Causes of High Electricity Bills in Thai Apartments

[webfact]

U.S. Senate leaders reach $300 billion federal spending deal

By Richard Cowan and Amanda Becker

 

U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis (L) arrives to join White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders for the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S. February 7, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate, in a rare display of bipartisanship, on Wednesday reached a two-year budget deal to raise federal spending by almost $300 billion (£216.27 billion), in an attempt to end the kind of squabbling over fiscal issues that has plagued Washington for years.

 

The agreement, announced by both the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate, would lift caps on defence funding and some domestic government spending. Along with President Donald Trump's tax cuts approved by Congress in December, the new round of spending would further add to the bulging federal deficit.

 

"This bill is the product of extensive negotiations among congressional leaders and the White House," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, said on the Senate floor. "We worked hard to find common ground and remained focused on serving the American people."

 

The plan will need to be passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate, both controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, before going to the president to sign.

 

But House Democrats have warned that they will not back the deal unless Republican Speaker Paul Ryan promises to advance separate legislation on immigration policy.

 

Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate Democrats, said the deal should break the cycle of partisan fights over spending.

 

"After months of fiscal brinkmanship, this budget deal is the first real sprout of bipartisanship. And it should break the long cycle of spending crises that have snarled this Congress and hampered our middle class," Schumer said.

 

The higher defence spending should allow Trump to make good on a campaign promise for a U.S. military build-up.

 

The White House said the deal also includes an extension, until March 2019, of the government's debt ceiling. The Treasury Department has been warning that without an extension in borrowing authority from Congress, the government would run out of borrowing options in the first half of March.

 

The agreement also provides funds for disaster relief, infrastructure and programs addressing opioid abuse, the Senate leaders said.

 

DEFICIT INCREASE

 

White House legislative affairs director Marc Short said the deal would raise spending by "just shy" of $300 billion. A senior congressional aide said this would not be offset by any spending cuts or new tax revenue, meaning an increase in the federal deficit.

 

A congressional source familiar with the agreement said it would increase non-defense spending by $131 billion and include $20 billion for infrastructure spending. It also would extend funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for 10 years instead of the current six, the source added.

 

Passage of the plan would ease the brinkmanship over spending that roils Washington so regularly that financial markets barely flinch anymore at the threat of a government shutdown.

 

Aside from the two-year deal, lawmakers were also trying to reach agreement by Thursday to avoid a shutdown and fund the government until March 23.

 

If that fails, the U.S. government would suffer its second shutdown this year, after a partisan standoff over U.S. immigration policy led to a three-day partial shutdown last month.

 

Immigration again emerged as a possible point of contention, putting the budget deal in jeopardy. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she would oppose the accord unless Ryan promises to advance legislation to protect hundreds of thousands of young adult immigrants, known as "Dreamers," brought to the United States illegally as children.

 

Republicans are eager to keep spending and immigration separate. Trump threatened on Tuesday to upend budget talks by saying he would welcome a government shutdown if Congress were not able to agree to changes in immigration law that he said would prevent criminals from entering the country.

 

January's shutdown came after Democrats sought to have a spending bill include protections for the Dreamers that Trump has rescinded effective in March.

 

(Additional reporting by David Morgan, Susan Heavey and Doina Chiacu; Writing by Alistair Bell; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-08

[blazes]

Bankruptcy here we come.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

Bankruptcy here we come.

To those of us who have at least a nodding acquaintance with how the world works, it is impossible for the US to go bankrupt so long as it is selling dollar denominated bonds. Japan has a gdp to debt ratio of approximately 250%. The USA's is about 110%.

[blazes]

41 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

To those of us who have at least a nodding acquaintance with how the world works, it is impossible for the US to go bankrupt so long as it is selling dollar denominated bonds. Japan has a gdp to debt ratio of approximately 250%. The USA's is about 110%.

 

Those of us with a nodding acquaintance with the English language will be aware that I was using the word 'bankrupt" metaphorically...

[Becker]

21 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

Those of us with a nodding acquaintance with the English language will be aware that I was using the word 'bankrupt" metaphorically...

Since the topic is the US budget and debt the metaphorical use of the word "bankrupt" in this context is......strange.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, Becker said:

Since the topic is the US budget and debt the metaphorical use of the word "bankrupt" in this context is......strange.

 

How about debasement of currency. That tick your boxes?

[Becker]

15 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

How about debasement of currency. That tick your boxes?

The only box that I need ticked is for posts to make sense.

[lannarebirth]

21 minutes ago, Becker said:

The only box that I need ticked is for posts to make sense.

 

You must have an awful lot of posters on your ignore list.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, blazes said:

 

Those of us with a nodding acquaintance with the English language will be aware that I was using the word 'bankrupt" metaphorically...

Those of us with a nodding acquaintance with the meaning of "context" can see that your explanation could be ascribed to intellectual bankruptcy. Now that is a metaphorical use of the concept.

[Becker]

24 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You must have an awful lot of posters on your ignore list.

None actually, even though some posters make less sense than I do after pint # 6 (luckily a very rare occurrence).

[blazes]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Those of us with a nodding acquaintance with the meaning of "context" can see that your explanation could be ascribed to intellectual bankruptcy. Now that is a metaphorical use of the concept.

 

 

Words are like leaves, and where they most abound,

Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found.

 

Alexander Pope.

[ilostmypassword]

52 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

 

Words are like leaves, and where they most abound,

Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found.

 

Alexander Pope.

Not only is the wit borrowed, it's inapt.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

How about debasement of currency. That tick your boxes?

"Debasement" is another right wing word used when addressing the issue of currency. We last saw it repeatedly trotted out during QE? How did those predictions of hyperinflation work out? Or even accelerated inflation?  And how has Japan's currency fared with its debt to GDP ration of 250%.  How often does reality have to prove this right wing notion wrong before it's finally dead?

[blazes]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not only is the wit borrowed, it's inapt.

Since the borrowing was openly acknowledged, this riposte was inept.

[ilostmypassword]

50 minutes ago, blazes said:

Since the borrowing was openly acknowledged, this riposte was inept.

Since inaptly applied, not.

[lannarebirth]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Debasement" is another right wing word used when addressing the issue of currency. We last saw it repeatedly trotted out during QE? How did those predictions of hyperinflation work out? Or even accelerated inflation?  And how has Japan's currency fared with its debt to GDP ration of 250%.  How often does reality have to prove this right wing notion wrong before it's finally dead?

 

I haven't made any of those arguments. Why are you?

 

As for Japan it wasn't too long ago the government was getting paid to borrow money. Yields still pretty darn low.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/japan

Edited February 8, 2018 by lannarebirth

[ilostmypassword]

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I haven't made any of those arguments. Why are you?

 

As for Japan it wasn't too long ago the government was getting paid to borrow money. Yields still pretty darn low.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/japan

But why call it debasement?

And if Japan is being paid to borrow money, that means its currency is very strong. In fact, Japan's problem for the last 20 years or so has been deflation, not inflation. So how is that reconcilable with the belief that deficits leading to currency "debasement"?

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

But why call it debasement?

And if Japan is being paid to borrow money, that means its currency is very strong. In fact, Japan's problem for the last 20 years or so has been deflation, not inflation. So how is that reconcilable with the belief that deficits leading to currency "debasement"?

 

Japan is paying itself to borrow the money it is printing itself. Yeah, maybe that will work out.

[ilostmypassword]

18 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Japan is paying itself to borrow the money it is printing itself. Yeah, maybe that will work out.

Your remark reminds me of the Christians who say any day now Jesus will be coming back and you'll be sorry. How many years does it take before predictions of economic disaster get to be called wrong? Ever?

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Your remark reminds me of the Christians who say any day now Jesus will be coming back and you'll be sorry. How many years does it take before predictions of economic disaster get to be called wrong? Ever?

 

I'm not an economic disaster guy/goldbug. I know prudent and imprudent behavior when I see it however. I try to impress upon my children to leave a place better than you found it. I'm not seeing much of that these days from governments. There will be exceptions of course but Japan and the US are not among them. Have a nice day.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'm not an economic disaster guy/goldbug. I know prudent and imprudent behavior when I see it however. I try to impress upon my children to leave a place better than you found it. I'm not seeing much of that these days from governments. There will be exceptions of course but Japan and the US are not among them. Have a nice day.

And does your common sense also tell you that Keynes was wrong and the recent tax cuts are a good thing?

[lannarebirth]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

And does your common sense also tell you that Keynes was wrong and the recent tax cuts are a good thing?

Keynes has been wrong many times, as he'd be the first to tell you, were he alive. The recent tax cuts do not seem to produce enough revenue to cover the recent budget (proposed). To my way of thinking that makes one or both of those things bad.

[ilostmypassword]

36 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Keynes has been wrong many times, as he'd be the first to tell you, were he alive. The recent tax cuts do not seem to produce enough revenue to cover the recent budget (proposed). To my way of thinking that makes one or both of those things bad.

But Keynes on the big things was not. As for the tax cuts, if inflation is a concern, tax cuts when the economy is strong are exactly the wrong thing to do. But they do seem to be the panacea for conservations. Economy weak: tax cuts. Economy strong: tax cuts.  I will say though, in support of these tax cuts, since most go to the wealthy , they probably won't have much effect on the economy. Or on inflation. Which is a pity. The USA could use more inflation.

[boomerangutang]

For US politicians, it's easy to spend trillions of dollars.  It's other peoples' money.  Too bad they're flummoxed about how to spend money wisely.  The US could cut federal spending by 15% to 25% If there were smarts and willingness.

 

[blazes]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But Keynes on the big things was not. As for the tax cuts, if inflation is a concern, tax cuts when the economy is strong are exactly the wrong thing to do. But they do seem to be the panacea for conservations. Economy weak: tax cuts. Economy strong: tax cuts.  I will say though, in support of these tax cuts, since most go to the wealthy , they probably won't have much effect on the economy. Or on inflation. Which is a pity. The USA could use more inflation.

Yes, inflation is the only way Uncle Sam can begin to pay down the debt.  It's a fraud, of course, but everyone does it.

[boomerangutang]

22 minutes ago, blazes said:

Yes, inflation is the only way Uncle Sam can begin to pay down the debt.  It's a fraud, of course, but everyone does it.

....and also foreigners buying T-Bills.  Without that, the US would be on economic level of Brazil.  Trump has hinted he doesn't mind if T-Bills get down-rated.  Boy, that will be interesting.   

[lannarebirth]

54 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But Keynes on the big things was not. As for the tax cuts, if inflation is a concern, tax cuts when the economy is strong are exactly the wrong thing to do. But they do seem to be the panacea for conservations. Economy weak: tax cuts. Economy strong: tax cuts.  I will say though, in support of these tax cuts, since most go to the wealthy , they probably won't have much effect on the economy. Or on inflation. Which is a pity. The USA could use more inflation.

 

Maybe you didn't know this, but Keynes and a partner managed money in the 1920's. His clients were among those who experienced the Crash of '29 along with himself.  As one said of him:

 

“Keynes may have made his own fortune and that of King’s College, but the investment trust of Keynes and Dennis Robertson managed to lose my fortune in 1929.”

 

 In 1937 Keynes said "We will not have any more crashes in our time." Over the following year, the market lost about half its value. Keynes was on margin and he lost 2/3 of his money.

 

Excellent economist, as were many others. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Economics is not a science after all.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Maybe you didn't know this, but Keynes and a partner managed money in the 1920's. His clients were among those who experienced the Crash of '29 along with himself.  As one said of him:

 

“Keynes may have made his own fortune and that of King’s College, but the investment trust of Keynes and Dennis Robertson managed to lose my fortune in 1929.”

 

 In 1937 Keynes said "We will not have any more crashes in our time." Over the following year, the market lost about half its value. Keynes was on margin and he lost 2/3 of his money.

 

Excellent economist, as were many others. Sometimes right, sometimes wrong. Economics is not a science after all.

 

 

There's a difference between between the economy and the stock market. The stock market is not the economy and the economy is not the stock market. I should probably repeat that 10 times since lots of people have trouble grasping that fact. Anyway, you take the low point in Keynes career as a stock market player and use that to characterize his performance on the whole. This had to come from some right wing source. In fact, over the course of his investing career, Keynes was an extremely successful market player not only on his behalf but on behalf of the British government.

And Keynes learned from his mistakes. His performance starting in the early 30's vastly improved.

https://www.cfapubs.org/doi/full/10.2469/dig.v42.n4.46

And, of course, there is a huge difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.

[lannarebirth]

54 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There's a difference between between the economy and the stock market. The stock market is not the economy and the economy is not the stock market. I should probably repeat that 10 times since lots of people have trouble grasping that fact. Anyway, you take the low point in Keynes career as a stock market player and use that to characterize his performance on the whole. This had to come from some right wing source. In fact, over the course of his investing career, Keynes was an extremely successful market player not only on his behalf but on behalf of the British government.

And Keynes learned from his mistakes. His performance starting in the early 30's vastly improved.

https://www.cfapubs.org/doi/full/10.2469/dig.v42.n4.46

And, of course, there is a huge difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.

 

No I didn't. I've got nothing against Keynes, I'm not sure why you think I do. Probably related to all that fiscal stimulus business, huh? I'm not against fiscal stimulus and I'm not against Keynes, though I don't deify him as you seem to do. 

 

I think a lot of bullshit policy was done in Keyne's name. When you have to borrow to create the stimulus the affect of the stimulus is diminished. When the stimulus is largely directed at government spending (compared to private sector) you are going to get both a diminished GDP multiplier along with a diminished velocity of money:

 

Velocity of M2 Money Stock _ FRED _ St. Louis Fed.mhtml

 

I would have much rather seen the stimulus money used to provide SBA loans, go towards those "shovel ready jobs" that never came, or urban renewal projects which provide jobs immediately and well into the future. 

 

I know the economy is not the stock market and vice versa. Good luck with your studies.

Edited February 9, 2018 by lannarebirth

[mania]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

....and also foreigners buying T-Bills.  Without that, the US would be on economic level of Brazil.  Trump has hinted he doesn't mind if T-Bills get down-rated.  Boy, that will be interesting.   

Not really right?

 

Because the US ran out of (sufficient) buyers long ago

Wasn't a lot of the debt bought by the Fed Reserve themselves? "Monetizing Debt" During QE/Bailouts etc etc

 

The whole thing boggles the mind as if they are buying their own dent with another IOU

 

Is it any wonder that all Fiat Currencies eventually fail?

This one due to Central Banks may take longer but eventually will also implode (my guess & hopefully after my time)

Edited February 9, 2018 by mania