News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[turbo]

It is wrong to look at stimulus aimed at the bottom economic classes as a one-time expenditure with a negative impact on our government's fiscal health. If people without much money find themselves with a little extra, they are likely to spend it on what we more affluent people would consider essentials. That money goes into the local economies, and frees up spending constraints on the people that provided those goods and services, so that they can spend, in turn. A store-owner may be able to justify the hiring of extra help or the expansion of part of his/her store, providers of services like hair-cuts, styling, etc might be able to spend a bit more on themselves when their clientel rebounds a bit, and on and on.

That stimulus not a once-and-done expenditure, though the right wing shows little understanding of that concept.

 

[Al68]

We are not arguing the morality behind taxes here. We are debating the usefulness (regardless of morality) of certain kinds of stimulus.

My post was about factual accuracy, not morality.

 

[Gokul43201]

Fine. Are you satisfied with the stipulation presented?

 

[Al68]

Fine. Are you satisfied with the stipulation presented?

No. I would be satisfied with a factually accurate description, which precludes any notion that government is "spending" money by virtue of never obtaining it to begin with. By that logic, I've personally spent trillions of dollars by "giving" it to millions of people around the world.

In this case, the cost to the economy and working people of government obtaining the money to spend should be counted first, not ignored in the calculation completely. And pretending that obtaining money from the economic investments "owned" by rich people isn't a burden on working people is also fraudulent. It's not like rich people pay taxes levied on them out of their "fat cat cigar budget", or that their taxes have anything to do with their personal finances. The money comes out of their investments in the economy.

 

[Gokul43201]

No. I would be satisfied with a factually accurate description, which precludes any notion that government is "spending" money by virtue of never obtaining it to begin with. By that logic, I've personally spent trillions of dollars by "giving" it to millions of people around the world.

The morality of a specific tax policy is a different issue altogether.

I'm not following you - I thought I stipulated that the tax cuts are not to be considered as spending; instead the tax increases may be called 'stealing'. It doesn't change the rest of the discussion as I see it.

Perhaps you could instead directly weigh in on the exchange within posts #183 and #191?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hate to get involved in this side discussion, but using the phrase "money put into" to refer to money not taken, as if you are referring to money that the government decided to give someone, is as silly as it is fraudulent.

A negative negative is positive by any other name. While you may be bothered by the semantics, it has nothing to do with a legitimate discussion.

And are we completely forgetting that every dime spent by government, regardless of how much it "stimulates the economy" is first taken from the economy to begin with? And are forgetting in the debate about "which tax cuts pay for themselves" that the answer applies to the government's budget only. If you consider the people as well as government, a tax cut "pays for itself" if there is no positive economic impact from the tax cut whatsoever. Any positive economic impact is a bonus in addition to the tax cut "paying for itself".

If the money that would be paid in taxes, say from a corporation, or from an investor, goes instead to build a Chinese factory and pay Chinese workers, how does it benefit the US economy?

Are we completely forgetting that any money spent by government is a drain on the economy first?

It depends on how that money would have been spent.

You are talking in circles.

 

[Al68]

I'm not following you - I thought I stipulated that the tax cuts are not to be considered as spending; instead the tax increases may be called 'stealing'. It doesn't change the rest of the discussion as I see it.

Why call them either for this purpose? Why not just be factually accurate and refer to revenues as revenues and spending as spending?

 

[mheslep]

Would you be happier if I stipulated that Granholm (and presumably a pretty large fraction of economists today) are saying that there would be more job creation if the Government stole money from the rich and directly invested it into infrastructure projects?

For my part: no. The vast majority of the federal stimulus money received by Granholm's Michigan so far has not been for infrastructure projects. Instead http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.html" has gone to transfer payments to keep state pension funds, medicaid and the like afloat. Some economists might go along job creation by taxing the 'rich' and spending more; I doubt a majority would any more from the bit I read.

 

[Al68]

A negative negative is positive by any other name. While you may be bothered by the semantics, it has nothing to do with a legitimate discussion.

Less revenue is not substantively the same thing as more spending. Ditto for vice versa.

Is my taking a pay cut the same as increasing my spending because "a negative negative is positive". Is cutting back on food for my kids the same as a pay raise? Ending up with the same number for a net mathematical result (negative negative is positive) does not make the difference between two things only semantic in nature.

If the money that would be paid in taxes, say from a corporation, or from an investor, goes instead to build a Chinese factory and pay Chinese workers, how does it benefit the US economy?

Huh? Are you referring to a tax policy targeted at such a thing? I wasn't.

It depends on how that money would have been spent.

Of course it does. Different tax policies represent different drains on the economy. But there is no such thing as a free lunch, even if some lunches are cheaper than others.

You are talking in circles.

LOL. Pointing out the obvious fact that taxation is a drain on the economy is talking in circles?

 

[turbo]

obvious[/I] fact that taxation is a drain on the economy is talking in circles?

Taxation is a "drain" on the economy only to the extent that taxes exceed the value of the services and stability provided by government, so that businesses can thrive.

Also, as I have been trying to point out (to deafening silence) all taxation and all spending is NOT equivalent. Our government should be targeting tax breaks toward the lower economic classes and targeting increased taxes toward the higher economic classes. Poor people have to spend the money that they have - instant, local stimulus. Rich people do not have to do that, so if you give them favorable tax treatment, they can bank it and remove that money from our economy - often off-shore.

 

[Al68]

Taxation is a "drain" on the economy only to the extent that taxes exceed the value of the services and stability provided by government, so that businesses can thrive.

My point was that the economic drain of taxation should be included in the calculation instead of ignored, not that it necessarily exceeds the benefit from the resulting spending.

 

[CRGreathouse]

A single payer system can be accurately described as socialist; mandating HI can't.

Forcing people to buy used cars would solve the (literal) market for lemons. But that doesn't make it a good idea. What about people who don't want cars?

I don't want health insurance, and I hate the idea of being forced to buy it. (As it happens I already had it -- my employer heavily subsidizes it, so I'd be leaving a fair amount of my comp. package on the table if I didn't take it. But the principle remains.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

But there is no such thing as a free lunch, even if some lunches are cheaper than others.LOL.

Minor point: there may be some free lunches left, with unexploited Pigovian taxes. But for the most part I agree.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I give little credence to that particular CBO model now - the same one that forecast 8% peak unemployment. It has received much criticism from other economists; I've posted some references elsewhere.

mheslep, at the risk of offense, would you re-post or link to your earlier post? I'd like to read these and I must have missed them the first time around.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, at the risk of offense, would you re-post or link to your earlier post? I'd like to read these and I must have missed them the first time around.

Sure.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833038&postcount=760

 

[Al68]

I don't want health insurance, and I hate the idea of being forced to buy it.

The bigger problem with Obamacare is that people are forced to buy a comprehensive health care plan in addition to medical insurance, while making it illegal to buy only medical insurance. I personally want medical insurance, but Obamacare makes it illegal.

Of course the tax penalty is much cheaper than the Cadillac health plans they want us to buy, but it just adds salt to the wound of being prevented from buying the basic medical insurance many people do want.

 

[turbo]

My point was that the economic drain of taxation should be included in the calculation instead of ignored, not that it necessarily exceeds the benefit from the resulting spending.

I agree with that. Not much happens in absolute terms, especially in economics.

I don't know if you were involved in the discussion, but there was a time years back when Astronuc and I were pointing out irrefutable signs that the US was falling into a bad recession (if not a depression) and there were all kinds of right-wing cheerleaders on this board refuting that and saying that we were "Wishing for a recession." (Sorry for that, Jimmy, but it's true.) Guess what? We were spot-on, and it's turning out to be even worse than we had feared.

My wife and I saw this coming. We bought this little place in the country in 2005 and finally sold our old place near the height of the housing market in 2006. My biker-buddy and his wife (he was our agent in the sale of our place) dumped their huge old restored farmhouse shortly after we sold ours and bought a fixer-upper. Both of our former homes were defaulted on by the buyers and were re-sold at a loss to the finance companies and to the people who traded in the derivatives based on shaky real-estate.

Slogans and assurances of future gains mean nothing, especially when they are coming from the Koch brothers who finance the Tea Baggers and Swift-boaters. They are oil-billionaires and the millions that they toss around for their political efforts are nothing to them. Just pennies to the unwashed masses who are ignorant enough to buy their message. Follow the money.

The wealthy can make big bucks off economic mayhem, and if they can incite it cheaply, they will.

 

[SixNein]

I agree with that. Not much happens in absolute terms, especially in economics.

I don't know if you were involved in the discussion, but there was a time years back when Astronuc and I were pointing out irrefutable signs that the US was falling into a bad recession (if not a depression) and there were all kinds of right-wing cheerleaders on this board refuting that and saying that we were "Wishing for a recession." (Sorry for that, Jimmy, but it's true.) Guess what? We were spot-on, and it's turning out to be even worse than we had feared.

My wife and I saw this coming. We bought this little place in the country in 2005 and finally sold our old place near the height of the housing market in 2006. My biker-buddy and his wife (he was our agent in the sale of our place) dumped their huge old restored farmhouse shortly after we sold ours and bought a fixer-upper. Both of our former homes were defaulted on by the buyers and were re-sold at a loss to the finance companies and to the people who traded in the derivatives based on shaky real-estate.

Slogans and assurances of future gains mean nothing, especially when they are coming from the Koch brothers who finance the Tea Baggers and Swift-boaters. They are oil-billionaires and the millions that they toss around for their political efforts are nothing to them. Just pennies to the unwashed masses who are ignorant enough to buy their message. Follow the money.

The wealthy can make big bucks off economic mayhem, and if they can incite it cheaply, they will.

I think we will be quite lucky if we avoid a double dip recession followed by a depression. I'm growing increasingly worried about it, and I think it will be very major if it occurs. I'm also worried about the political stability of America because I question the governments ability to act. And I would not lay the blame entirely at the feet of the wealthy. I think a lot of it has to do with bankrupt political philosophies and gimmick economics.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm also worried about the political stability of America because I question the governments ability to act.

I have no doubt as to the ability of the US government to act. I worry whether they can act prudently, though...

 

[turbo]

I have no doubt as to the ability of the US government to act. I worry whether they can act prudently, though...

I share that fear.

 

[Galteeth]

I agree with that. Not much happens in absolute terms, especially in economics.

I don't know if you were involved in the discussion, but there was a time years back when Astronuc and I were pointing out irrefutable signs that the US was falling into a bad recession (if not a depression) and there were all kinds of right-wing cheerleaders on this board refuting that and saying that we were "Wishing for a recession." (Sorry for that, Jimmy, but it's true.) Guess what? We were spot-on, and it's turning out to be even worse than we had feared.

My wife and I saw this coming. We bought this little place in the country in 2005 and finally sold our old place near the height of the housing market in 2006. My biker-buddy and his wife (he was our agent in the sale of our place) dumped their huge old restored farmhouse shortly after we sold ours and bought a fixer-upper. Both of our former homes were defaulted on by the buyers and were re-sold at a loss to the finance companies and to the people who traded in the derivatives based on shaky real-estate.

Slogans and assurances of future gains mean nothing, especially when they are coming from the Koch brothers who finance the Tea Baggers and Swift-boaters. They are oil-billionaires and the millions that they toss around for their political efforts are nothing to them. Just pennies to the unwashed masses who are ignorant enough to buy their message. Follow the money.

The wealthy can make big bucks off economic mayhem, and if they can incite it cheaply, they will.

I agree with you on this. Things feel similar to the summer of '08 (when I was trying to warn friends and family members, by the way, although they didn't listen, and my meager finances did well).

 

[SixNein]

I have no doubt as to the ability of the US government to act. I worry whether they can act prudently, though...

I'm afraid I do. There are many things that the government needs to do but doesn't do because it would be politically unpopular; thus, the government takes no action.

This discussion about tax cuts is a great example. As soon as the economy stabilizes, we need to cut spending and raise taxes in order to get our debt under control. But I question the governments ability to act. The government is fully aware that it has a very large problem with debt. The problem is also getting worse because we are running out of people to finance our debt. China has decided that it is no longer going to prop up US debt, and its moving its money elsewhere. People should be watching currency very closely because other nations may follow lead and sale off US debt.

 

[SixNein]

I agree with you on this. Things feel similar to the summer of '08 (when I was trying to warn friends and family members, by the way, although they didn't listen, and my meager finances did well).

A good thing to watch is the gold market:

http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au75-pres.gifAnd watch for reports like this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Home-sales-plunge-27-pct-to-apf-2949326144.html?x=0

 

[mheslep]

because other nations may follow lead and sale off US debt.

The question to ask in those currency collapse discusions is, sell to who? The point is China can't ever 'dump' dollars because in such a scenario there's nobody to sell to. They (china) only really has the option to stop buying.

 

[SixNein]

The question to ask in those currency collapse discusions is, sell to who? The point is China can't ever 'dump' dollars because in such a scenario there's nobody to sell to. They (china) only really has the option to stop buying.

China has been reducing its holdings in US debt. China is not simply going to 'dump' US dollars overnight; instead, it will sell those dollars over a period of time.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvs4bqHvaxiS5Ii-VEjJFbdsz-MgD9HKPOVG0

The prospect of a currency collapse is small in my opinion, but we may very well be in for a long future of high interest rates and a sluggish economy.

 

[turbo]

The prospect of a currency collapse is small in my opinion, but we may very well be in for a long future of high interest rates and a sluggish economy.

I would welcome a period of high interest rates. The last two Fed chairmen have made low prime rates a priority so that Wall Street and the mega-banks can have cheap money at the expense of regular citizens. This means that my retirement savings earn practically NO interest and combined with increases in the cost of living, my net worth is going down, not up. When borrowers get priority over savers, that sends exactly the wrong signal. Of course, that's exactly what Wall Street wants - cheap money to speculate with.

 

[mheslep]

... with increases in the cost of living, my net worth is going down, not up. When borrowers get priority over savers, that sends exactly the wrong signal. Of course, that's exactly what Wall Street wants - cheap money to speculate with.

The increase in the US cost of living at the moment is nil.
[URL]http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=f&Period=24&Areas=USA%20Average,,&Unit=US%20$/G[/URL]
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/01/12/house-price-chart-of-the-day/"

Wall Street is largely not speculating in anything fancy at the moment; all their money is going into nice safe US Treasury bills, financing that stimulus you are so fond of. Sorry, no vast right wing conspiracy this time.

 

[turbo]

The cost of gas? Is that the only thing people need to live on? You know better.

http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm

 

[mheslep]

The cost of gas? Is that the only thing people need to live on? You know better.

You know I also posted housing.

August 13, 2010
On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U increased 0.3 percent in July after falling 0.1 percent in June. The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.1 percent in July after increasing 0.2 percent in June.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm

Static index, state vs state. Has nothing to do with time.

 

[turbo]

You know I also posted housing.

Wow! The collapse of the artificially-created housing bubble qualifies as a reduction of the CPI? That's rich!

 

[mheslep]

Wow! The collapse of the artificially-created housing bubble qualifies as a reduction of the CPI? That's rich!

Don't conflate your political views with real money going in and out pockets. A condo that two years ago cost $100,000 to buy new now costs, on average, $85,000, end of story. The question of whether or not the original $100k was due to a bubble or the prices of nails is completely irrelevant to the fact that the same property costs $15k less today, $15k that can be spent instead on food, gas, education, etc.

 

[turbo]

You have no idea what my political views are. I am more fiscally conservative and more educated and aware regarding economic forces than any Libertarian that I know. I am not a nut-case, however. I was a solid Republican for many, many years, and am now a committed Independent, so I don't even get to vote in primaries.

The thieves in DC (both parties) have sold us out big-time, though I have to say that W, Cheney, and the GOP-controlled Congress have raised the bar for thievery, pushing more and more money to the upper couple of percent of our population at the expense of the rest of us. Boehner and McConnell are dedicated to bringing back that level of corruption. While I have a huge amount of disdain for the gutless Democratic party, I have ever-growing revulsion for the GOP. Hopefully, the billionaire Koch brothers' creation of the "grass-roots" tea-party will send the GOP on a death-spiral so some actual fiscal conservatives can gain ascendancy and heal that sick party.

BTW, I was seriously considering supporting McCain until he let his advisors saddle him with a brain-dead nitwit as VP choice.

 

[Al68]

You have no idea what my political views are.

Well, to be fair, your posts in this thread and many others provide a very good idea, since many of your views are either stated explicitly or implied in an obvious way.

I am more fiscally conservative and more educated and aware regarding economic forces than any Libertarian that I know.

I have never heard the term "fiscally conservative" used to describe your stated views by anyone but you. I've only heard it used to describe the exact opposite. It's normally used to describe a belief in lower taxes and spending by government. Barry Goldwater was the poster boy at one time, and his economic beliefs were far more "right-wing" than any national politician today. Goldwater made current "neocons" look like Ted Kennedy by comparison.

I was a solid Republican for many, many years...

Why? Your economic views are very very different from Republicans historically, far more so than current Republicans. Was it social issues?

 

[turbo]

Well, to be fair, your posts in this thread and many others provide a very good idea, since many of your views are either stated explicitly or implied in an obvious way.

No they do not. You live in a fantasy-world created by FOX in which every single question can be posed as either-or or black-and -white. That may be your "happy zone", but is NOT real.

I have never heard the term "fiscally conservative" used to describe your stated views by anyone but you. It's normally used to describe a belief in lower taxes and spending by government. Barry Goldwater was the poster boy at one time, and his economic beliefs were far more "right-wing" than any national politician today. Goldwater made current "neocons" look like Ted Kennedy by comparison.

I have always been conservative fiscally. If you want to defend W's tax cuts for the top 2%, knock yourself out AND please explain why you think they need to be extended.

Why? Your economic views are very very different from Republicans historically, far more so than current Republicans. Was it social issues?

My economic views are very Republican (pre -70). Unfortunately, since Reagan I cannot identify with Republican views currently. They are not conservative in the least. They are radical and destructive.

 

[Al68]

No they do not.

Are you seriously claiming none of your posts contained any of your political views?

You live in a fantasy-world created by FOX in which every single question can be posed as either-or or black-and -white. That may be your "happy zone", but is NOT real.

Huh? I do appreciate your thinking I might be young enough to have had my political beliefs influenced by Fox, but they were not around for my libertarian "indoctrination".

I have always been conservative fiscally.

The policies you have advocated/opposed in your posts beg to differ. You can't expect a claim of "fiscally conservative" to be taken seriously after repeated attacks by you on fiscal conservatism.

Fiscal conservatism advocates "reduction of overall government spending", "deregulation of the economy", "lower taxes", and "other classical liberal policies". Does that sound like your posts in this forum?

If you want to defend W's tax cuts for the top 2%, knock yourself out AND please explain why you think they need to be extended.

A true fiscal conservative would advocate not only extension, but repeating the "Bush tax cut" several more times. I favor eliminating the income tax altogether. And calling us "for the rich" is fraudulent and you know it.

But the most bizarre thing about your post is that Bush really wasn't a fiscal conservative, as evidenced by many things he did that you haven't mentioned. If you want to claim Bush wasn't fiscally conservative, try pointing out the obvious reasons why, like the spending he approved, or bailouts. That would be a little more logically coherent than pointing out virtually the only fiscally conservative thing he ever did.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Fiscal conservatism advocates "reduction of overall government spending", "deregulation of the economy", "lower taxes", and "other classical liberal policies".

Many fiscal conservatives are foremost concerned with balancing the budget. If that requires higher taxes for the moment then so be it.

Cutting taxes and running a deficit is not fiscal conservatism, but it sounds like you think that's what it supports (since you think that was the one fiscally conservative thing that Bush did)?

 

[CRGreathouse]

The increase in the US cost of living at the moment is nil.

It's going up now at about 1% per year, but there was deflation earlier such that we're only now back to 2008 levels.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt[/URL]

 

[Al68]

Many fiscal conservatives are foremost concerned with balancing the budget. If that requires higher taxes for the moment then so be it.

It doesn't and it never has. Fiscal conservatism traditionally rejects the idea that higher taxes instead of restrained spending should be used to balance the budget.

Cutting taxes and running a deficit is not fiscal conservatism, but it sounds like you think that's what it supports (since you think that was the one fiscally conservative thing that Bush did)?

You must have misread my post. I referred to tax cuts, not running a deficit, as the one fiscally conservative thing he did. I even pointed out that Bush was not fiscally conservative in general for the very reason that he approved way too much (deficit) spending.

 

[Evo]

It's going up now at about 1% per year, but there was deflation earlier such that we're only now back to 2008 levels.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt[/URL][/QUOTE]It's not the cost of living raises, it's people getting huge pay cuts just to stay employed. Last year I had three 20% paycuts. 20% off, then 20% off that and then 20% off that, all within 5 months. The company said the legal department said it was legal since our contracts said that changes could be made at any time for any reason.

 

[brainstorm]

The choice seems pretty clear to me at this point: either fiscal stimulus or fiscal stimulus. First the money gets spent by creating a debt. Then taxes are cut to stimulate businesses to work for the stimulus money. Will the government ever allow the free market to decide for itself how much to spend or not spend? Apparently not. Can capitalism survive without government intervention? Maybe not. Will cutting taxes prevent future stimulus? Probably not. Is it disturbing that bailouts were followed by spending and that businesses are now clamoring to keep more of the money for themselves after needing to be bailed out last time? I wonder what others think? To me it seems like endless artificial resuscitation of a failed economic vision. Still, it seems that even while ppl are complaining about printing money, they're still insisting that they should be able to keep more of it once it ends up in their pockets. Why don't ppl who disagree with the stimulus just refuse to work for printed money?

 

[brainstorm]

It's not the cost of living raises, it's people getting huge pay cuts just to stay employed. Last year I had three 20% paycuts. 20% off, then 20% off that and then 20% off that, all within 5 months. The company said the legal department said it was legal since our contracts said that changes could be made at any time for any reason.

I hear so many stories like this yet I somehow still have the idea that there are people who are either maintaining consistent salary levels or even getting raises. Why do I have this impression? Also, whenever I go shopping the stores seem to be quite busy. How does the economy continue to generate this level of consumption when so many ppl are weathering budget cuts?

 

[lisab]

I hear so many stories like this yet I somehow still have the idea that there are people who are either maintaining consistent salary levels or even getting raises. Why do I have this impression? Also, whenever I go shopping the stores seem to be quite busy. How does the economy continue to generate this level of consumption when so many ppl are weathering budget cuts?

I had a 10% cut, which has recently been restored. Woo-hoo, one look at my paycheck and it's 2008 again.

I don't know where you shop that you see lots of shoppers, I see the opposite. Sparse crowds, light traffic, plenty of parking. Oh, and *lots* of vacant store fronts.

 

[mheslep]

It's not the cost of living raises, it's people getting huge pay cuts just to stay employed. Last year I had three 20% paycuts. 20% off, then 20% off that and then 20% off that, all within 5 months. The company said the legal department said it was legal since our contracts said that changes could be made at any time for any reason.

Ouch.

 

[mheslep]

Many fiscal conservatives are foremost concerned with balancing the budget. If that requires higher taxes for the moment then so be it.

Aside - why not "if the budget requires large cuts in spending then so be it"? Tax increases can't come close to closing the deficit. Spending has got to be slashed. There is no other option.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Aside - why not "if the budget requires large cuts in spending then so be it"? Tax increases can't come close to closing the deficit. Spending has got to be slashed. There is no other option.

Where's the "sign pointing up that says 'fiscal conservative'" smiley when you need it?

 

[Al68]

Aside - why not "if the budget requires large cuts in spending then so be it"? Tax increases can't come close to closing the deficit. Spending has got to be slashed. There is no other option.

Where's the "sign pointing up that says 'fiscal conservative'" smiley when you need it?

Can we use this:
[URL]http://www.beautifulclipart.com/clipart/arrows/arrow1.gif[/URL]
[PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/customavatars/avatar9551_1.gif

 

[CRGreathouse]

Actually, I'm not convinced turbo-1 is a fiscal conservative, at least the way the term is generally used. But he doesn't seem to discuss his own political views (see post #232), so I'm content to let that matter drop.

 

[Al68]

Actually, I'm not convinced turbo-1 is a fiscal conservative, at least the way the term is generally used.

LOL. That was intended as friendly sarcasm. :!)

But he doesn't seem to discuss his own political views...

LOL. Yeah, me either.

 

[Galteeth]

A good thing to watch is the gold market:

http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au75-pres.gif


And watch for reports like this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Home-sales-plunge-27-pct-to-apf-2949326144.html?x=0

Yeah my dad thought I was stupid for cashing out my mixed portfolio in early 2008 and buying gold at 900 plus some asian stocks. He was a financial adviser and all. He lost over half of what he had, and I made money. I sold the gold awhile ago, and I doubt it can go much higher in the short term, I am just worried the second part of the double dip is on the way.

 

[Galteeth]

The choice seems pretty clear to me at this point: either fiscal stimulus or fiscal stimulus. First the money gets spent by creating a debt. Then taxes are cut to stimulate businesses to work for the stimulus money. Will the government ever allow the free market to decide for itself how much to spend or not spend? Apparently not. Can capitalism survive without government intervention? Maybe not. Will cutting taxes prevent future stimulus? Probably not. Is it disturbing that bailouts were followed by spending and that businesses are now clamoring to keep more of the money for themselves after needing to be bailed out last time? I wonder what others think? To me it seems like endless artificial resuscitation of a failed economic vision. Still, it seems that even while ppl are complaining about printing money, they're still insisting that they should be able to keep more of it once it ends up in their pockets. Why don't ppl who disagree with the stimulus just refuse to work for printed money?

Because once that happens you're royally screwed.