The US 2nd Circuit of Appeals has ruled late this afternoon in Argentina's favor, meaning Judge Griesa ruling is suspended until at least February 27, 2013 at which time Argentina will have to present oral arguments before the court.
Printable View
The US 2nd Circuit of Appeals has ruled late this afternoon in Argentina's favor, meaning Judge Griesa ruling is suspended until at least February 27, 2013 at which time Argentina will have to present oral arguments before the court.
SOS, that's good to hear. I'll have to get my hands and that more recent ruling. An extension until February could allow Argentina to make the 15 December payment, thus relieving a lot of anxiety, in the short-term.
Unfortunately, I too foresee an eventual default resulting in devaluation, and even more local hardship as the perceived pariah gets further banned from capital markets. The seizure of more 'worthless' Argentina assets seems like a waste of time, but maybe designed merely to embarrass and humiliate the government. Besides, I always figured the Sovereign Immunities Act eliminated the possibility.
On the upside, however, the impact of the court's decision related to 'pari passu' on faltering Euro country sovereign debt is advantageous for my personal swap strategy there.
[QUOTE=Member #2041; 429429]So you are OK with the next great depression that would result from that?
The simple fact is, affluent Americans pay FAR LESS in taxes than they have during any prior period of prosperity over the past 65 years. It's utterly absurd to suggest that they can't handle a bit more of their share of the burden.
Oh, and to answer Jackson's question about how much tax burden the wealthiest 10% of Americans should incur, I'd suggest somewhere between what they paid during the Reagan years, and the Clinton years, as a percentage of their overall slice of the income pie, since those were two of the most prosperous periods in the history of the U. S, so clearly, that burden quite obviously did not act as a break on American prosperity.
BTW, I do agree that dramatic spending cuts in the Military portion of the USA budget would be highly beneficial, long term.[/QUOTE]Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back
[QUOTE=Romanee;429849]Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back[/QUOTE]
It's laughable to suggest that those wars were a function of the cuts to the Defense budget. They were a function of the Soviet Union trying to match our global influence, something they've given up on. Of course you need to combine the increases in tax rates at the top with spending cuts. It would certainly be reasonable to cut the USA defense budget by at least 10% - and most of that could be done just by bringing down the nuclear arsenal some more, cutting a handful of our overseas bases, and pulling out of Afghanistan. 5% could be knocked out of most entitlement programs with not much more than streamlining the most obvious bureaucracy - Without even hitting any real benefits that are being given to constituents. If capital gains rates were returned to 20%, and the top marginal rates were upped to 36 and 39% again, in conjunction with the aforementioned cuts, you'd have a real legitimate start to getting things back on track. Then, if you wanted to make SS solvent, just eliminate the cap on taxes for wages above $110K.
The Chinese carrier is lower tech than what we were using in the 1960s, and their fighter jets are in line with what we had in the 1980s. We're 30+ years ahead of them.
The fact is, we are well on the way to energy independence - and once we are immutably achieving that - in 12-15 years or so, we can drastically ratchet down our defense and foreign aid expenditures throughout the Middle East.
[QUOTE=Romanee;429849]Everyone has to work within a budget. If you took every dollar from every person in the top 10% it wouldn't be enough. Every Democratic Administration in the last 50 years has taken an ax to the Defense Budget. What has it gotten us. The Korean War. Cold war tension. The Days of being able to take months to build up to fight a war are over. The Chinese have just launched their first Carrier. Granted it will take years before it is truly operational. We have to be ready to go anywhere at anytime and project power. I know I sleep well at night knowing that tough men are patrolling some god-awful piece of real estate watching my back[/QUOTE]I know that we have Sylvester, Arnold, Bruce, Matt, Samuel, even Clint to draw back on.
[QUOTE=Member #2041; 429852]
The fact is, we are well on the way to energy independence. And once we are immutably achieving that. In 12-15 years or so, we can drastically ratchet down our defense and foreign aid expenditures throughout the Middle East.[/QUOTE]I agree with most of what you wrote about defense, but not the above.
The USA could be a net exporter of energy in 12 to 15 years. But it won't happen, because the Democrats that will control the federal government will make it more difficult to use coal and nuclear, more difficult to explore for oil and gas on federal lands and offshore, more difficult to use hydraulic fracturing, and possibly more difficult to export LNG.
We will not be self sufficient again in oil under any reasonable scenario. It's very difficult to understand why Obama prevented or delayed the Keystone pipeline, and provided the Canadians with an incentive to construct a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast, where their oil can be exported to China and other Asian countries. If there were only the Keystone pipeline, we'd have a captive source of supply from immense reserves. Somewhere between the 2nd and 4th largest in the world, depending on which list you look at. We should have been doing everything we could to encourage the Keystone pipeline, and discourage sales to China. If we were successful, then we might be in a position, as you say, to ratchet down our defense expenditures in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, though, Obama sees this issue as something that helps Democrats politically. I'm assuming he's not stupid enough to really believe that the pipeline isn't in the best interests of the USA.
We don't want to become energy self-sufficient with coal or nuclear or fracking. We want to do it with innovative, clean technology. Increased funding for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education is a step in the right direction. Might, just might, have to protect nascent domestic industry for a while, as regards energy. That would be a lot better than this stupid shoe tariff they are getting ready to raise.
Do you really want to export natural gas given that the supply is finite? I mean, if the price is right, maybe, but it would not be my choice of where to increase exports, especially given the non-quantifiable but very real negative externalities of these extractive industries.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;429908]We don't want to become energy self-sufficient with coal or nuclear or fracking. We want to do it with innovative, clean technology. Increased funding for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education is a step in the right direction. Might, just might, have to protect nascent domestic industry for a while, as regards energy. That would be a lot better than this stupid shoe tariff they are getting ready to raise.
Do you really want to export natural gas given that the supply is finite? I mean, if the price is right, maybe, but it would not be my choice of where to increase exports, especially given the non-quantifiable but very real negative externalities of these extractive industries.[/QUOTE]
Dickhead, renewables won't provide a large percentage of our energy needs during our lifetimes. They won't be economic, we can't afford them. One or two hundred years from now they probably will, especially if you consider nuclear breeder reactors as renewable.
Actually I do agree that other energy sources are preferable to coal, but the rapid switch away from coal mandated by Obama will be difficult, expensive and unnecessary. Nuclear, and hydraulic fracturing (necessary to produce our natural gas resources), aren't that risky compared to coal. They provide energy with low or no carbon emissions.
Nuclear shouldn't be an issue right now, if we're talking about building new reactors. It's cheaper to produce energy from natural gas. New nuclear facilities only become viable if you've got paranoia about fracking and a zero tolerance policy for carbon emissions.
With respect to natural gas, the price is right. It sells for over $12/MMBTU in Asia versus less than $4/MMBTU in the USA. We're sitting on enough, if roadblocks aren't put in the way of hydraulic fracturing, than you can export, still provide cheap feedstock/energy to domestic users and have enough so that it won't run out before you do have economic renewables or can afford to pay out the ass to get energy from coal in an economically friendly way, many years from now.
Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more. I am not familiar with Obama' exact stance on coal and it isn't a field of expertise for me, but as you know I don't favor doing anything too rapidly. I do believe it will be [B]necessary[/B] to do some difficult and expensive things to get out energy policy where it needs to be. Nukes are for kooks.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;429918]Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more. I am not familiar with Obama' exact stance on coal and it isn't a field of expertise for me, but as you know I don't favor doing anything too rapidly. I do believe it will be [B]necessary[/B] to do some difficult and expensive things to get out energy policy where it needs to be. Nukes are for kooks.[/QUOTE]I actually know something about that. You live in an exceptional area. The formations there that are producing the gas are also aquifers for drinking water. It's possible fracking should be banned where you live. It's 100% true that if it's not banned, the chemicals used in the fracking fluid should be heavily regulated, to protect drinking water. For most of the gas shales, and even for the coal seams and tight sands farther south and southeast of where you live, contaminating potable water supplies isn't a significant risk. As you say coal is worse. If you rule out coal and natural gas nukes are all that's left.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;429918]Hydraulic fracking is causing sinkholes, changing water tables, and contamination of wells in my area. Of course coal mining does all that and more.s.[/QUOTE]In particular please reference Wyoming and Montana deposits that lie very close to the surface. Quite a sweeping statement you have made regarding coal dude. Please show me what it is based upon. Toymann
Ps. You might as well also support your statement about franking in the balkin formation. Where do you live? If it a problem there then why do it? I am guessing you have no supporting information pertaining to North Dakota and you are just talking out of your ass. Please prove me wrong!
Toymann, Since this is a monger's board, I won't mention where Dickhead lives. But anyway it's along the northwest margin of a geologic basin and it just so happens that in that particular part of the basin, the gas zones are intermingled with water zones, some of which are used for drinking.
You're right about the Bakken, and most other areas that are being fracked. In most places the danger is if you have a bad cement job behind the pipe, so that, say, you're trying to frac a zone at 5, 000 feet but you end up with frac fluid going into an aquifer at 2, 000 feet. This doesn't happen very often though. The safety and environmental risks associated with fracking are minimal compared with what we get out of it. A clean, cheap energy source with low carbon emissions.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 429924]Toymann, Since this is a monger's board, I won't mention where Dickhead lives. But anyway it's along the northwest margin of a geologic basin and it just so happens that in that particular part of the basin, the gas zones are intermingled with water zones, some of which are used for drinking.
You're right about the Bakken, and most other areas that are being fracked. In most places the danger is if you have a bad cement job behind the pipe, so that, say, you're trying to frac a zone at 5, 000 feet but you end up with frac fluid going into an aquifer at 2, 000 feet. This doesn't happen very often though. The safety and environmental risks associated with fracking are minimal compared with what we get out of it. A clean, cheap energy source with low carbon emissions.[/QUOTE]Global brush strokes like the statement from professor Dick usually entertain me, but in our current political environment they kinda make me sick! More political based than factual based. The professor should know better but me thinks his real agenda is starting to poke its ugly head out of the ground. I am sure that Dick's next lecture will be all about global warming. LOL. Happy mongering all. Toymann