So, I usually have something on my mind each night while I'm laying in bed that keeps me from sleeping for awhile. Here's tonights.

Economic Recession:

Are we really in a full blown recession? Obviously someone believes we are headed that direction. We were given economic stimulus checks to spend to help boost the economy. But why? Could it be possible to the war in Iraq and the amazing amounts of money spent to fund it? What about social security? Are more people saving instead of spending in hopes that they will have a nest egg during retirement? What spurs the economic development to become an independent country once again? Thoughts?

We aren't in a recession.

My take is that if the USA decided to do off shore drilling for oil, the price of oil would drop over night. If that happens the economic engine of this country would kick back in and we would be off and running.

This would be a temporary fix. The final and long term fix is an energy source that doesn't rely on oil. No matter what energy source we use, we need to be more conservative about the use of that source. Bicycles, motorcycles, electric cars, and mass trans maybe the thing of the future.

Once oil is not so important, the need to "guard" the middle east becomes less important. Let those who want to stay in the dark ages be let alone to do just that.

My take is that if the USA decided to do off shore drilling for oil, the price of oil would drop over night. If that happens the economic engine of this country would kick back in and we would be off and running.

What makes you think that? It takes years to develop an asset like that. What happened to the price of oil when it was announced a few months ago that several billion barrels of oil exist in the Bakken find in North Dakota, which is already being tapped?

What about when Devon and Chevron just discovered a field in the Gulf of Mexico holding 3-15 billion barrels, the largest American find in a generation? As an aside, this is being drilled, so we must be doing some offshore drilling in U.S. waters.

Maybe part of a long term solution, I don't know enough of the facts to form an opinion right now, but I highly doubt it's THE solution to our woes. I smell politics.

We aren't in a recession.

Care to elaborate? Warren Buffett thinks otherwise:

Buffett says U.S. in recession | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSWEN425620080303)

I'm going to go ahead and go with the richest man in the world on this one.

What spurs the economic development to become an independent country once again? Thoughts?

High gas prices and pollution spur it and the answer, imo, is good ol American ingenuity in the field of energy. Our propeller heads are hard at work and $1/watt solar energy is quickly approaching, which would put it on par with the price of coal.

If we can be on the cutting edge of: solar, biofuels, hydrogen, engine development, nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc. etc. and control the patents we will change the world and make tons of money doing it.

hate to be a bugger..but...shouldn't this be in the current events or political forum?

My take is that if the USA decided to do off shore drilling for oil, the price of oil would drop over night. If that happens the economic engine of this country would kick back in and we would be off and running.

This would be a temporary fix. The final and long term fix is an energy source that doesn't rely on oil. No matter what energy source we use, we need to be more conservative about the use of that source. Bicycles, motorcycles, electric cars, and mass trans maybe the thing of the future.

Once oil is not so important, the need to "guard" the middle east becomes less important. Let those who want to stay in the dark ages be let alone to do just that.

7 to 10 years to explore and develop, resulting in a 1 to 2 percent increase in oil supply and about a $4 to $5 dollar drop in the average price of a barrel of oil or about 3%. Since oil makes up only about 25% of cost of a gallon of gas the impact on the price at the pump would be about 3 to 5 cents a gallon. Woo hoo.

There are other factors people need to consider..

When the price of oil goes up, is it because the oil is now more valuable or is it because the dollar is less valuable?

By definition a recession is the decline of the GDP. Based off how we measure the GDP we are not in a recession. Are we measuring our GDP correctly? Does government involvements in the market distort the market? What are the consequences of that?

Finally.. is a recession something the average American should even worry about?

Our government can tax us in two ways. We can face direct taxes that we see immediately, and those direct taxes are not popular. No one likes a politicion that raises taxes. The other way our government can tax us is to print more money. Inflation is a tax because it makes our money worth less.

Inflation causes people to not want to save, which lowers the capital, which puts pressure on the fed reserve to create more capital out of thin air in order to stimulate the economy, which leads to bad investments and bubbles, the market corrects itself..

Not a perfect example, but enlightening to people who do not know a lot about economics. Look at prices. The price of gold(ounce) in 2001 was around $275 and the price of oil(barrel) was about $25. Right now oil is at $134 and gold is $901.

Gold is 327% more expensive while oil is 536% more expensive. I'm not suggesting that our dollar be backed 100% by gold, but if it was... oil would currently cost $81.75 a barrel instead of $134. There is another factor causes the oil price to be artificially high right now, but I don't want to go off on that right now.. maybe later.

Bernanke said on 11-08-2007 "If somebody has their wealth in dollars and they are going to buy consumer goods in dollars than as a typical American they um the decline in the dollar, the only effect it has on their buying power is that it makes imported goods more expensive."

That man should be fired. What can you buy that is not imported or relies on something that is imported? Imagine buying locally grown eggs. The farmer is going to have to import goods to run that farm. The person who delivers the eggs to the store is going to rely on imported goods and fuel to accomplish that. The store you buy the eggs from is going to rely on imported goods to run the store. If the lightbulbs at your supermarket rely on imported goods in any way than your eggs will cost more. I hope no imported goods were used to deliver electricity to the store or the farm...

I choose not to participate in an economic downturn.

I choose not to participate in an economic downturn.I'm with you. It is my personal decision to ignore any economic or social downturns.

The one immediate advantage of ramping up domestic oil production is that if the market is indeed full of speculators, as some insist, they'll be thrown into a tizzy: since they're by definition betting on the future price of oil, the possibility of an increased supply somewhere down the road will inevitably affect their bets.

And the development process, I suspect, could be sped up a bit if the NIMBY types could be mollified and/or bought off.

couple of thoughts....

there is an old saying "its a recession when you know (of) someone who has lost their job...its a depression when you lose your job."

recessions are good-they clear out the junk. seriously.

until oklahoma has a relatively high unemployment rate, meaning over 6% or 7%, we as a state should be fine. however on the flipside we seem to rely disproportionately on the boom bust cycle of oil/gas. so as long as we don't retrace the bank failures and oil bust of the 80's, oklahoma should be somewhat shielded.

the problem is, declaring a recession in the USA is a nationwide thing. there will always be states doing well, commodity producers come to mind currently. and there will be states doing terrible, manufacturing behemoths of yore, like Michigan, OH, PA, they are struggling.

Its a technicality to declare a 'nationwide' recession.

however, its probably true that nation wide we are getting close or already in one.

But back to square one, its a good thing in the long run to clear out the dead brush and retool for more productive future resource allocations.

OK is OK!

hate to be a bugger..but...shouldn't this be in the current events or political forum?

No.

There are other factors people need to consider.. When the price of oil goes up, is it because the oil is now more valuable or is it because the dollar is less valuable?

Exactly. That is one of the biggest cost drivers to oil right now. The dollar is incredibly weak. There are only two ways to make the dollar stronger, raise taxes or raise core interest rates (e.g. both take money off the table, making it more scarce... causing that whole supply and demand thing to kick in).

Very rarely would I say this, but we need a tax increase right now. Increasing interest rates isn't going to happen and shouldn't because the economy is very fragile at the moment. Tax increases are more of a soft supply removal of cash from the system. It won't happen though... it runs counter to "common sense."

The other major factor is how oil is traded. People are day trading it like madmen. The oil futures market has really gotten out of hand over the last 15 years or so. I think it is time to increase regulation there. To my pleasant surprise, I see that Senator Obama is making that a cornerstone of his energy policy today.

As far as are we in a recession or not.... Yes, but it can on occasion be the result of some other things. The "two quarters of record with a declining GDP" is the general rule of thumb but not an exact rule per se. Should the average person worry about it? I'm more worried about inflation personally. But I guess it really depends on what industry you are in. For example if you are in retail sales counting on commission checks, I bet things are getting pretty rough right now.

As far as the whole gold thing... Eeeh, not buying it. The gold rush is over, expect a downward trend from this point forward. Not to mention that the price of gold literally flat-lined for 20 years throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Not exactly a great long-term investment. I'm also not a big fan of the "lets back our reserve with gold" movement. First of all, there isn't enough gold in the world in existence today to support our economy. That means in order for gold to back the dollar we would have to seriously and significantly crash the value of the dollar, shrinking the pie enough so that a dollar could be worth some gold equivalent. This would wreak havoc on our economy. It would have to be done very, very slowly. And even if done slowly, the result would in all likelihood still be a deflationary period, which is a much, much worse position to be in. Deflation nearly killed the Japanese economy in the 1990s. "Stagflation" or flat-lining isn't nearly as bad and think of what it did to us here in the US during the 1970s.

My take is that if the USA decided to do off shore drilling for oil, the price of oil would drop over night. If that happens the economic engine of this country would kick back in and we would be off and running.

I really don't think that is going to help. To date when you combine the estimated oil shelf in Alaska and elsewhere stateside if I remember correctly we are looking at something on the order of 8 million barrels. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil A DAY. The next nearest neighbor is China consuming something like 5-8 million barrels a day. I just don't see how drilling here in the US helps us long-term.

I'm also not a big fan of the "lets back our reserve with gold" movement. First of all, there isn't enough gold in the world in existence today to support our economy. That means in order for gold to back the dollar we would have to seriously and significantly crash the value of the dollar, shrinking the pie enough so that a dollar could be worth some gold equivalent.

I totally agree.

No one is really saying we should back the reserve with gold, but a lot of people are bringing up the idea of "competing currency" and it is an idea that looks pretty good.

Statement on Competing Currencies (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr021308h.htm)

It is a pretty good read.. it concludes with:

"In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies."

I totally agree.

No one is really saying we should back the reserve with gold, but a lot of people are bringing up the idea of "competing currency" and it is an idea that looks pretty good.

Statement on Competing Currencies (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2008/cr021308h.htm)

It is a pretty good read.. it concludes with:

"In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies."

Hmm, honestly the thought has never even crossed my mind. I'm not sure what I think of that. Offhand there would be so many logistics problems that would have to be overcome. And I'm not sure who would be doing the competing? States? Anybody with a press? I read through the link but it didn't really explain how exactly this would all work.

There are many countries that 'use' multiple currencies, other nations using their official currency but also doing some transactions in dollars or euros comes to mind, but I can't think of a nation that actually has multiple locally sanctioned currencies that aren't indexed from one another.

It's a curious idea. Makes me want to read more about it.

Well.. there isn't some magic plan to do it..

Competing currency can range from Hayek's "The Denationalization of Money" where currency would be handled by private businesses to simply letting us use gold and silver as currency.

The logistics are not as difficult as you would think (I have a customer that pays me in Euros) so much as the laws that prevent it. For example, right now if you wanted to trade some dollars for gold, you would have to pay sales tax on that gold that you "bought" which kind of kills the deal.

This isn't some kook thing, a lot of people like Steve Forbes are really down for making the dollar at least as good as gold(but not actually backed by it).

We're not currently in a recession, but economic growth at best is anemic. We may soon be in a recession, as the cumulative effects of tightening credit, a weakening dollar, serious inflation, and the billions of dollars in failed loans take their toll, coupled with increasing job losses.

In Oklahoma, we may be able to handle this better than most, thanks to the high oil and gas prices. The broader story, however, is that Oklahomans who aren't rolling in money are hurting, too, just like their countrymen, trying to balance the increase in food, fuel and virtually everything else in the face of stagnant income growth.

The Royal Bank of Scotland recently warned its private clients that there's going to be a major correction on Wall Street and further credit tightening.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to get ugly.

So, I usually have something on my mind each night while I'm laying in bed that keeps me from sleeping for awhile. Here's tonights.

Economic Recession:

Are we really in a full blown recession? Obviously someone believes we are headed that direction. We were given economic stimulus checks to spend to help boost the economy. But why? Could it be possible to the war in Iraq and the amazing amounts of money spent to fund it? What about social security? Are more people saving instead of spending in hopes that they will have a nest egg during retirement? What spurs the economic development to become an independent country once again? Thoughts?

I don't think we're in a full blown recession. The stimulus checks are nothing more than our money the government took from us and returned without interest.

Our government throws more money away on pet social programs than it's spent on the war in Iraq. Here's a link to my website that has links to where the money goes.

Whatever Comes to Mind... (http://loud-n-clear.blogspot.com/2008/06/if-you-voted-for-change-you-got-it.html)

As far as Socialistic Insecurity goes, it was never intended to be a retirement plan but a supplement to the plan we're supposed to have created for ourselves. However, Congress has successfully conned most people into believing it is a retirement plan. SI (socialistic insecurity) is like the minimum wage. It's not supposed to support a family because it's only an entry level wage. It's up to the individual to become proficient and marketable for more money and support themselves and/or their families.

The best thing to stimulate the economy is huge tax cuts for everybody and keep the government out of it.

The best thing to stimulate the economy is huge tax cuts for everybody and keep the government out of it.

The last thirty years have proven this to be demonstrably false. While some tax cuts do indeed stimulate the economy, many do not.

Tax cuts on business stimulate growth. Tax cuts on millionaires do not.

Technically the stimulus check was not giving our money back. That would only be true if the government made up the difference by spending less and if our government wasn't also in control of our currency.

The stimulus check was a high interest loan the government made to us that we will pay back through inflation for the rest of our lives.

It is all bad economic policy, similar to McCain talking about a gas tax holiday or wishing the interest rates were 0%(yes he said that).

Thoughts.....

Remember White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay? He estimated the cost of a war in Iraq at $100 to $200 billion. He was fired. The White House "re-estimated" the cost at - $50 to $60 billion. It's now over $500 billion - a half trillion dollars - and rising.

At least the social spending leaves something to show for it. What does the war in Iraq do for the average American?

No way can we sustain a two-front war on the Chinese Credit Card, rising oil prices, a continued mortgage crisis, consumer debt that's soaring as people are using credit cards to live on, income equality continues to widen, on and on it goes.

Warren Buffet says we're in a recession and it's going to get worse. The United States of America has never waged a war without a means to pay for it. Every penny of these wars are paid via debt (yes, with interest).

George W. Bush is the worst president in history. His ripping apart of the constitution, waging a war on a country that never fired a shot against us, allowing the legitimate war in Afghanistan to be underfunded and the real criminals of 9/11 still are free - seven years later. All the while private contracts are handed out in the billions to the friends of George Bush and Dick Cheney. What a disastrous eight years. Unbelievable.

Change is coming to America. Just hang on.

http://img32.picoodle.com/img/img32/4/6/22/f_obama08bm_79157c6.jpg

NEW AD NOW AIRING IN 18 STATES:

ylVTBiGh00c

At least the social spending leaves something to show for it. What does the war in Iraq do for the average American?

Not much.. but wouldn't you love to be on the receiving end of that borrowed money from China? The only thing more scary than how much money we spend, is who ends up with that money.

On the Obama thing.. don't be too sure on that. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for the guy because he is the lesser of evils, but he is still a Democrat and the Democrats have had the power to stop this thing for a long time.

Mouseland. Stop voting for cats!
(A fable by Clare Gillis, as retold by Tommy Douglas)

Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.

They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.

Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws - that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds - so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.

All the laws were good laws. For cats. But oh, they were hard on mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.

Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All Mouseland needs is more vision". They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes.And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.

And when they couldn't take any more, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats who tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cats. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.

Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice? Oh, they said, he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up! So they put him in jail.

But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.

Mouseland. Stop voting for cats!
(A fable by Clare Gillis, as retold by Tommy Douglas)

I loved it! It's true too. I hold no hope for monumental change, but I actually hope for fundamental change. I know - he's still a "cat," but I honestly believe he holds out more hope for a new course than any "cat," in decades.

If I had my way, we'd have a Social Democratic party resembling the SD parties of Europe (http://socialdemokraterne.dk/default.aspx?site=english&) and Canada. (http://www.ndp.ca/) That's not going to happen in America.

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/4/6/22/f_fistandrosem_1775ca5.jpg

At least the social spending leaves something to show for it.

Like more and more people becoming dependent on the government that ends up being votes for those who want people to become more dependent on the government.

The last thirty years have proven this to be demonstrably false.

Not true.

When Reagan convinced congress to cut taxes the economy sky rocketed. A certain party that ruled the House of Reps, where ALL spending is created, couldn't stand the thought that he was right. The pain of the Carter years were finally over. Everybody benefited. It was awful so the House created spending bills of the likes no one had seen and tried to blame everything on Reagan for the big spending party.

George Sr. could have continued the great economy but instead caved. Clinton did little to boost the economy. He continued the status quo of Bush Sr.'s cave. George W's cuts have been very positive. My meager middle class life has improved.

We need more tax cuts for everybody including the rich. After all they own businesses and hire musicians for their parties. A lot of less government would be nice, too.

Like more and more people becoming dependent on the government that ends up being votes for those who want people to become more dependent on the government.

No, like your parents or grandparents receiving Medicare for health care and Social Security being there as expected. Like safety net programs for people who have no health insurance (as minimal as it is), like children receiving hot lunches in our schools, like helping rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and make our highways and bridges safe, like having a FDA that protects our food and drug supply.

All rabid rightwingers see are handouts to "welfare queens" when far more money is handed out to rich men in suits who feed at the trough of the federal government. It's not a matter of the government spending money - it's a matter of who they're spending it on. Corporate welfare far outweighs the kind of U.S. assistance we define as "welfare." AFDP (Aid To Families with Dependant Children) ended in 1996 when Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law. The replacement, Temporary Assistance To Needy Families, is welfare-to-work and has a five-year lifetime limit......but billions continue to flow into corporate coffers from you and me. That's the kind of dependance I don't like!

Not true.....It was awful so the House created spending bills of the likes no one had seen and tried to blame everything on Reagan for the big spending party.

Not true. Check your facts. The Reagan administration never offered up a balanced budget to the Congress. In fact, in each of Reagan's years when Democrats controlled Congress, the final budget allocation (total spending) was LESS than President Reagan had requested. That old dog won't hunt.

I don't like welfare any more than anyone else.. but not that much is spent on real welfare (food stamps, etc). Corporate welfare hurts competition which kills jobs and makes people more dependent on government assistance. Try competing with a company that receives tax dollars, you can't.

Tax cuts are stupid. I put my fingers in my ears and scream, "LALALALA!" when people talk about them. I would prefer they raise taxes high enough to pay off our debts, stop inflating money, and stop borrowing money. Make people pay the bill up front and they will know what is going on. The money comes from somewhere and you have they have to stop spending it before they can stop taxing us directly OR indirectly.

* Through Sematech, a consortium of very large U.S. computer microchip producers, the Pentagon provides nearly $100 million a year of support to the industry. But of the more than 200 chipmakers in the United States, only the 14 largest, including Intel and National Semiconductor, receive federal support from Sematech. Originally designed to help U.S. firms compete against foreign competition, Sematech now subsidizes the largest producers to help fend off smaller domestic competition.

* An estimated 40 percent of the $1.4 billion sugar price support program benefits the largest 1 percent of sugar farms. The 33 largest sugar cane plantations each receive more than $1 million.

* Through the Rural Electrification Administration and the federal power marketing administrations, the federal government provides some $2 billion in subsidies each year to large and profitable electric utility cooperatives, such as ALLTEL, which had sales of $2.3 billion last year. Federally subsidized electricity holds down the costs of running ski resorts in Aspen, Colorado, five-star hotels in Hilton Head, South Carolina, and gambling casinos in Las Vegas, Nevada.

* Last year the Forest Service spent $140 million building roads in national forests, thus subsidizing the removal of timber from federal lands by multi-million-dollar timber companies. Over the past 20 years the Forest Service has built 340,000 miles of roads -- more than eight times the length of the interstate highway system -- primarily for the benefit of logging companies.

* The Department of Agriculture Market Promotion Program spends $110 million per year underwriting the cost of advertising American products abroad. In 1991 American taxpayers spent $2.9 million advertising Pillsbury muffins and pies, $10 million promoting Sunkist oranges, $465,000 advertising McDonald's Chicken McNuggets, $1.2 million boosting the international sales of American Legend mink coats, and $2.5 million extolling the virtues of Dole pineapples, nuts, and prunes.

* Last year a House of Representatives investigative team discovered that federal environmental cleanup and defense contractors had been milking federal taxpayers for millions of dollars in entertainment, recreation, and party expenses. Martin Marietta Corporation charged the Pentagon $263,000 for a Smokey Robinson concert, $20,000 for the purchase of golf balls, and $7,500 for a 1993 office Christmas party. Ecology and Environment, Inc., of Lancaster, New York, spent $243,000 of funds designated for environmental cleanup on "employee morale" and $37,000 on tennis lessons, bike races, golf tournaments, and other entertainment. Such activities give new meaning to the term "corporate welfare."

Welfare spending accounts for a whopping 1 percent of the US Budget. Most welfare recipients stay on welfare for a year and then they're off, hardly the culture of dependency described in popular myth.

Most of the poor in this country are working poor: people working more than one job, often without any health insurance. The myth of the "lazy" poor has been perpetuated to dismantle social programs.

Obama is proposing a tax cut for everyone making less than $250,000, and a slight tax increase for everyone above. The tax increase he proposes is the same tax we had under Clinton, which, despite the poison rhetoric against it in 1993 when it was enacted, did not stifle growth.

The Republicans in Congress did their part during the 90s to thwart spending. For that they deserve credit as well (I'm trying to be fair here!). Then, when they took the White House and had both houses of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors -- and Bush didn't veto a single one of their spending bills!

I agree we need to be more fiscally responsible, and as a Democrat, I will hold leaders of my own party accountable that they restore fiscal sanity to our government. If they don't, the Republicans will be taking over in four years.

Here's a link to my website that has links to where the money goes.

Whatever Comes to Mind... (http://loud-n-clear.blogspot.com/2008/06/if-you-voted-for-change-you-got-it.html)



************************************************** *************
$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. FAIR: Immigration and Welfare (http://tinyurl.com/zob77)

$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as foodstamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html)

$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
CNN.com - Transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
CNN.com - Transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
CNN.com - Transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)

$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. CNN.com - Transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html)
************************************************** ************

Do they generate any economic benefit to offset these expenses?

Prunepicker, I love that one of your heroes is Ann Coulter. What did she do to earn that rare designation, rescue you from a burning building?

Not true. Check your facts. The Reagan administration never offered up a balanced budget to the Congress. In fact, in each of Reagan's years when Democrats controlled Congress, the final budget allocation (total spending) was LESS than President Reagan had requested. That old dog won't hunt.

I've checked facts. There was no need to submit a balanced budget because there was more than enough money generated by the revenue from the tax cuts, to balance the budget.

my great grandfather was an illegal alien, how about yours?

My great grand father was the son of a legal immigrant who came from Denmark at the Port of Galveston. They settled in New Braunfels, Texas. I had other great grandfathers but I don't know anything about them.

I' WISH my great grandfather was an illegal alien...Instead of being the red blooded American killer that he was.

mmonroe...You want to keep yourself up at night?

Read for 30 minutes on how bad the Social Security and Medicare programs are going to completely SCREW us.

Or start going to bed listening to Rosetta Stone's Chinese lessons.

MMM.. hostility. I like it.

I've already started saving for retirement, and i'm only 21.

Greenspan weighs in on recession:

Economy on brink of recession, Greenspan says: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance (http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080624/safrica_greenspan.html)

MMM.. hostility. I like it.

I've already started saving for retirement, and i'm only 21.

How dare you take personal responsibility!

Greenspan weighs in on recession:

Economy on brink of recession, Greenspan says: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance (http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080624/safrica_greenspan.html)

The stages of the housing debacle...

1. The people aren't getting loans because they can't pay them back.

2. The banks must give these people loans. It's only fair.

3. Oh My! The loan payments aren't being made. Why? Some evil entity (read conspiracy) must be behind this.

4. We must bail them out.

5. The banks must give these people loans. It's only fair.

How dare you take personal responsibility!

I pay more into my savings out of each paycheck than I do in taxes on the paycheck. Once I hit 100k, then i'll look into some investment bond or something. At the moment, i'm only seeing that reach in another 9 years.

Once you hit $100k, that $100k will be worth $5

I pay more into my savings out of each paycheck than I do in taxes on the paycheck. Once I hit 100k, then i'll look into some investment bond or something. At the moment, i'm only seeing that reach in another 9 years.

Look into mutual funds and bonds now. We've been using that in our IRA and have been very happy. You'll hit 100K faster.

Rule of 72. Divide 72 by the interest rate and that's how many years it takes to double your money.

The stages of the housing debacle...

1. The people aren't getting loans because they can't pay them back.

2. The banks must give these people loans. It's only fair.

3. Oh My! The loan payments aren't being made. Why? Some evil entity (read conspiracy) must be behind this.

4. We must bail them out.

5. The banks must give these people loans. It's only fair.

uh... ok.

uh... ok.

That was supposed to be a new post.

Not true.

When Reagan convinced congress to cut taxes the economy sky rocketed. A certain party that ruled the House of Reps, where ALL spending is created, couldn't stand the thought that he was right. The pain of the Carter years were finally over. Everybody benefited. It was awful so the House created spending bills of the likes no one had seen and tried to blame everything on Reagan for the big spending party.

George Sr. could have continued the great economy but instead caved. Clinton did little to boost the economy. He continued the status quo of Bush Sr.'s cave. George W's cuts have been very positive. My meager middle class life has improved.

We need more tax cuts for everybody including the rich. After all they own businesses and hire musicians for their parties. A lot of less government would be nice, too.

So the Fed printing up craploads of money at the start of the 1980s to try and reduce skyrocketing interest rates had nothing to do with it at all? It was all supply-side economics?

The ensuing debt run-up and runaway inflation of that decade, is that anything to be concerned about?

I get a little upset with blanket statements like 'cut taxes and all will be well.' The problems we face are much, much more complicated than the media cares to explore. Causality is much more complicated than A -> B.

In some circumstances I agree, tax cuts are beneficial. But right now that would be the absolute worst thing one could possibly due because it would increase our debt and effectively put more money in circulation. Remember supply and demand. If you increase the supply of dollars you will weaken its demand. That will cause the dollar to further devalue, and will cause things like the price of oil which we import to skyrocket further. This will lead to a chain reaction that continues to drive inflation up.

I'm sick to death of our modern political talking heads boiling everything down to good vs. evil or right vs. wrong. It is not that simple.

So the Fed printing up craploads of money at the start of the 1980s to try and reduce skyrocketing interest rates had nothing to do with it at all? It was all supply-side economics?

Yes, it was supply side economics.

Cutting taxes works every time. History has proved it.