How DUMB can US voters be?

Billy T said:
Is that a loss in the US more than offset by the profits in China, Brazil, etc.?
Click to expand...

Supposedly it's more to do with a rebound in truck sales than anything else (trucks being much higher profit margin than cars).

It isn't really possible to break the accounting down into "loss" in one country and "profit" in another - it's a multi-national supply chain, not 3 separate national car makers having their accounts summed together. But supposedly last year was the first year that GM sold more cars and trucks in China than in the USA - although that would have mostly been cars, in China, which would imply that profits from Chinese sales were much lower than from US sales.
 
John99 said:
Guess you are not aware that everything on t.v is scripted or the best ones are chosen to broadcast...ie. they are actors.
Click to expand...

no i wasnt aware of thank but thank you john.. they said it was supposte to be cloudy today.. i also heard that the lakers won in tripple overtime both of thoes must be bullshit.. OH was also told by a show there was an earthquare and tsunami in japan must be bullshit too.. some of the actors should get paid more. that one guy looked like he might have died when that fake 30foot wall of water hit him
 
I cant even watch any videos 'cause i dont have a soundcard...well i can watch but i cant hear them. But all those shows are staged, even reality shows are not reality and paid actors. That said, clips like the one linked to just pick the best ones sometimes just people playing along to get on t.v...if they are not professional actors to begin with. All about entertainment.
 
Yes, but we subsidize the growing of corn here.

Meanwhile, I believe most of the states bordering the gulf of Mexico can grow sugarcane throughout much of their expanse.
(In fact, I plan to try to grow some in my yard.)

But apparently it pays better to get the Brazilians to grow said 'cane and milk the Gub'mint for agricultural subsidy here.

But we NEED our agricultural policy to feed hungry Americans!

news-graphics-2007-_640719a.jpg


U! S! A! U! S! A!

Regarding the GM issue...My wife's 1992 gas toyota pickup(technically a Hilux) gets 33 mpg on roadtrips, about 26 in stop-and-go. It's a 1992. It has 230 k miles on it. It's 19 frigging years old.

GM has no small pickup that will meet or beat that-today!

The diesel hiluxes -twenty years old and older command 10K figures. WHY? they get 40 to 50 MPG and will run for up to 500k miles.

GM...seems like it doesn't care to build fuel-efficient, rugged vehicles...it wants to keep on like it was in the salad days of the 1990's when fuel was $1 a gallon...and people were willing to buy their hulking dinosaurs.

This is because profit margins are less on small, solid, long-lived cars and pickups. But GM has pushed the planned obsolescence thing too far, such that their vehicles have acquired P.O.S. reputations-well-deserved, IMO.

I was hoping-that while we effectively owned GM, we'd demand a cleaner and better made fleet out of the Car Clowns. Use our leverage. But I think that would take a mass spine transplantation process within the Democratic party.
 
Last edited:
chimpkin said:
Regarding the GM issue...My wife's 1992 gas toyota pickup(technically a Hilux) gets 33 mpg on roadtrips, about 26 in stop-and-go. It's a 1992. It has 230 k miles on it. It's 19 frigging years old.

GM has no small pickup that will meet or beat that-today!
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any car company ever having a serious competitor to Toyota in the small pickup category. Maybe Nissan has run a distant second, but that's about it. Toyota's been running that specific market for as long as I can recall - it's in the big-trucks and SUV sector where others (and specifically, American companies) have had a competitive presence. If I wanted a small pickup, the only question would be whether I'd buy a used Toyota or a new one.
 
quadraphonics said:
... Maybe Nissan has run a distant second, but that's about it. Toyota's been running that specific market for as long as I can recall ...
Click to expand...
I bought a Nissan pick up back about 1990 and was very pleased with it. Toyota's was more expensive and did not have the "long bed" option. I am over 6 feet and although that option only added 4 or 5 inches, it made it possible for me to sleep in the back without curled up legs. I actually only sleep there in parks, etc. a few times. Point being Toyota was a distant second choice.
 
it's in the big-trucks and SUV sector where others (and specifically, American companies) have had a competitive presence.
Click to expand...

*nods* Yes. They do good big trucks. It means that doing crappy small trucks is a choice.

Just like Toyota refuses to certify the current Hiluxes for here (GGGRRRR!!!) and makes us drive the less efficient Tacomas...and do not give us the 40+ MPG option the rest of the world has.

(BTW, the newer hiluxes are about the size of a dodge dakota, and more rugged than the tacoma. SO it's bigger AND gets somewhere around 40 MPG-diesel is more costly, but damn!)

Which means they could choose to make good small trucks, if they wanted to work on it.
Admittedly-as I said, it's a profit-margin thing...but they don't understand that the world is changing-fast. And they need to adapt. ASAP.

Then again, Americans in general don't understand that either.

As far as how dumb the voters are? you know...They are dumb, but they aren't allowed to vote for someone who's going to make meaningful changes.
 
Last edited:
Medscape’s first annual physician compensation survey results:

“… Primary care physicians earn less than other specialties with average annual incomes of $159,000. The disparity is most evident when primary care compensation is compared to the top three earning specialties: orthopedic surgeons and radiologists both at $350,000 and anesthesiologists at $325,000 ...”

About 15,000 physicians from 22 specialty areas responded to the online survey in February. Medscape has published the Physician Compensation Report for 2011, which includes the full survey and feature coverage, on its Web site. Or read main results here:

http://blog.medadnews.com/index.php/2011/04/28/study-reveals-compensation-gaps-among-physicians/

Billy T comment: No doctor, working on salary in a European socialized medicine system earns a million dollars every three years. But part of why health care there cost less than half what it does in the US is that with government providing medical services at low cost, the is no need to support a medical insurance industry.

The sad thing (due to the AMA’s manipulation / misinformation and US voter stupidity) is that Americans with their “for profit” medical system live 2 to 3 years LESS than Europeans with their socialized medical systems. As the population ages, and has greater medical expenses, this higher US cost is part of why other economies are doing better than the US.

Many old and poor cannot afford both to eat and take their pills. Shame on the “richest nation in the world.” Greed has gone too far as the gap between the well off and the poor in the US is growing wider and the middle class is shrinking.! Its time for a change, but wer’re not likely to see any. The rich control what the masses think and like the status quo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Up to 300,000 US jobs are under threat after China imposed the duties on imports of US chicken boiler products, comprising various cuts of chicken, US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk claimed on Tuesday. WTO rules permit member countries to impose duties on imports of merchandise that are dumped or subsidized.

US officials have claimed that before the imposition of duties, the US was China's largest supplier of chicken broiler products with more than 600,000 tons exported in 2009. US exports of these products to China are down 90 percent since the duties came into effect.

"For a long time, the prices of US chicken broiler products sold in China were lower than the cost of production, according to our findings," Huo said. "It has damaged the profit margins of domestic producers." {China’s} investigation indicated that the US has subsidized soybeans and corn for its poultry industry, thus harming Chinese producers.
From: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2011-09/22/content_13764812.htm

Billy T comment: Last paragraph is certainly true , Why US will probable lose in recently filed WTO suit against China’s offsetting tariffs; however, my main point in posting this is to show, again, how dumb generous farm subsidies are. Not only do they add billions to the tax payer’s tax bill, and make it profitable to export foods, reducing the domestic supply and thus increasing the domestic cost of food on your table, but chicken parts alone have cost 300,000 jobs BY US ESTIMATES!

And for what benefit? – About half a dozen corporation are growing richer. The poultry industry in the US is extremely vertically integrated. The corporation delivers the feed (you cannot buy it independently or grow some yourself as you will lose right to sell to your only buyer). The corporation supplies the baby chicks, about every 6 weeks. The corporation requires you use their design of chicken coop, (no windows, etc.) Their schedule for turning lights on and off. Their hormones and drugs.

See photo & read full post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2821706&postcount=85
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I stole this; Two things I find INFINITE. 1. The size of The Universe. 2. How DUMB a U.S. Voter can be. Let me also say that I might possibly be wrong about that first one!
 
Billy T said:
how dumb generous farm subsidies are. Not only do they add billions to the tax payer’s tax bill, and make it profitable to export foods, reducing the domestic supply and thus increasing the domestic cost of food on your table, but chicken parts alone have cost 300,000 jobs BY US ESTIMATES!

And for what benefit? –
Click to expand...
Agreed. Frankly, the government shouldn't subsidize any industry. It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
 
madanthonywayne said:
Agreed. Frankly, the government shouldn't subsidize any industry. It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Click to expand...
Yes and their is quite difference between Peter & Paul (at least when Paul is one of the 100 owners of privately owned Cargill.) I.e. Peter's average annual income is less than $50,000 and half of the Peters make less than $26,000 BUT, The Cargill's taking from Peter paid taxes via the farm subsidies have incomes of at least 51 million dollars. If the 0.5% new tax were in effect on incomes over 1 million dollars, then each would return 50E6x5E(-3)= 25E4 = $250,000 more to the IRS. That seems fair extra on their >$51,000,000 income, to me. How do you feel about it?

Compare to Peter, they get much greater benefits from the government including payments for literally doing nothing - I.e. not plant on some land they control. Again: How do you feel about this self rewarding system their lobbyist wrote into the law to exploit Peter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“… Last fall, the heads of the House and Senate agriculture committees — Republican Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan — negotiated a farm bill that cut $23 billion from agriculture and nutrition programs, hoping to piggyback it on the budget-cutting super committee’s bill. When the super committee fizzled, so did their hopes for a speedy farm bill. …

President Barack Obama's call to eliminate them in his budget proposal Monday, which put forth a $32 billion cut in farm programs. That's a strong contrast from 2008, when Obama supported the last farm bill while he was campaigning for president.

Former President George W. Bush also played both sides. He signed a robust farm bill before the 2002 midterm election year but later called for cuts. In 2008, when he wasn't up for re-election, he vetoed the next farm bill. Republicans up for re-election in the House and Senate joined Democrats in overriding the veto.

House opposition is seen as the biggest obstacle to getting a farm bill done this year. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., one of the tea party conservatives on the agriculture panel, says he is telling constituents that direct payments will have to go. "Some folks say we want you to defend it to the end of the day, and I say that's not what's going to happen."

Huelskamp believes there should still be some sort of safety net for farmers when prices drop or crops are destroyed. But he says frustration over government regulation — labor and environmental laws in particular — is the top issue on farm voters' minds. People understand they will have to take a cut, he says. …”

From: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/spending-cuts-trump-farm-subsidies-082448252.html

Billy T comment:Cutting cost of the more than 100 billion farm annual subsidy which benefits a few dozen very profitable corporations (food prices at all time recent high) is a serious break with long standing bi-partisan tradition. I don´t think it will happen. The “reduce government costs” Tea Party Representatives, who mainly come from the mid west, can be as hypocritical as other Representatives – I.e. call for more spending in their districts with the left side of their mouth while demanding less government, less government spending, from the right side of their mouth.
 
Billy T said:
“… Last fall, the heads of the House and Senate agriculture committees — Republican Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan — negotiated a farm bill that cut $23 billion from agriculture and nutrition programs, hoping to piggyback it on the budget-cutting super committee’s bill. When the super committee fizzled, so did their hopes for a speedy farm bill. …

President Barack Obama's call to eliminate them in his budget proposal Monday, which put forth a $32 billion cut in farm programs. That's a strong contrast from 2008, when Obama supported the last farm bill while he was campaigning for president.

Former President George W. Bush also played both sides. He signed a robust farm bill before the 2002 midterm election year but later called for cuts. In 2008, when he wasn't up for re-election, he vetoed the next farm bill. Republicans up for re-election in the House and Senate joined Democrats in overriding the veto.

House opposition is seen as the biggest obstacle to getting a farm bill done this year. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., one of the tea party conservatives on the agriculture panel, says he is telling constituents that direct payments will have to go. "Some folks say we want you to defend it to the end of the day, and I say that's not what's going to happen."

Huelskamp believes there should still be some sort of safety net for farmers when prices drop or crops are destroyed. But he says frustration over government regulation — labor and environmental laws in particular — is the top issue on farm voters' minds. People understand they will have to take a cut, he says. …”

From: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/spending-cuts-trump-farm-subsidies-082448252.html

Billy T comment:Cutting cost of the more than 100 billion farm annual subsidy which benefits a few dozen very profitable corporations (food prices at all time recent high) is a serious break with long standing bi-partisan tradition. I don´t think it will happen. The “reduce government costs” Tea Party Representatives, who mainly come from the mid west, can be as hypocritical as other Representatives – I.e. call for more spending in their districts with the left side of their mouth while demanding less government, less government spending, from the right side of their mouth.
Click to expand...

The $32 Billion cut of Farm Subsidies mentioned above is OVER A DECADE.

It is a cut of but $3 Billion per year.

There is no such thing as Billy T's mythical $100 billion ANNUAL farm subsidy in the US Budget.

Indeed, the entire budget of the Dept of Agriculture (much higher # than the total farm subsidies) is $25 Billion in 2011

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/usa-budget-farm-idUSL2E8DD9U320120213

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
 
adoucette said:
The $32 Billion cut of Farm Subsidies mentioned above is OVER A DECADE.

It is a cut of but $3 Billion per year.

There is no such thing as Billy T's mythical $100 billion ANNUAL farm subsidy in the US Budget.

Indeed, the entire budget of the Dept of Agriculture (much higher # than the total farm subsidies) is $25 Billion in 2011

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/usa-budget-farm-idUSL2E8DD9U320120213

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
Click to expand...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2904240&postcount=29 Source of this link, fools, news letter* shows it as 26 billion, but that would be after the 32 billion cut reported by my post´s link.

It is not clearly stated over what time period the 32 billion cut applies but that is is a reduction in the 2013 budget. I think the 100 billion I have read includes subsidies not run thru the department of agriculture - for example subsidies to those who blend ETOH into gasoline, etc. - probably that is a dept of energy charge to Joe taxpayer. Perhaps the 100 billion figure also has Dept of Transportation costs figured in as the rail roads hauling grains etc. do get government funds and tax reductions, under policies I do not fully know or understand.

I will not argue with you - I just report what have read. Here is the link to the fools news leter: http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...acts-everything-you-need-to-know-about-o.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2904240&postcount=29 Source of this link, fools, news letter* shows it as 26 billion, but that would be after the 32 billion cut reported by my post´s link.

It is not clearly stated over what time period the 32 billion cut applies but that is is a reduction in the 2013 budget.
Click to expand...

Why YES it is Billy:

The plan to cut some $32 billion over 10 years for farm support is far larger than the $23 billion agreed by Agriculture Committee leaders in Congress last fall during deficit-reduction talks.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear.

Billy T said:
I think the 100 billion I have read includes subsidies not run thru the department of agriculture - for example subsidies to those who blend ETOH into gasoline, etc. - probably that is a dept of energy charge to Joe taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Well first of all, ETOH is not an agricultural subsidy, since it goes to the people who make Ethanol, not the farmers, and secondly, at it's PEAK, it was only $6 Billion per year, and finally, it was ended last year.

Perhaps the 100 billion figure also has Dept of Transportation costs figured in as the rail roads hauling grains etc. do get government funds and tax reductions, under policies I do not fully know or understand.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if pigs had wings they could fly?
You are just making this BS up now Billy.
In your first post you CLEARLY laid this out as FARM Subsidies.
Now you are trying to bundle in Rail subsidies?
You don't have to tell us you are writing about what you do not fully know or understand.
That's obvious.

Billy T said:
I will not argue with you - I just report what have read.
Click to expand...

Maybe then you should read slower and vet your sources better, because even your link says the entire budget for Agriculture is only $26 Billion (and though your link doesn't explain it, that's the discretionary part of the USDA budget, (but then 72% of their actual budget ($139 Billion in 2011) goes to Nutrition Assistance (they run the SNAP and WIC programs)).

So far you are the only source for the $100 Billion number for Farm Subsidies.
 
Last edited:
“...The oil and gas industry has access to at least eight different tax break programs that the Office of Management and Budget estimates will cost U.S. taxpayers $44 billion over the next decade. Most of these subsidies date back decades and represent an era when oil and gas exploration was in its infancy, and when resources were plentiful but remained largely unexplored. Unfortunately, some of the subsidies have been on the books for nearly 100 years and date back to days when oil cost one dollar or less per barrel.

The depletion allowance,* singled out today by Republican Speaker John Boehner, was first put in place under President Calvin Coolidge in 1926, when oil was $1.88 per barrel. While oil prices have climbed dramatically, the depletion allowance has remained a permanent fixture of the tax code, costing U.S. taxpayers $111 billion since 1968. …”

From: http://democrats.naturalresources.h...gx=d.kac,stid.19049,sid.250664,lid.6,mid.9021

“…Obama put it this way {in his recent energy speech}: Right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars — $4 billion — subsidizes the oil industry every year. Now, these companies are making record profits right now — tens of billions of dollars a year. Does anyone really think that Congress should give them another $4 billion this year? … {end of Obama quote at link below}

“… There is absolutely no need for such tax breaks today, especially for the top-five largest oil companies known as “Big Oil.” Just look at the collective $137 billion in profits these five companies “made” in 2011. (I refuse to use the word “earned” because they simply benefited from higher oil prices):

Company ...........2011 Profits
ExxonMobil............$41 billion
Royal Dutch Shell...$31 billion
Chevron ...............$27 billion
BP..........................21 billion
ConocoPhillips ......$12 billion ...”

From: http://www.investingdaily.com/14817...elfare-big-oil-tax-loopholes-should-be-closed

* Billy T asks for the logical basis for these different treatments:
Why is the depletion allowance granted ONLY to big oil and miners assets? Why not for the muscular strength decrease in a manual laborer as he ages, etc. - Answer: he does not employee lobbyist, write million dollar checks to election campaignes, via SupperPACs, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top