posted on March 11, 2005 07:01:25 AM new
Who do we have to thank for the huge deficit? That's right Bush.
WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that future budget deficits pose a bigger risk to the economy than record trade imbalances and the country's extremely low savings rate.
In a wide-ranging speech, Greenspan said he believed the United States' flexible economy would be able to deal with current concerns over trade and savings.
"The resolution of our current account deficit and household debt burdens does not strike me as overly worrisome, but that is certainly not the case for our fiscal deficit," Greenspan said in prepared remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
A copy of his remarks was distributed in Washington.
The Fed chief said the budget deficit is a problem because it is projected to rise significantly as a wave of baby boomers start to retire in 2008.
"Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability," Greenspan said.
Greenspan has been steadily beating the drum about the urgent need for policy-makers on Capitol Hill and the White House to get the nation's fiscal house in order.
While Greenspan has endorsed President Bush's move to set up personal investment accounts as part of an overhaul of Social Security, he has called for a go-slow approach to setting up such accounts. His concern is that massive government borrowing to bring them about could push up interest rates.
Greenspan also suggested that benefit cuts would be required to deal with looming funding problems within Social Security.
"What we know for sure, however, is that the 30 million baby boomers who will reach 65 years of age over the next quarter century are going to place enormous pressures on the ability of our economy to supply the real benefits promised to retirees under current law," Greenspan said.
On trade, Greenspan expressed hope that further declines in the value of the U.S. dollar would narrow the trade deficit, which mushroomed to an all-time high of $617.7 billion in 2004.
A weaker dollar makes U.S. exports less expensive to foreign buyers and thus more competitive on overseas markets. A weaker dollar also can raise the prices of imported goods flowing into the United States.
Greenspan said it would have been impossible a few decades ago to even fund a trade deficit the size of the current one in the United States because global investment flows wouldn't have been sufficient.
As he did in a November speech, Greenspan forecast that at some point foreigners — who are currently financing U.S. trade deficits by buying dollar-demoninated assets — will lose some of their appetite for U.S. investments.
But Greenspan said such a scenario is likely to occur in an orderly fashion without disrupting the U.S. economy.
Citing two studies done by the Federal Reserve, Greenspan said "market forces are likely to restore a more long-term sustainable current account balance here without substantial disruption."
Greenspan, in a question period after his speech, said that foreign holdings of U.S. treasuries have modestly lowered U.S. interest rates.
The Fed chief did not discuss the future of U.S. interest rates.
Fed policy-makers have boosted short-term rates six times — each by one-quarter of a percentage point — since June 2004. Economists are expecting another quarter-point increase when policy-makers meet March 22.
On other issues, Greenspan repeated his belief that sharply rising home prices in recent years do not constitute a national bubble.
"A destabilizing contraction in nationwide house prices does not seem the most probable outcome," he said.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
posted on March 11, 2005 07:09:59 AM newThe biggest problem facing the US....imo....are those who have been screaming the deficit is too high....but when this President proposes cutting or eliminating anything...they're still screaming about what he's going to cut.
The problem is we can't have it all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 11, 2005 08:53:40 AM new
Linda - I think part of the problem is that many of the things he wants to cut make no sense. Why are we decreasing the education budget? Why are we decreasing the budget of programs that are going to help our kids.
Lets stop funding planes that cannot fly just to keep the congressman whose district the plant is in in a job and start making sure that the next generation is smart enough to fly the ones that do work.
If our leaders are REALLY serious about cutting the deficit - lets start getting rid of the pork first. Do we really need an indoor rainforest in the midwest?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 11, 2005 09:04:17 AM new
fenix - I agree with you in some areas....without discussing each and every area individually it's hard to 'blanket' cover the 150 programs that are either duplicates or not meeting their purpose to begin with.
I would like to have our Congress take a look at EACH and every pork-barrel budget cost....and I'd bet I'd eliminate 80% of them....if I were in charge.
But we're not in charge....each and every elected official in Congress wants to 'bring home' to their own states....benefits from our Federal taxes. Do you see that changing? I don't. And of course the left and the right are going to have different opinions on just were cuts 'could be made'. Just as you and I would disagree on which line items we, individually, would 'choose' to cut.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 11, 2005 09:19:54 AM new
You whats sad Linda - when we as individuals give up our power. Peepa it in another thread. I said that gas consumption trends were in the hands of the people, he stated that we can't actually do anything and it's all the whitehouses fault. You do it when you say that we can't do anything about pork in the laws.
Sure we can. Stop supporting these people. Stop allowing ourselves to be bribed. The fact is that it is killing our nation. The deficit is devalueing the dollar, lessening our buying power and eventually killing of all interest in foreign interest in domestic investment because the investments will have no value. There are some that love the concept but I wonder how much they would love the result of rforeign divestment, especially in our stock market?
This is a government of the people and by the people so why are the people so willing to pawn off responsibility on everyone else?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 11, 2005 09:23:36 AM new
fenix - Are you in a bad mood today too? I never said we can't do anything about it. I watch the Citizens Against Government Waste site each month. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
They deliver emails to my mail box so I can decided which items I agree are wasteful and which I don't.
I also am in constant communication with both my Senators [both dems] and my state reps. Don't think for even ONE minute they aren't constantly hearing from me.
Sorry if my wording led you to believe I don't TRY to do something. But little seems to change from either side.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 11, 2005 09:26 AM ]
posted on March 11, 2005 09:32:04 AM new
Linda - I'm not cranky in the least.
My post was in response to your statement
But we're not in charge....each and every elected official in Congress wants to 'bring home' to their own states....benefits from our Federal taxes. Do you see that changing? I don't.
I was just pointing out that it can be changed if we really want it to be.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Mar 11, 2005 09:32 AM ]
posted on March 11, 2005 10:05:16 AM new
fenix - I know I often don't word my posts to be very clear on my points. It's something I have long worked on...
sometimes I think I'm getting better...other times I'm sure I'm getting worse.
But yes, what I did say is the frustration that I feel and honestly believe to be true. Once these people are elected they go to WA DC and some loose all their brains, imo. They vote and vote for all sorts of items so they'll be relected again. Once elected they do what they want...vote for what they want...we don't have control. We can protest all we want....but from past history I think it's pretty clear that either ENOUGH people AREN'T protesting to their reps....or they're just not listening.
I also get a monthly email from a group that notifies everyone in our own state(s)/district(s) about just how our elected reps have voted.
Sometimes they send the issues coming up for a vote so we can write our reps and give our opinions. I haven't seen much change.
I also have a site saved, I think, that if I can find...I'll post. It strictly deals with pork spending...and lists the person and their party who got how much money and for what pork item. It sickens me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
And while I totally agree on your mentioned 'rain forest' deal....I'd place my bet that if I'D been the one to mention that, cheryl would be in here in a flash telling me how that was going to help Ohio's economy....and why was I against that. [Maybe not....but if betting - I'd place my bet I'd be correct]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 11, 2005 12:24:15 PM new
In our congressional area we have a congressman that has town meetings almost every other week. His district is the lower part of the state from the western border to Lake Michigan. He is on our local radio station every week updating what is happening. He spends time with his constituents finding out their concerns.
This is the only way our voices will be heard People need to get more involved. So write your congressmen with your concerns as bigpeepa should do instead of coming in here screaming at us. If your congressman doesn't listen to your concerns than it is time to vote in a different one. There are a lot of things I don't like also but screaming at anyone will not help. You have to go to the root of the problem.
When someone votes they take into a lot of considerations and nobody is going to change that. I can take a long look at something but when bigpeepa comes in here and says he sells antiques to republicans and charges 3x the money, his word in my estimation is null and void. He doesn't seem like an honest person to me.
posted on March 11, 2005 12:32:12 PM new
I couldn't agree more, Libra. Getting involved in whatever way one can.
In our little town we have monthly meetings to discuss local governmental issues. The crowd is always very, very small.
And while I don't know what the dems do in my state...the Republicans often have 'townhall' meetings where we can meeting and discuss our concerns/desires with our elected state officials too. More show up for those...so maybe it's just where one lives...I don't know.
But way too many complain and complain about the way things are but don't do ANYTHING else. Some will complain on and on and then admit they don't even bother to vote. Well....DUH.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 11, 2005 02:32:10 PM new
Fenix03 Just like Linda K you have become nothing but a CHEAP LIAR. When I said the following words I was talking to you about your and my ideas for lowing gas prices. You asked for my thoughts and I gave you several. You replied with thoughts of your own. Then I replied with these words about our ideas.
Bigpeepa said. "When people think and become really informed and involved there is a good change of changing this country for the better. I have said before people like you and I have no power to implement your or my ideas. What we seem to agree on is America needs to get together and say we have had enough. We all are living under this White House and this White House has the power to make a better America for most Americans not just a selected few."
Now in this post you say about my words above the following.
fenix03 said "You whats sad Linda - when we as individuals give up our power. Peepa it in another thread. I said that gas consumption trends were in the hands of the people, he stated that we can't actually do anything and it's all the whitehouses fault."
Its too bad you have showed yourself to be just another PHONY IN DISGUISE as a moderate.
I bigpeepa stay on message and part of that message is I detest phony,greedy,self serving people. Always have and always will.
posted on March 11, 2005 02:53:03 PM new
Pepa - why is it that in every thread you have to try to insult someone?
I'm sorry if I interpreted your statement different from how you meant it but that does not not make me a liar.
If you want people to listen to your ideas, then you might want to try to avoid adopting the tactics of children. Once you start the adolescent name calling, it strips away your credibilty.
This is now the second time in two exchanges that you have resorted to trying to insult me as opposed to making or clarifing a point. What were you hoping to accomplish? What makes you think that this would be an effective debate technique?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 11, 2005 07:49:18 PM new
classic - "Don't think for even ONE minute they aren't constantly hearing from me. "
yea Linda,Im sure they're just over joyed about that LOL.
But I get such nice letters back [in snail mail] from them....always explaining why they're not voting the way I'd hope they would. I did say they were both dems, didn't I?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 11, 2005 09:04:57 PM new
LOL! Thank you mags!
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 12, 2005 06:14:14 AM new
Logan, thanks for your very important post. Everyone should read it. Sorry most of the replies from White House supporters have nothing to do with your post. It seems like they can't face or enjoy the poor job this White House has done so far for everybody except the rich and industry. They just blow a lot of smoke screens to cover up for that poor job. Keep up your good work.
Now in todays news I see several republicans want to take away food stamps from around 300,000 poor people. We already know that under this White House and republican leadership the rich have gotten richer while the middle class and poor have become poorer. I guess that is not good enough for some republicans now they want to starve some of the poor.
posted on March 12, 2005 06:26:19 AM new
Bigpeepa says, "Now in todays news I see several republicans want to take away food stamps from around 300,000 poor people. We already know that under this White House and republican leadership the rich have gotten richer while the middle class and poor have become poorer. I guess that is not good enough for some republicans now they want to starve some of the poor"
Ha! Big, they must have enough desperate people to work like slaves at Walmart so don't mind if a few thousand starve.
Is this that "compassionate conservatism" they were talking about?
Oh, that must be why they also blocked protection for VETERANS under the new bankruptcy laws....all that "compassion".....must be because there is certainly no RESPECT or SUPPORT for those vets from the Repugs.
posted on March 12, 2005 08:48:58 AM new
Evidently bigpeepa you have selective reading. He said he was going to take away the food stamps from the people who are double dipping. You see you have a problem. Why didn't you post the whole article in it's fullest? Because you think some people don't read and your cheerleaders would come in and back you up.
And you still didn't answer my question about veterans.
Why would they have to file bankruptcy? Come on crowfarm do what you want Linda to do for you and answer my question.
*********************
Congress Mulls Cutting Food Aid to Poor
2 hours, 47 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Cuts in food programs for the poor are getting support in Congress as an alternative to President Bush (news - web sites)'s idea of slicing billions of dollars from the payments that go to large farm operations.
Senior Republicans in both the House and Senate are open to small reductions in farm subsidies, but they adamantly oppose the deep cuts sought by Bush to hold down future federal deficits.
The president wants to lower the maximum subsidies that can be collected each year by any one farm operation from $360,000 to $250,000. He also asked Congress to cut by 5 percent all farm payments, and he wants to close loopholes that enable some growers to annually collect millions of dollars in subsidies.
Instead, Republican committee chairmen are looking to carve savings from nutrition and land conservation programs that are also run by the Agriculture Department. The government is projected to spend $52 billion this year on nutrition programs like food stamps, school lunches and special aid to low-income pregnant women and children. Farm subsidies will total less than half that, $24 billion.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said the $36 billion food stamp program is a good place to look for savings.
"There's not the waste, fraud and abuse in food stamps that we used to see. ... That number is down to a little over 6 percent now," he said. "But there is a way, just by utilizing the president's numbers, that we can come up with a significant number there."
Bush is proposing to withdraw food stamps for certain families already receiving other government assistance. The administration estimates that plan would remove more than 300,000 people from the rolls and save $113 million annually.
Chambliss said minimal changes in all three areas of agriculture spending — nutrition, farm supports and conservation — could save what's needed. "I want this to be as painless to every farmer in America as we can make it," he said.
House budget writers this week reduced Agriculture Department spending for 2006 by $5.3 billion. Their counterparts in the Senate cut it by $2.8 billion. Bush's proposals would cut farm spending by $8 billion as calculated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites).
The House and Senate plan to vote on initial versions of the budget next week.
Anti-hunger and environmental groups are worried.
"Particularly in the House, the members are talking about taking all or most of it from nutrition," said Jim Weill, president of the Washington-based Food Research and Action Center. "There isn't a way to do it that doesn't hurt, because the program's very lean and doesn't give people enough anyhow. The benefits are less than people need. The program's not reaching even three-fifths of the people who are eligible. And the abuse rate is very low and is going down further."
Eric Bost, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer programs, told a House appropriations panel this week the programs are so efficient now it would be difficult to save money by targeting waste and fraud.
Rep. Jerry Moran (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said food stamps are vital to many Americans, "but like all government programs, there are ways to save money."
Chambliss and other Republicans say they are open to modest cuts in farm programs, such as a small across-the-board cut in all payments to growers. While budget writers and lawmakers from farm states oppose the deep cuts Bush wants, they still are very much on the table.
Before finalizing its budget plan, the Senate Budget Committee approved language saying Congress should follow Bush's plan for cutting the maximum payments any one farmer can receive. That would hurt cotton and rice growers in the South and California much more than wheat, soybean and corn growers in the farm belt.
"This amendment just makes sense," said Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, who sponsored the measure with Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D. "Any reduction in farm spending should be achieved by better targeting farm program payments to small- and medium-sized farmers."
According to Agriculture Department estimates, 78 percent of subsidies go to 8 percent of producers.
There is wide support for a cap on subsidies. Both the House and Senate voted in favor of a strict $275,000 cap when lawmakers debated the 2002 farm bill. In an election-year compromise, House and Senate negotiators raised the ceiling to $360,000 and left loopholes intact.
"If you took a vote tomorrow, you'd have overwhelming support for the payment limit proposal," said Scott Faber, spokesman for the group Environmental Defense. "The overwhelming majority of farmers get less than $250,000 a year."
But the chairmen of the Senate and House agriculture committee are both southerners, as is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, where the actual spending decisions will be made. The appropriations chairman in the House is a Californian.
_________________
[ edited by Libra63 on Mar 12, 2005 08:54 AM ]
posted on March 12, 2005 04:07:07 PM new
LIBRA63, I AM SO GLAD YOU POSTED THE ARTICLE FROM THE KANSAS CITY STAR NEWSPAPER. THE ARTICLE IS VERY INFORMATIONAL. IT SHOWS THAT NOT ONLY DO REPUBLICANS WANT TO TAKE FOOD STAMPS AWAY FROM 300,000 PEOPLE. THE REPUBLICANS ALSO WANT TO CUT FARM AID TO AMERICAN FARMERS.
BEING A WHITE HOUSE SUPPORTER LIKE YOU ARE DON'T YOU THINK ITS RATHER DUMB OF YOU TO POST AN ARTICLE LIKE THIS? IT SHOWS EVERYONE WHAT THIS WHITE HOUSE IS DOING TO THE POOR AND AMERICAN FARMER.
BY USING CAPS I AM HOPING YOU WILL THINK A LITTLE DEEPER IN THE FUTURE BEFORE HURTING YOUR WHITE HOUSE.
BTW WHEN YOU SAY "DOUBLE DIPPING" I AM GUESSING YOU ARE REFERRING TO THIS LINE IN YOUR POST "Bush is proposing to withdraw food stamps for certain families already receiving other government assistance." SPECIFICALLY WHAT PROGRAMS ARE YOU CALLING "DOUBLE DIPPING"? ALSO DO YOU KNOW WHAT PROGRAMS IS YOUR WHITE HOUSE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY REFER TO "OTHER GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE"? I AND OTHERS WILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR INFORMED ANSWERS, MAYBE EVEN A LINK TO YOUR SOURCES. I HOPE YOU DON'T KEEP ME AND OTHERS WAITING TOO LONG FOR YOUR ANSWERS.
u h o h 3 [no spaces.