Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: roguedolphin who wrote (2291)	9/6/2006 1:36:24 PM
From: GreatestGameOnEarth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50742

The "experts" have been singing that same tunes for over 3 years now. The real estate market won't have a crash landing, silly. Long term interest rates will fall and spur yet another "bubble". Everyone and their mother is expecting a "real estate bubble crash". It's alllll over the headlines, everywhere you look. Do you know what that means? IT MEANS IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Think outside of the box...don't be a sheep.

To: roguedolphin who wrote (2291)	9/6/2006 2:00:38 PM
From: SargeK	Respond to of 50742

roguedolphin >>>And, thirdly, according to the Fed's own figures, "the total amount of residential housing wealth in the US just about doubled between 1999 and 2006"up from $10.4 trillion to $20.4 trillion". Times Online.<<< The question is what is increasing faster, wealth, debt or government promises? These facts may provide a partial answer: Since 2000, federal fiscal exposures (explicit and implicit debt) reported by the GAO have increased $26 trillion, averaging $5 trillion, annually. During the five-year period (2001 – 2005), the IRS reported total internal revenue collections of $10.39 trillion, averaging $2 trillion, annually. By this measure, federal fiscal exposures are increasing at 2 ½ times the amounts of tax collections. There is no rational explanation for this absurdity. The only certainty is that it cannot continue. This link may provide a partial solution: debtism.com or this one debtism.com The debtism website is all about things you really don't want to know; but it is my nature to say a lot about that which I know little to those why may know even less. >g< ciao` SargeK

To: roguedolphin who wrote (2291)	9/6/2006 2:02:32 PM
From: SargeK	Respond to of 50742

roguedolphin >>>And, thirdly, according to the Fed's own figures, "the total amount of residential housing wealth in the US just about doubled between 1999 and 2006"up from $10.4 trillion to $20.4 trillion". Times Online.<<< The question is what is increasing faster, wealth, debt or government promises? These facts may provide a partial answer: Since 2000, federal fiscal exposures (explicit and implicit debt) reported by the GAO have increased $26 trillion, averaging $5 trillion, annually. During the five-year period (2001 – 2005), the IRS reported total internal revenue collections of $10.39 trillion, averaging $2 trillion, annually. By this measure, federal fiscal exposures are increasing at 2 ½ times the amounts of tax collections. There is no rational explanation for this absurdity. The only certainty is that it cannot continue. This link may provide a partial solution: debtism.com or this one debtism.com The debtism website is all about things you really don't want to know; but it is my nature to say a lot about that which I know little to those who may know even less. >g< ciao` SargeK

To: roguedolphin who wrote (2291)	9/6/2006 3:22:24 PM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 50742

"Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that are necessary for national security. CBO has determined that section 825, which would provide rapid acquisition authority for the Department of Defense in the event of a demonstrable, imminent, and urgent threat to national security, falls under that exclusion and has not reviewed it for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates." May 23, 2005 H.R. 1815 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 As reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 20, 2005 SUMMARY H.R. 1815 would authorize appropriations totaling $485 billion for fiscal year 2006 for the military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD), for activities of the Department of Energy (DOE), and for other purposes. That total includes $49 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the bill would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts would result in additional outlays of $480 billion over the 2006-2010 period. Including outlays from funds previously appropriated, defense spending would total just under $500 billion in 2006, CBO estimates. The bill also contains provisions that would both increase and decrease costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2007-2010 period. CBO estimates that those provisions combined would increase the requirements for discretionary spending by about $3 billion over those four years, assuming that net appropriations are increased by the estimated amounts. The bill contains provisions that would both increase and decrease direct spending, primarily from modifying the phase-in of concurrent receipt of military retirement annuities and veterans disability compensation for certain retirees, and from the sale of materials held in the National Defense Stockpile. We estimate that those provisions combined would decrease direct spending by $84 million over the 2006-2010 period but increase such spending by about $38 million over the 2006-2015 period. Those totals include estimated net receipts from asset sales of $230 million over the 2006-2015 period. (Asset sale receipts are a credit against direct spending.) Section 4 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that are necessary for national security. CBO has determined that section 825, which would provide rapid acquisition authority for the Department of Defense in the event of a demonstrable, imminent, and urgent threat to national security, falls under that exclusion and has not reviewed it for intergovernmental or private-sector mandates. The remaining provisions of the bill contain both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA but CBO estimates that the annual cost of those mandates would not exceed the thresholds established in UMRA ($62 million for intergovernmental mandates in 2005 and $123 million for private-sector mandates in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). In general, H.R. 1815 would benefit state, local, and tribal governments by authorizing aid for certain local schools with dependents of defense personnel, expanding the authority of State governors to order their state's National Guard to support counter-terrorism activities, and conveying certain parcels of land to state and local governments. Any costs to those governments would be incurred voluntarily. ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1815 is summarized in Table 1. Most of the costs of this legislation fall within budget function 050 (national defense).