Sunday, July 17, 2011

July 17, 2011, Bob Brinker's Moneytalk: Summary, Excerpts, Commentary and Discussion

July 17, 2011.....Bob Brinker hosted Moneytalk today.

(Brinker's comments summarized, paraphrased or excerpted)

STOCK MARKET:  The S&P 500 year-to-date is up around 6%.  Brinker said: "When you consider what interest rates are, short-term rates, not too shabby. We had a couple of minor pullbacks this year. Back in March.....we had a  6 1/2% pullback there. In the May, June period we had a 7% pullback.....So far,  the market has shown a tremendous amount of resilience."

IS BRINKER RECOMMENDING SELLING EQUITIES?   Caller Lon from Oregon said he was fully invested following Brinker's  Marketimer newsletter. Lon asked: "Given this debt ceiling crisis and what I see as a potential stock market drop for who knows how long, should we move that money into money market accounts for a little while?"  

Brinker replied:  "We had this same question two weeks ago when the S&P was around 1270. And now the debt ceiling debate has heated up dramatically in the last two weeks and the S&P is up to 1316. Showing a total return year-to-date of close to  6%.  So I will repeat what I said to that caller at 1270, asked virtually identical question....I said to that caller, you need to be prepared, if you do that,  to re-enter the market at a higher level. Now if that caller re-entered today, he would be re-entering about 46 S&P  500 points higher than he exited the market two weeks ago....I have not exited the market until I see a resolution of the debt ceiling issue because I already know....what's going to happen.....I'll clue you in. They are going to raise the debt ceiling......With or without a short-term government shut down. On that issue, take your pick. They just did it in Minnesota......"

Honey EC:  The call that Brinker referred to was actually on June 26th. Here is the link to my Summary of that program and  Brinker's answer to caller-David

GNMA, VANGUARD GINNIE MAE FUND (VFIIX):  Caller Mike from Colorado praised Brinker for recommending  GNMA's and raved about how he loves to see the money show up in his account.   Brinker said:  "As much as I'd love to take credit for this, I'm much too modest, but I did recommend them.....Actually to give you a little background on that, we've had Ginnie Mae holdings in our model portfolios in my investment letter for many, many years."

Honey EC:  After all the friendly banter, what Brinker did not tell Mike was that he has lowered his model portfolio Ginnie Mae weightings a couple of times. The last time was in January 2011. The model portfolios that he mentioned are model portfolio III,  which is now down to only a 20% weighting in Vanguard Ginnie Mae Fund.  And his off-the-books "income portfolio" only has a 15% weighting. He increased the risk greatly in both those portfolios when he sold the Ginnie Maes and bought Vanguard High Yield Fund and Wellesley Income fund.

 RAISE TAX ON HIGH EARNERS OKAY WITH BRINKER:  Brinker said: "I think if they raise tax on the middle class, it would be bad news for the economy....I think if they take the top rate from 35 to 39.6, I would not expect that to have a dramatic impact on the economy because in order to get into the 35% bracket, you have to be a high earner. And if you're a high earner, you should be a  net saver. And if you're a net saver, you shouldn't have to cut back on your expenditures in order to deal with the higher bracket.  So my opinion is, raising the rates on the middle-class would be a very bad idea. I would vote against it.  Raising the top bracket, I don't really care."

DEBT CEILING "BRUHAHA"....Brinker said:   "....going on in Washington, the debt ceiling bruhaha.... The debt ceiling must be raised with or without a short-term, stage-produced government shut-down and that's because the country cannot afford to go into default. If you wonder why,  $14.4 trillion in national debt, annual Treasury sales of way over a trillion dollars.   The country cannot afford to go into default on its Treasuries obligations."

GOVERNMENT COFFERS RUN DRY IN AUGUST....Brinker said: "We also know that in the month of August, the Treasury Secretary is saying that August 2nd is the date the coffers will run dry......It looks the Treasury is about 134 billion dollars short of what they need in order to pay the bills and the interest on the national debt,  just in the month of August. I'm calculating about 173 billion dollars for several items that are considered essential. Interest on the national debt about 29 billion, checks for recipients of Social Security in the month of August, about 49 billion dollars, Medicare and Medicaid expenses in August, about 50 billion dollars. In addition to that, Defense Department about 32 billion dollars, and Unemployment Insurance benefits about 13 billion. All of that adds up to about 173 billion dollars. And the problem is, it's about 134 billion dollars short of what is needed. Even if all of that is paid, it would still leave unpaid bills. For example, all of those on active military duty......they would not be paid in the month of August. Veterans....would not be paid. The FBI would not be paid. All other federal programs and the court system would not be paid....." 

IF INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT IS NOT PAID.... Brinker has said for several weeks now that if the interest on the national debt is not paid, the country will officially go into default and will no longer be able to justify having a triple-A rating. 

GOVERNMENT BORROWING... Brinker  pointed out  that we are now borrowing about 40 cents on every dollar we spend - a "horrible" situation. 

SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND DOESN'T EXIST....Brinker said: "Here's the way that Social Security is paid out. First, money pours in every single week from the payroll tax.....When the benefits exceed that cash flow, the Treasury has to raise the money. You know they don't have any money. They're in the red......They sell Treasuries (IOUs) to raise the money to pay for the checks..... That's the way that Social Security  works, and it's unfortunate that so many people are under the illusion that there's a trust fund out there with piles of money in it waiting to get paid out. That's not the case.....The money has been spent."

GDP AS PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL DEBT: Brinker said that the total sovereign debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is now about 70%....the danger level come in  at about  90%.



BULLY-PULPIT POLITICS...Brinker said: "I see that there are some so-called presidential candidates out there stomping in Iowa, and they are calling for the US government not to raise the debt ceiling. And of course, this is the height of folly, the height of irresponsibility.....So if you hear a so-called presidential candidate telling you  we don't need to raise the debt ceiling,  you can cross that one right off your list. That's a person who's not qualified to run the country. That we know.....No serious person would ever endorse a policy that would lead to a US Treasury default." 

DIVIDING CALIFORNIA IN HALF:  Brinker said he thought splitting California into two states would make it more "manageable."   But instead of dividing it into North and South California, he suggested  dividing it  lengthwise, turning it into Eastern and Western California. He said he would choose the coastal half.

Honey EC: LOL!  Yes, Bob...the coastal half is very nice. You're welcome to join us. All you have to do is be willing to pay all the additional state taxes, sales taxes, etc. that you don't pay in Nevada -- just  for the privilege of living in California.

DEFICIT ACCUMULATION:  Caller Rick from Hartford tried to blame the  current huge deficits on Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan and George Bush. He claimed that 90% of the deficits are the fault of George Bush --  between 2000 - 2008.  Brinker said, "Now Rick, that talking point you just shared with us is false. Look at the figures for  2009, 10 and 11 and you will be shocked......It's  not because of the interest. Interest rates are reasonable now because of the low rates. It's because of the tremendous amount of money that the Federal Government has expended over the last three years....."

Honey EC:  LOL! Brinker told the caller to check his talking points several times....The caller was factually wrong as Brinker pointed out.   (The caller was also ignorant if he thinks George Bush was president in 2000.)  According to Bill O'Reilly, the National Debt was $5.7 trillion when George Bush took office and $10.6 trillion when he left office. It is now almost $14.5 trillion. 

2012 ELECTION ISSUE: Caller David from Chicago asked Brinker why more people aren't concerned about "what's going on out there."  Brinker blamed it on inertia and lack of interest.  Brinker said:  "I really like the  idea of keeping this on the front page and getting this into the general election next year because I think this is the perfect topic for a general election in 2012. Which direction is the United States going to go in terms of how it balances its revenues with its expenses.....And we have to get the deficit down. I'm very conservative on fiscal affairs. I always have been.....I think it will be a great subject to bring to the voters in 2012. Let's elect a whole House of Representatives on this issue, and the president on this issue, and 1/3 of the Senate on this issue. I wish we could elect the whole Senate on this issue."

Bob Brinker quote of the day: "Anybody that listens to this broadcast knows that I don't ever want to be vain. It's not in my nature to be vain."

Brinker's guest-speaker was Diana B. Henriques: "The Wizard of Lies: Bernie Madoff and the Death of Trust"

Honey EC: Interesting comment by Diana Henriques. She said that Madoff investors may get back as much as 50-cents on the dollar of their investments.

Moneytalk on demand and to go with Bob Brinker, is available for FREE audio/podcasting at KGO810 radio for seven days after broadcast.  I download and save all three hours, including the third hour guest-speaker. (The program is archived in the 1-4pm time-slots.) If you don't download it from KGO within seven day, it's available at bobbrinker.com by paid subscription. KGO Radio Sunday Archives

Jenny's Bird of Paradise. First time in bloom. Click to enlarge:


92 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since Da Brink thinks anyone who does not want to raise the debt ceiling is not qualified for office, a judgment call on his part, I wonder if he would be willing to share with whom he voted to hold the office of President of the United States in 2008 so we can make a judgment on the soundness of his advice?

Better yet, if anyone has the time if you know the State he is a resident of you should be able to pull his voter record and it will tell you what party he pull s a primary ballot for as well as his voter frequency. Frankly I would be interested to know if anyone wants to do the research (note: personally do not think this information should be available).

I know many people are surprised to find out what it readily available so as an FYI I have posted a small portion of the public information that is available for a voter in my State.

"LastName","FirstName","MiddleName","RegistrationDate","BirthDate","Sex","Telephone","VoteAddress","VoteCity","VoteState","VoteZip","ElectionDate1","ElectionType1","Party1",

Note that your name, birthrate, length at address and what party you voter for is indicated, your actual vote (candidate is not).

It should be noted that the Republican Voter Vault and the less intrusive Democratic version are far, far, far more sickening in their detail. And it truly is nauseating to see how both parties manipulate their base. I won't go into details becasue this is not a political forum, unless Honey wants more info. But it sickens me.

The point of this is, I think people should know how Da Brink votes if he is going to make such pronounced judgments on candidates without regard to the details. If anyone has the time and inclination they should be able to find out.

tfb

Pig said...

Since Da Brink thinks anyone who does not want to raise the debt ceiling is not qualified for office,

That leaves out quite a few people, but he's much too ignorant to even know what he is saying. Of course, this time I agree with him. (((ROAR)))

Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Ceiling in 2006 - All Democrats Did -

Proof and links are everywhere.........this ain't spin.............but NOONE on the commie MSM will tell you this. The entire Democratic party and Obama said "NO".

None are fit for office, right Bob?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Honeybee said...

ael,

TFB is more than well-equipped to defend himself, but since I'm sure you are new, let me tell you how it works here:

Everyone in free to post any opinions about Bob Brinker's program that their little heart desires without fear of personal attacks.

Now if you have something to say about Brinker, his program, or his bully-pulpit politics, feel free to do so, but do not attack others here because I will just delete it.

birdbrain said...

Good third hour interview. When the author mentioned Fred Wilpon it
reminded me of a May 30 Sports Illustrated article which detailed how the NY Mets owner has been personally and professionally crushed from his investments with Bernie Madoff.

Of interest to any baseball fan. Go to si.com and search "Wilpon Pays the Price."

Also pleased to learn it is not the nature of "America's Most Trusted Advisor" to be vain.

Anonymous said...

Frankj:

"You're So Vain," by Carly Simon. Maybe she was singing about BB!

Good call, Birdbrain.

If you follow BB's logic, NO ONE is qualified to serve in Congress because historically, the party in power votes to raise the debt ceiling and the minority party votes against it. It is a little game they've been playing for years, only now, the stakes are much higher.

Good guest in the 3rd hour despite the aged nature of the topic. Bernard Madoff went to prison for stealing money in a Ponzi scheme.

The Congress of the United States stole the money from the SocSec trust fund and spent it. SocSec is a Ponzi scheme on the grandest scale ever.

Anonymous said...

I got attacked and I did not even make a negative comment about Da Brink or Binkey this time. Unbelievable...

Affectionately,

tfb

jeffchristie said...

BULLY-PULPIT POLITICS...Brinker said: "I see that there are some so-called presidential candidates out there stomping in Iowa, and they are calling for the US government not to raise the debt ceiling. And of course, this is the height of folly, the height of irresponsibility.....So if you hear a so-called presidential candidate telling you we don't need to raise the debt ceiling, you can cross that one right off your list. That's a person who's not qualified to run the country. That we know.....No serious person would ever endorse a policy that would lead to a US Treasury default."

Bob thanks for pointing out the folly of presidential candidates who oppose raising the debt ceiling. I wish you would have warned us about that prior to the 2008 presidential election.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” - Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

He voted against raising the debt ceiling.

Anonymous said...

"Since Da Brink thinks anyone who does not want to raise the debt ceiling is not qualified for office, a judgment call on his part, I wonder if he would be willing to share with whom he voted to hold the office of President of the United States in 2008 so we can make a judgment on the soundness of his advice?"

What difference does his voting record make?

Can't you find anything else to whine about?

Anonymous said...

"Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), He voted against raising the debt ceiling."

All Democrats voted against it too.

As previously indicated it's a game both parties play when they are out of power.

What's your point?

Anonymous said...

DEM and GOP working on FALLBACK PLAN

Behind the scenes, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid were negotiating over a fallback plan proposed by McConnell that would allow Obama to raise the debt limit while sparing Republicans from having to vote in favor of it.


http://news.yahoo.com/fallback-plan-gains-momentum-debt-talks-021218931.html

Pig said...

Anonymous aks: What's your point?

Me thinks the point is right in your face.

Bob Brinker says Obama and all of the Democrats are not fit to govern.

Doncha agree? I do.

Anonymous said...

"So if you hear a so-called PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE telling you we don't need to raise the debt ceiling, you can cross that one right off your list. That's a person who's not qualified to run the country."

THAT'S what Brinker said, according to HB,

And he's right again.

Honeybee said...

Well, gold and silver are on the move again:

Morning Gold & Silver Market Report – 7/18/2011
by Ryan Schwimmer July 18, 2011

GOLD BREACHES $1,600 AS OPTIMISM IN U.S. AND GREECE SUBSIDES

Gold breached the $1,600/oz. barrier earlier this morning amid fears of debt contagion in the eurozone and unsatisfying U.S. debt ceiling talks. Silver rose above $40/oz. for the first time since the large run in late April. An analyst at Forex.com explained, “Recently, gold has outpaced silver; however, with gold reaching a record … we think that silver may play catch up.” Gold’s appeal as a safe haven and hedge against inflation are shining through in this time of global economic uncertainty.

Later this week, a summit of European Union leaders will be held in order to work on details for the second bailout of Greece. An informal advisor to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said that leaders have waited too long for action. He said, “…I’m not optimistic. We’ve had solutions in the past, but we haven’t grasped them. Now it’s too late for some of those solutions to work anymore; the opportunity has been lost.”

There was no major progress over the weekend on debt ceiling talks. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid did negotiate a plan that will keep Republicans from having to take the vote in favor of the plan. As a Republican, a vote for the plan is political poison, so they are trying to remove any hurdles they can. Obama’s deadline for the debt ceiling being raised is this Friday, July 22.

At 8:07 am (CT) the APMEX precious metals spot prices were:

Gold - $1,601.30 – Up $10.20 on the day.
Silver - $40.42 – Up $1.29.
Platinum - $1,772.90 – Up $17.40.
Palladium - $795.30 – Up $12.70.

Apmex: Gold and Silver Market Report

Honeybee said...

anonymous posted: "Behind the scenes, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid were negotiating over a fallback plan proposed by McConnell that would allow Obama to raise the debt limit while sparing Republicans from having to vote in favor of it."


OIC, in other words, they're working on a plan that allows Obama to dictate.

.

Anonymous said...

"OIC, in other words, they're working on a plan that allows Obama to dictate."

No, they're working on a plan that allows the Republicans to once again duck their responsibilities.

Kirk Lindstrom said...

One reason I get fed up with Brinker is he argues things that don't make sense or that nobody credible says. For example, I thought it was interesting Brinker was in favor of raising rates on the high earners where his argument was they already make enough so the higher rates won't cause them to spend less.

He didn't address the major argument the GOP has which is they might not spend any less but they won't hire new people to work in their shops and restaurants if they have less income after taxes. He should have addressed THAT argument not some phantom argument he can easily win since nobody disagrees.

I don't recall any of the GOP guests on Kudlow's show ever saying less spending from the wealthy with a tax hike is why they oppose it.

Brinker might as well have argued he didn't think a tax increase on the top earners would turn the sky green.

For the first time in many months, I listed to over two hours of his show and felt I get a tiny fraction of the information I get from watching just an hour of Larry Kudlow's show on CNBC where Larry gets guests like Congressman Barney Frank who actually make policy that Larry doesn't agree with. Larry has him there so they can debate it.

Kirk Lindstrom said...

Typo:

I meant

For the first time in many months, I listened to over two hours of his show and felt I get a tiny fraction of the information I get from watching just an hour of Larry Kudlow's show on CNBC....

Honeybee said...

Kirk said: "I don't recall any of the GOP guests on Kudlow's show ever saying less spending from the wealthy with a tax hike is why they oppose it."

The top 1% already pay more than the other 99% together and 47% pay no tax at all.

The wealthy may soon decide to spend their money on a plane ticket out of the country if the US keeps bleeding them.

Bob Brinker always claims that people are leaving California for that very reason. How ridiculous that he can't see it could happen on a national scale too.

Apparently, Brinker feels pretty smug about not being affected by another 5% increase for the rich. Perhaps he has a whole bunch of those pre-refunded California gubmint bonds. And we know he pays no state tax....So his ox isn't likely to be gored.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Honeybee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"I'll tell you what's a tired argument: That you can tax us out of 14.5 trillion dollar debt and blood running in the streets deficits."

What's wrong with spending cuts AND closing some of the tax loopholes too?

Are you good with those hedge fund managers who make a BILLION DOLLARS a year and pay 15% TOP TAX RATE?

How many jobs do you think a hedge fund manager creates anyway?

The idea that the rich people will stop creating new jobs if you dare tax them fairly is bogus.

58FIA

Anonymous said...

I hope everyone has read and has had time to digest NLY's recent Market Commentary for the Second Quarter 2011 - Dated 7/14/2011.

http://www.snl.com/IRWebLinkX/file.aspx?...

Salty

Honeybee said...

anonymous said: "No, they're working on a plan that allows the Republicans to once again duck their responsibilities."

You may not be aware that the Republicans who were elected last year, were elected expressly for their more fiscally conservative politics.

So you are wrong by 180 degrees. They truly ARE fulfilling their responsibilities when they refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless there are SERIOUS budget cuts.

.

Honeybee said...

Short video worth listening to:

Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

.

Kirk Lindstrom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirk Lindstrom said...

"The top 1% already pay more than the other 99% together and 47% pay no tax at all. "

I don't believe that is true when you include the PAYROLL TAX, especially if you include both the 6.2% the employer pays with the 4.2% the employee pays as if they were self employed.

The government SPENDS the payroll tax as if it were a regular WELFARE or WAR or FBI tax so I think we need to lump it all in together then look at how much each 10% of the population pays as a percent of their income before we say who pays a fair share. Neither side really seems interested in presenting that data... as it shows BOTH rich and poor pay a lot...

Also, if the CEO at BofA makes 500 times what they pay the tellers, then he should pay 500 times more taxes if it is a flat tax. We have a progressive tax so he should pay more. I'm not sure this is the case if you include payroll taxes.

jeffchristie said...

2012 ELECTION ISSUE: Caller David from Chicago asked Brinker why more people aren't concerned about "what's going on out there." Brinker blamed it on inertia and lack of interest. Brinker said: "I really like the idea of keeping this on the front page and getting this into the general election next year because I think this is the perfect topic for a general election in 2012. Which direction is the United States going to go in terms of how it balances its revenues with its expenses.....And we have to get the deficit down. I'm very conservative on fiscal affairs. I always have been.....I think it will be a great subject to bring to the voters in 2012. Let's elect a whole House of Representatives on this issue, and the president on this issue, and 1/3 of the Senate on this issue. I wish we could elect the whole Senate on this issue."

EXCUSE ME BOB but we just answered that question in last years election. Why do you think the Republicans took over the house? They ran on reducing spending to bring the deficit down. Do you have any idea of what the tea party is all about?

Anonymous said...

There are several large differences between Kudlow and Brinker. Kudlow understands economics, it is very, very clear that Brinker does not.

On the other hand I think Da Brink has the hand up when it comes to understanding banking in general.

Kudlowe's command of the big picture is simple superior to Brinker's. My guess, and that al lit is, is Brinker now "phones things in" if he ever did ore than that. He seems particularity unengaged, and it is almost certain he is not absorbed in world events, economics, and politics like Kudlow is. I get the idea to Brinker financial topics are a way to line his pockets, where as to Kudlow he lines his pockets but he is a true live it 24x7 type. The difference shows.

Additionally Kudlow is very clear where is political allegiance is and what school of economics he follows, Brinker vacillates all over the place trying to play a centrist. Knowing that allows you to put his comments in their proper context.

Anonymous said...

Yes the rich need to pay more taxes because they are the ones that rigged the system at the expense of the rest of the country so they'd get richer while most middle class people in the private sector got nadda. So the rich have proven that when the rules favor some of others that the ones getting to write and re-write the rules generally come out on top as do the "referees" (aka government "bureaucrats". But Canada, Germany, and other countries that are doing better over the past devade are not doing so because they expanded government but because they cut the size of government. In the case of Canada it was $6 of cuts for each dollar of tax increase. That sounds about right for the USA.

Anonymous said...

The wealthy may soon decide to spend their money on a plane ticket out of the country if the US keeps bleeding them.

The term wealthy is subjective, nut I would say even the well off are migrating. I personally know of 18 people now who have left IL as a result of the oppressive tax increase imposed by the Democratic regimen on the honest labor of the working man to prop up their oppressors in the public sector.

Anonymous said...

Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham put together segments of former President Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech together with President Barack Obama's recent tough economy comments and it's eerie how similar the two saw the world. Listen to the Carter-Obama remix:

travis said...

BB had a caller yesterday that was questioning US Debt at 70% of GDP.
BB was repeating that until 90% it is workable.

When I look up US GDP I find 15t, and debt is almost 15t.

What am I missing?

jeffchristie said...

Travis

I had the same problem verifying Brinkers 70% number. This website shows it at 93% for 2010.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?title=Federal%20Debt%20as%20Pct%20GDP&year=1950_2010&chart=H0-fed&units=p

Honeybee said...

Tavis,

Perhaps you are not missing anything. Maybe someone can address your question.

Anybody?????

.

Honeybee said...

Here is the link to the very short, but SPOOKY Carter-Obama video that Laura Ingraham put together:

Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham put together segments of former President Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech together with President Barack Obama's recent tough economy comments and it's eerie how similar the two saw the world.

.

Honeybee said...

TFB,

The irony of Bob Brinker voting for Obama (assuming he did), the most fiscally irresponsible president ever, is mind-boggling.

Do you recall how he bashed McCain when McCain made a statement to the effect that economics was not his strong suit? This was during the campaign.

And recall that Brinker NEVER at any time subjected any of Obama's views on ANYTHING to retrospection during or after the campaign.

.

Anonymous said...

"I would not want to take financial advice from anyone who exercised such poor judgment as to have actually voted for Obama."

You told XXXX XXXXXXX that he was doing a fine job yet he voted for Obama.

Maybe you didn't know that.

Honeybee: Name edited from post. Please do not use personal names for personal comments.

Honeybee said...

Tavis, Jeff et al:

I have posted a chart that shows the US Debt as a percentage of GDP from 1950 to 2010 on the front page.

So all we need to do is add how much it has gone up since 2010 -- a lot!

.

Honeybee said...

Jeffchristie...I found this info at the link that you posted. Now I want to know what I am missing. It shows the number already ABOVE 90%. Right?


Below is a formatted version of the data displayed in the chart.

Federal Debt As Pct GDP
Fiscal Years 1950 to 2010Year GDP-US
pct GDP Gross Public Debt -fed
pct GDP
1950 293.7 87.45 a
1951 339.3 75.24 a
1952 358.3 72.31 a
1953 379.3 70.12 a
1954 380.4 71.19 a
1955 414.7 66.16 a
1956 437.4 62.34 a
1957 461.1 59.04 a
1958 467.2 59.86 a
1959 506.6 56.74 a
1960 526.4 55.19 a
1961 544.8 53.72 a
1962 585.7 51.72 a
1963 617.8 50.23 a
1964 663.6 47.63 a
1965 719.1 44.82 a
1966 787.7 41.70 a
1967 832.4 40.90 a
1968 909.8 40.52 a
1969 984.4 37.16 a
1970 1038.3 36.69 a
1971 1126.8 36.22 a
1972 1237.9 35.22 a
1973 1382.3 33.73 a
1974 1499.5 32.27 a
1975 1637.7 33.09 a
1976 1824.6 34.47 a
1977 2030.1 34.80 a
1978 2293.8 33.86 a
1979 2562.2 32.37 a
1980 2788.1 32.60 a
1981 3126.8 31.82 a
1982 3253.2 34.96 a
1983 3534.6 38.81 a
1984 3930.9 39.80 a
1985 4217.5 43.09 a
1986 4460.1 47.54 a
1987 4736.4 49.53 a
1988 5100.4 51.00 a
1989 5482.1 52.31 a
1990 5800.5 55.28 a
1991 5992.1 60.05 a
1992 6342.3 63.10 a
1993 6667.4 65.26 a
1994 7085.2 65.54 a
1995 7414.7 66.36 a
1996 7838.5 66.10 a
1997 8332.4 64.44 a
1998 8793.5 62.30 a
1999 9353.5 59.93 a
2000 9951.5 56.56 a
2001 10286.2 56.09 a
2002 10642.3 58.24 a
2003 11142.1 60.67 a
2004 11867.8 61.97 a
2005 12638.4 62.55 a
2006 13398.9 63.07 a
2007 14077.6 63.58 a
2008 14441.4 69.15 a
2009 14119 84.11 a
2010 14508.2 93.25 a

Legend:
a - actual reported
i - interpolated between actual reported values
e - out-year estimate in US fy12 budget

Government Spending

Anonymous said...

What difference does his voting record make?

Because when you have a micophone across the national airwaves and are presenting yourself as an expert on financial matters the listeners have a right to understand your leanings. Moreover, I think it is fair to say, that most people who are concerned about their personal fiances would be a bit surprised to find out that the person they go to for advice would vote for a known socialist that did not even attempt to hide the fact he believed in redistribution of wealth to punish the wealthy.

Moreover Obama has commuted THE cardinal sin in terms of personal finance. He has used the Government to violate personal loan contracts, rendering them null and void and seized a private company, stealing from bond holders and share holders in order to prop up his union voting base. Obama basically stole granny's bond portfolio!

I think you need to carefully examine the character or lack their of, of any financial advisor who voted for Obama - period. Obama did not hide what he was and more than Bush ever attempted to hide what he was. Even the most minor amount of research indicted what Obama was.

I would not want to take financial advice from anyone who exercised such poor judgment as to have actually voted for Obama.

tfb

Anonymous said...

1:31 and 1:49 (The wealthy may soon decide to....) were by me, the adorable, lovable ball of fur known as tfb

Anonymous said...

We have a progressive tax so he should pay more.

He should...??? Is that becasue we have a progressive tax system or becasue you are arguing it as a moral imperative?

Curious...

tfb

Honeybee said...

Wow...Warren Buffett has a few words to say about Obama's "corporate jet" rhetoric

.

Honeybee said...

Kirk said: "I don't believe that is true when you include the PAYROLL TAX, especially if you include both the 6.2% the employer pays with the 4.2% the employee pays as if they were self employed."

You are correct. I worded that wrong. I should have said that 47% (I think it's more than that now) pay no "income tax."

.

Anonymous said...

I will not even pretend to understand where Buffett is coming from with this>

http://mrctv.org/videos/warren-buffett-not-fan-obama%E2%80%99s-corporate-jet-rhetoric

Wasn't he the guy griping about not paying enough in taxes?

I really do not get his ideology. He has propped up Obama and given his horrendous policies political cover. And now he females dogs becasue they effect him directly?

tfb

Anonymous said...

oh shoot Honey already posted it...sorry - tfb

Honeybee said...

TFB,

Jeffchristie told me about it, or I probably would not have known about it. I'm not much of a fan of Warren Buffett. :)

Anonymous said...

Buffett owns NETJETS.

That is the reason he is chirping now.

Honeybee said...

This is not good news. Is it the beginning or will it end here?

"Egan-Jones Ratings Co. cut its rating on the U.S. by one step to AA+ from AAA, citing the high level of debt outstanding relative to other countries and concern that politicians may fail to reduce spending.

“The major factor driving credit quality is the relatively high level of debt and the difficulty in significantly cutting spending,” the firm said July 16 in a report. Egan-Jones placed the U.S. on negative watch on March 1.

Republicans are using talks to increase the $14.3 trillion debt-ceiling to press for cuts in spending. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said the government, which reached its borrowing limit on May 16, will run out of options to prevent a default on Aug. 2. The most likely outcome of the negotiations is that the federal government will fail to reduce its debt to gross domestic product “in any sort of meaningful fashion,” said Sean Egan, president of Egan-Jones in Haverford, Pennsylvania."


Bloomberg

Anonymous said...

""Egan-Jones Ratings Co. cut its rating on the U.S. by one step to AA+ from AAA, citing the high level of debt outstanding relative to other countries and concern that politicians may fail to reduce spending."

Egan-Jones??? Who are they?

What better way for a small, two-bit, never heard of, "rating" company to gain a little press coverage by downgrading US credit by a notch?

Would you buy a bond because it was highly rated by "Egan-Jones"? Don't think so.

Moody

Anonymous said...

So Moody's and S&P ratings agencies might do the same. They have already warned. They're going to be looking for a spending reduction too.

-- Frankj

Anonymous said...

Hey there Honeybee,

Bob Brinker made an appearance on Doug McIntyre's RedEye Radio again last. He was on the 50,000 watts of KABC radio here in Los Angeles. Doug actually lives in the San Fernando Valley so he does his show live from the KABC studios. He shows up to work a little early and goes back and forth with the local talk show hosts on KABC before he takes over the mic for his syndicated show.

Of course he could be heard on other stations as well such as WABC New York. He was on the first hours which is july 18th from 10 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Pacific Time (then run again at 2:00 a.m.) so of course that makes it July 19th from 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. in New York.

I checked the KABC website and Doug's own site for the RedEye Radio podcast and they both redirects me to the WABC website for the podcast, so New York's WABC must be the big player that you'll have to go to in order to listen to the interview. The podcast from the East Coast July 19show isn't up yet, but when it is you'll be able to find it here

http://www.wabcradio.com/sectional.asp?id=37817

Also, Doug's website is http://dougmcintyreonline.com/

Too bad Bob doesn't get right to the point on his own show like he does on Doug's show. He doesn't repeat the same thing over three times on the same call and to me it appears he gets right to the point with only a small amount of bloviating.

Take Care,

Rob in Pasadena, CA

Anonymous said...

July 18, 2011, 5:03 PM ET

Default risk is next to zero

The chances of the U.S. government defaulting on its debt on Aug. 2 are next to zero.

You may not agree with that statement. But it’s not just opinion; it is the collective judgment of the bond market, a market that is several times larger than the total value of all U.S. stocks combined. It contains some of the smartest traders around, who transfer billions in or out of the market just to capture an extra basis point.

And, yet, not only have Treasury yields not risen in recent weeks as the prospect of default has captured the media’s attention, they have fallen. Since the beginning of July, the ten year yield has dropped from 3.20% to its current 2.90%. XX:TNX.

So to believe that there is a significant chance of default, you have to also believe that some of the biggest and smartest investors in the world are wrong — that you know something they don’t. The markets may not be completely efficient, but that is undeniably a low probability bet.

One counterargument that is making the rounds of the blogosphere is that bonds aren’t falling in the wake of a likely default because such an eventuality would be worse for stocks. So, according to this Alice in Wonderland hall of mirrors argument, a government default would actually be good for Treasury bonds.

But this argument doesn’t withstand much scrutiny. Just as compelling a case, if not more so, can be made that, in the event of a default, the equity of triple-A rated blue chip multinational companies would be a good place to be. Such companies would be more credit worthy than the U.S. government, after all, and they are already hedged against currency fluctuations like a plunging dollar.

But discussions of such issues can go on forever. The important thing to keep in mind is that the bond market has already decided, and is putting its money where its mouth is.

- Mark Hulbert

Honeybee said...

Here is the link to Mark Hulbert's article posted above.

Marketwatch: Default risk is next to zero

Honeybee said...

Rob in Pasadena,

Thank you so much for that heads-up! I'll check it out and see if I can listen to it and report on it.

Honeybee said...

Rob,

I just checked all of the program that are archived for July 18th, and the Bob Brinker interview is not in any of them -- that I can find.

They don't have July 19th programs archived yet, so I will check again tomorrow and hopefully will be able to find it then.

If anyone finds the interview, please send me the info.

Anonymous said...

I say we are essentially bankrupt. The obligations that are coming as a result of the baby boomers are enormous. Health care costs will likely go through the roof. Most of these people are counting on these benefits that they were promised. You can't easily take them away. These people cannot generally go back to work. The boomers are also a major voting block and will not give up easily. We needed to plan for this instead of spending money on junk, wars, waste, tax cuts, big houses, vehicles that are gas gusslers, etc. while borrowing to pay for it. The current talks about cuts in spending and tax increases are just the beginning. To really sove the problem we need major cuts in spending and major increases in revenue.

Anonymous said...

The obligations that are coming as a result of the baby boomers are enormous.

What obligation is that. I was born in the early 60s, I was out lecturing on Financial Planning in the early 80s, preaching as were others the mantra the Social Security was going to go broke and you needed to make your plans without it. For a minimum of 30 years the same story has been sold, when they started handing out statements, there in black and white was the message they did not have enough money to pay the benefits on the statement. So unless you are retarded, that should mean you are not likely to get your money. It was all over the news, there were non-partisan commissions set up that identified the issues and it was all over the news. So where is there a surprise, where do you see an obligation? The boomers blew it by allowing Congress to spend the SS money entrusted to it. Bush blew it by not listening to Paul O’Neil and Alan Greenspan, and we the people allowed it to happen as the discussion took place. We also blew it by not privatizing the plan. Generation by generation we the people blew it.

Now what, everyone is suppose to suffer because a bunch of people did not provide for themselves? Now what, they want to burden their children and grandchildren because they abjugated their responsibility? ? No way: that is not right. You should not bear you children into intergenerational debt; that is tantamount to slavery in every sense of the word.

What they should do is allow people over 40 to stop paying in an forgo all benefits, and for those over 65 to be able to buy their children out by foregoing all benefits.

tfb

Anonymous said...

"Now what, everyone is suppose to suffer because a bunch of people did not provide for themselves? Now what, they want to burden their children and grandchildren because they abjugated their responsibility? ? No way: that is not right. You should not bear you children into intergenerational debt; that is tantamount to slavery in every sense of the word."

Tell that to the average person who has paid into Social Security all their life.

I don't think they have "abjugated" their responsibility at all. They played by the rules and now it's time for the government to live up to it's end of the bargain.

A deal is a deal.

And BTW, you haven't even mentioned Medicare which will be a far bigger drain on the taxpayers than Social Security.

azd56

Anonymous said...

"What obligation is that. I was born in the early 60s, I was out lecturing on Financial Planning in the early 80s, preaching as were others the mantra the Social Security was going to go broke and you needed to make your plans without it."

And you just happened to be peddling some high commission product that would protect them, right?

Was it annuities, life insurance, mutual funds or what?

Anonymous said...

HoneyBee,

Doug McIntyre's RedEye Radio interview with Bob Brinker is now up on the podcast at WABC. It's the July 19, 1:00 a.m. link here http://www.wabcradio.com/sectional.asp?id=37817

Rob in Pasadena, CA

Honeybee said...

Rob in Pasadena,

Thanks for letting me know.....I'm listening to it right now.

.

Anonymous said...

And you just happened to be peddling some high commission product that would protect them, right?

Was it annuities, life insurance, mutual funds or what?


None of the above, I was a fee only planner and still maintain a very minor practice as such.

tfb

Dan G said...

Brinker said: "I see that there are some so-called presidential candidates out there stomping in Iowa, and they are calling for the US government not to raise the debt ceiling. And of course, this is the height of folly, the height of irresponsibility"

Seems to me that running up a debt of over 14 trillion bucks is the real folly and height of irresponsibility!

Honeybee said...

Illinois Review: A lesson on how public sector unions and private sector unions work

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

James Kenney:

I did not vote for George W. Bush. He was a sleazeball Republican. Indeed, he was worse than most Republicans because he was "compassionate". Looks to me like "compassion" from the left or the right ends up making society economically worse off.

Bush expanded government and especially crony capitalism and corruption. The bigger the government the more corrupt it is likely to become and the worse it is for the economy, especially when the government is back-stopping speculators with tax payer monies. It is always fun to gamble with other people's money if you get to keep the winnings and others pick up the bag if your bets go south. That is not called deregulation it is called corruption or perhaps disregulation. Making stupid bets with other people's money may make sense economically for the one placing those bets but how does such gambling benefit society as a whole?

birdbrain said...

As the Gang of Six debt reduction plan gains momentum, I am perplexed. The framework would reduce annual deficits over the next ten years by about $4 trillion. By 2021 the country's publicly held debt would fall to roughly 70% of GDP, which is the level it's approaching this year.

So what's the accomplishment?

Plus the new baseline is after Obama's 25% increase in spending since taking office.

This is the best we can do?

Anonymous said...

Frankj:

Looking at the graph HB put up, it looks like debt is at 90% of GDP right now.

I have almost given up on trying to follow this process. It seems now the Gang of 6 plan resembles the original plan offered by Obama, acc'd to the WSJ today.

They've had months to deal with this and they have frittered away most of that time. Is has become all about who will claim credit for "fixing" things in 2012.

Pig said...

Here's IBD's take on the Sneaky 6 (my words). More LIES by the politicians.

Editorial: Gang Of Six Plan: A $3.1 Tril Tax Hike

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578924/201107201854/Gang-Of-Six-Plan-DC-At-Its-Worst.htm

Anonymous said...

"Seventeen times Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling without the taking of any hostages,” Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters Tuesday. “Yes, there were political disagreements, as there always are. But at the end of the day, the country voted [in a bipartisan manner] to make sure we didn’t put people on the brink.”

ttp://thehill.com/homenews/house/172213-dems-reagan-was-right-about-debt-limit

Honeybee said...

Mr Pig,

That is a very current and informative article and chart.

Here is the link

.

3 years of obama said...

"on the brink"? Is that a pun?

Honeybee said...

James Kenny asked: "Making stupid bets with other people's money may make sense economically for the one placing those bets but how does such gambling benefit society as a whole?"

James,

Thank you for your comments. While I like George Bush personally, I cannot disagree with your take on his big-spending, etc.

I think the answer to your question is clear. The whole society is suffering in one way or the other because of the government's "spending" bets.

jeffchristie said...

Dick Morris is predicting there will be a government shut down. The deadlock in the House will push the government beyond the August 2nd deadline and Obama will be forced to admit that it was a phony date all along. He will suddenly “discover” enough coming in via tax collections to pay for the debt service but other functions of government will have to be trimmed back or halted after the debt limit fails to pass. This would mean that federal government employees working in useless agencies like the Interior department will be laid off.

Honeybee said...

FrankJ said: "Looking at the graph HB put up, it looks like debt is at 90% of GDP right now."

That's the way it looks to me too. We need to find a reliable source that can tell us if it's 70% like Bob Brinker said or 90% like that graph shows.

Honeybee said...

ATTENTION: NEW BULLETIN FOR ALL BULB-TIMER SUBSCRIBERS!

This morning, the House of Representatives repealed the ban on incandescent light bulbs by a voice vote. The amendment was offered by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), and finally unravelled the ban that first moved out of Congress in 2007.

The amendment to repeal the ban on Thomas Alva Edison’s incandescent light bulb is attached to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Earlier this week, the House considered a stand alone bill that would repeal the ban. However, the House GOP leadership brought the bill to the floor with suspended rules, which requires a 2/3 majority to pass. The bill went up in smoke as a result.

Rep. Burgess introducing this amendment revitalized the effort to bring an end to the ban on light bulb choice, and as a result, deserves much praise for leading the way in getting the repeal of the ban out of the House.

It is now up to the Senate to repeal this absurd ban.

Here is some footage of Rep. Burgess speaking on the House floor about his amendment:

<a href=This morning, the House of Representatives repealed the ban on incandescent light bulbs by a voice vote. The amendment was offered by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), and finally unravelled the ban that first moved out of Congress in 2007.

The amendment to repeal the ban on Thomas Alva Edison’s incandescent light bulb is attached to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Earlier this week, the House considered a stand alone bill that would repeal the ban. However, the House GOP leadership brought the bill to the floor with suspended rules, which requires a 2/3 majority to pass. The bill went up in smoke as a result.

Rep. Burgess introducing this amendment revitalized the effort to bring an end to the ban on light bulb choice, and as a result, deserves much praise for leading the way in getting the repeal of the ban out of the House.

It is now up to the Senate to repeal this absurd ban.

Here is some footage of Rep. Burgess speaking on the House floor about his amendment:

(Sorry, can't get the link to post. Please copy and paste into browser.)

http://netrightdaily.com/2011/07/light-bulb-ban-repealed-in-the-house/

Anonymous said...

Dick Morris is predicting there will be a government shut down.

I can only hope.

tfb

Pig said...

Anon, spins the truth, and cherrypicks a report and spams us, and makes a big fool of himself by trying to say:But at the end of the day, the country voted [in a bipartisan manner] to make sure we didn’t put people on the brink.”


Obama and all Dems voted against debt ceiling increase in 2006

http://www.zimbio.com/Congresswoman+Sheila+Jackson+Lee/articles/iOP6uaUq-dD/Obama+Dems+voted+against+debt+ceiling+increase

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Honeybee said...

Note to the person who anonymously posted what appeared to be actual facts about Ronald Reagan:

If you want to post so-called facts - rather than opinion -back it up with links to a source.
.

Honeybee said...

Mr Pig,

Here's your hyperlink

.

Dan G said...

I have been hearing commercials from a guy who would make us all appreciate the level-headed advice Brinker dishes out regarding investing in general. OK, not his timing skills, but his advice on diversification and asset allocation.

This guy is Robert Kiyosaki, author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". He is dispelling such pearls of wisdom as:

- Why your house is not an asset (then quit-claim it over to me!)

- Why you should not diversify

- Why you shouldn't invest in a 401K

This guy's first seminar is free! And worth every penny, I'm sure!

But I'm sure that's the only free thing you'll get from him. Bad advice ain't cheap!

- Dan G

Anonymous said...

Frankj:

Dan,

I have been hearing the same commercials on the radio. Makes me wonder what his secret is.

If it turns out to be a recommendation to hoard incandescent light bulbs, he might be in trouble based on HB's recent posting.

Anonymous said...

Robert Kiyosaki,

this guy is a bigger female hygiene device than Brinker, and that is saying a lot.

See this review:

http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

It is hilarious.

tfb

Dan G said...

tfb,

Man, just went to that web site, and that creep is even more dangerous than I thought! Avoid this guy at all costs...or it will surely cost you dearly. How does he stay out of jail?

Honeybee said...

I agree with Dan. That guy is dangerous.

I also agree with TFB, that guy is a bigger than...err...well any way, a big shark. :)

Anonymous said...

Kiyosaki is an interesting guy (note - interesting does not mean a good guy, it just means interesting).

First of all, if you grew up on the streets you instantly recognize the guy is jsut a BSer - huckster. What is amazing is how obvious it is. This guys literally drips the stench of deceit from his pores.

But, and here is wha tis interesting, if you are street wise you see it, but if you were raised in the lower class, middle class, or upper middle you simply do not see it. I do not know one person who is in the upper income level who gives this guy credence except for Donald Trump.

Al that being said, Kiyosaki does have an interesting and valuable perspective on some issues. For instance he points out in a long drawn out, monotonous way that public education is geared at making you a employee drone and does not foster a spirit of rugged individualism nor entrepreneurship. That is very much true. He does motivate one to think outside the box, unfortunately much of his outside the box thinking is injurious to you pocket book.

tfb

Dan G said...

I'm thinking that this debate about the debt limit is just plain silly. The debt limit has never stopped a single dollar from being spent. They simply raise it in the nick of time.

The debt limit is similar to the mechanical rabbit that runs ahead of the dogs in a dog race. The dogs (debt) never catch the rabbit, which just keeps a little ahead of them.

Stooooopid! A balanced budget amendment would be fine, with some exceptions made for war...DECLARED war! This would keep our finaces in check as well as keeping our noses out of every little "police action" that the President wants us to get into that are often none of our business.

Honeybee said...

Hi DanG,

I am copying your post to the new Summary where we can discuss it:

July 24, 2011 Moneytalk Summary

.