way, your suggestion that not having a credit ceiling is unconstitutional is ridiculous. lol

            It's highly possible Tim.

            I think he even disputes whether the nation had a 200+ billion surplus that was handed to the GOP when they took over the presidency, the house and the senate in 2000.

            All The Best!!

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288369].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post



          BTW it is unconstitutional and illegal to have no limit. The preamble says "promote the general welfare". That INCLUDES not devaluing our currency and STEALING!

          Steve
          Here's what the US Constitution ACTUALLY says on the subject. It's an interesting read, you should try reading it sometime.

          Section 8 - Powers of Congress
          The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

          To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

          To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

          To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

          To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290554].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Here's what the US Constitution ACTUALLY says on the subject. It's an interesting read, you should try reading it sometime.
            It DOES say REGULATE. THat doesn't imply devaluing. And it starts out powers of CONGRESS, yet this started when people said it was unconstitutional to deny the PRESIDENT the ability to SPEND.

            ALL this does is say that everything can continue, money can be spent, etc... until a certan point and then CONGRESS has to come in and approve it. CONGRESS is supposed to collect, and SPEND the money.

            It is NO different from the credit limit many Americans had. I THOUGHT that covered ALL americans. It does cover ME! I have heard polish and irish and UK citizens say it affected them! An Indian I know didn't think it odd that HE had one. I could go out TODAY and buy LOTS of stuff. But EVENTUALLY, I will hit that limit! And credit companies have a formula that says borrowing more than about 30% of what you can on a credit line is a danger signal. If I spend past that point, **MY** rates could go up.

            And you know, I was just talking to a person a few days ago about printing money. ANYONE here can do it, LEGALLY! There are NO laws against it and, to a degree, it is done ALL THE TIME! The ONLY laws are against printing money and not making it clear that it isn't federal currency. I WOULD say counterfeiting is illegal, but there are some companies that do that legally. They just make it "clear" that it isn't real currency. If I had a large enough group that was diverse enough, I could print my own money, and we could trade back and forth using it. But if I printed up SO much, that it was overly used by people outside that group, it would lose value everywhere. It would be almost like a ponzi scheme. In fact, technically, it WOULD be.

            The idea is SUPPOSED to be that people get it for adding value, and can trade it for others to do the same. It is like a reward/incentive. If a person gifts it, they give up part of THEIR reward. So a person builds a car, gets maybe $1000, and gves it to their kid. Ther kid got the money but they WIILLINGLY gave up the reward. In a way, they rewarded their kid for being one they like, and they were rewarded by the ability to do so. If a criminal always took $1000 from them, it would be like they never got it. They would want the $1000 back SOMEHOW! If they don't get it back, they may want MORE for building cars. If people that don't work are automatically gifted close to what the car builder gets, the car builders may decide to stop building cars. They could ALSO ask to be paid maybe 3 times as much.

            Think of it like a terrarium. The system may run self sustained for YEARS! If it is big enough, and laid out properly, it could run FOREVER. It might have gone on for YEARS! One day, you decide you are thirsty, so you drain a little water from a lake, to drink. OK, it may still go on fine. You later do it again. EVENTUALLY, it will cause an imbalance, and that terrarium, that may have been running for DECADES will start to die! Plant's will die out, insects may die, lizards may die. Sooner or later, it will be GONE! HEY, you could run it in reverse, and keep ADDING water. If it is a sealed environment, eventually it will STILL die. The SAME is true of money.

            And DOESN'T the idea of oney SCARE you? HEYSAL has mentioned it a LOT! My friend, that is NOT interested about this site started talking about it, and I did NOT give him the idea. OBVIOUSLY, people are SCARED, and considering OTHER options. If one takes off, the DOLLAR WILL lose value!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4291910].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              It DOES say REGULATE. THat doesn't imply devaluing. And it starts out powers of CONGRESS, yet this started when people said it was unconstitutional to deny the PRESIDENT the ability to SPEND.
              You're right, it doesn't IMPLY, it plainly STATES that Congress can regulate the VALUE of money:

              To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
              It's funny how people can't accept FACTS that are right before their own eyes, when those FACTS don't go along with their own OPINIONS.

              Steve, "regulate the Value thereof" means EXACTLY what it says. Your denial and straw man arguments don't change this fact.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4296028].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Here's what the US Constitution ACTUALLY says on the subject. It's an interesting read, you should try reading it sometime.


            Quote:
            Section 8 - Powers of Congress
            The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

            To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

            To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

            To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

            To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
            Exactly why we got screwed when we left the gold standard and started using funny money printed on behalf of World Bank. If people should be screaming about anything - it should be to kick the FED to the curb and go back to REAL money. It's way time we ditched the World Bank monopoly money. Slavery is supposed to be illegal.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4292286].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Exactly why we got screwed when we left the gold standard and started using funny money printed on behalf of World Bank. If people should be screaming about anything - it should be to kick the FED to the curb and go back to REAL money. It's way time we ditched the World Bank monopoly money. Slavery is supposed to be illegal.

              A gold standard is just as articficial as any other. It's based on how much shiny metal a country has, and not on anything else, like production or any other natural resource or invention.

              Gold has little REAL value other than people put an artificial value on it. And it limits the size of the pie everyone has to share, meaning we would all be a lot poorer. If you want to talk about a REAL precious metal, enriched plutonium would be more valuable.

              And slavery is ILLEGAL. When was the last time a family member or friend of your's was sold?

              As a matter of fact, I have more freedom as an IMer than any other business person/worker in history. Get your butt behind a plow horse 10 hours a day for a life time, just to put food on the table, then get back to me about "freedom".

              People can deny it all they want...Our debt problem is from fighting two unpaid for wars and cutting taxes while doing it. Do the math.

              Fix those money problems...Then we invest in renewable energy and stop sending our money over seas in what T Boone Pickens call the "greatest transfer of wealth in history".
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4295694].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                A gold standard is just as artificial as any other. It's based on how much shiny metal a country has, and not on anything else, like production or any other natural resource or invention.

                Gold has little REAL value other than people put an artificial value on it. And it limits the size of the pie everyone has to share, meaning we would all be a lot poorer.

                If you want to talk about a REAL precious metal, enriched plutonium would be more valuable.

                And slavery is ILLEGAL.

                When was the last time a family member or friend of your's was sold?

                As a matter of fact, I have more freedom as an IMer than any other business person/worker in history.

                Get your butt behind a plow horse 10 hours a day for a life time, just to put food on the table, then get back to me about "freedom".

                People can deny it all they want...

                ...Our debt problem is from fighting two unpaid for wars and cutting taxes while doing it. Do the math.

                Fix those money problems...

                Then we invest in renewable energy and stop sending our money over seas in what T Boone Pickens call the "greatest transfer of wealth in history".

                I hear you Kurt.

                Renewable energy is a biggie if the regular people of this country are to have a prosperous 21st century.

                All The Best!!

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4295963].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Kurt -

      I agree with you - raising the ceiling is not an option. Failing to do so would be absolute stupidity and I don't think that will happen. But it's worth the fight to point out where we're headed and try to change that course.

      I disagree with the amount of the increase proposed - becuase it's too much and not necessary to go up 2 trillion except in the timing of an election cycle. THAT part I have a problem with.

      I agree with you about going back to 2000 - we were doing great until...we had two spendaholics in office and until we allowed Wall Street and bank greed to run unchecked. We participated in that greed, too, in many cases and need to take the wakeup call seriously or we're in for very hard times ahead.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287616].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Kurt -

        I agree with you - raising the ceiling is not an option. Failing to do so would be absolute stupidity and I don't think that will happen. But it's worth the fight to point out where we're headed and try to change that course.

        I disagree with the amount of the increase proposed - becuase it's too much and not necessary to go up 2 trillion except in the timing of an election cycle. THAT part I have a problem with.

        I agree with you about going back to 2000 - we were doing great until...we had two spendaholics in office and until we allowed Wall Street and bank greed to run unchecked. We participated in that greed, too, in many cases and need to take the wakeup call seriously or we're in for very hard times ahead.
        Yes, raising the debt ceiling is a normally a non partisan issue.

        The requests are bigger because the deficits are bigger.

        It's not going to make any difference whatsoever if they raise it high enough to cover through the 2012 national elections.

        If you think a lot of posturing is going on now, it will be a lot worse in the middle of the election season.

        I say...

        Raise it so we don't have to deal with it for at least a year and a half.

        Better yet,

        Have it expire around March of 2013 and let the next president and congress deal with it - after they have settled in.

        Note: During the 1980's and 1990's divided gov worked together and they are both responsible for running up the nation debt.

        But divided gov also started the process of cleaning up the mess from the 1980's in the late 1990's with Clinton and Gingrich working together.

        BTW...

        After this debt ceiling is passed, nothing much is going to happen until after the elections of 2012.

        It's a shame to waste 2 years in the life of our nation - at such a critical time, but that's what it looks like we're going to get.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288442].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Yes, raising the debt ceiling is a normally a non partisan issue.

          The requests are bigger because the deficits are bigger.

          It's not going to make any difference whatsoever if they raise it high enough to cover through the 2012 national elections.

          If you think a lot of posturing is going on now, it will be a lot worse in the middle of the election season.

          I say...

          Raise it so we don't have to deal with it for at least a year and a half.

          Better yet,

          Have it expire around March of 2012 and let the next president and congress deal with it - after they have settled in.

          Note: During the 1980's and 1990's divided gov worked together and they are both responsible for running up the nation debt.

          But divided gov also started the process of cleaning up the mess from the 1980's in the late 1990's with Clinton and Gingrich working together.

          BTW...

          After this debt ceiling is passed, nothing much is going to happen until after the elections of 2012.

          It's a shame to waste 2 years in the life of our nation - at such a critical time, but that's what it looks like we're going to get.


          All The Best!!

          TL
          Tl, I don't know how to say this without you getting all offended but....
          That sounds like something I would say:rolleyes:
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4288484].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            TL - You may be right. My fear is that every time its raised it goes up more than last time. Once the new cap is in place, both sides seem to forget about it until next time.

            One of these days, there won't me a next time. The higher you climb - the bigger the fall.

            Moody's can put it where the sun don't shine - those are the same guys who were handing out AAA ratings to some very bad investment packages in 2006 and 2007...right up until the house of cards started falling. At least if there is a cap on the debt we have to stop and look at it once in a while.

            I think this time we're taking a closer look than usual - and I think it's about time we did that.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

            I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4289057].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              TL - You may be right. My fear is that every time its raised it goes up more than last time. Once the new cap is in place, both sides seem to forget about it until next time.

              One of these days, there won't me a next time. The higher you climb - the bigger the fall.

              Moody's can put it where the sun don't shine - those are the same guys who were handing out AAA ratings to some very bad investment packages in 2006 and 2007...right up until the house of cards started falling. At least if there is a cap on the debt we have to stop and look at it once in a while.

              I think this time we're taking a closer look than usual - and I think it's about time we did that.
              I agree with you about Moodys. HECK, I don't like ANY rating agencies. They collect info that is often wrong, and apply formulas that have false premises, etc... The data is DOOMED to be corrupt. Still, many figure it is better than nothing and if they say something is good or bad others may see it, which affects perception and value.

              On the investment packages, there was a LOT of voodoo done and I'm sure many LIED! I worked on a program that handled some such things. Before that some banks had loans on the floor and mixed and matched MANUALLY. You can BET junk got in. and WHO could forget milken(sp?) aka "the junk bond king".

              Anyway, the corruption happened at ALL levels. Sometimes companies INTENTIONALLY give rating companies BAD info!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4289137].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    If I want to read about politics I'll go to FoxNews.com. I come to WF to get away from that crap for awhile. So thanks for bringing it here.
    Signature

    When it comes to SEO, there are zero dumb questions. Find the answers you need in our SEO FAQ section. If I don't address your question there, send me a pm and I'll answer it that way.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4287966].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Oh. You watch the phone hacking news company to get your political fix? Good luck with that. lol

      Actually, I think this thread has stayed remarkably non political overall considering the subject.

      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      If I want to read about politics I'll go to FoxNews.com.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290034].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Tim -

        It was doing well until you couldn't resist the comment above

        It shouldn't be political - this is one time when you can't pin this on any one person or party. Neither can you excuse either side. They've both participated and they both need to be holding the bag.

        I think a bunch of them from both sides need to be locked in one room until they stop blathering and start talking about what's best for those of us outside those hallowed halls.

        5 minute potty breaks, bottled water and dry sandwiches - and nothing else until they get something accomplished.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290230].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          It shouldn't be political - this is one time when you can't pin this on any one person or party.
          No comment!
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290468].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Tim -

          It was doing well until you couldn't resist the comment above

          It shouldn't be political - this is one time when you can't pin this on any one person or party. Neither can you excuse either side. They've both participated and they both need to be holding the bag.

          I think a bunch of them from both sides need to be locked in one room until they stop blathering and start talking about what's best for those of us outside those hallowed halls.

          5 minute potty breaks, bottled water and dry sandwiches - and nothing else until they get something accomplished.
          This should have been settled weeks ago.

          Better yet, why doesn't one side stop trying to use raising the debt ceiling for leverage and simply raise it without any conditions...

          ... as it was done 7 times for the previous admins, (even while doubling the national debt)

          ...and for all the admins in our history...

          ...and without any fanfare??



          If they can come to some sort of deal on reducing the medium & long term debt - great...

          ...but if not,

          ...stop holding U.S. and "world economy" hostage.


          It's irresponsible to say the least.


          The closer we get to that Aug 2nd deadline the more worried I'm going to become because with these jerks,

          ... they just may somehow slip up and allow it to expire and/or they may have been convinced to let it expire and roll the political dice.


          Fortunately the house does not need the 70 or so members of the majority that are hell-bent on not raising the ceiling without deep budget cuts and no revenue increases to pass the bill.

          Members of the minority in the house will fill in the gaps to get easily to 218 votes for passage.

          The Secretary Of The Treasury claims to have been assured by the leadership that a default will not happen.


          Talk about Konspiracies, ...

          ...I wouldn't be surprised if there are crazy "cold turkey" forces waiting in the wings to somehow help a default happen...

          ... because they believe it's the right thing to do.

          One side should stop playing games with our lives.

          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4291537].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jeffrey73
      Agreed. Yet on the other hand, we don't have to read through it either.

      Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

      If I want to read about politics I'll go to FoxNews.com. I come to WF to get away from that crap for awhile. So thanks for bringing it here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290611].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    I really wish all US citizens would do this simple math quiz.

    Take the amount of the Bush Tax Cuts, including the years extended by Obama.

    Take the amount of the two Wars, Iraq and Afganstan...Supported now by Bush and Obama.

    Add the two together.

    Compare this total with the total increase of the last two debt increases.

    Some economics experts say not to raise taxes during a recession, but they forget about the other cliche that states not to CUT taxes during war time. And IMO, cutting taxes during war time is what got us into this mess. And, I believe the numbers prove my point.

    IMO, until we stop both wars we will never be able to get our spending under control.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    When the whole word is going to the pits, nothing better than humor to take the edge off things
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290923].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author highhopes
    Funny thing this...USA has raised the debt ceiling over a hundred times since 1917, 8 times I think in the W. G. Bush era. they can get away with this and print more money because of their International dollar currency. Obama seems to be powerless as congress are holding the chips.....how long can this be sustained????
    Signature

    Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
    http://wwwtheearninghub.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4290986].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

      Funny thing this...USA has raised the debt ceiling over a hundred times since 1917, 8 times I think in the W. G. Bush era.

      they can get away with this and print more money because of their International dollar currency. Obama seems to be powerless as congress are holding the chips.....how long can this be sustained????
      Yes it's been raised in the past without fanfare and without any pre-conditions.

      In this particular situation it's about "borrowing" more money...

      .. not printing it up by the fed reserve.


      You're right, congress holds the chips as declared in the constitution.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4291598].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SerenitySerenity
        who cares the whole corporate word is piece of crap. we live in a team based environment but everyone wants to plays solo . i suggest sticking to the concept of a mom and pop shop that keeps the big boys out and employee list low
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4292033].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I think Nixon is the president that actually took us off the gold standard and our money was no longer tied to the price of gold.

    It's called a "floating" exchange rate.

    I heard of rumors that the Brits were exchanging our dollars for our gold and it had to stop or they would have totally drained our gold reserves.

    But...

    It's too late to get rid of the fed.

    The world economy is tied up with the fed.

    That would be nice but it's not going to happen.

    We had and can still have a prosperous nation even with the federal reserve and it's strange and prosperous arrangement with the federal government.

    All The Best!!



    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4292690].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I think Nixon is the president that actually took us off the gold standard and our money was no longer tied to the price of gold.

      It's called a "floating" exchange rate.

      I heard of rumors that the Brits were exchanging our dollars for our gold and it had to stop or they would have totally drained our gold reserves.

      But...

      It's too late to get rid of the fed.

      The world economy is tied up with the fed.

      That would be nice but it's not going to happen.

      We had and can still have a prosperous nation even with the federal reserve and it's strange and prosperous arrangement with the federal government.

      All The Best!!



      TL
      I'm not that old! We went off the gold standard a bit after 1913! And there was a person that made SURE we couldn't counter it!

      The Roosevelt Gold Confiscation Order Of April 3 1933.

      You may doubt the source, but it IS historical FACT!

      HEY, I found the culprit!!!!!! His name? Woodrow Wilson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      December 23rd, 1913, he persuaded congres to pass Federal Reserve Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      AW, he is LITERALLY the poster boy for the act! Wikipedia, in the act, has a picture of the page of the newspaper speaking about he he passed the act, and they EVEN have his picture there!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293104].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        I'm not that old! We went off the gold standard a bit after 1913! And there was a person that made SURE we couldn't counter it!

        The Roosevelt Gold Confiscation Order Of April 3 1933.

        You may doubt the source, but it IS historical FACT!

        HEY, I found the culprit!!!!!! His name? Woodrow Wilson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        December 23rd, 1913, he persuaded congres to pass Federal Reserve Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        AW, he is LITERALLY the poster boy for the act! Wikipedia, in the act, has a picture of the page of the newspaper speaking about he he passed the act, and they EVEN have his picture there!

        Steve
        The federal reserve act was passed in 1913 while Wilson was prez...

        ...but it didn't take U.S. money off the gold standard.

        Like I said earlier, Nixon did that in 1971.

        The Nixon Shock was a series of economic measures taken by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1971...

        ... including unilaterally cancelling the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold that essentially ended the existing Bretton Woods system of international financial exchange.

        Here's a link for more detail... ( it's a wikipedia link also )

        Nixon Shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        And yes, FDR confiscated all the gold in America.

        So...

        1: Federal Reserve Created: 1913

        2: FDR Confiscates Gold : 1933

        3: Nixon Takes U.S. Dollar Off Gold Standard & Institutes Floating Exchange Rate: 1971

        So, I think you're getting the 3 events mixed up...

        ... if you're saying we went off the gold standard in 1913 when it was actually in 1971 under Nixon.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293364].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      We had and can still have a prosperous nation even with the federal reserve and it's strange and prosperous arrangement with the federal government.
      NOBODY said otherwise! Heysal didn't, and I didn't! ALL they have to do is balance the budget, get rid of the debt, not factor, lower taxes, bring the currency in line, and BANG! HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN! It COULD be done! It HAS been done before!

      But this means we need SANITY, and that WON'T happen! So WHY does hey sal talk about a gold standard? Does she REALLY care? NO WAY! WHAT would she use it for? Trinkets? NOPE!

      THE reason why gold is talked about is because it DOESN'T corrode(which makes it better than copper or silver in that way), it is RARE, and it has had value for MILLENIA! If a dollar were backed by a set amount of gold, as it ONCE was, they couldn;t cheat the public, as they have since!

      Gold has MORE uses and more real value than EVER before but you and I will likely NEVER get that value from it ourselves. Heysal MIGHT get some, but will probably find MUCH more gold than she could ever use. The REAL value comes from like ROLEX which may use it in watches, or intel which may use it in computers. For platinum, some high end jewelry or coin manufacturers, or ford or GM for catalytic converters, etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293195].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Bill Clinton supports using the 14th to raise the ceiling. I really hope it goes this way:

        Bill Clinton Backs 14th Amendment Option For Debt Talks
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293317].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Bill Clinton supports using the 14th to raise the ceiling. I really hope it goes this way:

          Bill Clinton Backs 14th Amendment Option For Debt Talks
          Not my preferred option but if necessary...

          The prez can not allow these jerks to mess with the full faith and credit etc.

          I'd rather have a constitutional crisis verses a debt ceiling crisis.

          I also heard it would be best if this thing gets done by this Friday - not Aug 2nd, because of the lead time needed to sell the bonds etc.

          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293397].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Not my preferred option either really. I think a 3 to 1 or even a 4 to 1 ratio of cutting/increasing revenue is very reasonable. If they can't agree with that, and it looks like they won't, then this option is better than going into default. The other option would be the McConnell/Reid proposal where they give the Pres the authority to raise it himself, but the house may not go along with that either.

            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Not my preferred option but if necessary...

            The prez can not allow these jerks to mess with the full faith and credit etc.

            I'd rather have a constitutional crisis verses a debt ceiling crisis.

            I also heard it would be best if this thing gets done by this Friday - not Aug 2nd, because of the lead time needed to sell the bonds etc.

            All The Best!!

            TL
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293904].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Not my preferred option either really.

              I think a 3 to 1 or even a 4 to 1 ratio of cutting/increasing revenue is very reasonable.

              If they can't agree with that, and it looks like they won't, then this option is better than going into default. The other option would be the McConnell/Reid proposal where they give the Pres the authority to raise it himself, but the house may not go along with that either.
              I hear you Tim.

              Some people claim they are the guardians of deficit reduction but when offered a 3-1 or even 4-1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases they shrink away supposedly because of the rev increases.

              That 1 "ratio" is about finding only 100 billion dollars a year by closing loopholes, raising the rates on our best off and/or even re-writing the tax code itself.

              That would be about 400 billion a year in savings for the federal gov.

              But noooooooooooooooooo....


              According to some people...

              We can't afford to take one single penny away from the "job producers" so that deal will probably fall through - if it ever had a chance.

              Tim, I suspect the "Starve The Beast" gambit is in play by our friends in red.

              All The Best!!

              TL


              Ps. I hear the "Cut, Cap & Balance" bill that may be voted on by the house people in red today is even worse than Sir Paul's bill - if that's possible.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4294021].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Not my preferred option but if necessary...

            The prez can not allow these jerks to mess with the full faith and credit etc.

            I'd rather have a constitutional crisis verses a debt ceiling crisis.

            I also heard it would be best if this thing gets done by this Friday - not Aug 2nd, because of the lead time needed to sell the bonds etc.

            All The Best!!

            TL
            Which jerks? EVERYONE on BOTH sides, INCLUDING "the prez" is messing with the full faith and credit. In fact, "the prez" is the one most outspoken about that.

            To avoid messing with it, there would have to be a relatively small proportion of the country's GDP tied up in it, the debt would have to grow at a smaller rate, there would have to be enough VALUE to pay off the debt, etc...

            TRY to go to a bank and borrow money on the basis that you can borrow enough to pay them back. They would probably laugh you out of the place. There IS a reason why SECURED debt has a better rate than UNsecured!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4294031].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Bill Clinton supports using the 14th to raise the ceiling. I really hope it goes this way:

          Bill Clinton Backs 14th Amendment Option For Debt Talks
          I think it's good to have that option, but if it goes that far I don't see it as a good thing for the pres. or country.
          I thought Bill did a pretty good job which got him 8 years of being investigated.
          If O did that he would be facing the same thing and congress would spend the rest of his term trying to impeach.
          I don't see any easy or perfect fixes for the state of the economy on a country or world level.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293535].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            I think it's good to have that option, but if it goes that far I don't see it as a good thing for the pres. or country.
            I thought Bill did a pretty good job which got him 8 years of being investigated.
            If O did that he would be facing the same thing and congress would spend the rest of his term trying to impeach.
            I don't see any easy or perfect fixes for the state of the economy on a country or world level.
            I believe I heard a member of the opposite party say if he does that -( invokes the 14th ) it's grounds for impeachment.

            They do not have the votes to actually impeach him but they will be quite happy to go through the motions and take it as far as possible - until the senate has to vote on it.

            The senate which has 54 democrats will not go along and I think you need 66 votes to actually impeach a prez.

            IMHO,the impeachment theatrics are a better option than that debt ceiling not being raised.


            All The Best!!

            TL

            Ps. I don't see any easy fixes either.

            It's going to be a long tortuous road back for the U.S. and the world.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293570].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            There aren't any easy fixes - and that's the problem.

            No one thinks they should have to surrender any of their bennies, or their govt checks or their public funds or....

            And the real truth is beginning to reveal itself. There will be cuts and pain involved in getting out of this. The deeper we dig, the greater the pain will be.

            If nothing else, this public debate about raising the debt ceiling has gotten the attention of many people who don't pay attention to such things. I hear comments now from friends who have no interest in how things "are run" as long as they aren't affected personally.

            Plunging a country into ever increasing debt shouldn't be as easy as a quick vote to maintain status quo - so the debate about this entire process is useful from my perspective.

            Anyone with any degree of open mind remaining can watch the talking heads and their guests and point out the talking points and rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. If you can only see the lies from one side - you are part of the problem. Misinformation is coming from both sides - but both sides also have some concerned and capable people working on the problem.

            kay
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

            I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293599].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author High Horsepower
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              There aren't any easy fixes - and that's the problem.

              kay
              Bingo!

              This world crisis is a very complicated mess. There are no easy solutions, only Hard Solutions.

              Politicians don't like making dramatic changes, that's why they've been "kicking the can down the road" for many years.

              My best advice is to do what's best for you and your family. No politician from any party can fix this disaster, it's gotten way out of hand.

              Save money, avoid debt, plan for retirement, don't count on Soc Sec or maybe even a pension.

              Richard
              Signature
              Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4309757].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Kay,

    One of the guys, on one side of the isle, has privately said to those in a company that he runs, that he is SCARED for the ideas there. HE is waiting it out.

    Yeah, REAL compromises have to be made! REAL ones! So the plan was to meet each other half way. BOTH halves may hurt BOTH parties to a degree. But if there is not a TRUE balance(pay so you have time, and CUT so you end up better off), SOMEBODY down the road WILL end up paying. If I were 60+, I might lust go off grid, leave, and say "SO LONG SUCKERS", and laugh while I am somewhere ELSE safe and sound! After all, I have been speaking against THIS for DECADES! I spoke against the 2008 debacle for about a decade! OH, you say? 2008+10=2018, and it isn't even 2012 yet?

    YEP, I have been speaking against the basis of the home problem since about 1999, and PREDICTED it! That wasn't even in the same CENTURY! I bought a home in 2001, because I figured the US HAD to wise up. They DIDN'T! I just refinanced while things were at near historic lows. And it is FIXED RATE! I was SO sure it HAD to end up where the 70s were. I was PART right! A lot of loan companies brought back the BALLOON PAYMENT! And the government is STUCK! Raising the rate will FURTHER hurt the poor and trusting. There will be bigger disasters. But keeping the rate where it is will help keep the dollar low, and help entrap more people.

    When one senator, after killing so many companies, said THEY didn't do it because ,after easing back things, the companies didn't come back, I should have ran for the hills and forgotten about buying a home. At the time, I likened it to saying, after stabbing someone, and running the knife through major organs, that you OBVIOUSLY didn't kill them because removing the knife doesn't bring them back to life!

    And I hope people realize how this is going to hurt their KIDS!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4293992].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW the two times I tried to get credit MYSELF, I was told not to use debt to finance the loan, and not to increase my debt much. WHY do you suppose that was?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4294057].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author highhopes
    TheUSA National Debt has continued to increase an average of
    $3.85 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
    Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!
    Signature

    Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
    http://wwwtheearninghub.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4294908].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I just finished listening to a 1st year congressman from Alabama on TV.

    He was frightening.

    Even Ronald Reagan could not convince him to abandon his...

    "no debt ceiling will be raised without substantial cuts" ...

    ...position...

    ... and he also had the position that not raising the ceiling wouldn't be all that bad.

    He actually heard the words of RR imploring him to simply raise the debt ceiling and then said RR would disagree with that.

    He was in a fantasy world.

    He just kept repeating the talking points like a robot.

    Thank God he's not really needed to get the thing raised.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4295985].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gforces
    Familiar with Jim Rohn? Here is a little 'vitamin for the mind' that he often shares:

    What should a child do with a dollar? Here's one philosophy: It's only a child and it's only a dollar, so what difference does it make? Wow, what a philosophy! Where do you suppose everything starts for the future? Here's where it starts: It starts with a child and a dollar. You say, "Well, he's only a child once. Let him spend it all." Well, when would you hope that would stop? When he's fifty and broke like you?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4296140].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    It's 1987 and the dems were grumbling about the debt incurred under Reagan - with their help.

    But voting against raising the debt ceiling - for any reason, was never a serious consideration for either party.



    BTW, He raised taxes at least 10 times while president.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4307563].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author n1985
    dont know man, reccession over where i am at is set to recover anytime soon,
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4307615].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    TL,

    I thougt you guys said this never happened before! Did YOU know that reagan was working towards *******REDUCING****** the deficit? TRUE!

    Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    President of the United States Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes.
    There are TWO ways to reduce the short term debt ratio. That's it, TWO!

    1. Increase income.
    2. DECREASE SPENDING!

    Right now, people are trying #1. That is IMPOSSIBLE. They don't actually MAKE money. They acknowledge that, so they want to raise taxes! That CAN'T be 100%. They acknowledge THAT, so they want to use LONG TERM debt!

    What is wrong with that? Raising taxes further clouds things, and can lead to more unemployment. If they get too much debt, we may NEVER be able to pay it off!

    So WHY do you guys keep ignoring option #2? I mean I have to do that to balance MY books!

    In an earlier post, that you chose to respond to with a half truth, I said borrow HALF as much, and get the rest through CUTS! SAME as what we were SUPPOSED to be doing ALL ALONG! I mean they PROMISED in 1982!

    So don't take a video an put it into a situation that is CLEARLY out of context! He was talking about support for MY postion, NOT YOURS!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4307644].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      TL,

      I thougt you guys said this never happened before! Did YOU know that reagan was working towards *******REDUCING****** the deficit? TRUE!

      Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



      There are TWO ways to reduce the short term debt ratio. That's it, TWO!

      1. Increase income.
      2. DECREASE SPENDING!

      Right now, people are trying #1. That is IMPOSSIBLE. They don't actually MAKE money.

      They acknowledge that, so they want to raise taxes! That CAN'T be 100%. They acknowledge THAT, so they want to use LONG TERM debt!

      What is wrong with that?

      Raising taxes further clouds things, and can lead to more unemployment. If they get too much debt, we may NEVER be able to pay it off!

      So WHY do you guys keep ignoring option #2? I mean I have to do that to balance MY books!

      In an earlier post, that you chose to respond to with a half truth, I said borrow HALF as much, and get the rest through CUTS! SAME as what we were SUPPOSED to be doing ALL ALONG! I mean they PROMISED in 1982!

      So don't take a video an put it into a situation that is CLEARLY out of context! He was talking about support for MY postion, NOT YOURS!

      Steve

      I said...

      It's 1987 and the dems were "grumbling"...

      .. about the debt incurred under Reagan - with their help.

      and I also said...

      But voting against raising the debt ceiling - for any reason, was...

      ... never...

      ... a serious consideration for either party.

      They were simply grumbling, and Reagan also wanted to make and score a few political points at the time but...

      ... never in our history has the nation been...

      ... "held hostage" like now - never.


      You said...


      Raising taxes further clouds things, and can lead to more unemployment.

      I say...

      Oh, the don't ever raise taxes on the "job creators myth" - again??



      What happened when Clinton & the GOP raised taxes while Clinton was prez??


      Answer??

      22 MILLION jobs created.


      What's so "out of context" about the video??


      No matter how many times you folks shout ...


      ... "we have a spending problem - not a revenue problem" ...

      ... as long as the federal gov is missing out on 600-800 billion per year - (thanks to this downturn, )


      ...we clearly also have a revenue problem.


      You said...

      So WHY do you guys keep ignoring option #2? ( cutting spending )


      I say...

      No one is ignoring cutting spending but ( try to get this )...

      ... most of us feel like...

      why should we throw people into the streets etc. and...

      ... forget about asking people who are doing quite well to pitch in and help with the nation's finances so that people don't have to be thrown into the streets etc.

      You can split hairs all you want but the bottom line is ...

      You & your friends want a lot of draconian cuts but...

      ... you don't want to raise one single penny of revenue - and you're using the "job creator myth" for cover and it appears that...

      ...there's a bunch of you that will be happy to destroy the full faith and credit etc. to get your way.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4307942].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    TL,

    I guess all I can say is WOW. I hope this world ends up better off after all this whatever. I was going to say more, but maybe it would be deemed too political. It is hard to gauge such things here.

    The QUICKEST way to destroy credit is to KEEP spending and raise the debt ceiling. Ask ANYONE! HECK, why don't you go to some banks TODAY, get lines of credit, run them up, and try it for YOURSELF! PLEASE, it is EASY to do and you can have a LOT of fun doing it! Want a rolls royce? A JET? HEY, I once heard about a person that put a COMMERCIAL jet on his american express! I didn't even think it was possible! He WAS one of the richest men in the world, and practically owned his own country(as I recall, he was a prince), but don't let THAT stop you. And DON'T let all the rumors of the sub prime mortgage fiascos cloud your judgement.

    If you have enough gusto, it shouldn't take more than a few months to see who is right.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4308110].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    All I know is, I'll have all my stocks cashed out by the middle of next week, to free up cash.

    Best time to invest & find good bargin stocks is when everyone else is in panic mode & selling (Aug. 2nd).
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4308387].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rick B
    There is no worldwide economic crisis. There is a "readjustment" going on in the world's economy. For centuries a very small percentage of the world's population has excelled economically while the rest of the world lived in mostly poverty. The "haves" had a huge number of cheap laborers and cheap natural resources to support their wealth.

    Today the most heavily populated nations on Earth are competing with the "haves" for jobs, intellectual properties and natural resources. They are no longer willing to work quite as cheaply as before. Their increasing demand for goods and resources are driving up demand and, therefore, prices. That's especially true of fossil fuels of all types.

    Ask the former "have nots" in China and India if there is a worldwide economic crisis going on. Their lifestyle is booming and it's hard to argue that it's a bad thing. They deserve a good life as much as we "haves" do.

    I suspect that this readjustment is going to take a decade or two so we "haves" better get used to these economic challenges that we are experiencing right now.

    The billions of former "have nots" who are becoming more and more educated will continue to increase competition for the best jobs. Their need for fuel to run their cars and air condition their homes will continue to increase the cost of fossil fuels.

    The good news is that as they become wealthier they will buy more goods. Markets will expand. Higher demand for power will result in alternate energy sources becoming more available and eventually economical. Their businesses will hire workers and some will be in the "haves" countries.

    We live in a world of constantly changing circumstances. Those who don't adapt will flounder and those who foresee the opportunities of these evolving circumstances will do very well indeed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4310406].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Rick B View Post

      There is no worldwide economic crisis. There is a "readjustment" going on in the world's economy. For centuries a very small percentage of the world's population has excelled economically while the rest of the world lived in mostly poverty. The "haves" had a huge number of cheap laborers and cheap natural resources to support their wealth.

      Today the most heavily populated nations on Earth are competing with the "haves" for jobs, intellectual properties and natural resources. They are no longer willing to work quite as cheaply as before. Their increasing demand for goods and resources are driving up demand and, therefore, prices. That's especially true of fossil fuels of all types.

      Ask the former "have nots" in China and India if there is a worldwide economic crisis going on. Their lifestyle is booming and it's hard to argue that it's a bad thing. They deserve a good life as much as we "haves" do.

      I suspect that this readjustment is going to take a decade or two so we "haves" better get used to these economic challenges that we are experiencing right now.

      The billions of former "have nots" who are becoming more and more educated will continue to increase competition for the best jobs. Their need for fuel to run their cars and air condition their homes will continue to increase the cost of fossil fuels.

      The good news is that as they become wealthier they will buy more goods. Markets will expand. Higher demand for power will result in alternate energy sources becoming more available and eventually economical. Their businesses will hire workers and some will be in the "haves" countries.

      We live in a world of constantly changing circumstances. Those who don't adapt will flounder and those who foresee the opportunities of these evolving circumstances will do very well indeed.
      You think the RICH and the middle class were hit most? Look at unemployment stats, etc....

      LOWER...Middle!

      Even with the HOMES, the POORER ones were the ones that really lost. You talk about readjustment. They TRIED that! This is sort of a readjustment of the readjustment.

      I've been lucky so far. I'm ahead of where I was in 2008. Work has come slower, but my pay is STILL stable! My home is even roughly worth what it was. My father is still fine. Work has been slow for his wife, but she is STILL getting money in. I have a friend whose wife has had problems finding work, and he has few options, and they ARE under water, but THEY are still fine. My father has a lot of friends that happen to be very rich. They are just holding back investment, but are doing OK. OH YEAH, the taxidrivers here are having problems, like the owner, but the owner is doing OK. I have heard some bad stories from the taxi drivers.

      BTW china and india are different! In a way to try to make the rich richer in various countries THEY got more business. The average wage in india is like $8,000USD. A person could come to the US and LITERALLY make TEN TIMES that! And they HAVE! AGAIN, that gravy train is DRYING UP!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4311258].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author High Horsepower
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        I have heard some bad stories from the taxi drivers.

        Steve
        Lol. I was just in Las Vegas and my taxi driver told me he is making 50% less than he was 3-4 years ago. Previously he was making up to $1,400 week, now a good week is $800.

        Richard
        Signature
        Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313104].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by High Horsepower View Post

          Lol. I was just in Las Vegas and my taxi driver told me he is making 50% less than he was 3-4 years ago. Previously he was making up to $1,400 week, now a good week is $800.

          Richard
          Like I said, the boss is hurting a little, but OK, and I have heard bad stories from the drivers. ONE,for example, works 3 jobs, and is STILL on food stamps. Another told me a common story about how he worked all day, had like 1 fare or NOTHING, went off the clock, found out I was there and came a running. NOT because I was special or anything but because I was another fare to pickup, so his day wasn't a TOTAL loss.

          And Kurt is wrong about it being a luxury. Like most such things, it comes down to planning and economics. HERE, for example, I have a flat fare, so I KNOW what the taxi will cost. If I decide to be out for 1-2 weeks, I will PARK! It is roughly what a taxi costs. If I am out longer, I will actually rent a car(They usually have deals so it costs LESS than a taxi), or take a taxi. The taxi is less grief, less risk, gives me one less car to deal with, etc..., and everyone is essentially a friend, so I may take THAT option.

          BTW IRONICALLY, this means that the bad economy has caused me to use taxis MORE often! WHY? Because I take fewer flights due to the bad economy, to lower expenses, and then take the taxi cab. AGAIN, to lower expenses. If I flew every other week, like I once did, I would simply park in economy, as I have done before. Flying usually costs 2.5-5 times what it costs to stay in the room, so it is one of the biggest expenses I have.

          The same is true of any other times I have taken a taxi. Except if I LEAVE here, I often CAN'T take my car, and have to rent if I can't carpool and it is likely to be cheaper. I know it is the same with my coworkers. Family members may come in late, be forgotten about, be stood up, or simply realize there is a mistake, and end up taking a taxi. Even with rentals, many are done at the airport. Others often have shuttles.

          Basically, if a taxi is cheaper, or more convenient, TAKE IT. This means that people there simply to do one quick presentation or sign a document might take a taxi. People down on their luck may need one. People car pooling with others, walking, etc... might take one.

          Maybe his perception is skewed because airlines are used by those that have jobs that can afford them for their work, or have enough disposable income that they can visit far off, or take vacations. HECK, here they even someties have a program where taxdrivers are paid to take people from certain areas a certain distance for FREE! It is kind of a public designated driver program to keep drunks off the road.


          Derek,

          You talk like such a thing NEVER happened before! Lessons learned? NEVER! In my industry, there are actually supposed to be "lessons learned" documents. They apparently USUALLY don't have them and, if they do, they are usually found like at the END of a project. The idea is supposed to be that each project gets better, and problem resolution is improved. So those coming on can read through them, see what happened before, and update them.

          NEWS for you guys! In the US, we talk of a depression in the early 1930s. Well, apparently it was worldwide. I never heard anyone brag otherwise, and Germany was essentually BROKE! I don't know how OTHER banks were affected, but US ones were affected BADLY, and got a lot of new restrictions. The banks FOUGHT to rescind a lot of them all throughout the 80s and 90s. They were at least partially rescinded in 1999. So DON'T think they merely forgot.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4314631].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            And Kurt is wrong about it being a luxury. Like most such things, it comes down to planning and economics. HERE, for example, I have a flat fare, so I KNOW what the taxi will cost. If I decide to be out for 1-2 weeks, I will PARK! It is roughly what a taxi costs. If I am out longer, I will actually rent a car(They usually have deals so it costs LESS than a taxi), or take a taxi. The taxi is less grief, less risk, gives me one less car to deal with, etc..., and everyone is essentially a friend, so I may take THAT option.
            No Steve, YOU are wrong.

            First, you have never driven a cab, so you are ignorant to what trips a cab driver makes. Airport trips make up a very low percentange of cab rides in most cities, although some drivers may be restricted to only working the airport.

            Next, no one forces you to take a cab. I'm sure virtually every airport you visit not only has a shuttle service of some type, there's also public transit or buses you can use. I've never seen an airport without some type of public transportation.

            Not to mention a rental car service or two. But unlike a rental car, with a cab you are renting a car AND A DRIVER. That's a luxury. You even said youself that a cab is "less grief, less risk" and that a rental car is cheaper, showing you agree with a cab being a luxury.

            BTW IRONICALLY, this means that the bad economy has caused me to use taxis MORE often! WHY? Because I take fewer flights due to the bad economy, to lower expenses, and then take the taxi cab. AGAIN, to lower expenses. If I flew every other week, like I once did, I would simply park in economy, as I have done before. Flying usually costs 2.5-5 times what it costs to stay in the room, so it is one of the biggest expenses I have.
            And because YOU take a cab more often means that everyone else is? I didn't realize the entire economy revolved around you. You need to tell this to my many cab driver friends that they are doing better all because of YOU.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4316186].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              No Steve, YOU are wrong.

              First, you have never driven a cab, so you are ignorant to what trips a cab driver makes. Airport trips make up a very low percentange of cab rides in most cities, although some drivers may be restricted to only working the airport.
              Well, I did speak about being stranded, etc... Some also call taxis to get cars fixed. SERIOUSLY, how many are going to call a taxi like every day to get around?

              Next, no one forces you to take a cab. I'm sure virtually every airport you visit not only has a shuttle service of some type, there's also public transit or buses you can use. I've never seen an airport without some type of public transportation.
              OH, OK, maybe we have DIFFERENT definitions of LUXURYs! I was once in a place where they said people should get this book, but said it was EXPENSIVE! I hesitated buying it. It cost $20! For a book of it's size, I figured $50 was cheap. Mind you, I once started to buy a book, popular in medicine, but it cost almost $300(and it wasn't much larger than the $20 book) I ALSO thought about another, but stopped when I found it was almost $1000, and IT was SMALLER!

              OK, I guess you haven't been to a lot of airports. Some don't have ANY transportation(outside of self, rental, taxi, and a few DEDICATED shuttles). Like where I live, for example. But I DID go to places like boston. Boston has all of the above and essentially a bus line. Actually, parking is sparse, so to get to most parking, you have to take the buss. I did that towards the end because I got a microlease. Apparently, there s some law in Massachusetts that forbids renting a car more than 30 days, so I got a microlease to lower the cost. I can tell you there that apparently fewer were taking the train than anything else.

              BW taxis will go perhaps anywhere, and provide some standard. Busses DON'T! So a lot of times busses aren't an option EVEN if you know schedules real well, etc...

              Not to mention a rental car service or two. But unlike a rental car, with a cab you are renting a car AND A DRIVER. That's a luxury. You even said youself that a cab is "less grief, less risk" and that a rental car is cheaper, showing you agree with a cab being a luxury.
              I said under THOSE circumstances it is cheaper. If I thought I would have to travel multiple times in a day, the RENTAL car becomes cheaper. I was talking about having my car parked at the airport. Every day adds up and makes it more expensive. After 2 weeks, the taxicab is cheaper. Less than that, it is cheaper to park. The rental car companies often give a discount during the weekend which makes their cost an average of HALF what the taxi costs. NORMALLY, it would be OVER the cost of a taxi.

              As for the less grief, OK, I admit it! If a taxi costs roughly the same, I will take IT. Again, not my definition of a luxury, but OK. On my last contract, I mostly carpooled. I was stranded about 4 times, and had to go in late or not at all, another 10. I would have been happier if I had rented.

              And because YOU take a cab more often means that everyone else is? I didn't realize the entire economy revolved around you. You need to tell this to my many cab driver friends that they are doing better all because of YOU.
              NOPE, I didn't mean it in that way. I was just saying that that was oddly true in MY case.
              Besides, I KNOW cars break down, people's plans change in a hurry, people get stranded, etc... and they have to call a taxi. I have NO idea how much business THAT brings. But those are NOT luxurys, at least not in MY book. I mean what can they do? Walk in a strange area trying to find a bus stop, etc... not knowing where it has to go? What if they have luggage? Find a train? Rent a car, at the last minute, for the moment? NOPE!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4321208].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                Well, I did speak about being stranded, etc... Some also call taxis to get cars fixed. SERIOUSLY, how many are going to call a taxi like every day to get around?
                And in my OP about the subject, I said "most"...Not all. MOST!

                In a good ecomony more workers will take a cab to work instead of a bus, particularly in bad weather. Plus, many late night female workers, such as bartenders and waitresses take cabs to and from work, or people with DUIs.


                OH, OK, maybe we have DIFFERENT definitions of LUXURYs! I was once in a place where they said people should get this book, but said it was EXPENSIVE! I hesitated buying it. It cost $20! For a book of it's size, I figured $50 was cheap. Mind you, I once started to buy a book, popular in medicine, but it cost almost $300(and it wasn't much larger than the $20 book) I ALSO thought about another, but stopped when I found it was almost $1000, and IT was SMALLER!
                Since I used the word, we'll use my definition. Luxury means not essential or without other lower cost options.

                OK, I guess you haven't been to a lot of airports. Some don't have ANY transportation(outside of self, rental, taxi, and a few DEDICATED shuttles). Like where I live, for example. But I DID go to places like boston. Boston has all of the above and essentially a bus line. Actually, parking is sparse, so to get to most parking, you have to take the buss. I did that towards the end because I got a microlease. Apparently, there s some law in Massachusetts that forbids renting a car more than 30 days, so I got a microlease to lower the cost. I can tell you there that apparently fewer were taking the train than anything else.
                I've driven a cab in 5 cities with airports. Even Lake Tahoe has public transportation to and from the airport.


                BW taxis will go perhaps anywhere, and provide some standard. Busses DON'T! So a lot of times busses aren't an option EVEN if you know schedules real well, etc...
                And in some cities, some cabs are also restricted, at least in where they can pick up. Plus, in your argument, you could call a cab to take you to a bus terminal, or pick you up from a bus terminal. Happens all the time, especially after baseball games in Denver.


                I said under THOSE circumstances it is cheaper. If I thought I would have to travel multiple times in a day, the RENTAL car becomes cheaper. I was talking about having my car parked at the airport. Every day adds up and makes it more expensive. After 2 weeks, the taxicab is cheaper. Less than that, it is cheaper to park. The rental car companies often give a discount during the weekend which makes their cost an average of HALF what the taxi costs. NORMALLY, it would be OVER the cost of a taxi.
                You are not the center of the cab universe. And airport trips make up a very small percentage of total cab trips. And a bus/bike/walking is even cheaper.

                As for the less grief, OK, I admit it! If a taxi costs roughly the same, I will take IT. Again, not my definition of a luxury, but OK. On my last contract, I mostly carpooled. I was stranded about 4 times, and had to go in late or not at all, another 10. I would have been happier if I had rented.
                Take a bus next time and get back to me about a cab not being a luxury.


                NOPE, I didn't mean it in that way. I was just saying that that was oddly true in MY case.
                Besides, I KNOW cars break down, people's plans change in a hurry, people get stranded, etc... and they have to call a taxi. I have NO idea how much business THAT brings. But those are NOT luxurys, at least not in MY book. I mean what can they do? Walk in a strange area trying to find a bus stop, etc... not knowing where it has to go? What if they have luggage? Find a train? Rent a car, at the last minute, for the moment? NOPE!
                Yep, cars break down. But those people can still take a bus/bike/walk. Plus, I'd bet less than one out of 1000 rides I had were meeting a broken down vehicle.

                Although, once in a while you'd get a call to meet highway patrol to pick up someone who was under the influence, but not enough to arrest. But these were rare also and I bet even rarer today.

                It's never ceases to amaze me what a know-it-all you are. You will even tell me what kind of trips I had as a cab driver, when you've never driven a cab a day in your life. Ignorance is truly bliss.

                Why not take a city like Las Vegas? I'd say virtually every casino to casino trip is a luxury. I'd also say anyone taking a cab to or from a restaurant or bar in any city is a luxury. It's cheaper to drink at home. And, there are far more of these type trips than there are airport trips.

                Here's a fact: The majority of cab rides are luxuries, either because the person is on vacation or there are cheaper alternatives. And until you've actually driven a cab, be quiet for once.
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4325356].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Even if the crisis in Europe gets out of hand, I don't believe it will be as bad as in 2008 for the following reasons

    1. The banks are far stronger now.
    2. There is no bubble in the most housing and stock markets. In fact, many are still in the doldrums so it can't get much worse.
    3. Where there are housing bubbles, governments and monetary authorities are taking steps to clamp down.
    4. A lot of lessons have been learnt.

    What is more likely to happen is that we may get a Japan-like scenerio where a poor economy lingers on for years or even decades.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313135].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author High Horsepower
      Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

      Even if the crisis in Europe gets out of hand, I don't believe it will be as bad as in 2008 for the following reasons

      1. The banks are far stronger now.
      2. There is no bubble in the most housing and stock markets. In fact, many are still in the doldrums so it can't get much worse.
      3. Where there are housing bubbles, governments and monetary authorities are taking steps to clamp down.
      4. A lot of lessons have been learnt.

      What is more likely to happen is that we may get a Japan-like scenerio where a poor economy lingers on for years or even decades.
      Banks are not stronger today, Bank of America is practically on it's knees.
      Curse the Geniuses Who Gave Us Bank of America: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg

      Housing can still go down anther 10-25% by 2013.
      Case Shiller Index | Home prices and Case-Shiller index: Home prices edge up in April from March but fall from April 2010 - Los Angeles Times

      Gov't can only do so much, they've used all their options, nothing is working.

      No lessons have been learned.

      Richard
      Signature
      Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313179].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
        Originally Posted by High Horsepower View Post

        Banks are not stronger today, Bank of America is practically on it's knees.
        Curse the Geniuses Who Gave Us Bank of America: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg

        Housing can still go down anther 10-25% by 2013.
        Case Shiller Index | Home prices and Case-Shiller index: Home prices edge up in April from March but fall from April 2010 - Los Angeles Times

        Gov't can only do so much, they've used all their options, nothing is working.

        No lessons have been learned.

        Richard
        It is a matter of percentages. If the value of your house has fallen by 50% and you have taken out a 90% mortage, you are well under anyway. If house prices fall by another 20%, then the actual fall would only be another 10% from when you bought it.

        The crisis was trigerred off by a mere 20-25 drop. The banks never expected house prices to fall in the US. All sorts of complicated financial instruments blew up and the government was forced to help. This won't happen again should house prices continue to fall.

        Also, you are talking about a low base. A recent study have found the US has some of the most affordable housing in the world. There was really never a huge bubble like Japan's in the first place. It is just that the banks were geared to the hilt so that a relatively small fall in prices triggered off the crisis.

        I am not worried about the debt ceiling issue, I am sure some deal will be reached. I am much more worried if they embark on QE3 i.e. another round of printing money. If that happens, it is very bad for the US dollar and will push food and commodity prices higher again.
        Signature

        Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4314448].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author highhopes
          We are experiencing loose fiscal policies.
          I remember covering this in school....the shock of being told by my teacher that every democracy will almost certainly fail in time!

          HOW LONG DOES A DEMOCRACY LAST?

          The answer is, around 200 hundred years according to our world's history. The most interesting thing about Democracies is it's broken down in to documented segments that every free nation has been through since the beginning of time. According to scholars, "a democracy is temporary in nature and cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "From that moment, the voters always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." The 200 average years of democracies normally takes the following route to its own self destruction.
          Signature

          Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
          http://wwwtheearninghub.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4320137].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

            We are experiencing loose fiscal policies.
            I remember covering this in school....the shock of being told by my teacher that every democracy will almost certainly fail in time!

            HOW LONG DOES A DEMOCRACY LAST?

            The answer is, around 200 hundred years according to our world's history. The most interesting thing about Democracies is it's broken down in to documented segments that every free nation has been through since the beginning of time. According to scholars, "a democracy is temporary in nature and cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

            "A democracy will continue to exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "

            From that moment, the voters always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

            The 200 average years of democracies normally takes the following route to its own self destruction.
            Not trying to start a fight or get political but the U.S. is a technically a republic.

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4321144].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Not trying to start a fight or get political but the U.S. is a technically a republic.

              TL
              Yep, but often claimed to be a democracy, and people have tried to morph it into one. In any event, it IS succumbing to those frailties! BTW, that quote:

              "A democracy will continue to exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "

              It is PROPHETIC! That is PRECISELY what happened!

              BTW did you know there is a bill, started 1/6/2009 to REPEAL the 22nd amendment? It will stay on the books until 1/6/2016, and can be ratified at any point in between.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4321237].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                Yep, but often claimed to be a democracy, and people have tried to morph it into one. In any event, it IS succumbing to those frailties! BTW, that quote:

                "A democracy will continue to exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "

                It is PROPHETIC! That is PRECISELY what happened!

                BTW did you know there is a bill, started 1/6/2009 to REPEAL the 22nd amendment? It will stay on the books until 1/6/2016, and can be ratified at any point in between.

                Steve
                This prediction is from a guy who said there was a good chance that we'd be speaking German & Japanese - during WW2.

                Since I've been warned...

                I can't really respond like I'd like to but I will say...

                Thanks for the unrealistic gloom and doom.

                Imagine a boat on a river headed towards a steep waterfall...

                If the boat keeps going it will go over the steep waterfall and crash.

                IMHO, the boat is a long way from the waterfall and it has plenty of time to change course.


                But as far as you're concerned the boat is right near the edge right??


                All The Best!!

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4321378].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author highhopes
              Yes true enough.....but the real issue is how we got here through very bad investments and the greed of the financial institutions by western societies, republican or otherwise.
              The free world.
              There comes a point with debt where it reaches diminishing returns, and the developed world reached that point some time ago. Would this explain why the Fed’s frantic efforts at providing liquidity have failed to revitalize the economy?

              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Not trying to start a fight or get political but the U.S. is a technically a republic.

              TL
              Signature

              Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
              http://wwwtheearninghub.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4321720].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

      Even if the crisis in Europe gets out of hand, I don't believe it will be as bad as in 2008 for the following reasons

      1. The banks are far stronger now.
      2. There is no bubble in the most housing and stock markets. In fact, many are still in the doldrums so it can't get much worse.
      3. Where there are housing bubbles, governments and monetary authorities are taking steps to clamp down.
      4. A lot of lessons have been learnt.

      What is more likely to happen is that we may get a Japan-like scenerio where a poor economy lingers on for years or even decades.


      I said earlier in this thread that I thought the worst had already happened.

      But, let me also add, if the U.S. debt ceiling is not raised...

      I don't even want to think about it.

      BTW...

      What do you think will happen if the U.S. does not increase its debt ceiling???


      All The Best!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313197].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Dig it!

        I said earlier in this thread that I thought the worst had already happened.

        But, let me also add, if the U.S. debt ceiling is not raised...

        I don't even want to think about it.

        BTW...

        What do you think will happen if the U.S. does not increase its debt ceiling???


        All The Best!

        TL
        Congress won't get paid. Someone needs to remind them they have government jobs.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313199].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author High Horsepower
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I said earlier in this thread that I thought the worst had already happened.

        But, let me also add, if the U.S. debt ceiling is not raised...

        I don't even want to think about it.

        BTW...

        What do you think will happen if the U.S. does not increase its debt ceiling???


        All The Best!

        TL
        We're in Good times right now, the Worst is yet to come.

        Congress will not pass anything to help the economy, they will not do anything to help OBama get elected.

        All you youngins gonna learn a life lesson in the next 18 months, you'll be telling your grandkids "I was in the Worst Depression 2012 to 2015."

        Richard
        Signature
        Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313221].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by High Horsepower View Post

          We're in Good times right now, the Worst is yet to come.

          Congress will not pass anything to help the economy, they will not do anything to help OBama get elected.

          All you youngins gonna learn a life lesson in the next 18 months, you'll be telling your grandkids "I was in the Worst Depression 2012 to 2015."

          Richard
          Grover just gave them an "out" today. I have a feeling Wall Street had a little talk with Grover.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313274].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by High Horsepower View Post

          We're in Good times right now, the Worst is yet to come.

          Congress will not pass anything to help the economy, they will not do anything to help OBama get elected.

          All you youngins gonna learn a life lesson in the next 18 months, you'll be telling your grandkids "I was in the Worst Depression 2012 to 2015."

          Richard
          Time will tell.

          I do agree after this debt ceiling deal is signed, nothing else of economic importance will be signed the rest of his term because as you say he and this economy will get no help from the GOP.

          Time will tell on your other dire predictions.

          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313277].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Time will tell.

            I do agree after this debt ceiling deal is signed, nothing else of economic importance will be signed the rest of his term because as you say he and this economy will get no help from the GOP.

            Time will tell on your other dire predictions.

            All The Best!!

            TL

            Hey TL...

            Here's my prediction: They'll give a short term extension to the Debt Ceiling, then they'll do a longer deal with spending cuts and no tax increases.

            However, the Bush Tax Cuts expire on 12/31/2012 and they don't need a vote to end. So both sides can get what they want and neither side has to vote on a tax increase.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313333].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              The thing is, all tax cuts will expire at the same time and nobody wants the middle class tax cuts to expire. Hopefully you are right about Grover providing an out for some who signed his ridiculous pledge.

              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post


              However, the Bush Tax Cuts expire on 12/31/2012 and they don't need a vote to end. So both sides can get what they want and neither side has to vote on a tax increase.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313610].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                The thing is, all tax cuts will expire at the same time and nobody wants the middle class tax cuts to expire. Hopefully you are right about Grover providing an out for some who signed his ridiculous pledge.
                Grover basically said that allowing the tax cuts to expire wouldn't be a vote for tax increases. I believe this is a change of his position, if not at least it gives those that signed his pledge a way out in that they won't have to vote on the subject. The keyword is "vote".
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313749].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    As an ex cab driver, including in Las Vegas, I can say cabbies are the best test of economic health.

    The reasons are, cab rides are usually luxuries with other options available. Also, cab drivers work airports and the city's major hotels, which are indicators of both business and tourism.

    Also, a lot of cab rides are for things like restaurants and nite clubs/bars, which do better in good economies.

    And as a former Las Vegas cabbie, I can tell you any cab driver there making $1400 a week a few years ago was also working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, during the very best shifts, which is 2 pm to 2 am. Any other driver wouldn't be able to do that.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4313156].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I didn't say it was near the edge, or will happen. I said it went over, and has. I have said that all along.

    As for the WWII "prediction". Many made it. Frankly, it is based on a premise that, though it proved true elsewhere, wasn't tested in WWII. Of course, you must know that. I doubt you are that old, and I already told you that I am only a bit over half that. And THAT is assuming babies would have an opinion on such matters, let alone state it. Add that into the mix, and the odds of you being that old are VERY low! as for me, my father might have been in a position to predict something. I wasn't. To the best of my knowledge, my fathers family wasn't in the war. All of my mother's brothers were, but most are dead, so I can't ask them. 8-(

    Oh well, you're right about the politics getting too close, I'll stop also.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4321589].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4322563].message }}

Trending Topics