PDA

View Full Version : OT- Stimulus Bill new car tax break...



Mike Burdick
02-28-2009, 12:07 AM
Just curious, is this going to spur you into getting a new vehicle or were you going to get a new vehicle anyway and were just waiting for this? As I understand it, if one pays cash for the vehicle it doesn't apply. sheesh our government!


2. Tax deduction for buying a new car. The stimulus law also gives a tax deduction for sales tax if you buy a new car (not a used car). To qualify for the tax deductions, you must buy a new car under $49,500 between the date the law is signed and 12/31/2009. There’s also an AGI limit of $125k (single) or $250k (married filing jointly), and a phase-out range of $10k. You can take advantage of this whether you itemize your deductions or use the standard deduction. Bought When?By Whom?Tax BreakBefore 2/17/2009anybodyNone2/17/2009 - 12/31/2009AGI under $125k/$250k (phase out to $135k/$260k); buy a new car under $49,500tax deduction for sales taxSource: CCH Tax Briefing. Full text of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Patience is greatly rewarded by our government. If you bought your home or car too soon, you get no tax break or you only get a small break. If you waited, not only you get a better price, you also get a much bigger tax break. It makes you wonder if even bigger tax breaks are coming down the road. If I were in the market for a home or a new car, I would not proceed until I know I won’t miss out on a significant tax break. http://thefinancebuff.com/2009/02/tax-breaks-in-stimulus-bill-for-buying-a-home-or-a-new-car.html
* A family earning $250,000, would save about $2,500 on a vehicle costing $35,000, assuming a 48-month loan at 7-percent interest. * A family making $150,000 a year would save about $1550 on a $25,000 vehicle assuming a 48-month loan at 8-percent interest. * An individual earning $100,000 would save about $1,460 on a vehicle costing $23,600 * assuming a 60-month loan at 5.5-percent interest. http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/02/economic-stimulus-bill-includes-tax-break-for-car-buyers.html

BillH
02-28-2009, 12:09 AM
Just curious, is this going to spur you into getting a new vehicle or were you going to get a new vehicle anyway and were just waiting for this? http://thefinancebuff.com/2009/02/tax-breaks-in-stimulus-bill-for-buying-a-home-or-a-new-car.html
Don't worry, inflation will wipe out any tax breaks.

dp
02-28-2009, 12:23 AM
I need somebody to buy my Harley and my house - after that I don't care what the gubbmint does. I may offer the Harley with the house to sweeten the deal.

jclem40c
02-28-2009, 12:59 AM
whats the guy like me makin 40,000 a year get? screwed?:mad: :mad:

lazlo
02-28-2009, 01:06 AM
whats the guy like me makin 40,000 a year get? screwed?:mad: :mad:

You're not screwed -- it's saying that you get to deduct the sales tax from your adjusted gross income, even if you don't itemize.

Meaning, you get as much of a tax rebate on a new car purchase as anyone else making less than $250,000/year.

IdahoJim
02-28-2009, 01:09 AM
whats the guy like me makin 40,000 a year get? screwed?:mad: :mad:

You got it...you, and people like you, are the "Forgotten Man"...which just happens to be the title of a new book on the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes. We're the people who support ourselves, and our familys, ask for little, and get no help. There are getting to be fewer and fewer of us all the time.
Jim

dp
02-28-2009, 01:24 AM
You're not screwed -- it's saying that you get to deduct the sales tax from your adjusted gross income, even if you don't itemize.

Meaning, you get as much of a tax rebate on a new car purchase as anyone else making less than $250,000/year.

It's pretty difficult to feed a family and pay for a new car on $40g/year. Even for a new old stock Yugo sitting in a warehouse in Kansas.

You'd think for the sake of the planet and Al Gore's minions the morons (we call that assonance) in DC would allow a guy to move on into a car that generates less CO2 even if it's not a newer car than what they already have. Think of the polar bears and the inhabitants of the foundering island of Tuvalu.

steverice
02-28-2009, 02:24 AM
In case nobody noticed, this is all being brought to you by politicians. Also if you didn't notice, their lips were moving. You know what that means.

In the end, you will get yours, in the end.

dp
02-28-2009, 02:41 AM
In case nobody noticed, this is all being brought to you by politicians. Also if you didn't notice, their lips were moving. You know what that means.

Another Senate page has lost his virginity?

Evan
02-28-2009, 02:44 AM
I don't see any mention of where that new car must be made. Is there a condition on that? If there is it is illegal under NAFTA and WTO as it would be considered a subsidy.


In case nobody noticed, this is all being brought to you by politicians.

Would you rather have a monarchy or a military government? I wonder if it has ever occured to anybody that it might be a good idea to set minimum educational standards in order to hold office? In particular a background in business management should be mandatory. Even better would be a successful background in business managment.

dan s
02-28-2009, 02:53 AM
I wonder if it has ever occured to anybody that it might be a good idea to set minimum educational standards in order to hold office?

I wish we had one for voting.

dp
02-28-2009, 02:56 AM
I don't see any mention of where that new car must be made. Is there a condition on that? If there is it is illegal under NAFTA and WTO as it would be considered a subsidy.

There was initially a "Buy American" rider in the bill but the EU said we can't limit our spending of our money to our own products. To be fair US tax payer dollars have to be spent around the world. I bet every nation that's hurting right now feels the same way and will balance their purchases to benefit all the world's people. Can I hear a Kum By Ya?

dp
02-28-2009, 02:59 AM
dupe - what causes that?

dp
02-28-2009, 03:01 AM
In particular a background in business management should be mandatory. Even better would be a successful background in business managment.
Voters don't vote on those criterion. The nuveau voter votes his pocketbook - who ever promises to fill it best wins.

It would be a big help to eliminate unqualified voters based on simple questions. If you believe the moon has a dark side form a line to the left. Your name will be called.

Tinkerer
02-28-2009, 04:22 AM
Well how many people are gonna buy a new car under the great stimulus act of 2009.. not me that's for sure. The people got a whole 13 weak dollars a week to stimulate our world... big whoop :rolleyes:. I'd rather they not of gave any borrowed moneys to the boobs that wreck the train :mad:. And if your making your own way in life doing the sole proprietor thing things will get a whole lot tighter when they divide the check for the bill. So I guess I'm in the screwed group :(.

Evan
02-28-2009, 05:13 AM
We are definitely in the screwed group. Even if it has some positive effect the auto manufacturing for the US is all in eastern Canada. My wife just was advised by the owner of the business she manages to reduce her salary. Next reduction will likely be to zero. I wonder what the crime rate will be in this town in a year or so with exactly zero prospects for young people to get any sort of job? I think I will build myself a new walking stick. With batteries and a not necessarily non lethal taser built in.

Your Old Dog
02-28-2009, 07:18 AM
Don't worry, inflation will wipe out any tax breaks.

And if that's not the case, the car dealers will take your tax break into account when pricing the car to you. I wouldn't be expecting to get ahead of the game.



In case nobody noticed, this is all being brought to you by politicians. Also if you didn't notice, their lips were moving. You know what that means.

In the end, you will get yours, in the end.

Just an early reminder if you haven't noticed in the past, we're going to put these buttholes right back in office at the first chance we get to vote. Keep on voting incumbant and this will go on forever.



......... The people got a whole 13 weak dollars a week to stimulate our world... big whoop :rolleyes:

Hang on Tink. Heard from a lady yesterday on a talk show that her tax guy says she will have to pay that $13.00 back next year as income. They did not change the tax code, just giving you cash from the till so it has to be reported as income and you have to pay tax on it. Some "tax break" huh?

Weston Bye
02-28-2009, 08:06 AM
Just curious, is this going to spur you into getting a new vehicle or were you going to get a new vehicle anyway and were just waiting for this?

Guilty, sort of. I just bought a new Chevrolet HHR this week. I would have done it even without the tax break, for more than one reason: The old car was getting unreliable and dime-and-quartering me to distraction if not to death. Second, I am still employed so I can get a loan, though I could have paid cash, but it would have seriously dented my emergency fund. My stepdad was a GM employee so I got the employee discount. That, along with the "deals" they were offering knocked $2500 off the price. The sales tax break will amount to a little over $1000. The tax break alone would not have been incentive enough to buy a new car.

There...I have done what I can to help the economy. Wasn't much help for UAW auto assemblers, as the car was assembled in Mexico from (mostly) US made parts. Helped some folks like me though who work for Tier 2 suppliers.

wierdscience
02-28-2009, 08:45 AM
Guilty, sort of. I just bought a new Chevrolet HHR this week. I would have done it even without the tax break, for more than one reason: The old car was getting unreliable and dime-and-quartering me to distraction if not to death. Second, I am still employed so I can get a loan, though I could have paid cash, but it would have seriously dented my emergency fund. My stepdad was a GM employee so I got the employee discount. That, along with the "deals" they were offering knocked $2500 off the price. The sales tax break will amount to a little over $1000. The tax break alone would not have been incentive enough to buy a new car.

There...I have done what I can to help the economy. Wasn't much help for UAW auto assemblers, as the car was assembled in Mexico from (mostly) US made parts. Helped some folks like me though who work for Tier 2 suppliers.

Plus it's a Chevy and expected to go up in value since this is most likley the last year of production:D dodging,oops!I mean running for cover:D

Weston Bye
02-28-2009, 10:06 AM
Plus it's a Chevy and expected to go up in value since this is most likley the last year of production:D dodging,oops!I mean running for cover:D

Yep. I considered that. Will the factory warranty be any good? I figure (hope) that if GM goes belly up it will be a long drawn out affair and they will stand behind their warranties for a while. Then, (maybe) whoever buys the product line will take over. Who wants to buy a car from a company that demonstrates a history of stiffing previous customers? Lot of wishful thinking here...

I expect to keep the car for a long time - on into retirement. Perhaps it will last, and parts will be available.

Occurs to me that I also did what I could to help preserve the GM pensions of my mother, brother-in-law, and some others I know.

Rustybolt
02-28-2009, 10:09 AM
Nice little taxpayer! That's a good little taxpayer! Here's a bone for you!



No, Evan, There should be educational qualifications to vote.



52% of the people who voted are idiots.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 11:40 AM
Nice little taxpayer! That's a good little taxpayer! Here's a bone for you!

52% of the people who voted are idiots.

So Bush's $750 Billion economic stimulus package went directly into the pockets of the bankers. Good little banker! Here's a big f'ing bone for you!

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u15/rtgeorge_album/BenSargent.gif

Evan
02-28-2009, 11:47 AM
No, Evan, There should be educational qualifications to vote.


Just mark the door to the polling station PUSH. If they pull then see ya next time.

The problem with a test for voters is that it doesn't help a bit if the candidates are all morons. The job of running government is essentially the same as the job of running a business so the same training is required. That isn't necessarily what lawyers are good at which is what most politicians have for qualifications.

Norman Atkinson
02-28-2009, 11:51 AM
The Spanish being nice simple souls offered a Government amnesty for old cars- dead or alive of 300 Euros for bringing them to be scrapped- and a new car bought.

I'm on my second one! I, too, am a simple soul.

Link this with the crap car thingy. 300 Euros is MORE than the Ford Escort.

'Don' Norman

lazlo
02-28-2009, 12:04 PM
52% of the people who voted are idiots.

By the way, Rush likes to quote Obama getting 52% of the vote, saying that because of 2% of the voters, we got the wrong President.

Obama actually won just shy of 53% of the popular vote (52.9%), and McCain only got 45.7% of the popular vote.

Remember that, despite the "fact" that "The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Sound", our economic woes are the result of 8 years of the Bush administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Nominee...........Barack Obama...........John McCain
Popular vote.......69,456,897..............59,934,814
Percentage...........52.9%.....................45. 7%

sansbury
02-28-2009, 12:38 PM
Remember that, despite the "fact" that "The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Sound", our economic woes are the result of 8 years of the Bush administration.

The management of the economy is probably the most bipartisan thing that happened in Washington over the past 8, wait, make that 20 years.

Yes, Bush and the congressional GOP deserve plenty of blame for the excessive spending. As far as regulation of financial markets went, neither side can legitimately claim to be aligned with the angels. When the Democrats took back congress in 2006 they did not exactly have an agenda full of reforms of the banking system they wanted to advance. They had none because both sides were content with the circus as it benefited interest groups on both sides.

At most, the Democrats' complaint is that marginal tax rates should have been slightly higher over the past 6-8 years than they were. While I can see how this would have provided funding for projects they believe are important, I do not see how this would have had any effect on the structural causes of the current crisis. This is like a doctor telling the patient to quit smoking when he is an incredibly reckless driver. Good advice perhaps but it wouldn't have prevented the wreck.

This crisis also hit even harder in Iceland, Spain, and the UK to name just a few countries run by governments well to the left of the Obama administration.

On top of all this it is hardly clear that what has been proposed since 1/20/09 is actually a reversal of Bush policy. The worst thing IMHO Bush did was to allow reckless spending and debt accumulation. His economic team was drawn from the typical Wall Street banker-Ivy League economist axis, and so far what I've seen looks like the same people with different color neckties. Paulson and Bernanke wanted to prop up the major banks because they could not imagine an alternative. So far Geithner and Bernanke seem to be equally lacking in imagination.

Mind you as a business owner whose odds of success are connected to the economy's fortunes, I would gladly trade a few percent higher taxes for a good economy. However, I fear the alternate effect will be the one obtained.

jkilroy
02-28-2009, 12:48 PM
People always get so stupid over this stuff. Like our current economic situation is because of 8 years of Bush AND NOTHING ELSE. That is Sooooo stupid. This stuff started WAY back, probably with the new deal, whats that 1933? With welfare in 1968? With CRA (Jimmy Carter) in what 1972?

Really, it started with the birth of man. Money makes money, its a fact. The rich get richer and smaller as a percentage of population in the process. Over time you end up with Mexico, a corrupt country with millions upon millions of poor being led around by a few (% wise) billionaires.

For some reason people see this very basic FACT of human nature as UNJUST!

Who ever said life was fair?

In a pride of Lions, one male is the boss, he gets all the nookie, the best food, and if you don't like it he will kill you or at least whip our ass real bad. He will also kill all of the other males offspring. Is this fair? No, does everyone get a shot at the top spot, no, thats the way it goes.

Therefore all of this socialist crap comes to be, because the poor, who VASTLY outnumber the rich, can vote whatever kind of gimme gimme programs to try to undo this injustice. Equalize the playing field, try to live up to the most mis-interpreted line one earth, "All Men Are Created Equal".

Problem is? Not possible.

People are staring to equate "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" with "Life, Liberty, and equality of outcome", which is a totally unworkable communist ideal.

As a percentage of GDP, Government spending is shooting up. We are still below most European socialist states but we are gaining quickly. There is one fact related to this.

The earnings of a country are inversely related to the countries spending as a percentage of GDP. As far as I know, there are NO exceptions to this rule.

Circlip
02-28-2009, 12:54 PM
As this has naff all to do with the price of cars, don't forget, it was our nice Mr. Brown who showed you the model of how to prop your banks up to "Save " the economy. Did he also show you the one about sacking the manager who made one banks biggest loss in financial history and then give him an early retirement pension???

Regards Ian.

garyphansen
02-28-2009, 01:08 PM
"our economic woes are the result of 8 years of the Bush administration."

Yup Lazo, That Republican Barny Frank and the Republican Nancy Pelosie are responsible for the Fanny may and Freddy Mac melt down because when that rotten Democrat John McCain said said there was a problem they said every thing was just fine. The housing financing melt down is what brought this depression to a head. Gary P. Hansen

Seastar
02-28-2009, 01:17 PM
Lazlo
You just don't get it.
We, as a country, have just made the largest and most deadly mistake in the history of our Republic by 2.9%.
Bill

garyphansen
02-28-2009, 01:30 PM
NEW HOPE FOR THE CAR INDUSTRY!

May be they got part of the stimulus pork bill wrong for the car manufactures but give credit where credit is due. That bill contains a $93,000 dollar raise for each our underpaid members of congress. Maybe each of our Honorable congress people will use that money to buy five new cars, and there by help the car manufactures. They could not truss us to use that tax money wisely, If they had not taxed it from us we might have wasted it on frills like food. Gary P. Hansen

Rustybolt
02-28-2009, 02:02 PM
Remember that, despite the "fact" that "The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Sound", our economic woes are the result of 8 years of the Bush administration.




Here's one people like to ignore."All bills to raise revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
When did the democrats take over the House and Senate? Remind me.




Evan. Maybe if we had a better class of voter we'd get a better class of candidates.

I hope your wife gets to keep her job. My older brother was just laid off after 17 years at Atlas Air.

JCHannum
02-28-2009, 02:06 PM
http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2008/11/zogby-scientific-poll-obama-voters-as.html

RobbieKnobbie
02-28-2009, 02:17 PM
Lazlo
You just don't get it.
We, as a country, have just made the largest and most deadly mistake in the history of our Republic by 2.9%.
Bill

Bill, that was flat out ignorant. Obama didn't create the mess we're in, the previous administrations (note plural) did.

For perhaps the first time (certainly in eight years) we have an administration that is trying to be open, transparent and forthright about how it is going about its business. They have openly admitted that not everything they do will work as planned, but they're trying. That's one hell of a lot better than we got from the previous administration, the one that excluded any monies for its wars from the budgetary process, (and still ran a massive deficit) and then sprung all war spending on us at the last minute, calling it an 'emergency war funding' bill. This time around they're including war spending and guess what... the budget sky rocketed. Not because of any new spending... but because THEY'RE HONESTLY ACCOUNTING FOR ALL THE REAL SPENDING.

So how does the republican party (of which I am a member) respond to an open honest administration? By launching more slanderous half truths and smear campaigns. Maybe I'm naive, but wouldn't we all be better off if ALL politicians tried the moral high road for a change?

No, it's much easier to spread lies and garbage so you can feel better about your own party affiliation.

BillH
02-28-2009, 02:28 PM
Bill, that was flat out ignorant. Obama didn't create the mess we're in, the previous administrations (note plural) did.

For perhaps the first time (certainly in eight years) we have an administration that is trying to be open, transparent and forthright about how it is going about its business. They have openly admitted that not everything they do will work as planned, but they're trying. That's one hell of a lot better than we got from the previous administration, the one that excluded any monies for its wars from the budgetary process, (and still ran a massive deficit) and then sprung all war spending on us at the last minute, calling it an 'emergency war funding' bill. This time around they're including war spending and guess what... the budget sky rocketed. Not because of any new spending... but because THEY'RE HONESTLY ACCOUNTING FOR ALL THE REAL SPENDING.

So how does the republican party (of which I am a member) respond to an open honest administration? By launching more slanderous half truths and smear campaigns. Maybe I'm naive, but wouldn't we all be better off if ALL politicians tried the moral high road for a change?

No, it's much easier to spread lies and garbage so you can feel better about your own party affiliation.

You stinking Rino, you disgrace the republican party. Open and honest? The country elected a Chicago politician who is pulling the party line. Tax and spend, increase fee's and raise the cost of living for everyone so some inner city crackhead gets free health care.
You sir are no republican. Our founding fathers created a Republic. It has turned into a democracy where mob rule wins, and is now turning into an Oligarchy. The democrats are a virus, it is their ultimate goal to have everyone dependent upon them for survival so they can perpetually stay in office.
Banning assault rifles, instituting user fee's for general aviation, spending money on a record pace, closing GITMO, his first press conference to the towel heads, instituting carbon caps on industry, etc.
You know, you are right, Obama is being really honest, on his desire to destroy this country if you interpret his actions into words.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 03:01 PM
http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2008/11/zogby-scientific-poll-obama-voters-as.html

I guess Sarah Palin must have voted for Obama since, according to McCain's staff, she thought Africa was a country, and she couldn't name the countries in North America. :)

A poll from John Zogby is about as scientific as health care data from Michael Moore. Zogby is a hard-core Republican, and of of the editors of the Huffington Post. This "intelligence" poll was actually collected by John Zeigler, who is the Republican version of Michael Moore. Zeigler's poll was criticized by just about every other polling organization, including the conservative Wall Street Journal, as being a "Push Poll."

Zogby's response:

"We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't.

Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other."

Imagine that! :rolleyes:

JCHannum
02-28-2009, 03:15 PM
While it might be interpreted as biased toward the Bamsters, it is just as much an indictment of all voters. I have little doubt that a similar poll would have turned up an equal number of woefully uninformed voters for McCain.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 03:16 PM
I have little doubt that a similar poll would have turned up an equal number of woefully uninformed voters for McCain.

Exctly -- that was the most blatant mistake on the Zeigler/Zogby poll: that he (intentionally) didn't poll the McCain voters. A non-partisan poll by ISI shows that Republicans are just as stupid as Democrats:

This is a summary of the ISI poll from a decidedly right-wing blogger, but it's still hilarious (and non-partisan):

http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/tag/isi-civic-literacy-test/

"The shocking fact is that seventy one percent of Americans flunked the thirty three question ISI survey. Nearly eighteen hundred out of twenty five hundred randomly selected people flunked the exam and their average score was 49 out of one hundred. Just four percent scored an A or a B on the quiz. The percentage of people who could not correctly answer basic American civics questions on the test is astounding.

In the test, just 49 percent of rank-and-file Americans could identify the legislature, executive, and judiciary as our three branches of government.

Among the questions asked of some 2,500 people who were randomly selected to take the test, including “self-identified elected officials,” was one which asked respondents to “name two countries that were our enemies during World War II.”

Sixty-nine percent of respondents correctly identified Germany and Japan. Among the incorrect answers were Britain, China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and Spain.

The test showed that the 164 self-identified elected officials know even less than laymen. They averaged a score of only 44% on the quiz. Among office holders, 30 percent did not know that the Declaration of Independence heralds “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The civics test did show the influence of popular television on our culture. Only 21 percent of respondents correctly identified Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address as the source of the words “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” However, 56 percent properly named Paula Abdul as a judge on “American Idol."

JCHannum
02-28-2009, 03:18 PM
What I said.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 03:22 PM
Sorry Jim, we cross-posted. I edited my post to include your comment.

By the way, does anyone know if the "Common Joe" in Europe or Asia is any less ignorant? I'd imagine the Brits didn't get the "enemies during World War II" question wrong, but are Europeans or Canadians any more informed about their own governments, geography, and history than Americans?

I remember seeing a clip from a popular Australian show where they would stop people on the street and ask the same kinds of questions, and get the same kind of answers, but I can't remember the name of the show...

dan s
02-28-2009, 03:30 PM
Remember that, despite the "fact" that "The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Sound", our economic woes are the result of 8 years of the Bush administration.

That statement is complete B.S., I though you were smarter than that. What we are suffering through now, goes back to the Regan administration when congress decided to start deregulating the financial sector.

dp
02-28-2009, 03:36 PM
A poll from John Zogby is about as scientific as health care data from Michael Moore. Zogby is a hard-core Republican

Well, lazlo, there you go again... (Apologies to Pres. Reagan)

It is neither immoral nor illegal to be a conservative or a Republican. Do try to find valid justifications for your distortions and demonizations.

Weston Bye
02-28-2009, 03:48 PM
So... back to the original question: did anybody else buy a new car?

dan s
02-28-2009, 03:56 PM
I plan to in the next couple of months. I won't be helping any of the big three though, I'll be buying a foreign SUV/crossover (I need the space).

Rustybolt
02-28-2009, 04:01 PM
Well Wes. Since my portfolio has lost more than 30% of it's value since the Lightworker was nominated, I guess that's a big fat No.





Don't say I didn't warn you about Chicago City Hall getting in the White House. As of Jan 20 the dems own all of it.

barts
02-28-2009, 05:19 PM
It is neither immoral nor illegal to be a conservative or a Republican.



Agreed, not just by itself.

However, as a class, I've never seen a bigger bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites.... they're all in favor of balanced (on the backs of the poor) budgets if the Democrats are in charge; if they're in charge, they run up the deficit like a bunch of drunken sailors in a whorehouse, handing out tax breaks to the wealthy and no-bid contracts to their favorite corporations while conducting their foreign wars using "off-book" expenditures. They're all in favor of the young fighting in the wars they profit from, but when they are asked to sacrifice by paying their share of taxes to support the government and the selfsame war they decide to drown government in a bathtub instead... they're all against government regulation of private enterprise, and blame the current fiscal disaster not on the foolish deregulation of the markets and the financial chicanery of Wall Street and the investment banks, but on the effrontery of the disadvantaged to believe the promises of the "ownership society". They're in favor of justice and liberty for all, but want terrorism suspects tortured, ordinary American citizens spied upon en mass and simple marriage rights denied to 10% of the population.

Conservatives Republicans have a lot to answer for these days. It's not all their fault, but they own a big piece of it, and to now hear the bleating about the need for more tax cuts for the wealthy and complaints about extended jobless benefits for the unemployed is further proof of both the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the current Republican party.

- Bart

dan s
02-28-2009, 05:53 PM
Yes Bart, its all the rich mans fault that the poor are poor... God I think I'm going to hurl....

Evan
02-28-2009, 06:12 PM
Yes Bart, its all the rich mans fault that the poor are poor.

That is probably a fair assessment.



The gap between rich and poor grows in the United States.
By David Cay Johnston Published: March 29, 2007


Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/business/income.4.php

Every time I look at the news I find yet another confirmation that those with the money are increasingly in "money accumulation mode". The price of something goes down at the supplier level but the price to the consumer goes up. This is happening right now with a lot of food items here. The price of Coca Cola has increased 25% this year along with many staple food stuffs.

The rich do indeed deserve a lot of the blame for the economic imbalances in the US and in Canada.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 06:22 PM
It is neither immoral nor illegal to be a conservative or a Republican. Do try to find valid justifications for your distortions and demonizations.

Of course it's not. I vote Republican more often that I vote Dem. But 90% of the "citations" that Wingers post are from the same highly biased sources: Rush Limbaugh, Huffington Post, Neoncon Express (Jim's post). Would you believe Global Warming data from Al Gore's web site?

That "intelligence" poll that Michael Moore, er -- I mean John Zeigler, collected was amusing in that it asked the usual stupid questions that most Americans can't answer: what hemisphere is North America in, who is the current President, ... But the (intentionally) misleading part of that poll was that he polled only people who voted for Obama, and then applied a logical fallacy (specifically, Affirming the Consequent) to conclude that Obama voters were stupid.


Well Wes. Since my portfolio has lost more than 30% of it's value since the Lightworker was nominated, I guess that's a big fat No.

The Dow was at 12,000 at it's peak in August, and was at 7,949 on Inauguration day. So you lost 51% of your portfolio in August through December, while Bush was asleep at the wheel.

But maybe you're right -- maybe we would have been better off with another 4 years of Bush :rolleyes:

dan s
02-28-2009, 06:46 PM
That is probably a fair assessment.

I was being sarcastic Evan, IMO it's the exact opposite.

IMO a lot of "poor" people have forgotten that it takes hard work, talent, luck, or a combination of all 3 to make it into the upper ranks of society.

show me one rich person that got to were they are now with out hard work, talent, luck, by either them or someone in their family tree.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 06:57 PM
show me one rich person that got to were they are now with out hard work, talent, luck

Phil Gramm, Bush Jr., John McCain, the Board of Enron (including Wendy Gramm)...

dan s
02-28-2009, 07:04 PM
show me one rich person that got to were they are now with out hard work, talent, luck

Phil Gramm, Bush Jr., John McCain, the Board of Enron (including Wendy Gramm)...

Why don't you use the complete quote smart ass?

J Tiers
02-28-2009, 07:06 PM
Well, can't speak for the rest of you, but I am pretty disappointed with this stimulus stuff.

Seems small-minded, short-sighted, based-on trickle-down economics, and just not likely to do much more than employ chinese and Mexicans, along with a few Americans to push pallet jacks around the warehouses full of 'stimulated" import goods.

My father, who is a democratic ward worker, or would be if Minnesota had a Democratic party (they still have the DFL, don't they? I'll have to ask him), is now calling our new president "George W Obama".

The program is something like 35% or more tax cuts......... Tax cuts don't work*, and they don't benefit anyone who has no income, i.e. isn't working.

If there is infrastructure to fix, lets have something like the WPA in its vision and directness of effects. I went to a WPA-built school, there is a large WPA-built drainage system in St Louis, WPA-built parks, etc.

This tax cut stuff from George W III isn't what is needed.

* Tax cuts for rich folks just let them move more money to Antigua, although the "story" is that they will get more taxes, we'll see about that.

Tax cuts for middle class means they buy more stuff from china....and more foreign cars.... no help there.

Tax cuts for the poor? They already HAVE a tax cut, and an income cut to go with it.

dp
02-28-2009, 07:13 PM
Agreed, not just by itself.

However, as a class, I've never seen a bigger bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites....

I'm a conservative and I'm not in favor if any of those things and I don't support anyone who is, so there, your generalizations are wrong :)

dp
02-28-2009, 07:26 PM
Of course it's not. I vote Republican more often that I vote Dem. But 90% of the "citations" that Wingers post are from the same highly biased sources: Rush Limbaugh, Huffington Post, Neoncon Express (Jim's post). Would you believe Global Warming data from Al Gore's web site?
Yes, if it were true. I don't not read information because it comes from a known looney because it may be right. I'd be a damn fool if I were so engulfed in idiology that I stop accepting as valid other points of view. My conservative beliefs are not enough to discredit the legitimate beliefs of the left any more than my being an atheist is proof there's no god.


That "intelligence" poll that Michael Moore, er -- I mean John Zeigler, collected was amusing in that it asked the usual stupid questions that most Americans can't answer: what hemisphere is North America in, who is the current President, ... But the (intentionally) misleading part of that poll was that he polled only people who voted for Obama, and then applied a logical fallacy (specifically, Affirming the Consequent) to conclude that Obama voters were stupid.
That's why it's important to understand what you read. People who stop at the headlines without doing the leg work are pretty stupid including many in that poll. The pollster did not define them, they did that on their own. What the pollster did that was wrong, and it wasn't even wrong, was to force the response to the poll. If it was presented as objective then yes, it was wrong. I don't know that there was any attempt to be objective any more than SNL was trying to be objective with Palin.


The Dow was at 12,000 at it's peak in August, and was at 7,949 on Inauguration day. So you lost 51% of your portfolio in August through December, while Bush was asleep at the wheel.

But maybe you're right -- maybe we would have been better off with another 4 years of Bush :rolleyes:
Where did I suggest that? Bush was a disaster for Republicans. He was also the best thing in the world for Democrats. Nobody's done more for them in my lifetime, in fact. Not even Clinton. There's not a lot the president can do about the economy, though, as we're seeing with Obama.

And if you include the value of my house I've lost a lot more than 51%. But it's all paper loss. I'm ahead on my personal outlay but all the money I had on paper is gone. The reason it's gone is a consequence of tax-deferred plans - I'd have cashed them out in July if there would not have been a massive tax on it. That threat caused me and others to watch as market forces ate away the ol' nest egg.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 07:40 PM
Yes, if it were true. I don't not read information because it comes from a known looney because it may be right.

Sure, I do the same -- I read Rush Limbaugh's headlines and transcripts at least once a week, since he panders to a large segment of the disenfranchised right wing. Rush is another good example of why you don't get rich in America by hard work and ingenuity anymore: Rush is paid $38 Million/year as a shock jock. You don't get paid that much for being a moderate talk show host.


People who stop at the headlines without doing the leg work are pretty stupid including many in that poll. The pollster did not define them, they did that on their own. What the pollster did that was wrong, and it wasn't even wrong, was to force the response to the poll.

I agree with the sentiment Dennis, but in this case, Zeigler was collecting poll information with the explicit goal of canning it for fodder on the Right-Wing Blogs. You know damn well if he had asked those exact same questions of McCain voters, he would have gotten the exact same answers.

So his (intentional) logical fallacy was: I polled Obama voters, and they were stupid, ergo all Obama supporters are stupid.

Did you poll McCain voters? Did you poll voters for the secondary candidates? Did you poll non-voters?


Where did I suggest that? Bush was a disaster for Republicans.

That was RustyBolt's comment I was referring to.

lazlo
02-28-2009, 07:45 PM
Why don't you use the complete quote smart ass?

I was being facetious Dan -- there are just as many corrupt assholes on the other side. But in modern America, you get rich by pandering influence, not by hard work and ingenuity

Rustybolt
02-28-2009, 08:01 PM
That's a strawman arguement lazlo. McCain didn't win. The corruption on the other side is irrelevant. The democrats control two branches of government and they're spending money makes bush look like a piker. obama could have braked this thing at the get go, but the administration has chosen to exacerbate it .


I have known quite a few self made millionairs few if any used political connections to grow their wealth. Friends of Chicago politicians on the otherhand, well, look who's been indicted so far.


Why is it that greed from an industrialist is bad, but the same greed from a politician is somehow nobler?

dan s
02-28-2009, 08:02 PM
I was being facetious Dan -- there are just as many corrupt assholes on the other side. But in modern America, you get rich by pandering influence, not by hard work and ingenuity

We'll have to agree to disagree, because I have seen more good eggs than bad.

nheng
02-28-2009, 08:32 PM
whats the guy like me makin 40,000 a year get? screwed?:mad: :mad:

Last time I checked, I think your kids could get into Harvard, MIT or Dartmouth for FREE.

Of course, if you have a daughter, you may not be able to afford the clothing bill :D :D

Den

steverice
02-28-2009, 09:13 PM
What we have now isn't exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. The Framers really wanted a balanced system for the federal government.

As always it will work itself out in another election cycle or two. Most likely the next senate race will put the republicans back in the majority, then checks and balances can work as they are supposed to (theoretically).

Evan
02-28-2009, 09:41 PM
I am very curious as to why the US electorate is so evenly split. How is that possible and does anybody have a viable hypothesis why it is so?

J Tiers
02-28-2009, 10:24 PM
I am very curious as to why the US electorate is so evenly split. How is that possible and does anybody have a viable hypothesis why it is so?

Because both sides stink, and everyone knows it.

Evan
02-28-2009, 10:52 PM
That isn't an answer. I have no idea what it might be but it seems to me that there must be something operating that effectively tends to create a 50/50 split. It just isn't that likely given the high degree of polarization that exists now that such an even split would be maintained by pure chance as long as it has.

nheng
02-28-2009, 11:42 PM
...So far Geithner and Bernanke seem to be equally lacking in imagination...

While he may be lacking in imagination, Geithner has set legal precedence for American taxpayers by showing that TurboTax can be blamed for your tax "errors" and you can still move on to greater things without legal consequence.

Geithner has probably caused many taxpayers to take a pregnant pause during this tax season and ask themselves why they file returns.

Anyone who has helped to put these fools into power should hang their heads low. As some have now learned, they ARE the worse of two evils.

Evan, I think it just worked out that way statistically. Those on the conservative side who were fed up with what Bush did in his final year or so aligned with those who are always fed up with a conservative administration. To add fuel to the fire, add a rep. presidential candidate who, to the conservatives, qualified for a seat next to Pelosi ... ok, maybe Pelosi is extreme, how about next to Hillary :)

J Tiers
03-01-2009, 12:17 AM
That isn't an answer.

Sure it is...... think about it.

There are enough issues with either party to somewhat 'randomize" the voting public.

Some want to vote for "A" except that there are a couple hot issues that "A" is in favor of, but the voter doesn't like, so they don't vote for "A', even though they may even be of "A"s party, or lean towards "A".

Same for "B".

Those things tend to prevent a straight party-line affiliation-determined vote.

Then also, BOTH parties TRY to get the most votes, any way they can. The degree to which they each succeed is determined by the degree to which they are willing to prostitute themselves to secure votes from those potential voters who want specific things which are not actually in the party mainstream. In other words, the party is willing to compromise their principles to get votes.

With both parties doing that, there is a strong tendency towards the middle, meaning that you would EXPECT a close election.

Sometimes, there is a clear difference, and then you have a "landslide", which typically may be a 60/40 vote, at most.

I expected the vote last election to come out almost 80/20, frankly. But the effect of everyone prostituting themselves, acted to even it out, as usual.

If both parties stuck to their actual principles, you would see lots more very lopsided votes. And more parties, and the chance of "coalition" government in congress.

Evan
03-01-2009, 12:58 AM
OK, that's an answer. It may even be correct. I'm not so sure though. One way to quantify it is to look at the undecided on each side just before the last vote. I haven't looked but I doubt it was close to even. I also wonder how many people were willing to hold their nose and vote across party lines.

It doesn't play out the same way here because we have a totally different political dynamic at work. With 4 main parties plus a bunch of splinter groups and a sprinkling of independents that actually sometimes get a seat we have a lot of strategic voting. Your guy hasn't a ghost of a chance so you vote for one of the others that you can stand instead of splitting your sides vote and losing both to the candidate you can't stand. Vote splitting is a major determiner in our elections so what you see happen is the popular vote is overwhelmingly liberal back east but the conservatives get the most votes because the liberal vote was split 3 ways and the west is consistently conservative (except Vancouver).

dp
03-01-2009, 01:25 AM
I am very curious as to why the US electorate is so evenly split. How is that possible and does anybody have a viable hypothesis why it is so?

It's not true that we're split. That is an artifact of a two party system. In fact we're centrist crowded around the middle with a healthy batch of out flyers like everywhere else. With a strongly centrist population it is possible to have large swings as we have had because that is what you get in a binary system.

Recall that we as a nation have only one national office and that is the POTUS. Regionally we're pretty much center, or somewhat left or right of center. In the aggregate we're solidly in the middle. Refined further, in population centers where local government tends to hand out the favors and social programs we're left of center. Away from the cities were people need to be self-sufficient we're right of center. In neither case are we far from center. We tend to want more than we can afford, we're very generous with other people's money, and we think everyone deserves a minimum standard of living. Oddly, we also think somebody else should pay for that. Pretty much like Canada or England.

But - there is in both party alignments approximately 30% who will not budge no matter the quality of the candidate. That leaves the rest of those who bother to vote at all to provide the pendulum effect.

dalesvp
03-01-2009, 08:04 AM
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." — JOSEF STALIN

Hack the Vote
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/121450

Some effort to secure our voices/votes
http://www.votefraud.org/

Your Old Dog
03-01-2009, 08:38 AM
Evan. Maybe if we had a better class of voter we'd get a better class of candidates.

A lot of you guys seem to blame either the voter or the politician. (not picking on you Rusty) I lay more of the blame on the mass media for the following reasons:

They determine what you will hear about who you will vote for.
They determine what the important issues are by what they choose to report. Long involved issues won't get any ink or airplay if they can't be told in 15 seconds or so.
They focus on personalities instead of track records and make that look like the important thing. (gravitas?)
Tendency to air equal "amounts" or numbers of opinion. (example: 50 get off the buss and they ask each a question. 47 people answer "A" and 3 people answer "B" so they air 3 A's and 3 B's leading you to believe the country is split when nothing could be further from the truth. I worked in the business. I know. It happens all the time.)
Katie Curic asking candidates what was the last book they read. This on a get to know our candidate series. A lot of insight there for voters!
And then of course the race for the ratings. More people will embrace your station if you pander to them. That there are far more lazy, poor and unmotivated people then aggressive business leaders it makes sense to pander to the poor and tell them how nasty the rich are. You need numbers for good ratings, not rich people on the go who don't watch the news much any how in large numbers.You only know what the media will allow you to know about the people vain enough to step into the public arena. Superior candidates fall through the media sieve because of an indiscretion some 40 years ago while they were kids?

Now the media is pushing this polling business at us as though it were a vote. Poll (vote), do you think the California mom should be allowed to keep her children? Yes or No. Starting to look more like Salem to me every day.



.............."The shocking fact is that seventy one percent of Americans flunked the thirty three question ISI survey. Nearly eighteen hundred out of twenty five hundred randomly selected people flunked the exam and their average score was 49 out of one hundred. Just four percent scored an A or a B on the quiz. The percentage of people who could not correctly answer basic American civics questions on the test is astounding."

Lazlo, this is controlled by the zip code or telephone exchange the poll is taken in. There has been market analysis done of where all the wealth and educated people are living. This and the fact that you don't know all the questions that were asked is why polls don't mean squat to me. They almost never tell you who paid for the poll and therefore who the pollster might want to please. It's to easy to manipulate the numbers to make them say what you want them to.

Your Old Dog
03-01-2009, 09:14 AM
I am very curious as to why the US electorate is so evenly split. How is that possible and does anybody have a viable hypothesis why it is so?

I think you'll find it tracks with the prosperity levels of the public. If you're not doing well you want something for free, if your well to do you want to keep what you have. I think the split is pretty even right now.

I also think that because the media has become so liberal, it has made niche media marketplaces for conservative media programs most of which just voices what many of us feel and have never heard before. These programs are gaining in popularity to the point the libs would like to shut them down!

Spin Doctor
03-01-2009, 10:15 AM
I lay more of the blame on the mass media for the following reasons:
They determine what you will hear about who you will vote for.
They determine what the important issues are by what they choose to report. Long involved issues won't get any ink or airplay if they can't be told in 15 seconds or so.
They focus on personalities instead of track records and make that look like the important thing. (gravitas?)
Tendency to air equal "amounts" or numbers of opinion. (example: 50 get off the buss and they ask each a question. 47 people answer "A" and 3 people answer "B" so they air 3 A's and 3 B's leading you to believe the country is split when nothing could be further from the truth. I worked in the business. I know. It happens all the time.)
Katie Curic asking candidates what was the last book they read. This on a get to know our candidate series. A lot of insight there for voters!
And then of course the race for the ratings. More people will embrace your station if you pander to them. That there are far more lazy, poor and unmotivated people then aggressive business leaders it makes sense to pander to the poor and tell them how nasty the rich are. You need numbers for good ratings, not rich people on the go who don't watch the news much any how in large numbers.You only know what the media will allow you to know about the people vain enough to step into the public arena. Superior candidates fall through the media sieve because of an indiscretion some 40 years ago while they were kids?

Now the media is pushing this polling business at us as though it were a vote. Poll (vote), do you think the California mom should be allowed to keep her children? Yes or No. Starting to look more like Salem to me every day.
Lazlo, this is controlled by the zip code or telephone exchange the poll is taken in. There has been market analysis done of where all the wealth and educated people are living. This and the fact that you don't know all the questions that were asked is why polls don't mean squat to me. They almost never tell you who paid for the poll and therefore who the pollster might want to please. It's to easy to manipulate the numbers to make them say what you want them to.
See, censorship is alive and well in the USA. Its not all the news that's fit to print but all the news we feel is fit to print.

tattoomike68
03-01-2009, 12:51 PM
New car? :confused:

In a few years we will be lucky to drive a dandy machine like this in the picture. A friend of mine showed up the other night driving his NEW car.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f24/snoopdog6502/mower.jpg

Rustybolt
03-01-2009, 01:58 PM
YOD.
None taken. I have a pretty thick skin. LOL

I'm just getting fed up with having the hand of government constantly in my pocket. I'm getting up there, but I still want the opportunities my father had for my children. So far all I see is a government that limits choices.

To be honest I don't think I'd want to start a business today. Not because of the economy, but because of the regulation.

Evan
03-01-2009, 03:15 PM
You only know what the media will allow you to know about the people vain enough to step into the public arena. Superior candidates fall through the media sieve because of an indiscretion some 40 years ago while they were kids?


Media selective reporting is something I am very familiar with. Back in the 70s when I started with Xerox in the capitol of BC, Victoria, I had the parlimentary press room machines as one of my service accounts. I was the fly on the wall when I was in there, nobody thinks the copier/fax/printer guy is listening.

One day a reporter came in waving his pocket tape machine and proclaiming "Hey guys, listen to what I got!"

Everybody shut up and he played the tape. It was an informal Q-A scrum after a press conference and the Minister of Forests had been asked what he thought about something or other.

He replied something like, "Well, we commisioned a study to study the studies that we didn't study last year. If the study study studies the right studies then we will study the result and publish the study study."

It took about 10 seconds before all the reporters started killing themselves laughing. After a minute or two one of them piped up and exclaimed "You know you can't use that, right?"

The reporter with the tape admitted "Yeah, I don't have anything as ridiculous to counter it for the other side."

That's how it works.

spope14
03-01-2009, 03:28 PM
I am just loving this stimulus smoke and mirrors stuff. I really think the gubbermint could be effective doing a stimulus, kind of like Bush did with more cash involved, or by giving the "chits" towards an item a family/individual chooses - like a new car.

Also, there is no doubt that the infrastructure of highways, water, sewer, irrigation, schools, libraries, dams, power plants are in serious need of improvement - so why not do it now to put people to work and while materials are relatively cheap. People NOT working are people not paying income tax - social security, and businesses not paying whatever taxes they pay to the fed and state level, so the loss /cost somewhat offsets anyway. Besides, when we all hear about things like bridges in Minneapolis crashing down and killing people or we know that "X" number of dams in a state are ready to fail, or that a national power grid can be crippled by a squirrel getting into a transformer in East Bumpfque, we all know there are problems and they should be fixed before they cost more in damages.

This said, there is a lot of BS in all of this stimulus pack, many "pie in the sky" things that are just theory and political rhetoric. Give me bricks and morter, iron and steel, excavation and fill, things I can see - that is a national stimulus that is worthy of IKE and the Interstate Highway system, a monument to progressive thinking - THIS was the original selling point, not ideas that have nowhere to go but into a comuputer to be viewed on the internet years later - software becomes out of date.

This said, what I am seeing is a tax break for something I can't afford for two years down the road, and something I probably would not - a new car - because I take real good care of mine and am not at the "loss" level anyway for the vehicles. Besides, when I do go out, I am pretty sure the dealer incentives will beat the stimulus number...

Also, the $13.00 with holding that the tax people will give me back per check (repubs say $8.00, Dems say $16.00, I figgered mine out to $13.00 per week) is a smoke and mirrors thing as well UNLESS they also lower the tax bracket. If this is NOT done, heck, I will be paying this back anyway April 2010. So I am penalized for being conscientous in vehicle care and for getting money to spend (trust me, I will not spend my $13.00 all in one place, I will spread it around the vending machines). This said, once I figure out the "raise" I will get, I will be ammending my W-2 to put it back into my tax with holding.

Having a daughter going to college soon though, they just can't come up with that stimulus for me soon enough..... here is my rant on this one...I work three jobs to make ends meet, pay all my bills, stayed married through hard times enough to now truly love the great times with my lovely bride, had a kid who worked hard to get good grades-3.9, held a part time job to save for college and we also invested in these 'savings plan portfolios" for college. She worked hard to get into a good college, not quite IVY league, but right up there.

Here is the rub for that one. I made 4K too much to qualify for a pell grant. We have by no means hit the magic "six figures" yet, about 10 years from that one. Had I divorced even just for show, we would have college paid for. The college savings plan went south starting in Octber, it is at 75% of the principal. My kid gets nothing for help because she worked hard to save money. Meanwhile the dumb kid about two blocks away who got D's, hung out selling drugs and got busted countless times for drugs, assult, burglery, vandalism, and whizzing in public on the PD side wall gets a full ride to an IVY league college - even with parents who made twice plus as much as I did and some how had the foresight to never get married in the first place. The IVY league college up the road called him, and I completely doubt he could even spell the name of the college if I spotted him 8 of the nine letters in a row. You know, it really bothers me when the gubbermint and the bleeding heart pantywaists try to push someone out of a hole when they just want to dig it deeper and they have more than the means to get oput on their own - while they ignore the people who need the chance to become our "best and brightest". No wonder we are destined to be ruled by the dumb and worthless.

SO.... I pay my bills, work three jobs - well two now - one got cut, take care of stuff, taught my kid to do the right thing, stay out of trouble and study hard in school, stayed married to the most wonderful woman, and I suffer for living the American dream right and all I get really is $13.00 per week i will have to pay back anyway, a tax break to take on a loan for a car I don't need and would really hurt me anyway financially, and no rebuilt roads or infrastructure in our city.

lazlo
03-01-2009, 09:23 PM
Also, there is no doubt that the infrastructure of highways, water, sewer, irrigation, schools, libraries, dams, power plants are in serious need of improvement - so why not do it now to put people to work and while materials are relatively cheap.

They are. There's over a $120 Billion out of the $780 Billion stimulus package for infrastructure projects, and they were all selected on the basis of being "shovel ready" -- meaning that all the regulatory stuff was done, and they were just waiting for funds.

There was a great article on 60 Minutes tonight about the controversial "Buy American" clause in the stimulus bill. Among other things, any infrastructure projects built with the $120 Billion in the infrastructure budget must be built with American steel. I know this doesn't make our trading partners happy, but I think this is the right thing to do (for the sake of the US economy) -- if Congress didn't include that clause, a lot of the stimulus package would have ended up in China...

The article focused on Nucor Steel, which they claimed was the largest American steel manufacturer. The owner/CEO said that steel orders turned off like a faucet last October, when the credit crunch hit. Almost all steel production in the US has shut down, because all the building projects were killed, no new cards are being built, and neither States or businesses can get credit to start new projects.

So Nucor and the rest of the steel industry is anxiously waiting for the stimulus money, which is supposed to start arriving this week.

dp
03-01-2009, 10:02 PM
There was a great article on 60 Minutes tonight about the controversial "Buy American" clause in the stimulus bill. Among other things, any infrastructure projects built with the $120 Billion in the infrastructure budget must be built with American steel. I know this doesn't make our trading partners happy, but I think this is the right thing to do (for the sake of the US economy) -- if Congress didn't include that clause, a lot of the stimulus package would have ended up in China...

And the problem with it ending up in China is they don't yet vote in US elections which sets them apart from our neighbors to the south.

danlb
03-01-2009, 10:16 PM
whats the guy like me makin 40,000 a year get? screwed?:mad: :mad:


It's a tax deduction. That amount is deducted from your taxable income.

If you make $40K you pay
10% on the income between $0 and $16,700 and
15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900
So your MAXIMUM tax is $5165.
The deduction will counteract earnings taxed at 15%

That lucky rich bastard making $250K, on the other hand is paying 33% on the income between $208,850 and $372,950; plus $46,741.50 or $60,320.
That person's deduction will counteract earnings that are taxed at 33%

Let me assure you that people making $250K are not rich enough to have tax dodges. They end up paying that $60K in taxes.

But they get the same benefits for their $60K as the guy who pays $5K. Same police, hospitals and roads.

I don't begrudge the fortune I pay in taxes, but I do mind people who don't realize how much more taxes are paid by the middle class taxpayer and who think THEY are the ones getting screwed.

Dan

lazlo
03-01-2009, 10:23 PM
That lucky rich bastard making $250K, on the other hand is paying 33% on the income between $208,850 and $372,950; plus $46,741.50 or $60,320.
That person's deduction will counteract earnings that are taxed at 33%

Let me assure you that people making $250K are not rich enough to have tax dodges. They end up paying that $60K in taxes.

I make more than that, and I can assure you that I don't pay 33% tax. No one does. I itemize the mortgage on my house, day care and health care deductions, ... Plus, like most people in this tax bracket, more than 30% of my annual compensation is in stock options or grants, which are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15%.

Warren Buffet, currently the third richest man in the world, had a speech last year lambasting the American tax system, because he paid less taxes as a percentage of his income than his secretary did:

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html

NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

dp
03-01-2009, 10:28 PM
There is nothing to stop Warren Buffet from giving his entire annual income to the US treasury. Any of us can do it. He was grand standing.

A deeper look would likely reveal his use of his money is of greater benefit to the economy than handing it over to the IRS. He and others like him actually create jobs and that's what is needed right now.

dp
03-01-2009, 10:30 PM
The really interesting thing that's falling out of this global slump is the dividing line between the two European Unions is becoming better defined. I expect it to crack entirely before this is over, and Mother Russia will be there to pick up the pieces.

lazlo
03-01-2009, 10:31 PM
He was grand standing.

He wasn't grand standing. He's pointing out that, just like the corporate tax rate (where 2/3rd of American corporations pay no taxes at all), no one in these tax brackets pays the flat rate.

dp
03-01-2009, 11:40 PM
He wasn't grand standing. He's pointing out that, just like the corporate tax rate (where 2/3rd of American corporations pay no taxes at all), no one in these tax brackets pays the flat rate.

He was grandstanding because he thinks he should pay more. He's an idiot for trying to convince us he's not paying more because of a flaw in the law.

The US government is taking in plenty of money - that's not the problem and never has been the problem. The problem is they spend more than we can give them. And it doesn't matter and is not a factor to them as to how much we can give them. I'm sure they'd prefer to turn the tables and take all our money and give us what they think we need to better our lives.

What do you suppose the interest is going to be on the trillion dollar loan they're taking out to pay for these new leftist agenda programs?

Now the current leadership wants to form "a more perfect union" but on a global scale so all the world's people's fortunes will rise on the same tide. That means the most talented nations will recover at the same rate as the unproductive. I love that about socialism.

Class envy/warfare has never been so rampant - there's going to be a collapse soon at the present rate. There's not enough talent and intelligence in Washington to get us out of this one.

Evan
03-02-2009, 12:02 AM
know this doesn't make our trading partners happy, but I think this is the right thing to do (for the sake of the US economy) -- if Congress didn't include that clause, a lot of the stimulus package would have ended up in China...



The right thing to do? What about the various international agreements that the US has signed? You know, the ones that haven't expired. The ones that specifically state that unilateral action isn't permitted. It just shows that the US cannot be trusted to keep to what it agrees to do, once again. It's no wonder that the US has trouble negotiating with trading partners. They don't trust the US and for good reason.

Also, it will backfire. Canada both imports steel from the US and exports steel to the US (different types). If the US stops buying Canadian steel that steel production will be redirected to supplying what is left of the auto industry in Canada which will result in a huge drop in Canadian imports of US steel. Canadian imports of US steel go in large part to build cars for the US market. So what will happen is that the cars will be built with Canadian steel instead of US steel and US car buyers will be supporting Canadian steel makers when they use their tax break to buy a car.

barts
03-02-2009, 12:05 AM
Class envy/warfare has never been so rampant

You think class warfare is when a very rich man points out that his marginal tax rate is lower than his secretary's, or when people explain that the aggregate tax burden is higher on the middle class than on the rich... well,
you're completely off base.

Class warfare is what we've had in this country for the last thirty years - waged on the middle class! Why the huge shift of income towards the top one percent? Why the dramatic decline in manufacturing when those investment types decide to build the products in China? Why all the attempts to bust the unions who helped form the middle class? American workers have never been more productive than they are today - but they have taken it in the shorts since the 70s.

- Bart

lazlo
03-02-2009, 12:20 AM
What do you suppose the interest is going to be on the trillion dollar loan they're taking out to pay for these new leftist agenda programs?

The same interest that we're paying on the $3 Trillion dollars that Bush spent last year: $2.3 Trillion in bailouts of the Fat Cats ($20 Billion of which went directly to Executive Performance Bonuses), and another $750 Billion TARP fund which Paulson pissed down the drain.

So Bush's $750 Billion bailed out the rich, Obama's $780 Billion is trying to fix the economy.

By the way, garyphansen made a reference to Rush calling it the "Porkulus Bill". Both Bush and Obama's bailout packages have the same amount of pork: $250 Billion each. And that pork is spread very evenly between the two parties...

lazlo
03-02-2009, 12:27 AM
The right thing to do? What about the various international agreements that the US has signed? You know, the ones that haven't expired.

Also, it will backfire.

Yep, it's a Hell of a call to make. The American Steel industry was on Capital Hill screaming bloody murder, that they had to have the "Buy American" clause, but Caterpillar campaigned against it: Lezlie Stahl interviewed the CEO of CAT, and he said that 75% of their sales are exports, and a large portion of that is China and Russia, so if we have this clause in our economic stimulus package, then the Chinese and the Russians will put the same clause in theirs.

The problem is that the Nucor guy pointed out that the Communist government subsidizes Chinese steel, and that they dump the steel for a lot less than it costs to make. So Chinese plate costs 1/2 of what American, Canadian, and Brazilian steel costs.

You have to admit, it would really suck if we spent $120 Billion on infrastructure rebuilding programs with the expressed purpose of re-starting the economy, and the money went to Chinese steel.

I'd imagine Canada is faced with the same decision -- Chinese steel is a lot less expensive than Canadian steel...

barts
03-02-2009, 12:30 AM
A deeper look would likely reveal his use of his money is of greater benefit to the economy than handing it over to the IRS. He and others like him actually create jobs and that's what is needed right now.

So who should pay taxes? Who should pay for all the things we get from a civil society? Everyone w/ the means to do so has to pay, and to argue that the rich would be better off keeping their money is absurd - they would not be rich if the government didn't spend the money to create the environment in which they made money in the first place. If you're arguing that the poor should pay taxes so the rich can accumulate more money, you have a firm grasp of the core Republican plan.

danlb
03-02-2009, 12:31 AM
Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.



I wish I worked for Buffet.

In order to pay 30% income taxes, a single person will have to make in excess of 171,000 dollars per year. The tax rate below that is only 28% AND it's graduated. Do the math,

Assuming the receptionist made $372,950....
33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950; plus $41,754 = 108216 but that is still only 29 percent.

So a single person needs to make around $390K a year after deductions to pay 30% federal taxes.

Yeah, I think he was stretching the truth, a lot.

Once you reach a certain income level, your medical deductions don't count, and the $80,000 a year in interest on a million dollar home loan makes little difference when you make more half a million a year.

The other shelters, like incorporating, using corporate assets like jets instead of buying your own... That makes a difference.

Dan

lazlo
03-02-2009, 12:40 AM
In order to pay 30% income taxes, a single person will have to make in excess of 171,000 dollars per year. The tax rate below that is only 28% AND it's graduated.

If you read the transcript in that article, what he's saying is that his secretary (who's probably a Wife in a household filing jointly) is in the 30% tax bracket. But that he's paying an effective 17.7% tax on his income.

Warren is probably the most watched person in finance, and since Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly traded company, his books are open to the public.

To make his point, Warren offered $1 Million dollars to anyone in the audience who could show a CEO who wasn't taxed less (as a percentage of income) than his secretary. Not surprisingly, no takers.

Then, later that year (2007), he expanded the bet live on an interview with Tom Brockaw:

Warren Buffett's Fellow Billionaires Don't Bite on Million Dollar Tax Challenge
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/

"I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."


In my case, my gross income is in the 33% bracket, but on a typical year (depending on how much stock I exercise), I pay around 25% in taxes, and I don't do anything creative other than the usual itemizations.

dp
03-02-2009, 01:05 AM
You think class warfare is when a very rich man points out that his marginal tax rate is lower than his secretary's, or when people explain that the aggregate tax burden is higher on the middle class than on the rich... well,
you're completely off base.

And you have erroneously summarized a broad statement down to a single line of reference having nothing to do with it. The evidence of class warfare goes far beyond the discussion about Warren Buffet. That is not a limit I set. I said the government is already getting enough money to run the government. The top 1% tax payers are paying more than the lower 90% are paying. I'd say they're doing their part. The real problem is we're all paying too much.

If Warren Buffet were paying 90% it would not fix anything. There's not enough rich people in the world to bail out the world's run-away spending. And even if he were paying 90%, how would that affect his ability to create wealth? The source of wealth is labor, you know, and if he can't afford to put people to work he will be dragged down and made irrelevant in terms of creating jobs. What the hell good is that?

And I don't care about marginal tax rates - it is the dollar amount that is important. WB pays a huge amount of money in taxes because he earns that money. Personally I'd rather see him put more people to work with what he's paying in taxes but he's doing the best he can with what they leave him.


Class warfare is what we've had in this country for the last thirty years - waged on the middle class! Why the huge shift of income towards the top one percent?

The rich get richer. In fact they accumulate wealth faster than the less rich if they pursue it.

Shoot two rockets into space 1 second apart. They will have the same rate of acceleration of 0.00005 g and have infinite fuel so will burn forever, but for all of eternity they will continue to separate from each other in distance because one started 1 second ahead of the other. That is the advantage of position. But here's the kicker - they both have the same potential!

Wealth, unimpeded, can be used to create more wealth, and the more you have the faster you can accumulate more. It does not matter how much wealth you start with, you can grow it if you're allowed to keep it. We're not. A kid just getting out of college today is looking at a life time of paying off the debt government has created (and with no plan of how it's going to be paid back!).


Why the dramatic decline in manufacturing when those investment types decide to build the products in China? Why all the attempts to bust the unions who helped form the middle class? American workers have never been more productive than they are today - but they have taken it in the shorts since the 70s.

- Bart

More people are working today than at any time in the history of this country. They are not doing what their parents and grand parents did. And you do realize that those grand parent did not do what their grand parents did, either. Life change with time. But back to the numbers; That tells me that people of some means have created opportunity. Some of those people of means are in government and a large number of those jobs are at tax payer expense, but it is the small business operator who is putting the greatest number of people to work in the public sector. We need people of means to keep their money and we need government to cut spending and get rid of programs that are failed experiments. What we have is a government led demonizing of those best in a position to turn around the problem. By demonizing them we dehumanize them so that when the taking comes as it is sure to happen, we the outraged masses with greet it with smiling faces.

They came for our chimpanzees but I didn't have a chimpanzee so I didn't care. They rounded up the political right but I'm not on the right so I didn't care. They confiscated the corporations and banks but I'm retired so I didn't care. Now they're coming for my social security check and there's nobody to help me fight.

dp
03-02-2009, 01:08 AM
In my case, my gross income is in the 33% bracket, but on a typical year (depending on how much stock I exercise), I pay around 25% in taxes, and I don't do anything creative other than the usual itemizations.

So what keeps you from clearing your guilt by writing a check to the IRS? If you think you should pay more then pay it. You can't have it both ways.

lazlo
03-02-2009, 01:34 AM
So what keeps you from clearing your guilt by writing a check to the IRS? If you think you should pay more then pay it. You can't have it both ways.

I was explaining to Dan that he has been told wrong about the marginal tax rate of upper income folks. The reality is, due to a variety of loopholes, the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of income.

Same deal with corporate tax: we have one of the higher statutory corporate tax rates, but the US tax code is ridden with loopholes, to the point that the US has one of the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the industrialized world.

From the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading

IF YOU SAY SOMETHING long enough and loud enough, there's every chance people will come to believe it's true, especially if your opponents tire of rebuttals.

This time-honored political strategy has been working overtime of late, as Republican presidential hopefuls romance the richer Florida retirees with appeals for cuts in corporate taxes.

You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world. The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.

Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

According to one analysis, if so much corporate income hadn't moved to the personal tax rolls over the last 20 years, U.S. corporate taxes would account for 3.2% of the GDP, still a bit below the OECD average. "Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration," writes Peter R. Merrill, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The income not squired away overseas or channeled to the personal returns still enjoys protection in the form of various tax breaks that depress the effective rate to 27%, according to the Treasury Department. Such breaks are expected to cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, reducing the corporate tax revenue by 25%.

dp
03-02-2009, 01:46 AM
I was explaining to Dan that he has been told wrong about the marginal tax rate of upper income folks. The reality is, due to a variety of loopholes, the more you make, the less you pay as a percentage of income.

That does not bother me in the least. They still pay a hell of a lot in real dollars. Percentage games is what feeds the class warfare machine and we need to get beyond it. If Warren B thinks he's not paying enough he should damn well grab his check book and make it right or shut the hell up.

I'd rather the high earners keep it all if it means more jobs. I'd far rather see the government struggling to balance the budget as I did in my life when times were hard than to watch them tear down the overclass that finances the very bastids that wish to take them down. Stinking rich stoggie smoking fat cats and lots of them is what we need now. It takes nothing from my bank for them to get rich - not at all the same with run-away spending we have had and will continue to have long after I'm gone.

danlb
03-02-2009, 01:53 AM
In my case, my gross income is in the 33% bracket, but on a typical year (depending on how much stock I exercise), I pay around 25% in taxes, and I don't do anything creative other than the usual itemizations.


I'm pretty sure that what you are saying is that your MARGINAL tax bracket is 33% ( somewhere between $200K and $370K)

Since the tax is progressive, it's not unlikely that you paid only 25% even with modest deductions. The first $208 is only taxed at an AVERAGE rate of 22%.

It stands to reason that the majority of Buffet's income is from long term capital gains like stocks and other investments. Since that's taxed at an artificially low rate (15%) I'm surprised that he made enough to get the average up to 17%.

Dan

Evan
03-02-2009, 04:33 AM
I'd imagine Canada is faced with the same decision -- Chinese steel is a lot less expensive than Canadian steel...


I can't think of a good reason for that to be so. Physical plant, energy and transportation of the raw materials and finished product are the largest component of steel costs, especially energy. The Chinese buy anthracite coal from Canada to make steel and have to ship the steel back here. A lot of my steel stock says Made in Canada on it. Steel sells at the current commodity price regardless of where it comes from. Steel prices are down now not because the Chinese are bidding it down but because of increases in ship retirement and scrapping has placed a lot of good scrap on the market. The Chinese government is currently the largest buyer of steel as they are stockpiling for the next mega project, the North-South waterway. It makes Three Gorges look like a warmup exercise.

Regardless of the perceived economic "benefit" to a "buy American" clause the reality is that the Law of Unexpected Consequences is going to bite hard, again. Simplistic solutions in that arena are rarely correct. If they were then managing a government would be a piece of cake.

Part of the reason for the economic mess we are in is the way the US has implemented trade policy. Protectionist measures always result in weakening the industries they are meant to protect. In particular such measures discourage investment in improved plant and infrastructure which would make the enterprise more competitive.

Speaking of unexpected consequences here is an example. This financial fiasco has resulted in a near standstill in new housing starts. The price of lumber has dropped to long term lows and large lumber producers in Williams Lake have either gone out of business or shut down for an indefinite period. The local cogeneration plant is running short of wood waste to fire the 90 megawatt facility that supplies the town so they have reduced the voltage on the feeders from 125 to 114 volts recently. This reduced voltage is making the DC motor run slower on my mill which is slowing down the rate of feeds I can use.

So, the mortgage disaster is responsible for longer cut times on my mill.

J Tiers
03-02-2009, 10:01 AM
I can't think of a good reason for that to be so. Physical plant, energy and transportation of the raw materials and finished product are the largest component of steel costs, especially energy. The Chinese buy anthracite coal from Canada to make steel and have to ship the steel back here.


That is not my experience of chinese goods. products which my former employer made could be had, COMPLETELY ASSEMBLED from china for FAR LESS THAN THE MATERIALS COST in the US.

In many cases, the same product (within the limits of chinese sameness) could be bought in china made to spec, for 30% of the cost to manufacture in the US OR LESS.

The steel product chassis, completely fabricated, cost 20% or so of the cost to make in the US. In fact, we couldn't buy the steel as cheaply as they sold the chassis.

So they ABSOLUTELY CAN (or could) make steel and sell it over here.

.
.
and...
Why would the chinese buy anthracite coal when what they need in general to run blast furnaces is COKE? They have coal mines, in fact they burn almost as much coal every year in mine fires than we use.

And steel conversion plants don't run on coal over here, AFAIK.

Something is odd.



So, the mortgage disaster is responsible for longer cut times on my mill.

Slightly MORE than mortgages...... they are not responsible for the financial problems.

The mortgage mess, a pimple on the a$$ of most banks, merely EXPOSED the fact that there was a lot of money running around that actually did not exist, when some heavily mortgage-invested banks had problems. THAT caused the problem.

Mortgages were simply the reason why anyone "looked behind the sheet".

J Tiers
03-02-2009, 10:16 AM
I'd rather the high earners keep it all if it means more jobs. .....................................Stinking rich stoggie smoking fat cats and lots of them is what we need now. It takes nothing from my bank for them to get rich

They don't use it to create jobs, except a few high-paid security folks.

What has changed is that where rich people used to invest in US companies, that is no longer true.

Now in many cases they, and their up-and-coming competitors are the ones tearing the US companies apart and sending the work to china, in order that they can make even MORE money due to cheap labor.

The rich no longer employ people, they employ DOLLARS, or increasingly, yuan.

You have never meant much to a rich person except as a tool to use in becoming richer. These days, you are not even that, you are a potential servant, or just another mouth sucking up their tax dollars on welfare.

In the 1950s., which many would consider the last of the good days of US industry, the tax rate on the rich was confiscatory. I believe it was well over 50% at income levels which (in uncorrected dollars) an auto worker might go on strike about now.

it had been that way for a while.

The rich are unaffected by the downturn..... I see as many huge houses being started as before, if not more. It's just cheaper for them to buy the land and old nasty houses to knock down now.

Lower cost housing? The builders are all out of business around here now.

Evan
03-02-2009, 10:29 AM
That is not my experience of chinese goods. products which my former employer made could be had, COMPLETELY ASSEMBLED from china for FAR LESS THAN THE MATERIALS COST in the US.



I'm not talking about assembled goods, just raw material steel. There is practically no labor component involved.


Why would the chinese buy anthracite coal when what they need in general to run blast furnaces is COKE? They have coal mines, in fact they burn almost as much coal every year in mine fires than we use.


Coke is made from coal. They have coal mines but not all coal mines are anthracite. Anthracite is the highest quality coal and also the least common. Canada has mountains made of anthracite.

lazlo
03-02-2009, 10:39 AM
Chinese steel is a lot less expensive than Canadian steel...
I can't think of a good reason for that to be so. Physical plant, energy and transportation of the raw materials and finished product are the largest component of steel costs, especially energy.

That was the Nucor CEO's point: the Chinese are dumping steel. That's a primary part of their economic strategy.


Steel sells at the current commodity price regardless of where it comes from.

At the consumer level. The big steel producing countries include the US, Canada, Brazil, Russia, and China. China is selling plate steel (what they quoted on 60 minutes) for half what the US steel costs, and considerably less than Canada, Russia, and Brazil.

By the way, back on metalworking for a second :) -- they had a short tour of Nucor's foundry, which was part of a new wave of high-tech steel plants -- looked pretty neat. They use no coal. They use 100% scrap material, so there's no blast furnance. They have a "Mini-Mill" -- basically a small arc furnace, and they do the heats in smaller lots. The Nucor CEO said the big advantage of this setup is that they can literally turn the whole foundry on and off with the flip of a switch -- no waiting days (weeks) for a coal-fired blast furnace to come up to temperature.

Nucor has a bunch of foundries in the South, but the main site is apparently in Blytheville, AR -- close to where my In-laws live. I'm going to try to arrange for a plant tour during our Easter visit :)

Evan
03-02-2009, 10:42 AM
That was the Nucor CEO's point: the Chinese are dumping steel. That's a primary part of their economic strategy.


Not now they aren't. The price of steel is going up in China as the government is buying all the production for the north-south project.

lazlo
03-02-2009, 10:44 AM
Not now they aren't. The price of steel is going up in China as the government is buying all the production for the north-south project.

Evan. On 60 Minutes last night, they said that the Chinese are dumping steel, and that their plate steel is selling for half of what US and Canadian steel is selling for. They were quoting January 2009 prices.

If you have a problem with that, call Lesley Stahl.

Your Old Dog
03-02-2009, 10:57 AM
Evan. On 60 Minutes last night, they said that the Chinese are dumping steel, and that their plate steel is selling for half of what US and Canadian steel is selling for. They were quoting January 2009 prices.

If you have a problem with that, call Lesley Stahl.


Lazlo, I love you like a brother but.........

Everyone should have a problem with CBS, especially 60 minutes. This is exactly how it works. They determine what the story is, the point they want to make and then don't stop interviewing until they get the stuff to make their point. You would think they would investigate an idea to find out what the story is but it actually works the other way around. You quoting CBS isn't much different then me quoting a popular talk show host except that he is right more often then he is wrong :D The bias in the big 4 media outlets borders on criminal.

Evan
03-02-2009, 11:03 AM
Evan. On 60 Minutes last night, they said that the Chinese are dumping steel, and that their plate steel is selling for half of what US and Canadian steel is selling for. They were quoting January 2009 prices.


Check the actual commodity price indexes. As of Jan 1 the price index for steel in Asia was 170 while North America was 152. Thats a big differemce.

http://www.meps.co.uk/flat&longcarbonpriceindex.htm

lazlo
03-02-2009, 11:50 AM
Check the actual commodity price indexes. As of Jan 1 the price index for steel in Asia was 170 while North America was 152. Thats a big differemce.

Those are the commodities indexes, which have nothing to do with steel prices.

From the China Mining Association, the price of Chinese plate steel has plumetted to 3780 Yuan per ton. That's $552/ton (28 cents/pound) for Chinese plate steel!

Hangzhou medium plate prices dive again
http://www.chinamining.org/News/2009-02-18/1234943080d21641.html

Updated: 2009-02-18 15:43

It is reported that medium plate prices in Hangzhou plummet amid dull trades. Market sentiments become worse, and low priced resources increase.

Price for 14mm to 20mm common carbon plate from the 1st tier mills like Xinyu Steel, Nanjing Steel and Jiuquan Steel goes at CNY 3800 per tonne to CNY 3820 per tonne down by CNY 50 per tonne to CNY 80 per tonne from last trading day.

The product in same grade from the 2nd tier mills like Feida Steel, Chunye Steel and Huawei Steel stands at CNY 3780 per tonne to CNY 3800 per tonne down by CNY 50 per tonne from yesterday. Low priced products are offered at CNY 3700 per tonne to CNY 3750 per tonne.

In terms of low alloy plate, 14mm to 20mm plate from Xinyu Steel and Nanjing Steel prevails at CNY 4000 per tonne down by CNY 50 per tonne to CNY 80 per tonne from yesterday; that from Chunye Steel, Huawei Steel and Zhaoshun Steel prevails at CNY 3900 per tonne to CNY 3930 per tonne down by CNY 50 per tonne to CNY 80 per tonne. Low priced products are quoted at CNY 3830 per tonne to CNY 3850 per tonneDue to the continuous price drops in relevant HRC, the price difference between HRC and medium plate is enlarged directly. What's more, market transactions are really unsatisfied. So mixed offers emerged on the market with dull deals.

Fresh resources from several surrounding second tier mills arrive at Hangzhou, evidently increasing market inventory. And it's unexpected that HRC price drops consecutively, shocking traders' confidence. Those, who were reluctant to sell their products, join in traders, who start to ship out goods at low price. Traders' sentiments are falling and market prices are diving. It's anticipated that medium plate price in Hangzhou still has space to move down in short-term.

A.K. Boomer
03-02-2009, 11:58 AM
Lazlo, I love you like a brother but.........




So then I guess its safe to assume that you dont get along with family very well:confused: ---------------------- :p

lazlo
03-02-2009, 12:00 PM
From the China Mining Association, the price of Chinese plate steel has plumetted to 3780 Yuan per ton. That's $552/ton (28 cents/pound) for plate steel!

And from Platts, the price of North American (including Canada) and European steel was twice China's as of end of January, but prices just took a 10.6% nose dive in the last two week, so now North American steel is now "only" 59% more expensive than Chinese steel:

http://www.platts.com/Metals/News/8387375.xml?sub=Metals&p=Metals/News&?undefined&undefined

Flat-rolled steel products in North America and Western Europe suffered
another month of price decreases dropping 6% on average month on month, with US-made plate taking the biggest fall at 10.6% to a February average of
$821.05/st ex-works US South East.

So my point: when Canada, or the US, or Europe, cuts their respective Economic Stimuls packages, if they don't specify "home grown" steel, Canada and the EU is going to end up spending their economic stimulus money in China, which is why the US added the "Buy American" clause to our stimulus package.

lazlo
03-02-2009, 12:03 PM
So then I guess its safe to assume that you dont get along with family very well:confused: :p

We're just debating AK -- we get along fine. In fact, DP, Weird and I are often having machinery-related side conversations by PM during these political discussions.

A.K. Boomer
03-02-2009, 12:29 PM
What do you suppose the interest is going to be on the trillion dollar loan they're taking out to pay for these new leftist agenda programs?

.



Good point, but at least many of said programs will create short and long term jobs and many things that will be "tangible" and right in front of us to confirm and at least view it as something positive --- I have to add - this is also not some guy just trying to keep the negative "tickle down" (THAT HE WAS HANDED) under control --- this is a hail mary to try and somehow control the domino effect ------Open your eyes, were way beyond trickle down, if this all comes crashing down tomorrow many who ridicule right now will then jump on over to the other side and then proclaim that "not enough was thrown at it" Such is the life of cowards to where the freedom of speech is readily available - and thats not directed at you - unless you end up going there.

Lemmie ask you this ----
What do you suppose the interest is going to be on the trillion dollar war?
(you know -- the one U-know-who had the spine to vote against, How soon we forget huh)
Ever think about the senselessness of it all - even 60 or 70 years from now with the brave souls that are sitting in the V.A. homes across the nation with brain injuries and missing limbs?
Forget about the money on that one DP, we don't even need to bring that up right now:rolleyes:

tattoomike68
03-02-2009, 03:50 PM
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House.
One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from
Minnesota.

All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The
Minnesota
contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works
some
figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about
$900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says,
"I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100
profit for me."

The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the
White House official and whispers, "$2,700."

The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other
guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we
hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."

"Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.

dp
03-02-2009, 03:58 PM
They don't use it to create jobs, except a few high-paid security folks.
You haven't a chance in hell of proving that and to say it is a waste of breath. To write it in a public forum is folly.


What has changed is that where rich people used to invest in US companies, that is no longer true.
More accurate to say it's as true as it ever was. But how then do you account for the fact that unemployment (until the recent global collapse) was within norms for the previous 3 decades despite the fact that the population has grown substantially? Somebody is creating jobs (well, they were...). Your generalizations sound like chest beating, and in any event, this is an international BBS and so the livelihood of offshore participants are benefited by our offshore investments.


In the 1950s., which many would consider the last of the good days of US industry, the tax rate on the rich was confiscatory. I believe it was well over 50% at income levels which (in uncorrected dollars) an auto worker might go on strike about now.

it had been that way for a while.

There was much more protectionism, too. However - many overseas nations had been bombed into the stoneage and the reconstruction set down the foundation of an industrial revolution on those nations. Hiroshima, Tokyo, Bremen, and Dresden are today very modern cities - compare to Detroit and Duluth which are not.

sansbury
03-02-2009, 04:24 PM
That was the Nucor CEO's point: the Chinese are dumping steel. That's a primary part of their economic strategy.

If so then who's wearing the red nose and clown shoes?

If you think we are running a three-card monte game with our economy, then the Chinese are the tourists sitting there thinking they will get the card if they play just one more time. First they sell us steel at cut-rate prices and then they use the money to buy our sovereign debt. Talk about doubling down.

sansbury
03-02-2009, 04:33 PM
More accurate to say it's as true as it ever was.

Actually to be precise people all over the world invest far more in us than we invest in them. That is why we can continue to import far more than we export. After they're done buying our exports, the #1 thing foreigners like to do with their greenbacks is to invest in US financial markets. And in this crisis, that's becoming even more true. As rotten as our systems look right now, the smart money is betting that we will be the least worst place to be.

Evan
03-02-2009, 05:18 PM
Robert,

I don't have time today to get into detail but the one thing that really bothers me (not just me) is the unilateral action on the part of the US to disregard trade agreements that specifically state the such a Buy American policy is not permitted. Does that mean that we should simply rip up all the trade agreements? If so, then the US is in for a rough ride. We have a conservative government and they aren't wibbly wobbly like the previous liberal governments. They are very likely to retaliate. I'm afraid that the US needs Canada a lot more than Canada needs the US. We are the largest supplier of oil, natural gas, wood, uranium, strategic metals and a variety of other important US imports. On the other hand we mainly buy manufactured goods from the US and you know well that those can be obtained elsewhere.

Once again, the law of unintended consequences is going to bite hard.

dp
03-02-2009, 05:31 PM
Evan - I would be in favor of suspending the Buy American agreements in certain strategic industries if it meant we'd recover more quickly *and* with the stipulation that we compensate our trading partners when the recovery permits.

We need some survivors in this and I don't trust all potential survivors to do the right thing with their gift of surviving. This ship is going down and not everyone on it is going to make it. Certainly nobody will make it if we ignore the need for culling.

J Tiers
03-02-2009, 10:56 PM
I'm not talking about assembled goods, just raw material steel. There is practically no labor component involved.

Except for mining the ore, coal, and limestone, running the blast furnace, handling the pig, running whatever process converts the pig to steel (including handling the scrap content), handling the ingots, rolling the steel, shearing and transporting it....

YOU missed the point...... the FABRICATED STEEL cost LESS from china THAN JUST THE STEEL COST HERE. I very strongly doubt the chinese have a huge new process to avoid the normal steel-making steps




Coke is made from coal. They have coal mines but not all coal mines are anthracite. Anthracite is the highest quality coal and also the least common. Canada has mountains made of anthracite.

Anthracite is not necessarily the best coking coal......... In fact, as I understand it, low sulphur bituminous coal is the NORMAL input to the coking process for a number of reasons, including the porosity of the resulting product.

J Tiers
03-02-2009, 11:04 PM
Once again, the law of unintended consequences is going to bite hard.


Translated..... "We are the OPEC of these products, and you WILL obey us"...... Nice.......

Those things work both ways, of course....... And the return dose will bite hard as well.

Now, I do think it would have been far preferable to establish a list of preferred trading partners, including Canada and some S.A. countries, and include them in whatever incentives were put in.

That establishes a set of friends, instead of a continuing Bush administration "in your face" action.

I believe we have elected George W Obama.

Hey, where's my CHANGE?

tattoomike68
03-02-2009, 11:20 PM
Evan - I would be in favor of suspending the Buy American agreements in certain strategic industries if it meant we'd recover more quickly *and* with the stipulation that we compensate our trading partners when the recovery permits.

We need some survivors in this and I don't trust all potential survivors to do the right thing with their gift of surviving. This ship is going down and not everyone on it is going to make it. Certainly nobody will make it if we ignore the need for culling.


Everyday we send a shipload of money to China. The last thing they want is that ship to sink. they will just buy more of the USA/Canada. Imagine if wal-mart was owned by china as well as thier seller.

I know damn well I dont want a car made in china, I bet it would come off a hook hanging in a big ass blister packcage. :D

I got a motor home, sailboat and can get a fishing pole. If times get tough im going to the coast and will live on fish tacos, beer and berries.






I believe we have elected George W Obama.

Hey, where's my CHANGE?

Bush Light is the term I like.

Evan
03-03-2009, 03:09 AM
Translated..... "We are the OPEC of these products, and you WILL obey us"...... Nice.......


Uh no. It's the US that is abrogating the treaties, not Canada. Don't blame Canada if we decide that we don't like being shat on.


Those things work both ways, of course....... And the return dose will bite hard as well.


The US can't afford to escalate a trade war that they have started. It's a lose-lose proposition. The only way out alive is to back out.


Except for mining the ore, coal, and limestone, running the blast furnace, handling the pig, running whatever process converts the pig to steel (including handling the scrap content), handling the ingots, rolling the steel, shearing and transporting it....


That's what I mean, practically no human labor involved on a $ per tonne basis. A country can only afford to engage in dumping when they have a significant surplus of product. Not only do the Chinese NOT have a surplus but they need all the steel they can find. Selling it out of country at cut rate prices has no payback since they are currently the largest consumer of their own product.

J Tiers
03-03-2009, 09:08 AM
Uh no. It's the US that is abrogating the treaties, not Canada. Don't blame Canada if we decide that we don't like being shat on.



NOBODY can afford it.... it DOES work both ways, I took exception to YOUR statement that sounded like "you need us, you can't do without us, and we can make it stick if you don't agree"



That's what I mean, practically no human labor involved on a $ per tonne basis. A country can only afford to engage in dumping when they have a significant surplus of product. Not only do the Chinese NOT have a surplus but they need all the steel they can find. Selling it out of country at cut rate prices has no payback since they are currently the largest consumer of their own product.

Again, you miss the point....

THEY HAVE BEEN SELLING STEEL CHEAP. CHEAPER FABRICATED THAN WE CAN BUY THE RAW STEEL.

Don't keep saying "they can't do that", because they HAVE done it.

It's more important to the cjhinese to break the US than it is to have all the steel they would prefer to have.

J Tiers
03-03-2009, 09:18 AM
You haven't a chance in hell of proving that and to say it is a waste of breath. To write it in a public forum is folly.

I think it is a valid statement of the trend..... I don't claim it is a literal fact, although that WOULD be find-out-able if you wanted to.

Even if it is NOT true, you will find that many believe it. And that will end up making it true.

If you don't think Bill Gates has some good security, ............

We'll be having kidnappings like Mexico and maybe having that SOON.



More accurate to say it's as true as it ever was. But how then do you account for the fact that unemployment (until the recent global collapse) was within norms for the previous 3 decades despite the fact that the population has grown substantially? Somebody is creating jobs (well, they were...). Your generalizations sound like chest beating, and in any event, this is an international BBS and so the livelihood of offshore participants are benefited by our offshore investments.


You seem incapable of seeing the point, but I will try once more....

Apparently you were asleep when all the factories closed, and were literally (in some cases) packed up onto ships and sent to china.

I very strongly doubt the workers all voted to do that. Workers do not own factories.

No it was rich folks......

The unemployment is not that high because it is under-counted...... NEW unemployment claims are reported, and unemployment is pretty much defined as the number looking for work.

If you gave up years ago when the mill closed in your small town, and you can't even afford to move, well you are NOT counted.

I'd expect that unemployment is anywhere from 1.5x to 2x what is actually reported.



There was much more protectionism, too. However - many overseas nations had been bombed into the stoneage and the reconstruction set down the foundation of an industrial revolution on those nations. Hiroshima, Tokyo, Bremen, and Dresden are today very modern cities - compare to Detroit and Duluth which are not.

I have made that point before...... And I think you participated in the drubbing that it got..... Interesting, if so, that you now make the same point.

Evan
03-03-2009, 11:21 AM
It's more important to the cjhinese to break the US than it is to have all the steel they would prefer to have.


Why would they bother? The US has been doing a fine job without Chinese help.


I took exception to YOUR statement that sounded like "you need us, you can't do without us, and we can make it stick if you don't agree"



True, that.

lazlo
03-03-2009, 01:17 PM
A country can only afford to engage in dumping when they have a significant surplus of product. Not only do the Chinese NOT have a surplus but they need all the steel they can find. Selling it out of country at cut rate prices has no payback since they are currently the largest consumer of their own product.

So why are the Chinese dumping steel then? According to prices on the Platts steel price tracker, Chinese plate steel prices are 50 - 100% lower than North American Steel.

Canada is in the process of developing their own Economic Stimulus Package, in fact, it may have passed by now. If you don't put a "Buy Canadian" clause in your own stimulus package, you're going to end up stimulating China's economy, instead of your own.

Translate: any builder, faced with paying $500 per ton of Chinese steel plate, versus $850/ton of Canadian steel plate, is going to go with the Chinese steel.
That's the reason the Communist government is subsidizing the cost.

dp
03-03-2009, 02:40 PM
You seem incapable of seeing the point, but I will try once more....

Apparently you were asleep when all the factories closed, and were literally (in some cases) packed up onto ships and sent to china.

I very strongly doubt the workers all voted to do that. Workers do not own factories.

No it was rich folks......
I think we need to back up the bus and see if we can agree on what a factory is and why they exist. Where they exist is not important.

I claim that factories exist to make money. I will further claim that factories will be located where they can make the most money for the investment and risk.

That being the case why would anyone operate a factory in the US?


The unemployment is not that high because it is under-counted...... NEW unemployment claims are reported, and unemployment is pretty much defined as the number looking for work.
You cannot accept numbers as provided - you have to look at the numbers such that you are comparing apples to apples. If you accept numbers from variable data gathering processes you cannot compare over time the trends. In order for what you say to be true you will have had to do this otherwise what you say is baseless. That is simple logic.


If you gave up years ago when the mill closed in your small town, and you can't even afford to move, well you are NOT counted.

I'd expect that unemployment is anywhere from 1.5x to 2x what is actually reported.
You guess at a lot of things and assume it's true. That's a bad but correctable habit.

Ries
03-03-2009, 07:11 PM
"They" may be selling steel cheap-
But "We" arent buying it.

Last year, 2008, well below 5% of the steel sold in the USA came from China.

While 80% of the steel used in the USA was made in the USA.

So, if the chinese are trying to undermine our economy by dumping steel- they are doing a pretty poor job of it.

There is no reason to believe that, either with a "buy american" law, or without, any substantial amount of chinese steel will be used in the Stimulus Package infrastructure projects. And those low chinese steel prices? well, those are prices IN CHINA. Add in freight costs, both across the ocean and to your jobsite, US wholesale and distributor costs, and the real discount is going to be a LOT less. Probably more like 10% or less. No US steel distributor is going to sell Chinese made steel for $300 less per ton, just cause they paid less for it- NOPE, thats money just sitting on the table. The retail price will be almost the same, and the distributors will just make more profit.

Most of the steel we use, we make. Its as simple as that.
Annual US production of steel is around 100 Million tons a year.
Steel is NOT a dead industry in the USA.
Nucor alone, a US company using high tech mills, makes almost a quarter of the steel used in the USA.

Now it is true that most of the recent investments in new mills and technology in the steel industry in the USA, aside from Nucor, has been by foreign companies.
The Russians, the Germans, and the Indians all feel that the steel market in the USA is strong enough that they are investing Billions and Billions of dollars into the USA, to build and upgrade mills here.
That is good for our balance of trade- it means foreign money is being invested in the USA- and good for our manufacturing base and jobs.
Its not so good, I suppose, if you believe all our companies should be 100% american owned- but, since the stock market took over, some time in the late 1800's, most companies have some degree of foreign ownership.
I dont think you can find a single "american" company that doesnt have big chunks of its stock owned by Saudi princes, Chinese banks, and Norwegian retirement funds.

The only way to counteract that, would be to actually buy stock in american companies- which is something americans dont seem to want to do. Whats in YOUR 401K?

thistle
03-03-2009, 07:24 PM
The unemployment is not that high because it is under-counted...... NEW unemployment claims are reported, and unemployment is pretty much defined as the number looking for work.

I'd expect that unemployment is anywhere from 1.5x to 2x what is actually reported.




a lot of statistics are apparently under reported

http://www.shadowstats.com/

tattoomike68
03-03-2009, 07:26 PM
I was at the shop today and all the sheel metal off the truck was from Canada.

The place where the USA and Canada have it over china is in agriculture and lumber. They have farmed and logged thier own land for 5,000 years + and dont have jack squat for trees. They will need the USA and Canada to do well and send them logs, scap iron,grain and our cash or they will be hurting.

Lets get real we all need each other and if anyone was to go tits up it hurts us all.

In spite what some think we are all stuck on this rock together.

dp
03-03-2009, 07:53 PM
"They" may be selling steel cheap-
But "We" arent buying it.

Last year, 2008, well below 5% of the steel sold in the USA came from China.

While 80% of the steel used in the USA was made in the USA.

So, if the chinese are trying to undermine our economy by dumping steel- they are doing a pretty poor job of it.

This by itself doesn't tell us enough. In fact this is really bad news on the face of it. What if, for example, the US was buying all or nearly all of the US steel? That would mean we don't make a lot of steel, and the rest of the world that we compete with is buying steel somewhere else, cheaper. That price advantage will show up in the bottom line or as a price advantage to the consumer. This is bad news because our steel customers are working at a big disadvantage.

I've no doubt other nations are buying up Chinese steel as fast as they can if what you say above is the whole story.

Rustybolt
03-03-2009, 08:26 PM
It isn't very good steel anyway. Not very good alum either. My local supplier refuses to carry chinese steel. They, the chinese, can't, or wont, certify the content.

lazlo
03-03-2009, 08:28 PM
"They" may be selling steel cheap- But "We" arent buying it.

Last year, 2008, well below 5% of the steel sold in the USA came from China.

While 80% of the steel used in the USA was made in the USA.

Well that's a refreshing statistic! :)


And those low chinese steel prices? well, those are prices IN CHINA. Add in freight costs, both across the ocean and to your jobsite, US wholesale and distributor costs, and the real discount is going to be a LOT less.

When you look at the worldwide steel price sites like Platts, they quote price per short ton, FOB North America:

"http://www.platts.com/Metals/News/83...ined&undefined

Flat-rolled steel products in North America and Western Europe suffered another month of price decreases dropping 6% on average month on month, with US-made plate taking the biggest fall at 10.6% to a February average of $821.05/st ex-works US South East. "

lazlo
03-03-2009, 08:30 PM
It isn't very good steel anyway. Not very good alum either. My local supplier refuses to carry chinese steel. They, the chinese, can't, or wont, certify the content.

I was wondering that too -- the Chinese can't make bolts or cutting tools to save their lives, so I'm not thrilled with the idea of a human-critical structure like a bridge being made with Chinese steel.

Evan
03-03-2009, 08:53 PM
Canada is in the process of developing their own Economic Stimulus Package, in fact, it may have passed by now. If you don't put a "Buy Canadian" clause in your own stimulus package, you're going to end up stimulating China's economy, instead of your own.


That isn't of much concern here. Canada consistently runs a net trade surplus. Even with China Canada runs at about a 3 to 2 trade ratio import/export. The trade deficit with China is about 5% of total Canadian trade, not a significant number.

dp
03-03-2009, 09:44 PM
It isn't very good steel anyway. Not very good alum either. My local supplier refuses to carry chinese steel. They, the chinese, can't, or wont, certify the content.

In formal international trade circles we call that a soft barrier to trade.

J Tiers
03-03-2009, 11:27 PM
I think we need to back up the bus and see if we can agree on what a factory is and why they exist. Where they exist is not important.


it is relatively important to the unemployment numbers...... And eventually to the same fools who are throwing away their workers as fast as they can, and forgetting that unemployed people are bad customers.



I claim that factories exist to make money. I will further claim that factories will be located where they can make the most money for the investment and risk.
That being the case why would anyone operate a factory in the US?


That is a fair question, from a particular point of view. It conveniently ignores what used to be called being a good corporate citizen...... You are describing the viewpoint of a completely amoral individual who is only interested in making as much money as fast as possible.

In other words, the exact viewpoint of the folks who landed us in this situation.

As for the answer, any number of reasons.

1) Control of the product is one reason. if you contract with the chinese to make your product (a foreigner is not "owning" any factory in china), you lose control of the means of production.

My former employer had their prime contractor refuse to make any more of their products, and also refused to give back any tooling, including plastic molds for parts 500 x 1200mm. It is going to be expensive for them to re-create the tooling elsewhere, and even more expensive to compete with the knock-off products made with the tooling they paid for.

2) QC. The chinese have been taught to try to make things cheap. They are good at it, and will choose cheap over "right" if you don't keep on them. You have a continual risk of huge runs of bad product.

3) shipping costs. With container loads recently at $9000 to ship from china to here, you need a high dollar per cubic meter product. Some products are not suited to that. An HVAC heater company in Kentucky reportedly brought production BACK when shipping got ridiculous. Heaters are bulky, and yet are not expensive per unit, so it makes sense that they were being eaten on shipping.

4) per-product volume. The chinese are oriented towards huge volumes. If you want less than 10,000 of anything small or reasonably inexpensive, they are not interested. Even if your total volume in many products is high, it still makes no difference unless you have several truly high volume items in teh 25,000 + per year range. Niche market products are forced to be made locally.



You cannot accept numbers as provided - you have to look at the numbers such that you are comparing apples to apples. If you accept numbers from variable data gathering processes you cannot compare over time the trends. In order for what you say to be true you will have had to do this otherwise what you say is baseless. That is simple logic.

Whatever..... You will have to substantiate anything YOU claim just as well as others.
For purposes of discussion, widely reported numbers are perfectly valid. Even if they are false, they are now true by virtue of the "lie repeated enough" principle.

We are not MAKING public policy, and very likely don't have access to the real numbers about anything to begin with. That goes for you as well, so your attacks are no more valid than our claims....



You guess at a lot of things and assume it's true. That's a bad but correctable habit.

No, despite your cute retort, I am extrapolating from reports on various sources, including NPR, newspaper, bureau of labor statistics etc, as far as the reported numbers.

The SURVEY DEFINITION of unemployed is "available and seeking work, but not finding work". Therefore it is instantly obvious (to everyone but you), that anyone who has given up looking is BY DEFINITION not included in the numbers.
They may actually be looking for work, but not through the unemployment office. or they may want to work, but have given up on finding work. If so, they are not counted.

There is no magic system that pops up a light on a board in Washington when you get fired. The ONLY WAY you are known to be unemployed is when you file a claim for unemployment assistance, or otherwise come to the attention of those who develop the statistics.

The statistics people themselves admit this.

YOU are not thinking, which in your case is probably a correctable situation.

Ries
03-04-2009, 01:23 PM
What if, for example, the US was buying all or nearly all of the US steel? That would mean we don't make a lot of steel, and the rest of the world that we compete with is buying steel somewhere else, cheaper. That price advantage will show up in the bottom line or as a price advantage to the consumer. This is bad news because our steel customers are working at a big disadvantage.

I've no doubt other nations are buying up Chinese steel as fast as they can if what you say above is the whole story.



First- the USA has not been a steel Exporter for at least 20 years, in any quantity. We do "export" a bit to US owned auto factories in Mexico, and we export a small amount of specialty stuff. But the years when we were an international exporter of commodity steel- they are generations in the past.

Every country tends to build a domestic steel industry if it can afford it, for national security reasons, and, mostly for the prestige of being in the first world of manufacturing.

At one point, Britain dominated world steel sales- close to 100 years ago, now. The US had its glory days, especially right around WW2, steel mills in Europe and Asia were in ruins. But many other countries now have more modern, more efficient mills, closer to raw materials- Brazil and Australia are players in World Wide Steel.
Also, as energy prices have increased steadily over the last 50 years, it makes economic sense for most steel to be shipped as short a distance as possible- its heavy, after all. This is why Mittal and Arcelor and Thyssen are all investing billions in mills in the USA. If the market is here, they make MORE profit making the steel here than shipping it in.

As for other countries snapping up Chinese Steel- well, that doesnt seem to be the case. It is only last year the Chinese Government dropped their Export Taxes on Steel, which had been up to 25% depending on the product- China has had a government policy for some time DISCOURAGING steel exports. They wanted to avoid overheating the domestic market by speculative steel mill building, and to keep an adequate supply for domestic use.

this year, they are TRYING to export more, for the first time, but its not going too well- read this article.

http://www.chinamining.org/News/2009-01-07/1231309576d20851.html

Basically it says Chinese Billet (raw steel) exports are DOWN 80% in the last year, and steel products exports are down as well.

To misquote ol Ronnie Reagan, a lowering tide sinks all ships. And the Chinese are suffering right now, right along with the rest of us.

wierdscience
03-04-2009, 02:12 PM
Most of the billet that was exported was sent to Taiwan and Thailand and rolled into structural and strip.Some of that shows up here in Pipe and roll formed products.

Why pipe prices are still insane I haven't heard a good explaination of yet,though I heard that some of the more odd sizes of rolled section have gotten scarce since last summers spikes when mills quit rolling slow moving shapes.

dp
03-04-2009, 02:22 PM
this year, they are TRYING to export more, for the first time, but its not going too well- read this article.

http://www.chinamining.org/News/2009-01-07/1231309576d20851.html

Basically it says Chinese Billet (raw steel) exports are DOWN 80% in the last year, and steel products exports are down as well.

To misquote ol Ronnie Reagan, a lowering tide sinks all ships. And the Chinese are suffering right now, right along with the rest of us.

This is what I was getting at. The OP in my response above did not make that case but did make that conclusion. Your response provides the basis for what he claimed.

But having said that, and to grow the discussion a bit - the Chinese are in a much better position to put steel into markets we cannot because ships laden with Chinese goods are already moving around the world and the price is right even if the quality is suspect. Nations that have no capacity to make steel still require steel for construction if for no other purpose.

Ries
03-04-2009, 03:22 PM
The chinese are currently trying to rebuild after their earthquake- an area the size of the state of Indiana was levelled- thats a LOT of rebar.
So they actually have quite a bit of domestic market, even without exporting.

There was a glut of steel mills being built in China about 5 years ago, and the central chinese government has been cracking down on excess capacity since then.
They are forcibly merging several of the largest companies, and reducing capacity.

Obviously, there are lots of bad things about a command economy, communist style- but one good thing about it is that when the government decides, they can make any change they want.

It seems pretty evident that China WANTS less steel making capacity, not more. They dont want huge investments in mills, trasportation infrastructure, and employees to sit idle with no sales.

They are rearranging their steel industry, top down style, right now- here is a Wall Street Journal article from a month or two ago, but I am pretty sure more of this has happened since.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123064271568642271.html

The simple fact is, no matter how cheap chinese steel is, nobody is buying right now.
And, frankly, the chinese are too smart to underprice everybody for very long- at least by huge margins. They are happy to bid 10% below their competition, but they have long since wised up about bidding 50%, and, if individual steel companies try, the chinese government steps in and "corrects" their behavior.
No sense leaving money on the table.

Also note, that for some years now, the Chinese have been the worlds largest CONSUMER of steel.

Evan
03-04-2009, 07:06 PM
First- the USA has not been a steel Exporter for at least 20 years, in any quantity. We do "export" a bit to US owned auto factories in Mexico, and we export a small amount of specialty stuff. But the years when we were an international exporter of commodity steel- they are generations in the past.



Why do you think that?


News
Monday, 16 Feb 2009
US posted record levels of steel exports in 2008 - AIIS
American Institute for International Steel, at a press briefing in Washington, has revealed record levels of steel exports for 2008 at 13 million tons with top export destinations including Canada, Mexico, the rest of the Americas and the Caribbean, Asia and the European Union.

AIIS leaders said that if domestic mills will follow their customers, keep up the increased pace of exporting, partner with American steel traders and in fact commit to the 10% export goal, together they can help stimulate the US economy, increase productivity and maintain jobs.

http://steelguru.com/news/index/2009/02/16/ODI2OTY%3D/US_posted_record_levels_of_steel_exports_in_2008_-_AIIS.html




BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries imported $3.4 billion worth of iron and steel from the U.S. in 2007


Iron and Steel Exports to US by G7 Country
Canada sends the most ferrous metal exports into America, half of the G7’s $14.4 billion total exports to the U.S.

Canada ... US$7.6 billion in iron and steel materials and products
Japan ... $2.3 billion
Germany ... $1.7 billion
UK … $1 billion
Italy … $1 billion
France … $774.6 million.


Iron and Steel Imports from US by BRIC Country
China consumed over two-thirds of the $3.4 billion worth of U.S. iron and steel exports to BRIC countries in 2007.

China ... US$2.7 billion in iron and steel materials and products
India ... $562.2 million
Brazil ... $190.1 million
Russia ... $9.6 million.


Iron and Steel Imports from US by G7 Country
Canada accounts for over 80% of $10.3 billion in G7 iron and steel imports from America.
Canada ... US$8.4 billion in iron and steel materials and products
UK … $717 million
Japan ... $543.3 million
Germany ... $314.1 million
Italy … $225.4 million
France … $123.1 million.

American Trade Partnership or Trade War?
Under the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada may be given preferential treatment to partner with its southern neighbor to supply iron and steel used in U.S. infrastructure projects. If not, American protectionism may well trigger a trade war that endangers $40 billion worth of iron and steel in international trade with BRIC and G7 countries.


Read more: "US Steel Imports & Exports: Canada and China’s Annual $25 Billion Iron and Steel Trade with USA" - http://internationaltradecommodities.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_steel_imports_exports#ixzz08pSeenI9



If an exemption isn't made for Canada the crap will hit the fan.

Ries
03-04-2009, 07:22 PM
Evan, since we (the USA) manufactures about 20% less steel than we consume, we are NET importers.
It is true, we do export some.
Your figure of 13 Million tons exported is roughly 15% of our yearly production, but it is balanced out by an import of over 20 million tons.

Since some of your figures are in tons, and some in dollar amounts, its hard to correlate, but, as I said before, the majority of our "exports" are to US auto factories in Mexico and Canada.

But compared to our glory days, in the early part of the 19th century, when USS alone made 30% of the steel in the entire world, we export very little.

Considering a world steel production of approximately 1350 million tons in 2007, the US export figure you quote is about 1% of the world total.

Exporting 1%, and then importing two or three times more than that, does not, in my mind, make us much of an exporter, which is my point. Yes, we do export a bit- 1% of the world total in any given field does not make you a major player, though.

Evan
03-04-2009, 08:09 PM
Since some of your figures are in tons, and some in dollar amounts, its hard to correlate, but, as I said before, the majority of our "exports" are to US auto factories in Mexico and China.


Not even close. Canada buys more steel from the US than all other countries COMBINED.

Canada buys about half of all US steel exports.

wtrueman
03-05-2009, 01:36 AM
Evan: As you can see I'm on Van Isle. When I order from my local supplier (Rushel metals) (sp) should I have to specify each time? For my small dealer here I think they probably don't know where the metal came from in the first place. Wayne

dp
03-05-2009, 02:37 AM
Not even close. Canada buys more steel from the US than all other countries COMBINED.

Canada buys about half of all US steel exports.

In this regard Canada has shagged it's responsibilities and said let us tie our fortune to America which, by the way, it does a lot. Canada has accepted the back seat for decades because the yanks are at the wheel. That opportunity to not invest in manufacturing infrastructure has created a nursed relationship where Canada dare not find itself far from the American teat. This is not meant to be disparaging, but the fact is Canada does not need a first strike nuclear missile capability because the US has one, and the US has a big umbrella. Canada has no umbrella of any kind.

That's probably not a good thing in the long run - especially one which finds the US on it's back side, legs up, gasping for air.