New higher Tariffs from trade talks - Page 47
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 47 of 97 FirstFirst ... 37454647484957 ... LastLast
Results 921 to 940 of 1939
  1. #921
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Remember, the House controls spending
    No. They do not. Even the naifs in their ranks know better.

    It is the responsibility, PRIMARILY, of the House of Representatives to evaluate needs and initiate spending bills.

    - even so, the House MAY consider spending bills proposed by the Executive, and DO, as a matter of routine. whether agreed as-had (damned seldom, ever), modified (very common..), or rejected outright (not UNcommon..).

    - The House MAY consider spending bills originated by the Senate. They just did do - passing emergency funding for dealing with illegal immigrants unaltered.

    EITHER.. passage by a veto-proof majority in BOTH Houses - Presidential agreement not needed,

    OR - more commonly, passage by both Houses at or below a veto-proof majority, PLUS Presidential agreement and signature is what gets the bill into law.

    Without cooperation with the other Chamber as a minimum, or at veto-proof levels if they expect to not NEED the buy-in of the President, neither House nor Senate can do much of anything at all about spending beyond passing noisy - but useless - political posturing bills.

    Which just die.

    All this media puffery about what grand bills the Pelosi House has passed is but noise on the channel when the Senate doesn't bring them to the floor for THEIR vote.

    Damned good system, actually.

    Even when it is at its most frustrating it is clear whom made a good-faith effort to enlist support of the other chamber, voted which way or the other. Or "none of the above".

  2. Likes CalG liked this post
  3. #922
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3353
    Likes (Received)
    3830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    Don't forget

    One man's debt is another man's investment.
    .
    yeah....what do you think maintains the balance of payments? .Wong Fook Hing(s) big pile of offshore owned bonds is about 1/3 of it. Think of the interest you're sending him.

  4. #923
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    10,487
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3568
    Likes (Received)
    3736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalG View Post
    I like it! Where do the tariffs come in?
    Likely have to tariff an extra 25 % of American worker's paycheck as a duty on income to pay for the free stuff budget.

    Oh I almost forgot.. We need to build a luxury free hotel and free restaurant at the border.. Likely Trump would like to build it
    on his tab.

  5. #924
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    yeah....what do you think maintains the balance of payments? .Wong Fook Hing(s) big pile of offshore owned bonds is about 1/3 of it. Think of the interest you're sending him.
    Not so fast.... China's holding of US debt instruments are way down vs "whole world".

    Big hunk of what THEY hold, yes. Even so, it is just over HALF of what they held just a few years ago.

    Much smaller hunk of what WE owe to all-holders. PRC holdings are under 5% by now, I'd guess.

    Part of why DJT (or his minders..) picked a very good time of the century to try and get this PRC/USA hassle sorted.

    Earlier was premature. Later might be impossible.

    And "Oh, BTW.." we're talking primarily Governments and their institutions, here.

    High net worth or other, private individuals have a bit of aversion to holding US Treasuries, various bonds & equities. Non-US citizens can see as much as 30% withholding applied on dividends and interest - at source, yet. Non-US equities are more attractive for most such holders.

  6. #925
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3353
    Likes (Received)
    3830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Not so fast.... China's holding of US debt instruments are way down vs "whole world".

    Big hunk of what THEY hold, yes. Even so, it is just over HALF of what they held just a few years ago.

    Much smaller hunk of what WE owe to all-holders. PRC holdings are under 5% by now, I'd guess.

    Part of why DJT (or his minders..) picked a very good time of the century to try and get this PRC/USA hassle sorted.

    Earlier was premature. Later might be impossible.
    show me where they owned twice as much as now. Its not down but has been going sideways for awhile

    National debt of the United States - Wikipedia

    Correction, you are correct as a percentage of all foriegn debt China's is down, but its not down in dollars and yauns. Basically it hasn't risen while debt to others has

  7. #926
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    show me where they owned twice as much as now. Its not down but has been going sideways for awhile

    National debt of the United States - Wikipedia

    Correction, you are correct as a percentage of all foriegn debt China's is down, but its not down in dollars and yauns. Basically it hasn't risen while debt to others has
    Oh yee of the instant-gratification ear-bud and EYE CANDY generation?
    Pity you've forgotten how to grok the printed word! [1]



    Pull up the very article you just cited in basic whole web-page mode. Look a few millimeters to the right of that graph:


    Historically, the share held by foreign governments had grown over time, rising from 13 percent of the public debt in 1988[52] to 34 percent in 2015.[53] In more recent years, foreign ownership has retreated both in percent of total debt and total dollar amounts. China's maximum holding of 9.1% or $1.3 trillion of US debt occurred in 2011, subsequently reduced to 5% in 2018.
    But T-bills ain't the whole story.

    PRC entities have ALSO made a major reduction in FDI into the USA's businesses.

    Fearful - and rightfully so - they might not be able to get full value out, those businesses take a hit - or get back out at all, s**t keeps going any which way but to their benefit.

    I've no klew if DJT "personally" groks all this, strategically. Or not. I'd be a hard one to convince!

    But whom do you know as gets a greater volume of expert advice, wanted or NOT?

    And then... has the flexible persona AND national flexibility to make effective use of it?

    PRC's team have done a damned fine economic job, their side. They have a great deal more reason to HAVE to do, also more challenges than good options.

    [1] This article and the hundreds of others a retired finance guru with real money involved would be reading all the time. It's what we do, our family, Hong Kong more than USA.

  8. #927
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,930
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3353
    Likes (Received)
    3830

    Default

    sigh, if only your word count would do the same. The amount they hold has changed little in the last decade. I acknowledged that as a percentage of total foriegn owned debt it has dropped, but they still hold about the same value of debt. None of which matters to the point that almost 1/3 of your large debt is foreign held.

  9. #928
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,902
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    776
    Likes (Received)
    2390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michiganbuck View Post
    Likely have to tariff an extra 25 % of American worker's paycheck as a duty on income to pay for the free stuff budget.

    Oh I almost forgot.. We need to build a luxury free hotel and free restaurant at the border.. Likely Trump would like to build it
    on his tab.
    And let out the rooms on a government contract.
    I hear from friends in Sweden, that is how the immigrant mess they are in really got it's start.
    Land lords! Who would think?
    A

  10. #929
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,902
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    776
    Likes (Received)
    2390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Oh yee of the instant-gratification ear-bud and EYE CANDY generation?
    Pity you've forgotten how to grok the printed word! [1]



    Pull up the very article you just cited in basic whole web-page mode. Look a few millimeters to the right of that graph:



    But T-bills ain't the whole story.

    PRC entities have ALSO made a major reduction in FDI into the USA's businesses.

    Fearful - and rightfully so - they might not be able to get full value out, those businesses take a hit - or get back out at all, s**t keeps going any which way but to their benefit.

    I've no klew if DJT "personally" groks all this, strategically. Or not. I'd be a hard one to convince!

    But whom do you know as gets a greater volume of expert advice, wanted or NOT?

    And then... has the flexible persona AND national flexibility to make effective use of it?

    PRC's team have done a damned fine economic job, their side. They have a great deal more reason to HAVE to do, also more challenges than good options.

    [1] This article and the hundreds of others a retired finance guru with real money involved would be reading all the time. It's what we do, our family, Hong Kong more than USA.
    just in case any readers don't grok grok

    Grok - Wikipedia

  11. #930
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,902
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    776
    Likes (Received)
    2390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mcgyver View Post
    sigh, if only your word count would do the same. The amount they hold has changed little in the last decade. I acknowledged that as a percentage of total foriegn owned debt it has dropped, but they still hold about the same value of debt. None of which matters to the point that almost 1/3 of your large debt is foreign held.
    Those foreign people are not wanting to see their retirement funds get pissed away on some tariff spat, that's for sure. Leverage! On our side.

  12. #931
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    621
    Likes (Received)
    2153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Remember, the House controls spending and ran on CR includining the bush tax cuts.
    You can credit him with spending 900m in stimulus...passed under bush BTW.
    About half of which were tax cuts.
    Also credit him for the sequester which stabilized spending.

    OTOH trump passed tax cuts and spending increases.

    Don’t forget Obama entered office with a recession skewing GDP numbers down, trump entered on a record setting growth trend.
    You really live in an alternate reality Miguel. This is all a matter of public record.

    When Bush took office he had a "balanced budget". I put that in quotes because it's not really true, but it is how the budget works.

    We had the 9/11 attacks, we had a recession, Bush put through the tax cuts. The "balanced budget" turned into deficits. They were about $125-$150 Billion a year. By 2006, the economy was doing well, the deficits were on a downward path. The GOP controlled Congress was passing budgets and appropriation bills under regular order- committee, full house, conference, etc.

    In the 2006 election the dems took both houses of Congress. This was the end of regular order. So in 2007, they passed a giant omnibus bill at the end of the session, holding Defense hostage as per their normal tactic. The deficit exploded from $161 Billion in 2007 to $458 Billion in 2008.

    Then we had the financial crash. Bush signed the TARP, which was $700 Billion. He spent $350 Billion of that to bail out the banks and Fanny/Freddie, and the other half was left for Obama.

    Obama spent the other half on the auto bailout, cash for clunkers, and a few other things. This was a direct violation of the TARP, which required the money to go only to the financial system- and when it was paid back, the money was to be returned to the treasury.

    The money that was given to the banks was pretty much all repaid in 2009 or 2010. The bankers didn't like the idea of the Gov't limiting their bonuses.

    2009 spending:

    In addition to the $350 Billion in TARP money.

    Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009. On February 17, he signed into law the stimulus act. This bill was written before Obama even took office. $831 Billion, borrowed from China. Obama gave China direct access to the Treasury at this time- not even the Fed can buy treasury bonds direct- they have to go through a primary dealer. There are 2 primary dealers- JPMC and BONY-Mellon. These are the only entities authorized to purchase bonds from the US Treasury.

    Ten days later, Obama submitted his first budget. The House took that budget and added an across the board 12% increase on everything except defense. They had a super majority in the Senate, so it all went through.

    That was the last time the democrats did a budget or appropriations bill. It was CR's from then on.

    Democrats had checked the boxes for spending and the economy in Obama's first month. They moved on the health care and the rest of the year was spent on Obamacare.

    It was CR's every year after that. No budgets, no appropriations bills until the 2012 Ryan-Murray budget for FY13.

    The recession ended in June 2009. Obama's tax, spend and regulate everything policies were the reason the recovery was so awful for everyone. We didn't even return to the pre-recession employment level until 2011. I;m not talking about the unemployment rate- I'm talking about total employment- how long it took to gain back the jobs lost in the recession.

    2016 GDP growth was 1.5%. That is hardly a "record setting" growth trend. Stop playing semantics. Yes, the deficit went down under Obama, because his first year's deficit was $1.4 TRILLION.

    $350 Billion of that you can attribute to Bush, the rest is Obama's.

  13. Likes adh2000, cnctoolcat liked this post
  14. #932
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camscan View Post
    Much to late,it has already happened.
    Dunno about YOUR head, but one thing is clear by this late date:

    Blighty has been f**ked-over, regardless it was the EU's doin' - or self-inflicted.

    MP-wanker class REALLY ought to be running on proof as to whom can do the best post-disaster salvage job,

    - leave OR remain.

    There ain't no great deals to be had any longer.

    - leave OR remain.

    They've been pissed away arredy.


  15. #933
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    You really live in an alternate reality Miguel. This is all a matter of public record.

    When Bush took office he had a "balanced budget". I put that in quotes because it's not really true, but it is how the budget works.

    We had the 9/11 attacks, we had a recession, Bush put through the tax cuts. The "balanced budget" turned into deficits. They were about $125-$150 Billion a year. By 2006, the economy was doing well, the deficits were on a downward path. The GOP controlled Congress was passing budgets and appropriation bills under regular order- committee, full house, conference, etc.

    In the 2006 election the dems took both houses of Congress. This was the end of regular order. So in 2007, they passed a giant omnibus bill at the end of the session, holding Defense hostage as per their normal tactic. The deficit exploded from $161 Billion in 2007 to $458 Billion in 2008.

    Then we had the financial crash. Bush signed the TARP, which was $700 Billion. He spent $350 Billion of that to bail out the banks and Fanny/Freddie, and the other half was left for Obama.

    Obama spent the other half on the auto bailout, cash for clunkers, and a few other things. This was a direct violation of the TARP, which required the money to go only to the financial system- and when it was paid back, the money was to be returned to the treasury.

    The money that was given to the banks was pretty much all repaid in 2009 or 2010. The bankers didn't like the idea of the Gov't limiting their bonuses.

    2009 spending:

    In addition to the $350 Billion in TARP money.

    Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009. On February 17, he signed into law the stimulus act. This bill was written before Obama even took office. $831 Billion, borrowed from China. Obama gave China direct access to the Treasury at this time- not even the Fed can buy treasury bonds direct- they have to go through a primary dealer. There are 2 primary dealers- JPMC and BONY-Mellon. These are the only entities authorized to purchase bonds from the US Treasury.

    Ten days later, Obama submitted his first budget. The House took that budget and added an across the board 12% increase on everything except defense. They had a super majority in the Senate, so it all went through.

    That was the last time the democrats did a budget or appropriations bill. It was CR's from then on.

    Democrats had checked the boxes for spending and the economy in Obama's first month. They moved on the health care and the rest of the year was spent on Obamacare.

    It was CR's every year after that. No budgets, no appropriations bills until the 2012 Ryan-Murray budget for FY13.

    The recession ended in June 2009. Obama's tax, spend and regulate everything policies were the reason the recovery was so awful for everyone. We didn't even return to the pre-recession employment level until 2011. I;m not talking about the unemployment rate- I'm talking about total employment- how long it took to gain back the jobs lost in the recession.

    2016 GDP growth was 1.5%. That is hardly a "record setting" growth trend. Stop playing semantics. Yes, the deficit went down under Obama, because his first year's deficit was $1.4 TRILLION.

    $350 Billion of that you can attribute to Bush, the rest is Obama's.
    Do you not remember the bush tax cuts were projected to torpedo the debt.
    They were passed through reconciliation and were supposed to expire because of that.
    A decade later the fight to continue that debt shut the government down.
    The result was CR and the sequester, the sequester stayed in place until trump cut taxes and increased spending.

    Fact is taxes actually fell in the Obama admin, with payroll tax cuts.
    Except for the stimulus spending remained fairly steady.

    If you look at it honestly, the recovery is one of the best possible outcomes.
    Steady, broad based growth...the only thing that would have improved the outcome was blockaded. Which would have been increased investment in manufacturing.

  16. #934
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Fact is taxes actually fell in the Obama admin, with payroll tax cuts.
    Except for the stimulus spending remained fairly steady.
    If you discount the fact that Bernanke printed up over a trillion dollars which he handed to Wall Street, which came directly out of our assets and savings, sure. Gee thanks Mr Obama. Smiling faces, sometimes, dey don't tell da truth ...

    If you look at it honestly, the recovery is one of the best possible outcomes.
    If all of Wall Sreet had gone to prison for the rest of their lives, the vampire squid had been publicly executed in the persons of Lloyd and Jamie, investment banking had paid for its sins, Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan had been pilloried for a month, and maybe the US started its own central bank, maybe.

    But as it is, Wall Street ripped us all off to the tiune of trillions, Bush and his cronies walked away from the biggest pack of lies since Beelzebub walked the earth, and we all took the big ten inch right up the ass.

    You guys snivel about Trump's "lies" but forget entirely the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Iraqi's bayonnetting babies in their incubators, Abu Ghraib and the torture that thse sons of bitches tried to justify plus all the other total shit that spewed out the mouth of the Bush administration ? The shit that killed hundreds of thousands of people who were minding their own business in their own country ?

    Want to see a do-gooder poster child ? Look up "hypocrisy" in the encyclopaedia. Some of our posters have their portraits there.

    Steady, broad based growth...
    We went to the moon in 1969. There have been a lot of unmanned space missions as well. There are photos of the earth. In case it missed your notice, the planet is finite.

    WE DON'T NEED GROWTH. GROWTH IS GOING TO DESTROY THE PLANET WHERE WE LIVE. IF WE DON'T GROW A BRAIN, WE ARE DEAD.

  17. #935
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    If you discount the fact that Bernanke printed up over a trillion dollars which he handed to Wall Street, which came directly out of our assets and savings, sure. Gee thanks Mr Obama. Smiling faces, sometimes, dey don't tell da truth ...


    If all of Wall Sreet had gone to prison for the rest of their lives, the vampire squid had been publicly executed in the persons of Lloyd and Jamie, investment banking had paid for its sins, Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan had been pilloried for a month, and maybe the US started its own central bank, maybe.

    But as it is, Wall Street ripped us all off to the tiune of trillions, Bush and his cronies walked away from the biggest pack of lies since Beelzebub walked the earth, and we all took the big ten inch right up the ass.

    You guys snivel about Trump's "lies" but forget entirely the Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Iraqi's bayonnetting babies in their incubators, Abu Ghraib and the torture that thse sons of bitches tried to justify plus all the other total shit that spewed out the mouth of the Bush administration ? The shit that killed hundreds of thousands of people who were minding their own business in their own country ?

    Want to see a do-gooder poster child ? Look up "hypocrisy" in the encyclopaedia. Some of our posters have their portraits there.


    We went to the moon in 1969. There have been a lot of unmanned space missions as well. There are photos of the earth. In case it missed your notice, the planet is finite.

    WE DON'T NEED GROWTH. GROWTH IS GOING TO DESTROY THE PLANET WHERE WE LIVE. IF WE DON'T GROW A BRAIN, WE ARE DEAD.
    Some people begin with a brain like that already.

  18. #936
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,756
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Some people begin with a brain like that already.
    You're right. Some people do.

    But the ones peddling this "growth" crap are pushing us as fast as possible to extinction. They are imbeciles and we should lock them up.

  19. #937
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    The population growth replacing the birth rate is considered important. They say they want to maintain wealth in prosperous countries by maintaining the population. Maybe they think increased production of work will mean advancement perhaps. Anyway the thing is that immigrant flow has been touted to replace the low birth rate yet those workers may not rise to a level where it contributes to the economy, tax base, and extending to SS and Medicare.

    Then once the second or third third generation blends into American society through immersion and inclusion they will match the low birth rates.

    Probably this kind of thinking has some valid views and views and perhaps some not. I do think here in the US the way things are going is that for some time now having family’s has been structurally discouraged.

  20. #938
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    28,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    8978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    Some people begin with a brain like that already.
    Not hard to ID which, either.

    Take the enduringly repeated lie over so-called "non-existent" Iraqi WMD.

    If they didn't f****g "exist" why did it take so damned much dangerous and DOCUMENTED labour of experts (some of whom had health ruint or even died at it) to dispose of so many tons of the buggers?

    Spout that lie, and all-else out of the same mouth or keyboard is just routed off to the dustbin on general principle.

    Which is unfortunate. Because there MIGHT have been a grain of truth in the rest of it had credibility not been suicidally pissed-away.

  21. #939
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,651
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    570
    Likes (Received)
    2752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    Not hard to ID which, either.

    Take the enduringly repeated lie over so-called "non-existent" Iraqi WMD.

    If they didn't f****g "exist" why did it take so damned much dangerous and DOCUMENTED labour of experts (some of whom had health ruint or even died at it) to dispose of so many tons of the buggers?
    They existed, all right. Saddam used them on the Iranians and the Kurds.

    Whether they still existed at the point of the 2nd Iraqi war - shrug. Dunno.

    PDW

  22. #940
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    They existed, all right. Saddam used them on the Iranians and the Kurds.

    Whether they still existed at the point of the 2nd Iraqi war - shrug. Dunno.

    PDW
    Yep, the USA helped him make them.
    Later, nope.
    Bubba would have gladly put them on parade if he’d found them.
    The closest they found was a defunct centrifuge buried in som poor guys garden.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •