Annual Trade Deficit Hits All-Time High

[Nickdfresh]

Trade gap hits record in '04
December trade deficit down from monthly record set in November, but full-year shortfall tops $600B.

February 10, 2005: 8:59 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. trade deficit in December fell from record levels set the previous month, the government reported Thursday, but the latest reading was enough to give the country the biggest annual gap with its trading partners.

The Commerce Department reported the December gap fell to $56.4 billion from a record $59.3 billion level reported in November, which was revised slightly lower. Analysts had forecast the gap would fall to $57.0 billion in December.

The December reading brought the full-year trade gap to $617.7 billion, up from the previous record of $496.5 billion set in 2003.

The trade gap records occurred despite strong U.S. exports, as December saw the exports of goods and services cross the $100 billion mark for the first time. The nation had a positive balance of trade in services of $48.5 billion with the rest of the world during the year..

But while full-year exports rose 12 percent to $1.1 trillion, full-year imports gained 16 percent to $1.8 trillion. Top of page

CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/10/news/economy/trade/index.htm?cnn=yes)

[Big Train]

Yes this is a troubling issue, not unlike Social Security. However, it is a realtively more complex issue than social security as it encompasses all aspects of the economy. Not saying this isn't important, but it does not mean the nation's "obsession" with SS is unwarranted. It IS a crisis.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Yes this is a troubling issue, not unlike Social Security. However, it is a realtively more complex issue than social security as it encompasses all aspects of the economy. Not saying this isn't important, but it does not mean the nation's "obsession" with SS is unwarranted. It IS a crisis.

No. It's been a 'crisis' for some people since day one, but it is not a crisis for the nation. It's a problem that needs attention, not a Conservative agenda and grandstanding.
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/inaug/images/fdr.jpg

[Big Train]

How do you consider being concerned about the boomer generation havinfg anemic savings grandstanding? I know your gonna sidestep that and say "it's for Bush and his wall st. cronies". For me as a conservative, I can SEE a crisis here and I feel liberals are even afraid just to admit it. Like you said "for SOME people it's a crisis". Some is actually the majority..

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
Not saying this isn't important, but it does not mean the nation's "obsession" with SS is unwarranted. It IS a crisis.

I don't think the nation is obsessed with SS. Sure gw flaps about it, which means FOX news acts like we all give a shit. But no one's obsessed with it. Get real.

[Big Train]

I am real...point your sarcasm gun at Nick...he is the one who said it..

[Nickdfresh]

This is what the nation thinks on Social Security!

Poll: Wealthy should bolster Social Security

Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Posted: 7:17 PM EST (0017 GMT)

(CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/08/poll.socialsecurity/index.html) -- Americans think the wealthy should help bolster Social Security, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday suggests.

More than two-thirds of 1,010 adults contacted from Friday to Sunday said it would be a good idea to limit benefits for wealthier retirees and for higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all their wages.

Currently, the cap on wages taxed for Social Security is set at $90,000.

Other options to change Social Security fell far behind -- 40 percent of respondents said reducing benefits for early retirement is a good idea; 37 percent said increasing the tax for all workers would be a good idea; 35 percent said the government should increase the age at which people could receive full benefits; and 29 percent said reducing benefits for people under 55 was acceptable.

The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

About 55 percent of respondents thought Bush's proposal that would allow wage earners to invest some of their Social Security taxes in private investment accounts in the future is a "bad idea" -- the same percentage as a month ago before the president began his campaign for the plan.

Forty percent said it was a good idea in both polls.

But 64 percent said that the system will be bankrupt by 2042 if "major changes" aren't made.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, the system won't be penniless, but it will be unable to pay all the benefits due by about midcentury.

Their conservative actuarial reports estimate income from the payroll taxes would cover between 70 percent and 80 percent of the necessary funds.

Those responding to the poll indicated they have more confidence in their own investment skills than in those of most Americans.

Thirty-seven percent said they thought most Americans would get lower benefits if allowed to invest through personal accounts (30 percent said the benefits would be higher).

About 40 percent said they believed they personally would reap higher benefits, while 27 percent thought they would do worse with personal accounts.

Of the respondents, 757 were not retired -- and 53 percent of them said they had done some planning for retirement "but not enough."

Four percent of those responding to the poll said they thought there was no problem with Social Security.

[Pink Spider]

The wealthy run the government. It won't happen.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I'd like to know.
The only solution you ever hear is wealth redistribution, or grand theft. If people are too short sighted not to save, it's not the fault of the rich.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
The wealthy run the government. It won't happen.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I'd like to know.
The only solution you ever hear is wealth redistribution, or grand theft. If people are too short sighted not to save, it's not the fault of the rich.

And what if one goes bankrupt due to a medical emergency, or what if the market shits-the-bed again? Do the "Rich" recruit a large National Guard to prevent revolution?

[Pink Spider]

So giving government more power is going to solve everything?

What if the sky falls? Let's have a sky falling tax.

I suppose obesity is the fault of capitalism too and didn't you hear that they force people to shop at Wal-Mart? Those evil rich people!

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
So giving government more power is going to solve everything?

What if the sky falls? Let's have a sky falling tax.

I suppose obesity is the fault of capitalism too and didn't you hear that they force people to shop at Wal-Mart? Those evil rich people!

When a spoiled frat-boy who has been rich all his life passes laws that help his rich friends get richer, then submits a budget that hits the poor while tooling around in a $2,000,000 yacht that the poor folks helped pay for, it may not be evil, but it sure sucks!

[Big Train]

Wow, Pink, you are right on today. Could not agree more.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by blueturk
When a spoiled frat-boy who has been rich all his life passes laws that help his rich friends get richer, then submits a budget that hits the poor while tooling around in a $2,000,000 yacht that the poor folks helped pay for, it may not be evil, but it sure sucks!

It's not capitalism at any rate. More like trickle up socialism. I'm not in favor of taxing the poor and giving to the rich either. Its all theft to me.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
So giving government more power is going to solve everything?

What if the sky falls? Let's have a sky falling tax.

I suppose obesity is the fault of capitalism too and didn't you hear that they force people to shop at Wal-Mart? Those evil rich people!

Actually I'm for cutting government spending and bringing the-going-on $8 trillion deficit under control.

The government already has "power" regarding social security. I have no problem with capitalism, but:
a.) I don't want some bullshitting broker selling me an under-performing plan or a stock that might tank, which is exactly what happened in the U.K. when they 'privatized retirement.'

b.) A lot of people lost their ass in the market a fews back, and there was a day when few people had any faith in Capitalism, circa 1929-1942.

Besides, don't confuse Capitalism with Oligarchical Plutocracy, they are not the same thing. The film "Tucker's Dream" illustrates that nicely.

What IS the fault of capitalism:

Excessive prices on drugs, and the Drug Companies preventing old people from seeking cheaper ones in Canada.

[Figs]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
a.) I don't want some bullshitting broker selling me an under-performing plan or a stock that might tank, which is exactly what happened in the U.K. when they 'privatized retirement.'

Well, isn't the plan to make investment accounts voluntary?
Anyway if you want underperformance, then Social Security is perfect. You get a better return on bank CD's then you'll get with SS.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The government already has "power" regarding social security. I have no problem with capitalism, but:
a.) I don't want some bullshitting broker selling me an under-performing plan or a stock that might tank, which is exactly what happened in the U.K. when they 'privatized retirement.'

If brokers had any knowledge of stock, then they would be full time investors and not brokers, wouldn't they?

b.) A lot of people lost their ass in the market a fews back, and there was a day when few people had any faith in Capitalism, circa 1929-1942.

Socialism has collapsed a few times, hasn't it? There's risk in everything. If you want to stand in a bread line, fine.

Besides, don't confuse Capitalism with Oligarchical Plutocracy, they are not the same thing. The film "Tucker's Dream" illustrates that nicely.

I don't. Corporations that are in lock step with the government is not capitalism at all. It's socialism.

What IS the fault of capitalism:

Excessive prices on drugs, and the Drug Companies preventing old people from seeking cheaper ones in Canada.

Drug prices are the fault of regulation by the government. I think you're a tad bit confused on what capitalism is and isn't. No offense, of course. Capitalism would mean less regulation on drugs. Such as drugs from Canada. THAT is capitalism.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Big Train
Could not agree more.

There's a first time for everything. :)

[Angel]

Add another 4 billion to that deficit: Ottawa seeks $4.1B in retaliation for U.S. softwood foot-dragging.

Full story here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050209.wsofty/BNStory/National/

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Drug prices are the fault of regulation by the government.


I'd like you to prove that one, I always thought it was the Vioxx and Viagra commercials we see on TV every 30 seconds. And if gov't regulation makes drug prices higher, why are 'regulated' Canadian drugs cheaper?


I think you're a tad bit confused on what capitalism is and isn't. No offense, of course. Capitalism would mean less regulation on drugs. Such as drugs from Canada. THAT is capitalism.

And snuffing out any real competition, not through superior product quality or competition, but through skullduggery. That's what (the myth of)Capitalism has been, anything but real competition or Capitalism. Mostly it involves collusion and preventing any real competition. If I don't know what true Capitalism is, it's 'cause we haven't seen it in practice. I guess that's the disconnect between theory and practical application.

[Pink Spider]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'd like you to prove that one, I always thought it was the Vioxx and Viagra commercials we see on TV every 30 seconds. And if gov't regulation makes drug prices higher, why are 'regulated' Canadian drugs cheaper?


Everything is cheaper in China too. Different economies have different set prices.

Although, on the other hand over regulation is what's keeping high prices and a virtual drug company monopoly in this country. The government already works in the drug industry's favor. Look no further than the major donors of the Republican and Democratic parties. Why are our drug prices not as low with industry and government working together? In your theory, we should be enjoying cheap prices already. Maybe it's because we don't give enough of our tax dollars directly to these drug companies already. I guess that's what you're saying.

[ODShowtime]

The root reason why drugs prices are so expensive here is because R&D is so expensive and tax laws for it are not favorable. Canada takes advantage of this.

But without R&D, we could never experience the joy of four hour erections.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Pink Spider
Everything is cheaper in China too. Different economies have different set prices.

Although, on the other hand over regulation is what's keeping high prices and a virtual drug company monopoly in this country. The government already works in the drug industry's favor. Look no further than the major donors of the Republican and Democratic parties. Why are our drug prices not as low with industry and government working together? In your theory, we should be enjoying cheap prices already. Maybe it's because we don't give enough of our tax dollars directly to these drug companies already. I guess that's what you're saying.

China is not a western Country with the same approximate standard of living as the U.S., so your analogy is shot to hell right there. Canada gets the same exact Drugs at the same wholesale prices as we do, but enjoys significant advantages to the consumer due to Gov't price controls that insure manufacturers plenty of profit, yet affordable drugs. The prices are SET, not arbitrarily determined by a select few companies and their advertising expenditures for Superbowl commercials.

So is the Drug companies manipulation of the political process by-way-of skullduggery indicative of Capitalism? No, it's the lack of Government regulation that allows prices to skyrocket here, and the emphasis on constant advertising, creation of redundant and useless drugs to maximize profit. Huge advertising costs are something the drug companies once admitted to! And is the FDA's allowing drugs that haven't adequately tested (Vioxx) and may cause, oh well... heart disease, a matter of "too-much regulation"--NO! It's too little regulation.

Capitalism, which is it? A corrupt system that allows multi-national corp's to manipulate for their best interests, or a system that would adequately set a the correct market prices if given a chance devoid of government infringement? I really can't tell what you mean? You seem to make case for both. I mean why don't the drug companies just bribe the Canadian Gov't on their way to higher drug prices in Canada?

It seems one must either trust the government or the multi-national corporations to do the right thing in your view. I however trust neither, but seek to play one off against one another to protect the consumer. I mean pul-eeze! You'd really trust Multi's to run the U.S.? That would mean pollution, ridiculously high traffic fatalities, people dying of cancer, and God knows what else. Without gov't regulation, we'd be "Unsafe at any Speed!"

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Actually I'm for cutting government spending and bringing the-going-on $8 trillion deficit under control.

The government already has "power" regarding social security. I have no problem with capitalism, but:
a.) I don't want some bullshitting broker selling me an under-performing plan or a stock that might tank, which is exactly what happened in the U.K. when they 'privatized retirement.'


Sounds like they have a bad advisor. Perhaps I could give them my advisor's number?

[Angel]

WOW Nick! My husband has often told me how great you Buffalo folk are, I see why he feels that way! :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Sounds like they have a bad advisor. Perhaps I could give them my advisor's number?

Your point is well taken. But I heard this from a transplanted British national calling into a NPR show. She basically said things were done so haphazardly over there that almost any financial advisor could lie to you to get a piece of the pie.

The cost of "retirement" in the UK was increased by a flood of litigation over this bullshit. And now few young people save for retirement through plans over there because they don't trust the system. But I'd like to hear an Anglo-Dumpmeister's vomments...er...comments on this.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Angel
WOW Nick! My husband has often told me how great you Buffalo folk are, I see why he feels that way! :D

Thanks Angel. Maybe I should run for Erie County Government, no...not corrupt enough.
http://www.nywea.org/images/giambra-s.jpg

Maybe I'll just go get some Canadian beire' instead. :bottle:

[Angel]

Aaah, la Biere! Bonne! That's the extent of my french, except for the classic curses!

Tabernaque! ;)

[Big Train]

Is it true bullshit theories blow south?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
Is it true bullshit theories blow south?

I heard they blow Republicans:D

[Big Train]

C,mon Lounge...put some effort into it..

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
C,mon Lounge...put some effort into it..

sorry, it's the Nyquil talking:p

[Angel]

No, bullshit flows north. Truth flows south. :D

[Big Train]

Thanks Angel for making it offical...bullshit CERTAINLY flys south.

[Angel]

Well, we already know that you don't know the difference between the two! ;)