ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

Full Version: The Next Big Crash - Are You Prepared?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Extended unemployment benefit and other entitlement program, these programs do not produce any meaningful economy benefit, and purely waste of taxpayers' money.

It makes more economic sense to rescue the financial institutions during financial crisis. It makes money for the government and create job and improve economy.

What has extended unemployment benefit or other entitlement program done to the economy rather than having more freeloaders?

Plus, check how much has US government spent on entitlement and how much on other program such as defense, etc.

[Image: budget-entitlement-programs-680.jpg]

As for ObamaCare, it's complicated.
(01-10-2013, 12:54 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Extended unemployment benefit and other entitlement program, these programs do not produce any meaningful economy benefit, and purely waste of taxpayers' money.

It makes more economic sense to rescue the financial institutions during financial crisis. It makes money for the government and create job and improve economy.

What has extended unemployment benefit or other entitlement program done to the economy rather than having more freeloaders?

Plus, check how much has US government spent on entitlement and how much on other program such as defense, etc.

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/ch...ms-680.jpg

As for ObamaCare, it's complicated.

Cut entitlements, yes I agreed, but not under the threat that I will burn down your house if you don't. Anyway they burn their own bridges when Obama wants to tweak social security during debt ceiling talk last year, so if you are dealing will someone (Boehner ) who can't even get its own house in order and start shifting goal posts during deal making, why should one bother to make a deal anyway?
oops

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/...dline.html


For the first time in nearly two decades, the U.S. government staggered into a partial shutdown Monday at midnight after congressional Republicans stubbornly demanded changes in the nation's health care law as the price for essential federal funding and President Barack Obama and Democrats adamantly refused.


As Congress gridlocked, Obama said a "shutdown will have a very real economic impact on real people, right away," with hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed and veterans' centers, national parks, most of the space agency and other government operations shuttered.


He laid the blame at the feet of House Republicans, whom he accused of seeking to tie government funding to ideological demands, "all to save face after making some impossible promises to the extreme right wing of their party."


House Speaker John Boehner responded a short while later on the House floor. "The American people don't want a shutdown and neither do I," he said. Yet, he added, the new health care law "is having a devastating impact. ... Something has to be done."


The stock market dropped on fears that political gridlock between the White House and a Republican Party influenced by hardcore conservative tea party lawmakers would prevail, though analysts suggested significant damage to the national economy was unlikely unless a shutdown lasted more than a few days.


A few minutes before midnight, White House Budget Director Sylvia Burwell issued a directive to federal agencies to "execute plans for an orderly shutdown." While an estimated 800,000 federal workers faced furloughs, some critical parts of the government — from the military to air traffic controllers — would remain open.


Still, a shutdown would and inconvenience millions of people who rely on federal services or are drawn to the nation's parks and other attractions.


The State Department would continue processing foreign applications for visas, and embassies and consulates overseas would continue to provide services to American citizens.


Any interruption in federal funding would send divided government into territory unexplored in nearly two decades. Then, Republicans suffered grievous political damage and President Bill Clinton benefited from twin shutdowns in 1995 and 1996. Now, some Republicans said they feared a similar outcome.


If nothing else, some Republicans also conceded it was impossible to use funding legislation to squeeze concessions from the White House on health care. "We can't win," said Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate.


On a long day and night in the Capitol, the Senate torpedoed one Republican attempt to tie government financing to changes in the health care law, referred to as "Obamacare." House Republicans countered with a second despite unmistakable signs their unity was fraying — and Senate Democrats promptly rejected it, as well.


Defiant still, House Republicans decided to re-pass their earlier measure and simultaneously request negotiations with the Senate on a compromise. Some aides conceded the move was largely designed to make sure that the formal paperwork was on the Senate's doorstep as the day ended.


Whatever its intent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected it. "That closes government. They want to close government," he said of House Republicans.


As lawmakers squabbled, Obama spoke bluntly about House Republicans. "You don't get to extract a ransom for doing your job, for doing what you're supposed to be doing anyway, or just because there's a law there that you don't like," he said. Speaking of the health care law that undergoes a major expansion on Tuesday, he said emphatically, "That funding is already in place. You can't shut it down."


There were some signs of fraying within Republican ranks. For the first time since the showdown began more than a week ago, there was public dissent from the Republican strategy that has been carried out at the insistence of tea party-supported Republican House members working in tandem with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.


Republican Rep. Charles Dent said he was willing to vote for stand-alone legislation that would keep the government running and contained no health care-related provisions. "I would be supportive of it, and I believe the votes are there in the House to pass it at that point," the fifth-term congressman said.


Other Republicans sought to blame Democrats for any shutdown, but Dent conceded that Republicans would bear the blame, whether or not they deserved it.


Hours before the midnight deadline, the Senate voted 54-46 to reject a proposal by House Republicans for a temporary funding bill that would have kept the government open but would have delayed implementation of the health care law for a year and permanently repeal a tax on medical devices that helps finance it.


House Republicans countered by scaling back their demands and seeking different concessions in exchange for allowing the government to remain open. They called for a one-year delay in a requirement in the health care law for individuals to purchase coverage.


The same measure also would require members of Congress and their aides as well as the president, vice president and the administration's political appointees to bear the full cost of their own health care coverage by barring the government from making the customary employer contribution.


The vote was 228-201, with a dozen Republicans opposed and nine Democrats in favor.


Unimpressed, Senate Democrats rejected the House measure on a 54-46 party line vote about an hour later.


Obama followed up his public remarks with phone calls to Boehner and the three other top leaders of Congress, telling Republicans he would continue to oppose attempts to delay or cut federal financing of the health care law.


The impact of a shutdown would be felt unevenly.


Many low-to-moderate-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers seeking government-backed mortgages could face delays, and Obama said veterans' centers would be closed.


About 800,000 federal workers, many already reeling from the effect of automatic budget cuts, would be ordered to report to work Tuesday for about four hours — but only to carry out shutdown-related chores such as changing office voicemail messages and completing time cards.


Some critical services such as patrolling the borders and inspecting meat would continue. Social Security benefits would be sent, and the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and poor would continue to pay doctors and hospitals.


U.S. troops were shielded from any damage to their wallets when Obama signed legislation assuring the military would be paid in the in the event of a shutdown.


The prospect of a shutdown led U.S. stocks to sink as Wall Street worried the budget fight could lead to something much worse for the economy — a failure to raise the nation's borrowing limit.


Whether or not Congress averts a shutdown, Republicans are sure to move the health care fight to a must-do measure to increase the borrowing cap, which is expected to hit its $16.7 trillion ceiling in mid-October.


Obama has vowed not to negotiate over the debt ceiling, noting that a default would be worse for the economy than a partial government shutdown.


The U.S. risks a market-rattling, first-ever default on its obligations if Congress fails to raise that limit.


Both a shutdown and a default would be politically risky ahead of next year's congressional elections.


Some Republican leaders fear the public will blame their party for the shutdown. But individual House members may face a greater risk by embracing a compromise. Many represent heavily partisan congressional districts, and voters in primaries have ousted lawmakers, particularly Republicans, they see as too moderate.


Since the last government shutdown, temporary funding bills have been noncontroversial, with neither party willing to chance a shutdown to achieve legislative goals it couldn't otherwise win.


But with the 3-year-old health care law nearing implementation, tea party conservatives are determined to block it.


There are few issues Republicans feel as passionately about as the health care reform. They see the plan, intended to provide coverage for the millions of Americans now uninsured, as wasteful and restricting freedom by requiring most Americans to have insurance.


A crucial part of the plan begins Tuesday, whether or not the government partially closes: enrollment in new health care exchanges for millions of uninsured Americans. That's because most of the program is paid from monies not subject to congressional appropriations.


-----------------------
Associated Press writers David Espo, Alan Fram, Andrew Taylor, Laurie Kellman, Pauline Jelinek; Henry Jackson, Donna Cassata and Stacy A. Anderson in Washington and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.
Mr. Market is immune from it...

No knee-jerk reaction from investors as US government shuts down

TOKYO — The dollar held steady today (Oct 1) even though much of the United States government was due to start shutting down after Congress failed to find a compromise on a bill to fund government operations.

Competing spending measures flew back and forth between Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Democratic-led Senate late into the night yesterday in Washington, but Congress deadlocked over Republican efforts to use the temporary spending bill as a way to delay implementation of President Barack Obama’s health care programme.

Minutes before the deadline passed at midnight (noon today, Singapore time), the White House ordered the government to shut down.

It comes a few weeks ahead of the next political battle to raise the federal government’s debt ceiling. Failure to do the latter by mid-October could result in a historic US debt default that would threaten the US economy and send ripples around the globe.

S&P stock futures inched up 0.2 per cent, unchanged from earlier price action after the cash index fell 0.6 per cent yesterday, while US Treasury futures slipped 5 ticks.

As many as one million US federal employees could face unpaid furloughs, but a shutdown would be unlikely to affect the United States’ sovereign credit rating.

Investors are accustomed to political battles in Washington resulting in a last-minute accord and voiced scepticism any shutdown would last for an extended period.

“It may have a knock-on effect on the timing of the potential tapering (by the Federal Reserve). It could have a knock-on effect on the production of economic data. It could have a real impact on consumption if it lasts for more than a day,” said a senior trader at a foreign bank in Tokyo.

“People in the market are kind of interpreting this as a kabuki drama if you like, but we are little more concerned than that.”

The dollar was down 0.1 per cent against a basket of currencies. It was steady at 98.15 yen, having climbed off a one-month low of 97.50 yesterday as Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was expected to announce his economic growth and tax strategy later today
...
http://www.todayonline.com/business/no-k...shuts-down
[Image: jvx0R9X944rgw.png]

(01-10-2013, 01:36 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]oops

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/...dline.html


For the first time in nearly two decades, the U.S. government staggered into a partial shutdown Monday at midnight


after congressional Republicans stubbornly demanded changes in the nation's health care law as the price for essential federal funding and President Barack Obama and Democrats adamantly refused.

About 800,000 federal workers, many already reeling from the effect of automatic budget cuts, would be ordered to report to work Tuesday for about four hours — but only to carry out shutdown-related chores such as changing office voicemail messages and completing time cards.

[Image: jTX1rCZq5LHrY.png]

The US government shutdown - explained in 60 seconds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24330034


(01-10-2013, 07:49 AM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ]Can anyone enlighten me what is this US shutdown? Trying to read on Yahoo, but the bits and pieces make little sense to me.

Thanks.
Hi Freedom,

I agree with you that entitlement programs need to be managed. However, do you think that it is Obama's fault that the entitlement is at such a high level? He caused all this within the few years he has been around?

Also, to just look at the percentage and then say cut it all and everyone is freeloader shows that you don't understand the history behind why the percentage is so high and the need for entitlement programs.

So every person who is on a welfare program or sort is a freeloader, who doesn't want to work and just suck the government dry?

I think you need to read and understand the situation better before you just throw things like this around.

And like you said " It's complicated".

Also the link you provided is a right wing think tank that is famous for supporting Republican views only so what would you expect from them?

Thank You.


(01-10-2013, 12:54 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]It makes more economic sense to rescue the financial institutions during financial crisis. It makes money for the government and create job and improve economy.
As for ObamaCare, it's complicated.
(01-10-2013, 03:01 PM)flinger Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Freedom,

I agree with you that entitlement programs need to be managed. However, do you think that it is Obama's fault that the entitlement is at such a high level? He caused all this within the few years he has been around?

Also, to just look at the percentage and then say cut it all and everyone is freeloader shows that you don't understand the history behind why the percentage is so high and the need for entitlement programs.

So every person who is on a welfare program or sort is a freeloader, who doesn't want to work and just suck the government dry?

I think you need to read and understand the situation better before you just throw things like this around.

And like you said " It's complicated".

Also the link you provided is a right wing think tank that is famous for supporting Republican views only so what would you expect from them?

Thank You.

To me, cut half of the entitlement, US budget can be well balanced already. It's much better spending on national defense/education than on entitlement programs as the right spending promotes economic growth, but not wealth transfer.
Its an easy solution to say cut half the entitlements, but which half? . This needs a sane working stakeholders with all parties working for the good of their citizens, but currently they are all dysfunctional led by the hard line conservative republicans.

I agree that it is much better spending on national defense / education but there are many who disagree on this especially from the conservative side.

The right spending promotes economy growth for their own benefit, not for the country or its citizens... so what good use is that?

There is a great new documentary out there by the Robert Reich on income inequality that talks about that. Check it out, you'll get clued it.

http://inequalityforall.com/

Regards.



(01-10-2013, 03:25 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]To me, cut half of the entitlement, US budget can be well balanced already. It's much better spending on national defense/education than on entitlement programs as the right spending promotes economic growth, but not wealth transfer.
(01-10-2013, 03:46 PM)flinger Wrote: [ -> ]Its an easy solution to say cut half the entitlements, but which half? . This needs a sane working stakeholders with all parties working for the good of their citizens, but currently they are all dysfunctional led by the hard line conservative republicans.

I agree that it is much better spending on national defense / education but there are many who disagree on this especially from the conservative side.

The right spending promotes economy growth for their own benefit, not for the country or its citizens... so what good use is that?

There is a great new documentary out there by the Robert Reich on income inequality that talks about that. Check it out, you'll get clued it.

http://inequalityforall.com/

Regards.

Let me simply state this way. It would serve the whole nation better if the government eliminate nearly all entitlement program. Instead, they offer everyone a paid job(it does not matter what job it is) to earn the "entitlement" than to simply transfer the "entitlement". At least money is well spent and the ones who work hard and smart can earn more money.

Laziness and stupidity does not deserve any "entitlement".
I think you don't understand entitlement programs and thus your response. I suggest you read further to understand before making a statement as the one below.

Regards.



(01-10-2013, 03:54 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]Let me simply state this way. It would serve the whole nation better if the government eliminate nearly all entitlement program. Instead, they offer everyone a paid job(it does not matter what job it is) to earn the "entitlement" than to simply transfer the "entitlement". At least money is well spent and the ones who work hard and smart can earn more money.

Laziness and stupidity does not deserve any "entitlement".