It's political....

[saintjohn]

sobeton, i know you want bush out of office, but simply saying that he "attacked and took over two countries" is a gross misrepresentation (or, if you prefer, over-simplification), and that's why i responded. you seem well-informed, and you generally explain your views well. there's no point in watering down your most effective arguments against the bush administration by citing a flippant (and misleading) list of allegations from another website.

sure, bush "attacked and took over" afghanistan, because the taliban regime was supporting the activities of bin laden. was a better course of action suggested by any of the current democratic candidates at the time? if so, please explain. if not, maybe you don't want to bring it up at all, because the connection between 9/11 and afghanistan seems very clear to a very large number of voters. if you want to get bush out of office, you shouldn't draw attention to something that a lot of americans, including many democrats, supported. more recent events, as well as domestic issues, should be your focus.

another example from your list:

"Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capital building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects."

why did you bother to cut and paste that? do you really hold bush personally responsible for the failure of a federal law enforcement operation? do you really want me to say "waco"? your previous arguments were serious; adding this won't help. it's just a distraction from your main points.

you won't see me saying that people should vote for bush just because he wants to increase funding for the national endowment for the arts. sure, it's a nice gesture. is it reason enough to support him? not for me, although there are probably a few single-issue voters out there who might be swayed. i think the anthrax argument against bush is just as weak, but if you care to explain in exhaustive detail why it should convince me to support any other candidate instead of bush, please do so.

[sobeton]

saintjohn,

let me begin by saying what was in my post, was taken from another message board as I clearly stated. thus it is not "my list ". as a point of information those are facts. how they where presented, does change the obvious...which is that they are true... if you feel more comfortable calling them misleading, then so be it. however you will be hard pressed to prove them to be untrue.

with regard to 9/11 and our occupation of Afghanistan. I have NEVER stated, I opposed this presidents actions with regard to the same. clearly any rationale person would conclude. that the US actions in that regard where fully warranted. however our actions in Iraq where not warranted, and that sir is what I have drawn attention to repeatedly in this thread. in addition to this presidents domestic fiascos. again pointed out by myself, several other people in this thread, and infamous "list". so my focus and concerns are very clear. this president must not be re-elected.

since you brought up one example from the list, oddly enough. ..I will address that. the president appoints the heads of federal law enforcement agencies, thus he should be held accountable for their failures. just as I thought Janet Reno and Bill Clinton should have been held accountable for the WACO fiasco. it sucks, but that responsibility comes with the job.

should things such as domestic faliures( the anthrax killer) not factor into ones choice ,as to who should lead this country ??

well, I hope I have not been too exhaustive in detail for you.

now that I have addressed your queries.... how about you go back and address mine.

[macfunk19]

John Kerry wins!!!!!

[saintjohn]

i think you have me confused with someone else. i don't support bush - i support the war on terror. you've got a lot of reasons for voting bush out of office, and i've got just one for re-electing him. if i thought that any of the remaining democratic hopefuls would do as well (or even better) at fighting this war, i'd reconsider my vote. for me, all of the other issues combined don't outweigh national security. you see it differently, and that's fine, but please don't assume that i'm some sort of right-wing stereotype. foreign policy hawks come in more than one color.

btw, you don't have to tell me again that the list that you included in your post (hence, "your list") is from another website. i got it the first time (see my previous post).

finally, i sincerely appreciate your enthusiasm for political discussion. compared to some other forums, the cp miami board is generally well-informed and polite. you certainly deserve some of the credit for that. who would've thought that a bunch of drinking, drug-abusing, dance music fans (how's that for a stereotype?) would know and care so much about politics?

[xxgrooveericxx]

Honestly, the "war on terror" is kinda like the "war on drugs"....and it will fail. Basically, a war doomed to fail from the start.

You will always have some religious fanatics out there trying to show us the way to heaven (or hell) and will bring terror upon people to get their point across.

There will always be drugs. People will always use them. They won't go away. Trying to end drug use will NEVER happen.

Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

[obby]

Taken from Rush Limbaugh:

Only The Rich Pay Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

October 10, 2003

There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

*Data covers calendar year 2001, not fiscal year 2001 - and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)

The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.

Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.

I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!

Check Out the UPDATED IRS Table of Numbers from 2001

Click Here For IRS Table

[obby]

This may be long but it's informative.

I've been reading some posts and I must say it's nice to see people openly supporting Bush. The silent majority is finally coming out. The folks against him keep spewing the same rhetoric. They seem to have selective memories and like most liberals, they've got most of the issues HALF RIGHT. To all those liberals I have this to say " who let you get down off the grassy knoll?" Get back to the grassy knoll w/ the rest of the kooks.

For those who are blowing their load early based on recent polls,,PUH LEEZ! Perspective people,,,perspective!!! It's February for crying out loud. Was not Dean the "anointed one" a month ago? Election is in November. Bush has not even started campaigning yet. He's said when the dems finally select a candidate, he'll focus on responding to that candidate. The demz have had a year long commercial running non-stop, 24-7 know as the primaries. All this news about "excitement" in America about these candidates is nothing more than wishful thinking. What we've got is democrats in each primary voting for their favorite democrat. How the results of demz voting for demz morphs into "America" voting for demz is insane and maliciously misleading. Bush has not spent a dime (of his over 200 million) yet to campaign for 2004. Bush can simply run on his record. Americans know G.W. Bush. They know what he stands for. They know what he supports and does not support. He's far from perfect, but his character and resolve have been spelled out clearly. W/ Bush, you know what your getting. W/ Kerry, he's all over the place. He talks from both sides of his mouth. His voting record in Washington is down right SCARY. Not one piece of legislation has his name on it and he's been in Washington for what,,,,,,,,,,,15 yrs now? Not one? Looks like someone's got a record their going to try to avoid debating on. Don't bet on it! Basically, it's way too early to tell.

In my opinion, when you weigh what Bush has had to deal w/ in these 3+ yrs I have nothing but admiration and respect for the man. No, he's not perfect, but he's had to deal w/ issues like a close election in 2000, accusations of being responsible for the dragging death of Mr.. Bird in Texas, 9/11, corporate scandals, massive wild fires, Black-out, War on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, false accusations about his National Guard service, Anthrax letters, Ricin letters, etc......All this for a man who libz claimed was "duh-duh-duh dumb". Dumb? W/ a bachelors in history from Yale and masters in business from Harvard? Really? Anyway...............The bottom line is TODAY'S DEMZ just can't be trusted w/ the security of this nation. In today's democratic party JFK would not be allowed. This party of so-called "tolerant liberals" cannot believe the people voted them out of the white house and gave the majority in congress and the senate back to republicans. The people have spoken w/ their votes and it's clear who America chooses to lead this nation. The prez. has made some very, very tough decisions under extreme pressure. IOW- the guy is leading. He's doing his job. He's not planning on kicking the can down the road for the next admin. to handle as did the former admin. He's doing the job he was elected to do. For that, he's hated by the far left. He's ticked off plenty on the right as well w/ his massive domestic programs like Medicare, extended unemployment benefits, record spending Education bill, the Farm bill, etc.....Today's dem leaders hate him because he's done what Clinton did to repz. He's stolen all their issues and made them his own. Don't forget that the demz have foolishly conceded Religion to Republicans. Big mistake, HUGE!!!!!!! For me, if he's pissing off people on both sides of the aisle, that means the GUY IS DOING HIS JOB! Get it?

The grassy knoll crowd like Neil Rogers on WQAM, although entertaining and funny, are just that, CONSPIRACY KOOKS who have no business coming down from their grassy knoll.

Bush wants our tax cuts made permanent. Demz are openly campaigning on their desire to repeal the tax cuts? HELLO, THAT'S CODE FOR TAX HIKES! HELLO! I don't think so buddy! You want more money for failed programs like your "War on Poverty & Education? No thanks! The poor stay poor because their paid to stay poor and the kids are dumber than ever because the core of the issues in education like discipline are ignored. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame me!

With all the constant barrage of negative attacks on this prez which go basically unchallenged (due to Bush's NEW TONE Policy), Bush is still @ approx 50%. Did you know Clinton NEVER had more than 50% of the vote? His highest #s where in the 40's. So, w/ that said and several months to go in which Bush will start campaigning and defending his record, I see the Bush team in good shape. The economy is the best it's been in 3 yrs. It's risen @ record pace not seen in 10-20 yrs. Unemployment is back down to 5.6% and dropping. To be honest, I think this is exactly how the Clintons want it. It's all about them and their reacquisition of power. They'll concede victory to Bush now to better their chances of anointing Hillary in 2008. As always, you can't listen to what demz (especially the Clintons) say because they're compulsive liars. YOU MUST WATCH WHAT THEY DO! Their actions always speak much louder than words. ALWAYS! So pay attention!

Below are a couple points copied/pasted from other web sites..so ENJOY!

Sayonara!

Peace in da' middle east!

We fall prey to the media's portrayal of excitement here, but there really isn't any. Everybody is getting all worked up over a nobody. It's surreal. It's manufactured. Something about this has smelled from the get-go. Six weeks ago John Kerry was 30 points down and nobody cared. Everybody was making jokes about the guy. Since then, John Kerry has become the front-runner and there is no excitement. It's all been manufactured. This whole thing is a show, and to get caught up in it as we've been is a mistake. I think even to take the guy seriously is a mistake. One of the problems I'm having is taking what he says seriously. You can't! He'll say anything to anybody.

Last night, Edwards almost won, yet they couldn't find more than 75 people to fill the hall for his speech. There was a bowling alley next door, and they were thinking about moving it over to the bowling alley just so there would be a lot of people in there. I don't think there's any excitement in this at all. I think this is all trumped up, and I think the media are complicit in this. There's just something about this that has not made sense to me from the moment Howard Dean started tanking.

I mean these are low-caliber candidates, all of them, and even the Democrats don't like them. The voter turnout is not big on the Democrat side, and they're each getting a small percentage of the vote in these races. This is all about Hillary in 2008. This is all a big sham, and it's all a big game, and I am sorry for losing sight of what I knew two years ago was going to be going on now, or a year ago at least. This is all a sham. This is all a joke, John Kerry couldn't be elected president any more than Boris the clown.

The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years?

[renzo2]

Give me the Cliffs Notes.

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by sobeton

where do we suspect Bin laden is now??

he is in the custody of the US and Bush is waiting to spring him to the media sometime during election...

[funketeer]

This may be informative but it's long.

[sobeton]

saintjohn,

well I'm happy to hear you don't support Bush, and you support the war on terror. at least we are both on common ground to that extent. although I believe the war on terror, should not circumvent the constitution. it would be interesting here your thoughts, on why you want to vote Bush out office. I have shared my rationale for the same.

fighting this "war" as you stated. is really not clear IMO, we seem to be fighting several wars at the same time. naturally national security is of great importance, and thus I'm sure it will be at the forefront of the presidential campaign.

not once have I considered categorizing you, as some right wing individual. it is obvious to me that you're an independent thinker and that I can not help but respect. the "list " was mentioned by you, so hence my emphasis on addressing the same.

lively debate is great, and I am very impressed. to see so many people on a night life message board discussing politics.

this is going to be a very critical presidential campaign. it is my hope that people will make informed decisions, rather then decisions based solely on emotion.

[sobeton]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

he is in the custody of the US and Bush is waiting to spring him to the media sometime during election...

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by xxgrooveericxx

Honestly, the "war on terror" is kinda like the "war on drugs"....and it will fail. Basically, a war doomed to fail from the start.

so what do we do? unfortunately there is only ONE true answer to ridding terrorists from this world...but it is considered TOO drastic...whatever we do, whether its getting out of "muslim" lands or "supporting" Israel...these terrorist will find something new to bitch about and attack us anyway...damned if u...damned if u dont:idea:

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by sobeton

hey man...dont shoot the messenger...

[mrmatas2277]

damn obby....was this ur Political Science paper or something...

[sobeton]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

hey man...dont shoot the messenger...

[mrmatas2277]

Originally posted by sobeton

damn and ouch even....

[renzo2]

Originally posted by mrmatas2277

damn obby....was this ur Political Science paper or something...

:laugh:

[sobeton]

in all due respect Obby this is being merged with the other thread.

[renzo2]

READ THIS...

Dear Friend:

Last weekend, officials representing the seven most-powerful economies on Earth convened at a five-star beach resort just a few miles down the road from here.

They huddled behind closed doors.

They debated.

Then they released a document to the world one page of waffle words making a feeble attempt to stop the U.S. dollar from falling.

One week later and one thousand miles to the north, in Washington, D.C., another group of government officials also convened.

They also huddled behind closed doors.

And Friday morning, they also released a document to the world.

But this time, the officials were from the U.S. Department of Commerce. And this time, the document U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services was 48 shocking pages that are bound to drive the dollar into a new tailspin.

Consider these facts:

FACT #1:

THE WORST U.S. TRADE DEFICIT IN HISTORY

The gap between our imports and exports was $489.4 billion last year, the largest trade deficit of any country in any century.

This is separate from, and in addition to, the $521 billion BUDGET deficit announced by the White House just two weeks ago. (Martin on Monday of February 2.)

But its fundamental implications are similar: More DEBT.

Why?

It's not rocket science: If we sell more to foreign countries, it's our gain. If they sell more to us, it's our loss.

And every time we lose, we have to borrow more from foreign investors to fill the gap, falling deeper into debt.

The New York Times on Saturday put it this way: To finance its trade deficits, the United States has been borrowing record amounts from foreign investors and banks. The risk is that foreign investors could balk at continuing to lend the money needed just to finance that deficit.

FACT #2.

WE OWE FOREIGNERS AT LEAST $4.6 TRILLION

The New York Times is right. But the truly big threat comes not when foreigners stop lending us new money. It comes when they decide they want some of their OLD money BACK.

Nor do they have to come begging. All they have to do is call their brokers and say SELL ... and they can get their money back just as easily as you would redeem a bond or sell stocks in your portfolio.

The BIG problem: Their portfolios are absolutely loaded with U.S. bonds and stocks $4.6 TRILLION worth! Even if they decide to sell just a small fraction of that total, they could drive our stock and bond markets into a tailspin.

FACT #3.

THE U.S. TRADE DEFICIT IS MORE DEEPLY INGRAINED THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC.

Everyone's talking about the U.S. trade deficits with China and India. But the fact is we have trade deficits with the overwhelming majority of our trading partners ...

VENEZUELA: We imported over $17 billion worth of goods from Venezuela last year. In exchange, we exported only $2.8 billion worth. Our trade deficit alone was over FIVE times larger than the TOTAL value of the goods and services we exported to them.

I remember visiting Caracas when I was a teenager. Back then, almost all their consumer goods were imported from the United States, and their oil was cheap. No more!

GERMANY: They sold us over $68 billion worth of goods and services last year. In contrast, our exports to Germany were a meager $28.8 billion. No wonder Elisabeth and I couldn't find one single item made in the USA when we visited last year!

ITALY: They sold us $25.4 billion worth ... but we sold them only $10.5 billion worth.

SWEDEN: Even more lopsided $11 billion to $3.2 billion. In other words, they're doing more than triple the business in the U.S. compared to what we're doing there. What a change from the 1980s when THEY were the ones in deep financial trouble.

DENMARK: Same pattern.

Can we at least compete in certain categories? Sure. We're doing well with airplanes, certain chemicals, corn, cotton, meats, scrap metal, and many services. But look at these numbers ...

CLOTHING: We sold a meager $4.9 billion in Made-In-USA clothing to foreign countries. How much did they sell to us? A whopping $68 BILLION almost 14 times more.

AUTOS: Mexico now exports three times as much in autos and parts to the United States as we export to Mexico. With Brazil, our gap is even worse four to one.

FOOTWEAR: We sold $495 million worth not bad, until you realize that foreign countries sold us $15.6 BILLION worth. That's 31.5 times more!

CRUDE OIL: We sold $155 million worth outside the United States. Meanwhile, we bought $101.7 BILLION in crude from overseas 656 times more! Everyone knows we are primarily an oil-importing country. But 656 to one? That's way out of bounds.

What about ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY? Isn't that the ONE remaining area where the United States has an advantage?

Until 2001, yes. We had a trade surplus of almost $4.5 billion. But no more! In 2002, the red ink started to flow, and last year, our trade in advanced technology showed a DEFICIT of $27.4 billion!

FINANCIAL LAWS OF GRAVITY NOT

REPEALED FOR THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission

You'd think someone in Washington would be doing something about all this. But, alas, they're not lifting a finger.

The politicians trying to push the trade deficit issue to the forefront (mostly Democrats) generally favor some form of trade protection, a dangerous approach.

Meanwhile, the politicians who oppose trade protection (mostly Republicans) do so by pooh-poohing the s*****ty of the crisis and pushing the issue to the backburner, also a dangerous approach.

Result: Political paralysis and the greatest international scandal of our time.

Consider, for example, the November 2000 report to the President and Congress by the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission.

For 17 months, 12 Republicans and Democrats worked diligently to examine the deficits. They held 10 public hearings around the country. They took testimony from 138 witnesses.

Problem: They couldn't agree on the trade deficit's causes. They couldn't agree on its consequences. They certainly couldn't agree on a concerted action.

But regardless of your political affiliation, some of the report's conclusions are largely irrefutable ...

The deficit is a very significant threat facing the domestic economy because, unless checked, it could cause a currency or financial crisis that would result in a sharp decline in output and employment possibly reigniting inflation ...

History clearly shows that rising deficits do not correct themselves automatically or painlessly. Both rich and poor countries can be hit by financial crises. Mexico, Russia, and several countries in Asia and Latin America were hard hit by such crises between 1997 and 1999 ...

Sweden experienced an especially severe crisis that began with current account problems in the 1980s. These peaked in 1993, when the current account deficit reached 3.6 percent of GDP. Interest rates were increased from 10.1 percent in 1988 to 18.4 percent in 1992 in an attempt to defend the kroner and reduce demand for imports. Output in Sweden declined by more than 5 percent between 1990 and 1993, and unemployment soared from 1.6 percent to 8.2 percent in the same period ...

The United Kingdom also experienced both currency and current account crises in the early 1990s, and the facts were similar. The United Kingdom's current account deficit reached 5 percent of GDP in 1990. Interest rates were increased from 9.7 percent in 1988 to 14.6 percent in 1990, in an attempt to reduce demand for imports and defend the currency. Unemployment rose from 6.3 percent in 1989 to 10.4 percent in 1993 ...

Denmark experienced a similar trade and financial crisis between 1979 and 1983. The Danish current account deficit peaked at 4.1 percent of GDP in 1982. Denmark also increased interest rates by 4.3 percentage points between 1979 and 1982, in a failed attempt to defend its currency. As a result, unemployment nearly doubled, rising from 6.0 percent in 1979 to 11.4 percent in 1983 ...

Some maintain that the United States is different from these countries because it can borrow in its own currency, which is also used around the world for currency reserves and for transaction purposes. However, these factors are more likely to simply postpone the ultimate day of reckoning.

The financial laws of gravity have not been repealed for the United States, though they may work differently.

If the current account is allowed to expand further before the United States trade balance begins to improve, then the resulting disruption to the domestic economy could be even larger than the recessions that hit the European countries discussed above.

These warnings were issued more than three years ago. And yet, like the many recent warnings about the federal budget deficit, they, too, fell on deaf ears.

The Pollyannas argued that America's trade deficits were primarily the natural result of a strong American economy nothing to really worry about.

The Pollyannas also said that the next recession, although undesirable, would naturally tame America's appetite for imports ... and naturally reduce the trade deficit.

But just one year later, in 2001, a recession came and it did nothing of the kind. Instead, the U.S. trade deficit just kept growing by leaps and bounds, recession or no recession.

And now, here we are ...

... with a trade deficit that's the worst in history, far worse than it was back in 2000 ...

... with a budget deficit that's also the worst in history, that didn't even EXIST in 2000 ...

... and with BOTH deficits worse than those of countries like Sweden and Denmark, which subsequently suffered devastating currency collapses, interest rate surges and economic plunges!

Is this the end of the world as we know it? No. Those countries survived, and later, even thrived. Ultimately, so will we.

But it won't be easy. It will require some of the hardest economic sacrifices, plus some of the toughest labor our citizens and residents have experienced in decades.

In the interim, don't let the stock market's year-long rally lull you to sleep or lure you to risk. Get to safety, whatever you perceive that to be.

If you are aware of an answer, let me in on it......

Good luck and God bless!

[sobeton]

Originally posted by chaflas

READ THIS...

Dear Friend:

Last weekend, officials representing the seven most-powerful economies on Earth convened at a five-star beach resort just a few miles down the road from here.

They huddled behind closed doors.

They debated.

Then they released a document to the world one page of waffle words making a feeble attempt to stop the U.S. dollar from falling.

One week later and one thousand miles to the north, in Washington, D.C., another group of government officials also convened.

They also huddled behind closed doors.

And Friday morning, they also released a document to the world.

But this time, the officials were from the U.S. Department of Commerce. And this time, the document U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services was 48 shocking pages that are bound to drive the dollar into a new tailspin.

Consider these facts:

FACT #1:

THE WORST U.S. TRADE DEFICIT IN HISTORY

The gap between our imports and exports was $489.4 billion last year, the largest trade deficit of any country in any century.

This is separate from, and in addition to, the $521 billion BUDGET deficit announced by the White House just two weeks ago. (Martin on Monday of February 2.)

But its fundamental implications are similar: More DEBT.

Why?

It's not rocket science: If we sell more to foreign countries, it's our gain. If they sell more to us, it's our loss.

And every time we lose, we have to borrow more from foreign investors to fill the gap, falling deeper into debt.

The New York Times on Saturday put it this way: To finance its trade deficits, the United States has been borrowing record amounts from foreign investors and banks. The risk is that foreign investors could balk at continuing to lend the money needed just to finance that deficit.

FACT #2.

WE OWE FOREIGNERS AT LEAST $4.6 TRILLION

The New York Times is right. But the truly big threat comes not when foreigners stop lending us new money. It comes when they decide they want some of their OLD money BACK.

Nor do they have to come begging. All they have to do is call their brokers and say SELL ... and they can get their money back just as easily as you would redeem a bond or sell stocks in your portfolio.

The BIG problem: Their portfolios are absolutely loaded with U.S. bonds and stocks $4.6 TRILLION worth! Even if they decide to sell just a small fraction of that total, they could drive our stock and bond markets into a tailspin.

FACT #3.

THE U.S. TRADE DEFICIT IS MORE DEEPLY INGRAINED THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLIC.

Everyone's talking about the U.S. trade deficits with China and India. But the fact is we have trade deficits with the overwhelming majority of our trading partners ...

VENEZUELA: We imported over $17 billion worth of goods from Venezuela last year. In exchange, we exported only $2.8 billion worth. Our trade deficit alone was over FIVE times larger than the TOTAL value of the goods and services we exported to them.

I remember visiting Caracas when I was a teenager. Back then, almost all their consumer goods were imported from the United States, and their oil was cheap. No more!

GERMANY: They sold us over $68 billion worth of goods and services last year. In contrast, our exports to Germany were a meager $28.8 billion. No wonder Elisabeth and I couldn't find one single item made in the USA when we visited last year!

ITALY: They sold us $25.4 billion worth ... but we sold them only $10.5 billion worth.

SWEDEN: Even more lopsided $11 billion to $3.2 billion. In other words, they're doing more than triple the business in the U.S. compared to what we're doing there. What a change from the 1980s when THEY were the ones in deep financial trouble.

DENMARK: Same pattern.

Can we at least compete in certain categories? Sure. We're doing well with airplanes, certain chemicals, corn, cotton, meats, scrap metal, and many services. But look at these numbers ...

CLOTHING: We sold a meager $4.9 billion in Made-In-USA clothing to foreign countries. How much did they sell to us? A whopping $68 BILLION almost 14 times more.

AUTOS: Mexico now exports three times as much in autos and parts to the United States as we export to Mexico. With Brazil, our gap is even worse four to one.

FOOTWEAR: We sold $495 million worth not bad, until you realize that foreign countries sold us $15.6 BILLION worth. That's 31.5 times more!

CRUDE OIL: We sold $155 million worth outside the United States. Meanwhile, we bought $101.7 BILLION in crude from overseas 656 times more! Everyone knows we are primarily an oil-importing country. But 656 to one? That's way out of bounds.

What about ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY? Isn't that the ONE remaining area where the United States has an advantage?

Until 2001, yes. We had a trade surplus of almost $4.5 billion. But no more! In 2002, the red ink started to flow, and last year, our trade in advanced technology showed a DEFICIT of $27.4 billion!

FINANCIAL LAWS OF GRAVITY NOT

REPEALED FOR THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission

You'd think someone in Washington would be doing something about all this. But, alas, they're not lifting a finger.

The politicians trying to push the trade deficit issue to the forefront (mostly Democrats) generally favor some form of trade protection, a dangerous approach.

Meanwhile, the politicians who oppose trade protection (mostly Republicans) do so by pooh-poohing the s*****ty of the crisis and pushing the issue to the backburner, also a dangerous approach.

Result: Political paralysis and the greatest international scandal of our time.

Consider, for example, the November 2000 report to the President and Congress by the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission.

For 17 months, 12 Republicans and Democrats worked diligently to examine the deficits. They held 10 public hearings around the country. They took testimony from 138 witnesses.

Problem: They couldn't agree on the trade deficit's causes. They couldn't agree on its consequences. They certainly couldn't agree on a concerted action.

But regardless of your political affiliation, some of the report's conclusions are largely irrefutable ...

The deficit is a very significant threat facing the domestic economy because, unless checked, it could cause a currency or financial crisis that would result in a sharp decline in output and employment possibly reigniting inflation ...

History clearly shows that rising deficits do not correct themselves automatically or painlessly. Both rich and poor countries can be hit by financial crises. Mexico, Russia, and several countries in Asia and Latin America were hard hit by such crises between 1997 and 1999 ...

Sweden experienced an especially severe crisis that began with current account problems in the 1980s. These peaked in 1993, when the current account deficit reached 3.6 percent of GDP. Interest rates were increased from 10.1 percent in 1988 to 18.4 percent in 1992 in an attempt to defend the kroner and reduce demand for imports. Output in Sweden declined by more than 5 percent between 1990 and 1993, and unemployment soared from 1.6 percent to 8.2 percent in the same period ...

The United Kingdom also experienced both currency and current account crises in the early 1990s, and the facts were similar. The United Kingdom's current account deficit reached 5 percent of GDP in 1990. Interest rates were increased from 9.7 percent in 1988 to 14.6 percent in 1990, in an attempt to reduce demand for imports and defend the currency. Unemployment rose from 6.3 percent in 1989 to 10.4 percent in 1993 ...

Denmark experienced a similar trade and financial crisis between 1979 and 1983. The Danish current account deficit peaked at 4.1 percent of GDP in 1982. Denmark also increased interest rates by 4.3 percentage points between 1979 and 1982, in a failed attempt to defend its currency. As a result, unemployment nearly doubled, rising from 6.0 percent in 1979 to 11.4 percent in 1983 ...

Some maintain that the United States is different from these countries because it can borrow in its own currency, which is also used around the world for currency reserves and for transaction purposes. However, these factors are more likely to simply postpone the ultimate day of reckoning.

The financial laws of gravity have not been repealed for the United States, though they may work differently.

If the current account is allowed to expand further before the United States trade balance begins to improve, then the resulting disruption to the domestic economy could be even larger than the recessions that hit the European countries discussed above.

These warnings were issued more than three years ago. And yet, like the many recent warnings about the federal budget deficit, they, too, fell on deaf ears.

The Pollyannas argued that America's trade deficits were primarily the natural result of a strong American economy nothing to really worry about.

The Pollyannas also said that the next recession, although undesirable, would naturally tame America's appetite for imports ... and naturally reduce the trade deficit.

But just one year later, in 2001, a recession came and it did nothing of the kind. Instead, the U.S. trade deficit just kept growing by leaps and bounds, recession or no recession.

And now, here we are ...

... with a trade deficit that's the worst in history, far worse than it was back in 2000 ...

... with a budget deficit that's also the worst in history, that didn't even EXIST in 2000 ...

... and with BOTH deficits worse than those of countries like Sweden and Denmark, which subsequently suffered devastating currency collapses, interest rate surges and economic plunges!

Is this the end of the world as we know it? No. Those countries survived, and later, even thrived. Ultimately, so will we.

But it won't be easy. It will require some of the hardest economic sacrifices, plus some of the toughest labor our citizens and residents have experienced in decades.

In the interim, don't let the stock market's year-long rally lull you to sleep or lure you to risk. Get to safety, whatever you perceive that to be.

If you are aware of an answer, let me in on it......

Good luck and God bless!

Any additional postings to this thread will be limited to two paragraphs; of no more than 200 words combined.

Thank You ,The Management

[renzo2]

Originally posted by sobeton

Any additional postings to this thread will be limited to two paragraphs; of no more than 200 words combined.

Thank You ,The Management

Very well said, Morillo.

[obby]

Originally posted by sobeton

Any additional postings to this thread will be limited to two paragraphs; of no more than 200 words combined.

Thank You ,The Management

I guess I touched a nerve

Interesting in how a limit is put to the amount of info that is to be read. Kind of reminds me of the German Gestapo's when they would burn books.

[renzo2]

Originally posted by obby

I guess I touched a nerve

Interesting in how a limit is put to the amount of info that is to be read. Kind of reminds me of the German Gestapo's when they would burn books.

That's not very nice. You have made me sad. Look at me now:

[sobeton]

Originally posted by obby

I guess I touched a nerve

Interesting in how a limit is put to the amount of info that is to be read. Kind of reminds me of the German Gestapo's when they would burn books.

ummm Obby sarcasm my friend ! hence the that followed what I wrote.