|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
what a load o' crap-
America is booming.
The economy is set to grow 4.5% in the 1st quarter, WAY ahead of similar advanced economies. |
Sure booming if you're borrowing against your future, running up huge debts. |
It's what you might call a war bounce. Huge defense spending often boosts the economy in the short term. The problem is that the money is not going into R and D, infrastructure or anything that builds long-term economic power. It's being blown up in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The future is being mortgaged for a private war. Insanity. |
EFL Trainer wrote
| Quote: |
| It's what you might call a war bounce. Huge defense spending often boosts the economy in the short term. The problem is that the money is not going into R and D, infrastructure or anything that builds long-term economic power. It's being blown up in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. |
| Quote: |
Terror war calls for higher R&D spending
National Defense, April, 2002 by Harold Kennedy
The war on terrorism--with its emphasis on laser-guided munitions, unmanned vehicles and satellite communications--highlights a need for in-creased funds for research and development of new defense-related technologies, according to Pentagon officials.
The Bush administration has requested $53.9 billion for Defense Department research, development, test and evaluation programs in fiscal year 2003, said Robert W. Baker, deputy director of the department's science and technology programs. That is a $5.5 billion increase over 2002--a nearly 10 percent jump--he told the 2002 Science & Engineering Technology Conference, in Charleston, S.C., organized by the National Defense Industrial Association |
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2148/is_200204/ai_n6916859
EFL Trainer wrote
| Quote: |
| It's what you might call a war bounce. Huge defense spending often boosts the economy in the short term. The problem is that the money is not going into R and D, infrastructure or anything that builds long-term economic power. It's being blown up in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. |
| Quote: |
DAILY BRIEFING
February 6, 2006
Printer
Friendly
Version E-mail this
Story to
A Friend See Readers'
Comments/
Add Your Own
RELATED STORIES
Administration releases details on competitiveness initiative (02/03/06)
NSA spy program hinges on state-of-the-art technology (01/20/06)
Science, tech programs fare well in 2006 spending bill (11/08/05)
Senate backs more Defense R&D than Bush sought (10/14/05)
Budget includes increases for Defense technologies (02/07/05)
More R&D spending proposed, earmarks criticized
By Randy Barrett, National Journal's Technology Daily
The Bush administration on Monday requested $137.2 billion for research and development in fiscal 2007 while decrying budget earmarks for specific projects in lawmakers' states.
The R&D figure represents a $3.4 billion increase, or 2.6 percent, over fiscal 2006. Within that, the request for basic research is $28.2 billion -- up $357 million, or 1.3 percent.
White House science adviser John Marburger said the administration's overall science funding request is flat, but non-defense R&D nevertheless would be boosted 1.9 percent. "The effort to reduce the deficit has an impact on all discretionary programs," he said.
The administration is particularly annoyed by earmarks and argued in budget documents that the practice works against R&D fiscal planning. "Earmarks that divert funding from a merit-based process will undermine America's research productivity," the White House said in the budget.
Many of the winners in the fiscal 2007 budget would benefit from the American competitiveness initiative, or ACI, recently proposed by President Bush. The project calls for $50 billion over 10 years to boost spending on research and science and math education. Next year's request is $5.9 billion, including $1.3 billion in new funding and $4.6 billion for the R&D tax credit.
The R&D account of the National Science Foundation would receive $4.5 billion in the budget request, a $349 million increase. The core account at the National Institute of Standards and Technology would get $535 million, up $104 million. The research pot for the Energy Department would be $9.2 billion, an increase of $595 million.
"NIST is positioned to play a key role in advancing our nation's innovation and competitiveness," Director William Jeffrey said. "The ACI will give us the resources we need."
Networking and information technology research also would fare well under Bush's plan. The administration asked for $2.78 billion, up $239 million, or 9.4 percent.
"[The] increase in support for advanced networking research in 2007, primarily by NSF, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and [Energy] will ensure that large-scale networking technologies will keep pace with the rapid developments in petascale computing systems," White House budget documents said.
Under the budget, the National Nanotechnology Initiative would receive $1.3 billion, an increase of about $77 million.
Homeland-security-related research funding for fiscal 2007 would be about $4.8 billion, administration officials said. That would include $535 million for the Pentagon's office for domestic nuclear detection, improvised explosives research, cyber security, and food- and livestock-protection projects. |
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=33316&dcn=e_gvet
EFL Trainer wrote
| Quote: |
| It's what you might call a war bounce. Huge defense spending often boosts the economy in the short term. The problem is that the money is not going into R and D, infrastructure or anything that builds long-term economic power. It's being blown up in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. |
| Quote: |
February 10, 2003
Volume 81, Number 6
CENEAR 81 6 p. 8
ISSN 0009-2347
FEDERAL BUDGET
R&D SPENDING IS UP OVERALL FOR 2004
Many programs get no increase; FY 2003 budget is unfinished
DAVID HANSON
President George W. Bush has proposed a 7% increase in federal spending for research and development in fiscal 2004. The total would be $122.7 billion, the most ever spent on R&D. However, increases at agencies are uneven, and many are receiving reductions. In fact, nearly 70% of the $7.7 billion increase in funds would go to the Department of Defense. And R&D for the new Department of Homeland Security would receive $1 billion for 2004—a 32% rise from relevant programs this year. |
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8106/8106notw4.html
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the ONLY thing I agree with Chairman Mao is that it is too soon to judge the historical importance of the French Revolution. After all, it's only been a couple of hundred years. In that light, it's just a wee bit soon to go judging the historical importance of Bush II's blunder of tax cut + voluntary war. It could be important, or just a bump in the road.
The writer is correct in his warning about the erosion of civil liberties. That is very worrisome. It is not really the result of one party controlling the executive and judicial branches of our government. That is the result of a surge in power of a faction of the conservatives who never liked the idea of civil liberties for anyone except corporate executives anyway, and then only if they belonged to the right families, went to the right schools and churches.
The writer's prediction that it is the end of hegemony is an awful lot like the predictions of Mark Twain's death: highly premature. All the experts say it will take China another 40 years to be in a position to challenge the US for supremacy. I tend to think that is true. And 40 years is a long time for the US to change the present situation. There is no guarantee, no matter how much some people hope for it, that the next president will be as much of a fool as the present incumbent. After all, Rome survived 400 years after idiots like Caligula. Granted, a string of idiots in the top job would not be a good deal. And I know the pres is not in charge of everything. It would help to get some of the rightwing ideologues out of Congress and back to their holy roller speaking in tongue pulpits where they belong.
I think the guy has some good points to make. There are serious problems. It is not a good thing to have China et al holding so much of our currency reserves. A negative trade balance is not a good thing when it continues over decades and decades. I would far rather see the money spent on infrastructure and education than on 'defense'. I never understand why people use WWII as a benchmark for measuring US power. It was a highly irregular time. Much better to use 1970 when the other traditional powers had had time to recover from war. So yeah, the guy has some good points to make, but he waaaaay overstated his case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| sundubuman wrote: |
what a load o' crap-
America is booming.
The economy is set to grow 4.5% in the 1st quarter, WAY ahead of similar advanced economies. |
Sure booming if you're borrowing against your future, running up huge debts. |
It's what you might call a war bounce. Huge defense spending often boosts the economy in the short term. The problem is that the money is not going into R and D, infrastructure or anything that builds long-term economic power. It's being blown up in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The future is being mortgaged for a private war. Insanity. |
Exactly. If you compare the 1991 recession to the 2001 recession, you notice the 2001 recession wasn't so bad. The 1991 was started when the Reagan military build up ceased. When you build a tank, that employs a lot of people but a tank adds nothing to the economy. A tank doesn't do any work. A tank doesn't make the economy more efficient. The 2001 recession was started by the dot.com bust. However, the unemployment rate didn't skyrocket. The economy wasn't building tanks. The economy was building fiber optic cable, offices, chairs, computers, etc. While many people paid high prices for this and went out of business, all this stuff then became cheaper (cheaper rents, cheaper office furniture, etc) which allowed other people to make their business plan work based on lower costs.
What's America's current account deficit at these days? Is there anything on the horizon that might let America dig itself out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bo Peabody wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is evident in the growing military cooperation between North and South Korea |
Can someone elaborate on this for me? |
CNN just ran a short TV blurb on this today.
There was a meeting near the DMZ of high-level brass from both sides.
First time in fact reps from both the North & South military are said to have jointly convened in over a year.
What was reported is that one of their primary aims was top avoid future regrettable misunderstandings
especially re: boundary encroachments etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
What's America's current account deficit at these days? Is there anything on the horizon that might let America dig itself out? |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/outlook.html
And that's the positive spin on it. Basically at best they are breaking even when you subtract deficit from economic growth. It would be funny if not for the fact that so many economies are tied to the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tell us whose economies are doing better than the US. The list isn't long. Wonder why that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Tell us whose economies are doing better than the US. The list isn't long. Wonder why that is. |
Because they don't want to run up deficits higher than their GDP growth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
What are the deficits of European nations and Japan? Please be sure to include entitlements.
What are their rates of growth?
.S. Budget Deficit Tumbles, Congressional Analysts Say
AP ^ | Jul 7, 2005 | Andrew Taylor
Posted on 07/07/2005 3:41:41 PM PDT by Skylab
| Quote: |
U.S. Budget Deficit Tumbles, Congressional Analysts Say
By Andrew Taylor Associated Press Writer Published: Jul 7, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - Higher-than-expected tax receipts and the steadily growing economy have combined to produce an improved picture for the federal budget deficit, congressional analysts say.
The deficit for the current budget year, which runs through Sept. 30, should be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion," according to the Congressional Budget Office. The agency produces nonpartisan estimates for Congress and will put out a full update Aug. 15.
Thursday's new figures come as the White House is to release its midyear budget review July 13. Administration figures are also expected to show significant improvement from the $427 billion current-year deficit it predicted in January.
Last year's $412 billion deficit was a record in dollar terms, but economists say the more significant measure is against the size of the economy. In those terms, the current deficit picture - a $350 billion deficit for this year would equal 2.9 percent of gross domestic product - is significantly better than deficits witnessed in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Then, deficits of 4 percent to 6 percent of GDP were common.
The biggest factors for the improving deficit picture are higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals. The economy is performing slightly above earlier administration expectations. Despite the improvement projected over the short term, neither the CBO nor the administration's Office of Management and Budget is expected to dramatically overhaul its long-term deficit projections, which show a steady decline in the level of red ink through the end of the decade but anticipate a spike in the deficit soon thereafter as the baby boom generation claims its retirement benefits.
"This is good, but let's try to figure out if there's anything permanent here," said CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Still, the new numbers will make it easier for the White House to credibly claim it will meet its goal of cutting the deficit in half - from the $521 billion it originally predicted for fiscal 2004 - by the time President Bush leaves office. Budget watchdog groups like the bipartisan Concord Coalition say White House budget projections are suspect since they leave out long-term costs for the war in Iraq and other factors.
"The numbers are coming out better," said White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten in an interview last month. "We had projected a very steady path of decline of the deficit, especially as a percentage of GDP, which is the right way to judge it. Right now, we're doing better than hitting that target. They'll be better because we've gotten better revenues than we originally projected."
As it addresses the deficit, the White House has focused chiefly on clamping down on domestic programs whose budgets are appropriated every year by Congress. That's only about one-sixth of the overall budget, however. Congress is also planning a five-year, $35 billion cut from automatically budgeted programs such as Medicaid and farm subsidies.
"The long-term budget issues are the mandatory programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Everything else is dwarfed by that," Holtz-Eakin said. He added that the current improvement in the deficit picture "looks like a pittance" when compared with the long-term liabilities.
AP-ES-07-07-05 1754EDT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Tell us whose economies are doing better than the US. The list isn't long. Wonder why that is. |
Canada's. Record current account. Full employment. 30 million Canadians sitting on top of massive Saudi sized oil reserves with oil at $60 a bbl. Budget surpluses every year for the last decade. The list just goes on and on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Tell us whose economies are doing better than the US. The list isn't long. Wonder why that is. |
Canada's. Record current account. Full employment. 30 million Canadians sitting on top of massive Saudi sized oil reserves with oil at $60 a bbl. Budget surpluses every year for the last decade. The list just goes on and on. |
Full Employment?
6. 5% unemployment
that is more than the US.
Economic growth 2.4 %-
that is less than that of the US.
Per Capita income - Less than that of the US.
Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006
Country Rankings 2005-2006
1. Finland
2. USA
3. Sweden
4. Denmark
5. Taiwan
6. Singapore
7. Iceland
8. Switzerland
9.Norway
10.Australia
11.Netherlands
12.Japan
13.United Kingdom
14.Canada
15.Germany
16. New Zealand
>>Full rankings
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report
congrats on the oil which is in tar sands not so accessable and I am glad you got a pro US govt in power.
But lets be honest - you didn't make your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Tell us whose economies are doing better than the US. The list isn't long. Wonder why that is. |
Canada's. Record current account. Full employment. 30 million Canadians sitting on top of massive Saudi sized oil reserves with oil at $60 a bbl. Budget surpluses every year for the last decade. The list just goes on and on. |
Full Employment?
6. 5% unemployment
that is more than the US. |
Go look up the definition of "full employment". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
whatever which has higher unemployment the US or Canada?
But I hope Canadian economy does well. I like Stephen Harper and I hope he is successful . By the way good luck in getting the oil from the tar sands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you had a little trouble comprehending what efl trainer wrote back there and still seem to be lagging joo....
money in defense doesn't GROW: it doesn't make more money. R&D into defense and weapon production has no lasting affect on society at large.
| Quote: |
As it addresses the deficit, the White House has focused chiefly on clamping down on domestic programs whose budgets are appropriated every year by Congress. ..... Congress is also planning a five-year, $35 billion cut from automatically budgeted programs such as Medicaid and farm subsidies.
|
finally. it's time to throw those food produce, life sustaining freeloading howzamadoos out on their ear.
| Quote: |
"The long-term budget issues are the mandatory programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Everything else is dwarfed by that," Holtz-Eakin said. He added that the current improvement in the deficit picture "looks like a pittance" when compared with the long-term liabilities |
As a sidenote: If whatever it is (400billion or so$) is spent on defense/war on terror, is that portion attributed to GDP? And if so, doesn't it seem kinda disingenuous to claim that the GDP is SO great when 300bill is a relatively significant portion of the budget?
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/News/Politics/US_budget2.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6908656/&h=451&w=460&sz=25&tbnid=IfnETIExcuEJ:&tbnh=122&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dus%2Bbudget%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=1
and re: your global comptetitiveness index..i read this little tidbit:
| Quote: |
Like last year, the US took second place, thanks to its general technological superiority combined with an equally strong culture of innovation [congradulations...that's great!]. However, its technological strength is set against the backdrop of poorer performance in other areas. For instance, the US only achieved 20th place in terms of the contractual and legal indicator. Companies expressed particular concern about excessive government intervention in the private sector and about the political agenda in general.
|
and it appears your unemployment IS lower. But our labour force participation rate is SLIGHTLY higher than yours (66% to 67.1). And since bush has taken office, there has been a steady decline of about 1%.
It seems, in terms of statistical analysis, having a job is a better indicator than NOT having a job (or activity, better than inacitivity). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...about the claim of full employment. For years people have been posting here that there are no good jobs back home. Then this report says the economy is booming with full employment.
I'm having an episode of cognitive dissonance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
