I bought some today with my beer money fund on the hopes they have "earnings" close to positive tomorrow. I sure hope that I'm not stuck drinking PBR over the holidays.
I hate to say this but I've begun believing that some folks, like Darrel Issa, aren't part of an avid vocal opposition but two bit saboteurs.
Maybe Katie Couric can explain this to you in terms that you'll be able to understand;
Choosing not to use something is a world of difference away from not having access to it.
"They drive down wages, especially in the trades where they are paid off the books.....pay no income tax, no social security tax, no unemployment tax,..."
Obama says they will not be given a leap in the line for citizenship nor residency. Some who are well behaved and have family here can apply for a SSN card which will have them paying taxes.
" the dems say they are absolutely eligible and deserving of free health care, and a driver's license to boot..."
No free health care or access to ACA. A drivers license is a must if they're driving on the roads. Have you ever driven in another country? Ensuring that you know what the street signs mean is a good idea and, depending on the state, they would need to prove insurance.
"I'm a citizen, born in the USA, proudly served in the military, and I can't get free health care..."
If you did "Proudly serve" you have access to the VA. Guess what? That's free.
"My comment was a response to Giroux's post, not to Obama's action."
Oh. My bad.
Boy, did I misjudge! We have our new symphony of noise already with immigration. In the Presidents speech he isn't giving a path citizenship or even residency for that matter. All he said was that if you have been being nice and have family here, you won't be a priority for deportation. While also increasing border security yet again.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. As an added bonus, this may actually prod congress to do SOMETHING. Let the hyperbole freak out begin!
"The refineries down there can process the heavy crude..."
Any refinery can run some sour crude. It's just a matter of what their system can absorb. Today, a crude slate run is rarely a long term all or nothing from one source. There are a lot of refineries on the gulf coast. Some can run more sour than others. Typically, the larger the plant, the more capacity to run cheaper sour crude.
As this is a message board for a tanker shipping company most here should know that the cost of transportation, whether via pipeline, rail, or ship, is minimal to the end user.
All of this noise over Keystone XL is just that, noise. Build it or don't build it, it just isn't going to have an effect one way or the other. If the Democrats are smart they'll cut a deal for something that actually will do something and effect for their project approval. My bet is our representitives will continue to bicker over this for another 6 months, everybody will be completely PO'd at each other and it will eventually get built anyway. By then there will be another "crisis" to worry about.
This entire arguement about keystone has gone insane. First off, there already is a "Keystone" Pipeline. The project everyone is formine spittle on the corners of their mouths is for an increased size pipeline. Secondly, the only reason the State Dept and the federal government on the whole is involved is due to the desire to cross the US/Canada border. If they really wanted this built each state could approve their section and run rails across the border spur to spur.
The Canadians are going through their own issues with pipelines. They're currently laying pipe going east to the Great Lakes for export and usage to some of their own refineries there. Going west is more problematic due to politics and some mountains in the way.
The folks that are FOR the pipeline are exagerating about the economic impact and number of jobs. They also talk about some refineries not being able to run this type of crude which is true. A refinery built to run sour crude needs to be able to handle a large amount of sulfer. On the other hand, that same refinery is still going to be able run sweet crude. They just prefer not to because that crude tends to be more expensive.
The folks AGAINST the pipeline are also exaggerating the environmental impact. It's not as if this stuff isn't going to be refined if the pipeline doesn't go through. If they truely want to keep this stuff from being refined, they need to convince the Canadians to leave it in the ground. Considering what it takes to get tar sand crude into a marketable state, low oil prices are doing that for them.
When I was living in Panama there were quite a few guys (It was all guys. No women that I knew did this.) who went through the effort to renounce their US citizenship. One of these guys was particularly loud and pompous. A year or so afterwards, he tried getting back to the states for a family gathering. The idiot was completely beside himself when he had to stand outside of the US Embassy to get a tourist visa. I still giggle recalling his tirade.
I suspect that a large number of the people turning in their passports will be working to get them back at some point. Those that do will show up in the statistics as new citizens, as opposed to re-entries.
The write up I read said this latest conversion is guaranteed to be made whole down to $1.45. Now you have a target price for the next few months.
"What does this have to do with FRO?"
Considering the shaky legs that FRO is standing on, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to think that if FRO folds up shop there will be a number of folks looking at the SSA as their retirement fall back position. On top of that, I assume that most folks on this board were wage earners with the US at one point in time or another. Whether you agree with the idea of SSA or not, I'm sure that once your wages are deducted you would want those funds to used for there intended purpose effectively.
How's that for off the cuff thinking? ;o) Have a good weekend!
Just because socail programs are available does mean they always have to be used. These programs are set up as insurance. When I hear folks say that they paid into it so they're going to collect no matter whether they need it or not I ask them if they have air bags in their car. They've paid for them as well but I don't see folks doing head ons into staionary objects to get the full value of what they paid for.
Roger the cash flow problem that you're talking about is actually a demographic problem. In that we have fewer people in the work force and more retiring. Social Security is required to buy government bonds with an expectation of return on them to finance it's obligations. Because they are such a huge buyer of those bonds the return on them is reduced which actually compounds the demographic problem further. There is also the very real possibility that the real rate of return on US government bonds going negative.
If SSA was allowed to buy an ETF type of security it would also skew the market but It could act to reduce volatility (I know that volatility is almost none today but we're looking at a long term fix here.) to the domestic market.
I know that calling it a sovereign fund isn't the greatest example. Norway and Dubai both do well with theirs. I'm sure that there others as well but with the US, as Nikky pointed out, the sheer volume of money would completely skew the market. Also, those funds are allowed to invest in individual companies. As you, I think correctly point out, the possibility/probability of of misuses if individual comapnies could be invested are real and problematic. That's why the investment would have to cover the broad market. I used the example of the ETF SPY earlier. The parameters could be defined even further to companies above a particular market cap with bias towards companies based onshore. This would give CFO's something to think about if they started to think about going offshore.
I also agree that "SS was NEVER meant to be a retirement plan". Which is why I suspect you'll see means testing as a fix before the salary cap is eliminated.
As I pointed out earlier, I can't see that percentage being over 5%. I think that you're entirely correct in that even a small percentage of the trust fund is an enormous amount of money flowing into the market. It certainly would skew results. On the plus side, all of those "Technical" guys would have to change their play books and be basically blind for 20 years. ;0)