Hurricane Katrina

[TLC Bruce]

... in response to Blame, blame, blame..., posted by Ray on Sep 2, 2005

Hopefully we will get answers over time. Does anyone think that the "terrorists" are watching ? Will we learn from this ? Sometimes s**t happens for a reason.

[NW Jim]

... in response to Blame, blame, blame..., posted by Ray on Sep 2, 2005

Ok, Trussgrimm

[Kiltboy1]

... in response to Blame, blame, blame..., posted by Ray on Sep 2, 2005

AGAIN I WILL SAY

OUR COUNTRY IS BEAING LED BY A TOTAL PRESIDENT THAT IS THE MOST IMCOMNATENT BASTARD IN MODERN HISTORY. HE COULD NOT LEAD A YOU OUT OF A MENSTURAL CYCLE!!!!!!!!

[Keith NC]

... in response to Re: Blame, blame, blame..., posted by Kiltboy1 on Sep 2, 2005

Hey dip shit!  What has the Mayor done or the Governor?  Not a damn thing but blame Bush.  If I am not mistaken this is the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana.  Do they not bare any responsibility here?  What about the folks shooting at the Helicoptors that are trying to rescue people?  I am sure in your pathetic eyes they are somehow justified because they have been disrespected in some way.  

Wake up these people were warned to get the hell out of there.  Granted some people do not have the means and that is sad but it doesn't mean that Bush is to be blamed for everything under the sun.

I have given money to my church and donated water which will be sent to the affected areas.  What have you done to help these people but bitch and cry about Bush.  Quit your whining and do something useful.

Keith

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Re: Blame, blame, blame..., posted by Keith NC on Sep 3, 2005

"Granted some people do not have the means..."

No, many if not most had the means, it's just the media and the activists preying on this callous Bush approach.

The "Honorable" Mayor Nagin left his bus fleets to ground in the first few days (and now they're water-logged and useless); also, notice how many submerged automobiles you see in many images captured during the early days of flooding.  

People stayed or weren't driven out.  The lame and elderly that were left stranded are in a worse situation precisely because of the mayor's ineptitude.

But, overall, it's more clean and appealing to simply brush the whole mess as the fault of the President.  Even if the mayor or governor themselves came out and admitted partial responsibility, these critics would still be calling for the impeachment of the Pres.

Blind critics are entertaining to watch.  Their heads pop out wherever there's a tragedy.

[OkieMan]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Blame, blame, blame..., posted by doombug on Sep 3, 2005

Doombug,

Excellent point about the buses and the cars.  If there were cars there, then someone owned the cars.  Those "someones" chose not to drive the stupid cars out of the danger area.  For the ones who do not own cars, then I can better understand their problems.  But, again, before the "poop hit the fan", there should have been a better job of a "forceable" evacuation.  It's just not good PR to forceably evacuate people; but now, I bet they wish they had.  That is certainly something that the State and local governments should have seen to-- and that is not Bush's fault!  Hopefully, all of these procedures will be effectively evaluated and improved.  Still, hindsight is always 20/20.

                              OkieMan

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Blame, blame, blame..., posted by doombug on Sep 3, 2005

It is everybodies fault but none want to accept blame. The Domino effect started at the bottom but the top officials should of forced the issue more.

first the mayor is a real joke. All forms of transportation should of been used to get everybody out. Letting prisoners loose on the streets compounded the crime.

Second the Governor of Louisiana should of communicated better with the mayor to make sure the people were going to be evacuated that needed help.

Third FEMA is a total joke run by a director who's background is real estate. Bush hired him. Why has Bush hired so many a$$ kissing inept staff? They never accept responsibility for their failures. FEMA practiced this exact scenario last year and many people know this and the story is getting out. This one isn't going to get swept under the rug this time.

Wednesday Bush said he never expected this to be so bad. What is he on Coke again the Army Core themselves said the levee would break before the storm hit and they themselves said everybody should of been evacuated last week now this week we didn't expect it to be so bad is the response.

Now Mr Chimp has stated it won't hurt the economy hell we are on the verge of financial ruins. Every year we are closer to a financial breakdown from to much government debt. The debt stands at $145,000 for every American including SS.

It is early September this storm is a 100 billion plus in cost. Oil and natural gas are going through the roof people will cut back while rebuilding goes on. If Greenspan plays his all is fine attitude and raises interest rates and craters the real estate bubble we may be begging to become Mail Order Husbands. Like I said early September is there another bad mother of a storm to put the last nail in our coffin. What if a class five grazes Miami?

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame, blame, blame..., posted by stefang on Sep 3, 2005

"Letting prisoners loose on the streets compounded the crime."

I think that's called the "Sadam Approach" to garnering public support when you're politically weak.

"The debt stands at $145,000 for every American including SS."

Yep, read this one with a laugh.  FUTURE outlays as current debt is sort of the impression the author was trying to foster.  Alarmist!!  Everyone's gotta be alarmist.  It sells, reaches the headlines, and wins the front page slots.

So, if I make $50,000 now, in twenty years I'll be $865,000 up (after those "debt" reductions), right?  So, technically, I can go splurge right now!!  Woohoo!!!  Booyah!!!  Goin' shopping; I'm goin' shopping--right NOW!!!  Big screen TV; and an I-Pod; and a new 'Stang GT--HERE I COME!!  I'm going shoppin'.  

I'll give a little to charity, too.

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame, blame, blame...., posted by doombug on Sep 3, 2005

That's right what was I thinking the Government can print as much money as they want, China and Japan promise to continue to support our spending binge for eternity.

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame, blame, bl..., posted by stefang on Sep 3, 2005

"China and Japan promise to continue to support our spending binge for eternity."

A binge that keeps both of their boats afloat.  

I have a Sony CD radio, Sony 42" LCD television, Sony DVD player, Sony digital camera, Sony VAIO computer, music marketed by Sony's music division.  I've got one of Japan's cars, too--a Mazda Protege.  And buying landfill-quality goods "Made-in-China" is an unavoidable consequence of modern shopping.

I'm one person who generously helped support the Japanese and Chinese economies by purchasing their goods.  

We are their largest export market.  Remove us from the equation, and both of those nations will instantly slip into recession.

No doubt.

All of those media stories meant to make folks feel guilty about being a Yank.  Pretty damn effective.

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame, blame..., posted by doombug on Sep 3, 2005

So you are relying on foreigners to continue to support your standard of living?  We have the lowest savings rate of developed countries. We will have to pay the piper sooner or later. How it is done through asset sales to foreigners or stagflation to wipe out debt, future generations will have to pay for it.

Japan will start calling in those IOUs they too have a retiring boomer generation and have saved unlike us.  What do we sell as assets to them to cover this bill?

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blame, b..., posted by stefang on Sep 3, 2005

Got your handy check-list of oft-repeated reasons why the "American Empire" will collapse, eh?  Fortunately, there are a variety of resources that debunk much of this (or offer fairer assessments), so not everyone is beholden to believe you doomsayers (or "doom relayers," since all of your criticisms thus far have already made numerous rounds in print).  

The U.S. savings rate is low partly because Americans have investments that aren't considered by the Commerce Department.  The most significant of these being a home, but pensions and capital gains are also excluded.  The home ownership rate in the U.S. is among the highest in the world--with only Australia and handfull of Euro countries exceeding ours.  Stock portfolio values grow, workers contribute to pension plans, and people buy homes--yet none of these count as "savings"?  Reminds me of how much faith was put into the government's Food Pyramid prior to  it becoming viewed as too antiquated and simplified.  By the way, other countries with high rates of home ownership AND extremely low savings rates are Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, and Sweden.  I suppose they are consumers equally as wreckless as we are.  Or, maybe they have just as few hang-ups about this "sacred" savings rate.

A couple of interesting reads on savings-rate hype:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_canto/canto200412100922.asp

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_20/b3783078.htm

A more realistic (and optimistic) view of trends in the U.S. can be found in a book put out by the Cato Institute--"It's Getting Better All the Time: 100 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 Years"--by Stephen Moore and Julian L. Simon.  In a chapter titled, "The Wealthiest Society," they note: "Although we hear complaints about American indebtedness, asset values have risen at a much faster rate than has debt."  I suspect most Americans (including researchers like those above) have a little more faith in how they manage their own personal finances than the pessimists who follow credit-card balance and savings-rate trends.    

The IMF summarized as much:  

"The low U.S. household saving rate is, to a large extent, explained by the significant gains in income and wealth achieved over the past decade. Nonetheless, household spending may eventually have to slow somewhat to
close the apparent gap between the personal saving rate and
underlying fundamentals, and there is also the question of
whether the strong trend increase in private indebtedness
can be sustained in a less supportive interest rate environment.  However, the balance sheet of the U.S. household sector still looks robust, partly as a result of the equity market upswing since mid-2003, and households appear to have used mortgage refinancing in part to insulate themselves from possible interest rate increases. Finally, although household exposure to the real estate market has grown, and there are signs of possible overheating in major urban markets, aggregate housing prices do not appear so far out of line with macroeconomic fundamentals that an orderly return to equilibrium cannot be achieved."

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2004/03/pdf/faulkner.pdf

Not everyone subscribes to your grim view.  

Unless you're from Europe.  Then you have every reason to wanna make the  barbarians feel guilty about shit.

[stefang]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Blam..., posted by doombug on Sep 4, 2005

Holy smokes the IMF and balance sheets? You are buying this? Enron had an awesome balance sheet, until the real people who know balance sheets is where the fraud is committed busted their accounting scheme. You know Enron copied a lot of the US Governments accounting schemes. Enron might not of even folded right away if 9/11 didn't happen but they were caught and when they could no longer recieve capital the writing was on the wall. The difference between Enron and the Government is the Feds print money to bail themselves out but this only works as long as they can control the IMF and keep the masses believing that the dollar has value. Cash flow statements is where a company or country shows its strengths and the US has been bleeding red for decades.

Again why do you trust your economic means to foreigners and poor government accounting? Think of it this way, you make a $1000 a week but you want a better life so Mr Fuji from Japan decides he will give you another $200 a week to support a better life and then you can buy his products from him. All you have to do is pay interest no problem at first since the loan is small but it is compounding and increasing every week. Soon your $1000 paycheck has to pay $200 to Mr Fuji for interest so now your standard of living is going down  but Mr Fuji is a nice man and he has decided to increase the loan to you for $400 a week so your standard stays high. The moral of the story the US spends 20% of tax revenues just for interest payments. So $1 of every $5 of our tax revenue is sent away as interest just imagine what could of been accomplished with this? The older generations have enjoyed this extra money I call it a party at the expense of future generations and poeple have the nerve today to say they want the best for their children when they continue to enslave them into a future mound of debt.
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/englund/2005/0124.html

[doombug]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ..., posted by stefang on Sep 4, 2005

[This message has been edited by doombug]

Still focusing on highlights from the six o'clock news?   Now it's Enron; really OLD news.  One business out of millions in the U.S., but the temptation to harp on the same tired anomaly couldn't be passed up, eh?  

Do you ever read?  Maybe, branch out a little; get a variety of opinions.  Just because someone (a quack website?) told you outlays for interest on the debt was 20% doesn't mean the TRUE number's not actually around 6.7% to 8% (by a variety of estimates).  I hope this correction doesn't ruin your gloomy aspirations.

[The low-ball 6.7% figure is here:  http://www.truthandpolitics.org/2004-outlays-summary.php]  

Got some more scary numbers and headlines?

Here are some realistic data.  The actual interest on the debt for the past ten years:

2004   $321,566,323,971.29    
2003   $318,148,529,151.51    
2002   $332,536,958,599.42    
2001   $359,507,635,242.41    
2000   $361,997,734,302.36    
1999   $353,511,471,722.87    
1998   $363,823,722,920.26    
1997   $355,795,834,214.66    
1996   $343,955,076,695.15    
1995   $332,413,555,030.62  

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
 
Those numbers appear to be spiraling out of control.  Or maybe they've leveled off.  Or, maybe it's all "fancy Enron bookkeeping."  They're big numbers alright; but relative to the size of the economy, quite manageable.  In fact, the percentage is historically low.

How about a cute chart that reveals how relatively tame our debt is as compared to other "exemplars of financial prudence":

http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/debt_burden_history_20050204_1.gif

And even more detailed:

http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/oecd_excel_screenshot_2905.gif

It's been quite a few banner years for debt accumulation in Japan.  But they are a thrifty lot, right?  Saving more is the answer, right?  Buy less goods from abroad, right?  Greenspan will be retiring soon; so, fax in that resume.

This, from your link:  "The lower the credit rating, it is believed, the higher the chances are for a country to default on its sovereign debt obligations."  Since the U.S. hasn't defaulted on its debt, there's no need to harp and whine about why its bond rating is so high.  Default is a pretty big determinant on rating, as anyone with a simple credit card could attest.  The editorial goes on further to nitpick and compare "expanded tax base" with "personal income growth".  More people in the work force affect changes in personal income, but they are not one and the same.

This Dr. Kurt Richebächer is one of the "doom profiteers" who I'd written about in my prior post.  Even his site, "The Daily Reckoning," should have tipped you off to this.  For TRUE personal income growth data, check the TRUE source:

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/SPINewsRelease.htm

You seem to think that debt and investment is a one-way street, as if the U.S. (businesses and individuals) doesn't invest abroad, while others are immune to debt accumulation.  So, here's another cute graph that reflects U.S. investments abroad along with foreign investments in the U.S.  It's neck and neck, with both streams increasing, and roughly $10 trillion either way.  This reflects a healthy global economy, wouldn't ya think?  Looks like much of the rest of the world is gaining ground (though you'd surmise that we're losing ground):

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/iip_glance.htm  

By the way, the U.K.--not China, not Japan--hold the greatest direct investment in the U.S.  In fact, China's direct investment is essentially nil, as it's not even reflected in the data.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/di/fdicap/fdicap-04.htm

Here's an enlightened blog exchange about the U.S. savings rate:

"Henry [pretend you're Henry] worries about our low savings rate where another reader takes a more upbeat view.

'I believe that if you count "forced" savings through home purchases as well as the value of 401ks, the US savings rate is in line with or higher than Europe's'

"This comment points to several problems of definition, measurement, and comparability with the "national savings" statistic. Even if we can properly define what it should include and find accurate data on each of its components, international comparisons of savings rates are fraught with danger since countries are just so different. The American dream includes home ownership in a way that the Italian dream simply does not. With the US home ownership rate at an all-time high of 69.2% in Q4 2004 and home equity accounting for 32% of average US household net worth, any meaningful assessment of the financial resources of US households must include home equity.

"I have an even more basic problem with the national savings rate. What exactly is it supposed to measure and why should we care about this number? Journalists like to write about the "low" US savings rate in moralistic tones that make us out to be a nation of spendthrifts who don't sock enough money away for a rainy day. But the issue of how much savings is enough is very different in a macroeconomic setting than in the context of a family budget."

http://www.shiningright.com/shiningright/2005/03/us_rich_country.html

Good luck with your agenda.

On a final note, Bush did it.

[OkieMan]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ..., posted by doombug on Sep 4, 2005

Doombug,

You seem to be very knowledgeable concerning statistics.  Is that your profession or hobby?  Just curious.  Most of us have just a passing knowledge of these types of figures.  Either you do a lot of research, or this is your field of expertise.  I am just curious.  I don't claim any expertise in this field, but naturally I have my opinions.  I am certainly not anti-business (since I am a conservative Republican), but as most people in the country, I am appalled at corporate greed.  Thanks for your comments.

                         OkieMan