Posted on 11/26/2012 1:13:04 PM PST by blam
Entitlements consume 56% of the total 2010 Federal Budget....
SS: 19%
Medicaid: 8%
Unemployment: 16%
Medicare: 12 %
Since they are increasing at slightly under 10%, this means a growth doubling every 7 years.
Questions for you non-math types.....
--What is 2 x 56%?
--Where in the 7-year doubling period are we, exactly?
--How do you fund all the rest of government, the departments, the agencies, and services, if entitlements consume 112% of your total budget, of which almost half is ALREADY on borrowed money?
Ahhh, the Real Cliff.
Hey Dan Douchelord, you might want to study up on that sequence right there. Because your paper ain't gonna be worth jack if history repeats itself...
The jackals in the press as well as the government like to scare people so they’ll consume their product.
Math trumps business and politics.
Reality trumps liberalism,
and that really p1$$3$ them off.
A lot of that 26% was because people were investing on hopes that Obama would be a one-termer.
What I find interesting about this entire discussion going on...is that it’s really about getting us through approximately twelve months, and then we repeat this entire episode again, and again, and again.
There will be four fiscal cliffs to run through over the next four years.
Meanwhile, entitlements will likely escalate each year in that four-year period. By the time that things get really messy...around 2016...it’s hard to envision how you crawl out of this pit. You’d have to downsize the Pentagon to half it’s size, or just gut Homeland Security completely...to make the government function after that point.
The real emphasis here...ought to be getting the national economy back onto a upswing and feeling like it’s 2003 or 2004. But we can’t even manage to do that.
But notice how the left/MSM has tried to commandeer the term "fiscal cliff" and apply it to some insignificant event on Jan 1. Typical diversionary tactic to avoid, downplay and obscure the truth about the real abyss lying in wait.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm
Agreed: the deeper truth can be found at http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/profit-growth-stalls-stocks-fall-kee-185859559.html
As weak as the markets have been for the past two months, Wall Street’s bullish bias is fully intact, as traders, strategists and money managers still overwhelmingly maintain an optimistic long-term outlook for the stock market. And rightly so, given that Mr. Market has proven the bulls right again and again for more than 100 years. In fact, as I write, the average analyst is expecting a 10% gain for the S&P 500 next year, even though earnings aren’t expected to grow half as much.
The difference, or extra return, can only come from one place, P/E expansion, or a higher price-to-earnings ratio, which is simply Wall Street’s way of saying investors will be willing to pay more for a dollar’s worth of earnings next year than they are today. It’s also why strategists continually argue that stocks are cheap, especially when they sell off.
But what if stocks actually aren’t cheap and the notion of P/E expansion doesn’t pan out? That’s the case Tom Kee, CEO and editor of Stock Traders Daily, makes in the attached video.
“People are talking about the multiple on the market and saying it’s low compared to historic numbers,” Kee says, adding that his research shows current earnings growth is tracking at 2.8%, which is less than half the pace of the historic long-term average of 7.1%. “So my question to everyone is: Does the multiple of the market need to fall to reflect slower earnings growth? I think the answer to that is yes.”
If he’s right, then next year’s price targets would be in serious jeopardy.
“The true picture is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average — on both an earnings and revenue basis — is contracting, and no one seems to recognize that except for the big players in this market,” Kee says, predicting that we are in for slower growth and lower markets. “What I’m looking for is continued deterioration in earnings growth, and that brings those multiples into question and, ultimately, risk appetite into question.”
And so it’s only fitting that a guy who sees ‘’meager’’ earnings growth at best next year is on watch for multiple contractions, which is simply Wall Street’s way of saying investors will be willing to pay less for a dollar’s worth of earnings next year than they are today.
Relax, I'm sure Obama has a plan to sell our remaining carriers and support fleet to China. That'll help somewhat. /sarc
The author fails to acknowledge the printing press of dollars from the Fed. The printing press has an unlimited yield. No investment strategy can out earn fraud.
I think we will follow a similar but not exact model of the soviet union. It went broke and NOBODY wanted to put it back together again. No one will want to put the USA together again, so the states will become the the major govt just like the countries in USSR.
If true, the state we live in will be a consideration in how well we do.
They have their own now:
Chinese Engineer Died Of A Heart Attack While Watching First Aircraft Carrier Landing
This is a stupid, stupid article. Economies are not good or bad, strong or weak according to how many people are buying Big Macs. Politics absolutely can matter more than your daily experience.
That being said, he’s right, the “fiscal cliff” is a red herring. How much you wanna bet Washington will be frightened into raising taxes and not drastically cutting spending—and therefore effectively staying the same—from now until the end of the republic?
“Business trumps politics”
This is true in the sense that there will always be a black market. You could buy cassette tapes and blue jeans in the Soviet Union and whiskey during Prohibition. But that’s not what thus article is about. We’re talking about the economy as a whole moving up or down a few arbitrarily assigned percentage points. That absolutely could happen as a result of the so-called cliff. So the article is wrong.
It has an indefinite yield, not unlimited. No one knows its exact limit, but there is one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.