USA's Continued Economic Suicide.

[nando]

That's interesting, because it has worked for hundreds of millions of Americans since SS was instituted in the 30's. Care to try again?

you are young, so you're going to get less out of social security than you put into it. Your money is being spent on government pork and current entitlement payments, not being invested/saved for the future. the only people who get more/break even are the people who are retired now, and you still can't really make it on social security alone. It will likely be bankrupt by the time you retire, so expect to get a pittance for what you've put in.

[Money$hit]

Bush wanted to get rid, or at least move away from SS, but no one wanted it. I think that could have been tremendous if the personal savings/investment accounts would have taken off.

It would have provided direct investment into corporations, while also letting people have a hand in deciding their own retirement plans. SS was only designed to be a short term plan. Since our demographics are so jacked up, its flaws will become evident.

[joshh]

If we moved away from feeding big business and allowed more of our citizens to earn a better pay check, more people would be able to save enough money for retirement (although many might throw it away on Hummers). Or at least give people a better chance at it.

[Maluco]

haha, now he backs down... wtf.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5655115.ece

President Obama to water down 'Buy American' plan after EU trade war threat


David Charter, Rory Watson and Philip Webster
Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons 80 per cent

The European Union warned the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting a planned “Buy American” policy, intensifying fears of a trade war.

The EU threatened to retaliate if the US Congress went ahead with sweeping measures in its $800 billion (£554 billion) stimulus plan to restrict spending to American goods and services.

Gordon Brown was caught in the crossfire as John Bruton, the EU Ambassador to Washington, said that “history has shown us” where the closing of markets leads — a clear reference to the Depression of the 1930s, triggered by US protectionist laws.

Last night Mr Obama gave a strong signal that he would remove the most provocative passages from the Bill.

“I agree that we can’t send a protectionist message,” he said in an interview with Fox TV. “I want to see what kind of language we can work on this issue. I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we’re just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade.”

Mr Brown does not want to join criticism of President Obama’s stimulus proposals, which he sees as vindicating his own, but the Prime Minister remains strongly anti-protectionist, resisting calls yesterday for more safeguards for British workers.

Trade unions demanded a tightening of the law on the use of foreign workers as hundreds again walked out at the Lindsey oil refinery in protest at the hiring of Italian and Portuguese workers, and energy workers around the country followed suit.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister refused to condemn the “Buy American” clause. When pressed, the spokesman said that Mr Brown had repeatedly made clear that he was opposed to protectionist measures. He would not say, however, whether Britain was lobbying the new Administration to drop the clause.

Mr Brown remained in favour of President Obama’s decision to inject cash into the economy. “We are supportive of the approach in the US in terms of their fiscal policy.”

The EU warnings came in letters to US political leaders in Congress, Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, and Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Mr Bruton urged them to respect the decision taken by the G20, the world’s leading economic nations, in Washington last November to resist protectionism as a defence against the crisis. They are expected to meet again in London in April.

“Failing this risks entering into a spiral of protectionist measures around the globe that can only hurt our economies further,” he wrote.

“Open markets remain the essential precondition for a rapid recovery from the crisis, and history has shown us where measures taken contrary to this principle can lead us.”

Under the “Buy American” clause passed by the US House of Representatives, American iron and steel must be used in construction projects that form part of the recovery plan. The US Senate wants to extend the scope of the clause before the Bill goes to the White House for approval.

The European Commission’s powerful trade department, a bastion of open markets formerly headed by Lord Mandelson, said yesterday that the “Buy American” clause was “the worst possible signal” that could be sent to world trade.

A spokesman said: “We are particularly concerned about the signal that these measures could send to the world at a time when all countries are facing difficulties. Where America leads, many others tend to follow.”

The Commission believes that the US move would violate international trade rules policed by the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation (WTO). The Commission also made clear that it was keeping an equally vigilant eye on protectionist moves within Europe as France prepared to insist that its motor manufacturers buy their parts only from French companies.

[Money$hit]

Man this whole presidency thing is blowing up in his face. First none of his cabinet can manage to pay their taxes, now he can't even stand up for our trade policy.

[nando]

If we moved away from feeding big business and allowed more of our citizens to earn a better pay check, more people would be able to save enough money for retirement (although many might throw it away on Hummers). Or at least give people a better chance at it.

uhm, where are you going to invest your money then? you aren't going to be able to save enough cash in your entire working lifetime to live off of (you will need to replace 85% of your income, for me that means I need almost 4 million dollars to retire). It has to be invested somwhere it can grow, which usually means big (or growing) businesses.

[joshh]

uhm, where are you going to invest your money then? you aren't going to be able to save enough cash in your entire working lifetime to live off of (you will need to replace 85% of your income, for me that means I need almost 4 million dollars to retire). It has to be invested somwhere it can grow, which usually means big (or growing) businesses.

Ummm....
Who said businesses shouldn't grow or be "big"??? You know the term "big business" means few people see the money from said businesses, right. It's where the money goes not if they are making money.....

[joshh]

haha, now he backs down... wtf.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5655115.ece

President Obama to water down 'Buy American' plan after EU trade war threat


David Charter, Rory Watson and Philip Webster
Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons 80 per cent

The European Union warned the US yesterday against plunging the world into depression by adopting a planned “Buy American” policy, intensifying fears of a trade war.

The EU threatened to retaliate if the US Congress went ahead with sweeping measures in its $800 billion (£554 billion) stimulus plan to restrict spending to American goods and services.

Gordon Brown was caught in the crossfire as John Bruton, the EU Ambassador to Washington, said that “history has shown us” where the closing of markets leads — a clear reference to the Depression of the 1930s, triggered by US protectionist laws.

Last night Mr Obama gave a strong signal that he would remove the most provocative passages from the Bill.

“I agree that we can’t send a protectionist message,” he said in an interview with Fox TV. “I want to see what kind of language we can work on this issue. I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining, for us to start sending a message that somehow we’re just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade.”

Mr Brown does not want to join criticism of President Obama’s stimulus proposals, which he sees as vindicating his own, but the Prime Minister remains strongly anti-protectionist, resisting calls yesterday for more safeguards for British workers.

Trade unions demanded a tightening of the law on the use of foreign workers as hundreds again walked out at the Lindsey oil refinery in protest at the hiring of Italian and Portuguese workers, and energy workers around the country followed suit.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister refused to condemn the “Buy American” clause. When pressed, the spokesman said that Mr Brown had repeatedly made clear that he was opposed to protectionist measures. He would not say, however, whether Britain was lobbying the new Administration to drop the clause.

Mr Brown remained in favour of President Obama’s decision to inject cash into the economy. “We are supportive of the approach in the US in terms of their fiscal policy.”

The EU warnings came in letters to US political leaders in Congress, Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, and Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Mr Bruton urged them to respect the decision taken by the G20, the world’s leading economic nations, in Washington last November to resist protectionism as a defence against the crisis. They are expected to meet again in London in April.

“Failing this risks entering into a spiral of protectionist measures around the globe that can only hurt our economies further,” he wrote.

“Open markets remain the essential precondition for a rapid recovery from the crisis, and history has shown us where measures taken contrary to this principle can lead us.”

Under the “Buy American” clause passed by the US House of Representatives, American iron and steel must be used in construction projects that form part of the recovery plan. The US Senate wants to extend the scope of the clause before the Bill goes to the White House for approval.

The European Commission’s powerful trade department, a bastion of open markets formerly headed by Lord Mandelson, said yesterday that the “Buy American” clause was “the worst possible signal” that could be sent to world trade.

A spokesman said: “We are particularly concerned about the signal that these measures could send to the world at a time when all countries are facing difficulties. Where America leads, many others tend to follow.”

The Commission believes that the US move would violate international trade rules policed by the Geneva-based World Trade Organisation (WTO). The Commission also made clear that it was keeping an equally vigilant eye on protectionist moves within Europe as France prepared to insist that its motor manufacturers buy their parts only from French companies.

Obama is showing he doesn't know what the fuck he is doing....and his 3 cabinet members who have bailed...because they don't pay their taxes...LMFAO!

[nando]

Ummm....
Who said businesses shouldn't grow or be "big"??? You know the term "big business" means few people see the money from said businesses, right. It's where the money goes not if they are making money.....

most big businesses are publicly traded. if you mean by "a few people" anyone who is capable of not spending every dime they earn and can use the internet to start a trading account, then sure, only a few people can own shares in a large company that makes lots of money. I guess..

[joshh]

most big businesses are publicly traded. if you mean by "a few people" anyone who is capable of not spending every dime they earn and can use the internet to start a trading account, then sure, only a few people can own shares in a large company that makes lots of money. I guess..

What fuels a company to do everything they can to cut costs and even go as far as lobby government officials for support?
It's okay if a coporation pays people shit as long as they are making big profits? Or even when they make big profits...or that helps them make big profits.
It's a morality question not a business question.
If you had a chance to hire slave labor so you could afford that yacht you always wanted, would you?
Too many people are too willing to fuck over the next guy for more money.
It could easily be pointed out that my arguement is a joke because the law says it's okay to pay people pennies (minimum wage) for their hard work. But we both know you can't make it living off of minimum wage without working 80 hours a week. And still living in a shack.
In the mean time the difference between the rich and the poor is being ever stretched.
Greed got this country in this position to begin with, greed wont get us out of it. And neither will stock owners beating up CEO's for more money.
The stock market is a fucking joke as it is. How about trading actual product instead of "projected" product. We know where that took thousands of stock holders and employees of Enron.
I had my own company for several years (very small mind you) and made it a point not to hire anyone at minimum wage or even the illegals that hang around Home Depots or up by Burnside (for less than minimum wage) because it's fucked up to do so. The least I paid was $15 an hour, and I got hard work from the people that worked for me.
Companies pay shit wages because they can get away with it. And you get things like NAFTA from this idea. Making money (for yourself) is more important than the people that work for you. That is how big business operates in America.
We send jobs to Mexico for corporations to make money not to help mexico.
I'm not opposed to people making a killing from their businesses or from them buying stock in a business, just don't do it on the broken backs of others.

[nando]

You obviously have no idea how the stock market works - your loss.

Paying people fairly is fine. But would you pay a kid who was 15 years old, had no work experience at all that you didn't know $15 an hour to sweep floors? Or would that kid simply not be able to get a job because he's not worth $15/hr with no experience? Who gets to decide what's "fair" and what isn't?

[z31maniac]

That's interesting, because it has worked for hundreds of millions of Americans since SS was instituted in the 30's. Care to try again?

You work full-time and get SS statements of benefits every year don't you, oh wait, you obviously don't.

Just as an example, I just got mine last week, at current levels of funding at my projected retirement date of 2043 or something like that, it's already projected to only be at 75% benefits. And the funding levels are only getting worse by the day.

[joshh]

You obviously have no idea how the stock market works - your loss.

Paying people fairly is fine. But would you pay a kid who was 15 years old, had no work experience at all that you didn't know $15 an hour to sweep floors? Or would that kid simply not be able to get a job because he's not worth $15/hr with no experience? Who gets to decide what's "fair" and what isn't?

Oh really. Care to explain why Enron went down so hard. You really think that's the only example...LMFAO.

Jesus fucking crist, use your head. I didn't say hand out money just because. A guy doesn't work hard, you fire him, it's very simple.

[nando]

Oh really. Care to explain why Enron went down so hard. You really think that's the only example...LMFAO.

Jesus fucking crist, use your head. I didn't say hand out money just because. A guy doesn't work hard, you fire him, it's very simple.

because they cooked the books and hid debt in fake companies overseas. Eventually people came looking for their money and they found out what a sham they were.

So what does that have to do with well run companies that turn a profit that you can own shares of? Nothing. Anyone can see their balance sheets and accounting practices and make an informed decision on if they are crooked or not.

Accounting transparency is very important in this equation and yes, some people are liars and cheats - that doesn't mean the whole thing is worthless and that all companies are evil greeding money sucking bastards.

And even if things appear fine on the surface, there is still something about "too good to be true" when things just don't add up, but nobody ever complains as long as things are on the rise and they don't want ask questions. Just look at Madoff.

I hope you enjoy trying to scrimp by on your social security payments. I have a goal of saving 20% a year within 5 years which even in a bad market will be enough to retire on. maybe I'll use whatever social security payments I get to do my laundry, because that's all it will be worth.

and do you really think a kid who sweeps floors is worth $15 an hour? That seems like handing out money to me. I bet he'd be happy to do it for $10.

[joshh]

because they cooked the books and hid debt in fake companies overseas. Eventually people came looking for their money and they found out what a sham they were.

So what does that have to do with well run companies that turn a profit that you can own shares of? Nothing. Anyone can see their balance sheets and accounting practices and make an informed decision on if they are crooked or not.

Accounting transparency is very important in this equation and yes, some people are liars and cheats - that doesn't mean the whole thing is worthless and that all companies are evil greeding money sucking bastards.

And even if things appear fine on the surface, there is still something about "too good to be true" when things just don't add up, but nobody ever complains as long as things are on the rise and they don't want ask questions. Just look at Madoff.

I hope you enjoy trying to scrimp by on your social security payments. I have a goal of saving 20% a year within 5 years which even in a bad market will be enough to retire on. maybe I'll use whatever social security payments I get to do my laundry, because that's all it will be worth.

and do you really think a kid who sweeps floors is worth $15 an hour? That seems like handing out money to me. I bet he'd be happy to do it for $10.

You're not even thinking about what you're sayin. And definately not countering anything I've said.
Yes they crooked the books...and what effect did that have to do with shares of the company? And what does that do on Wallstreet....it's not hard to figure out.
That's why the stock market is gambling. It's backed by confidence not actual product. In many cases anyways. It makes it super easy to cheat people out of money.

I never said ALL companies are evil.
I never said anything about SS...
Good luck with your plan. I hope reality doesn't bite you in the ass while you're gambling the stock market. Or if you get sick and have to lean on that saved income before you retire.

You're missing the whole point. And it was your idea to pay a kid 15 an hour to sweep floors, not mine. I'm not going to repeat myself because you fail to see what I was saying.
No one can live on minimum wage...yet you are a bleeding heart for Mexicans. lol...