Market Currents
Pres. Obama says he'll ask Harry Reid to put a "basic package" on the floor for an "up-or-down...
-
Friday, December 28, 2012, 6:10 PM ETPres. Obama says he'll ask Harry Reid to put a "basic package" on the floor for an "up-or-down vote," should Congress fail to reach a deal. Congressional leaders suggest an afternoon meeting with Obama went well, but Wall Street isn't convinced the fiscal cliff will be avoided. Equity futures have added to their losses following the close.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 118 comments:
Those pesky Republicans - trying to stop 'progress'!
It has been obvious the past few weeks that obama and dems were not serious about details of spending cuts so the dems used the camouflage of agreeing on framework and being only a few $B away so they could blame reps for no deal. What a crock!
We need to go over the cliff so that obama's lack of leadership becomes the issue and people start screaming at him. When obama changes his tune then a real deal can be made.
"Without the top 2% there wouldn't be a middle class"
I call B.S. The 98% create demand for the products and services which produce the wealth for the top 2%. If the 2% left, our economy would just produce another set of "2%ers"
"the top 2%.. they make this country not middle class..."
So in your world the entire country could run off the backs of just a few thousand people who inhabit the upper percentiles? Why haven't they already started their own country? Clearly you discount simple economics to come to that conclusion. If the employed middle class all stopped working and oiling the machine it would grind to a catastrophic halt instantly. What would happen If all the billionaire hedge fund managers taking bailout money bonuses just up and disappeared? The next guy with no morals would just take his place and the wheel would keep turning.
The American middle class are strong willed people. There will always be strong demand for the goods and services in America just based of the needs and wants of the large population base. If 2% abandon their assets and leave the country (its pretty hard to carry out their land, factories and office buildings) there will be plenty of entrepreneurs lined up to take a swing at bat. It might hurt initially as the rich flood the market with their assets but it would spur a new generation of strong middle class moving "up" to take the deserters places.
Also, If mansions and yachts suddenly loose value and go on sale because all the billionaires are liquidating, I might pick one up my self. Win-win, lol.
Cheers!
Why do they tend to suport smaller govt despite the fact thay tend to come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds?
Not despite coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, but because we come from economically disadvantaged ackgrounds.
We understand that big govt is alled with big busn and govt assistance is actually institutionalizing poverty.
As for social ills, don't even get me started on that. Consider Social Security, for example. Before SS poverty rate among the elderly was 40%. With SS, it has dropped to 10%. Now, some may point to the 30% gain, but not me. I, like you, prefer to point to the 10% and claim that SS has been a failure. Same for Medicare and Medicaid. If they haven't cured all illness known to humankind, I say they failed and should be cut. You with me on that?
The fiscal speed bump will be avoided.
All spending and taxing is the domain of congress, not the president. If those 535 clowns can't pull it off, why do we need them?
If he was playing hardball he'd have asked for four....
The next big thing that needs to be done is to evaluate and rebuild all the federal agencies. Virtually all federal agencies have been captured by, either the industry they are intended to regulate, or the extreme special interests that have burrowed into positions of power (think DoD, SEC, FDA, et al., in the first case and EPA, OSHA et al., in the latter case)
Then what? Let the CBO release their new projections and it would have showed we are still in debt up to our necks and the attention and focus would have changed to spending.
Republicans, given their current position, should hold. They need to explain to people that we can't afford all the government we currently have and everyone has to pay for it. AND they have to explain this is just a small drop in the bucket and if you don't like these tax increases - then be prepared for what is truly required to support all the current and proposed spending. Perhaps that would spur the average citizen to finally face the fact that irregardless of what some idiot politician promised, that they will need to accept much smaller government programs in the future.
And frankly, who cares if the Republican party collapses. Perhaps it will be replaced by a new party that values liberty and freedom above all else and will actually be willing to cut spending when in power. Lets face it - the Republican House and Senate of the early 2000's was actually Democratic - they spent more than any Democrat campaigned to spend.
What we are currently doing is weakening our children's futures, lessening our liberties and freedom, and generally allowing others in the world to catch up and pass us by.
And those that live their entire adult lives and end up at age 68 with no assets will need to be prepared to live in a one bedroom apartment with little outside spending beyond food, heat, water.
And the 50% of the folks on disability that aren't truly disabled will be thrown out to the real world where they belong.
We do need a Dem House in 2014 ASAP, so what are Republicans waiting for?
- Lenin
Retirees are living like pimps these days. 30 years of TV watching bliss after retirement. My generation is paying for much of it, but will not receive the same benefit.
God help us when the U.S. Treasury bubble bursts. Then the taxation will begin in earnest....
What will change is how we die.
What I put forth isn't an "option". Its the harsh reality of life. We can borrow and spend for perhaps another decade. The day of reckoning will come. Greece seemed like a great place to be living in 2004. Spain seemed to be doing well in 2006 (and I love going to Spain). But now? Borrow and spend to allow politicians to keep power is a path to a weaker country.
The people have to choose. Them or their children and grandchildren. I'll choose my children and grandchildren. There is zero reason that future generations should pay for the generations that created this mess.
And then we can means test it as much as you'd like.
And don't forget to throw all the folks off disability that are using it as the early retirement program. Somehow we have drastically less manual labor than 50 years ago, but have multiples of people on disability.
I think I've said those same words a thousand times.
Three things make SS perpetual, Remove the limit to contributions, raise the age to receive benefits by a year, and means test recipients.
Then one by one we start working on the government regulatory agencies that have been captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate.
I used to sell parts to the pacemaker companies. In public these guys would whine about the restrictions put on them by the FDA. At dinner after a few drinks these same high level guys would bless the FDA for providing a very turbulent moat and barrier to entry into the pacemaker business.
If I were in charge of the world:)....I would task the FDA with developing a specification for a family of pacemakers, send it out as a request for proposal to anyone who thought they could build these rather simple devices, test samples, and qualify them for use by Medicare.
The Pacemaker is the only electronic device that has gone up in price over the past 40 years. Why? Because no company could afford to enter the business because of pointless FDA regulations designed to protect the existing players. these damn things cost $30-60,000 today!
Multiply that type of exercise for other regulatory agencies and we might be able to afford our government.
The only thing I disagree with is raising the age of retirement. Yes, people are living longer these days, but they are not exactly in a shape to work either. I see my parents, and while both of them will likely outlive their parents, their health is exactly not in a place where they can work. Also, if you raise the age of retirement, the upper middle class and the rich will still retire, but the poor and the lower middle class will have to keep slogging. These are the folks who had very hard jobs all their life, and the wear and tear on the body is much harder for them. The upper middle class and the rich has desk jobs and are in far better health. Also, due to lack of medical care or the affordability of it, or the ability to take the right steps to lead a healthy lifestyle (kind of hard when you are working two jobs), the poor and the lower middle class in general are far less able to keep working in their old ages. So, raising the retirement age just kills them (pun intended). Means testing will take most of the upper middle class and the rich out of the picture and I think that's all that is needed to make Social Security solvent. Especially if you remove the cap on payroll taxes and make SS a truly flat tax and not the regressive mess that it is today.
Social Security is not the root issue of the fiscal problem. This is a red herring thrown about by the extremists to confuse you. SS doesn't need to be further plundered to fix our problems.
----------------------...
Where is the evidence for this????? Harder than the jobs in 1933????
I THINK NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Total BS. What percentage of people are involved in manual labor today versus 1933???? Not even close.
And how much more do we know about our health, fitness, etc. No one is under any illusion that things like smoking is bad for them, or that no exercise is bad for them.
Its hard to walk for 30 minutes a day???? Please. And what? I have to save some money in case I want to stop working at age 65 instead of 67? Oh my gosh - I have to take care of myself as an adult??? Say it ain't so.
Please explain why, in a world with much much less manual labor that the program should allow people to retire EARLIER in their lives when lifespans are taken into account!
This is a good example of why government should be involved with as little as possible. Legislate by sob stories, ignore the facts, and promise folks more and more - and tell them its not their fault that they are lazy or fat or don't exercise - its SO TOUGH to get some exercise if you work!!!
And SS isn't regressive - it caps benefits and operates (supposedly) as an "old age benefit" for ALL workers - so everyone contributes and receives benefits when they are old - and those benefits are capped.
I think the line in Animal House was "Fat, Lazy, Stupid is no way to go through life son". But I guess we've got the government here to allow you to do just that!
IN 1967 we had 1,152,000 people on disability.
Today we have almost 9,000,000 on disability!!!!
Yet we have many fewer manual jobs?????
Oh say, what could be going on here??? Let me think about it.... Oh, my back, my back..... I'll have to get back to you..... off to see the doctor!!!!
david,
I agree that fraud is a bigger problem than the SS program. In fact, I see fraud, waste, and cronyism as a far bigger problem than anything else the country faces. I get to hear about it almost daily.
My hope lies in the fact that for some organizations and portions of the economy, things are are coming to a head. If the debt crisis and the urge to fix the debt issue culminates in the hiring of good people to administer some of these programs and rid them of the waste abuses and venality, it would go a long way.
I think of it like this: most heating systems can be improved by 10 to 15% or more in efficiency just by spending a few hundred $$ on insulation. Most folks however opt for buying an entire new unit for tens of thousands. To gain the same effective benefit.
That doesn't change my point that the SS program in itself is not fiscally problematic.
I haven't looked closely at the numbers lately, but I believe that the disability portion of SS will be broke sometime around 2017? And that came from a CNN news story I read a month or so ago.
I agree with you that cronyism is a huge problem. The only way to get rid of it is to restore our liberty and freedom and gut the government to the point it only does those things that it is not reasonable for an individual to do for themselves. So national defense, NASA, NIH, Build roads & infrastructure, fund research (note not companies), fund the judiciary, etc.
One of our largest problems is that government largess is apparent everywhere. Whether its the guy down the street gardening all day at the age of 51, or the guy collecting two government pensions, or the "small business owner" that exclusively makes his/her money from government contracts, to the disability rip-offs (that we all see jumping out of SUV's at the grocery store), etc, etc. It permeates our society and it is no wonder people want nothing to do with paying more money to the government.
The WSJ this weekend has an article about administrative costs at the University of Minnesota - I was shocked at the salaries some of these "public servants" are receiving. Its beyond ridiculous and its just flat wrong.
Unfortunately, its not going to change with a few good men coming to run things. It will only change through a blunt instrument. Which will mean eliminating some of the good, to get rid of much of the bad.
Why is it that in my circle we are far more worried about conservatives than liberals?
You don't know what the budget deficit is this year? You don't know in round numbers what the debt is?
Well, I guess its because I live in a community and own/partially own some businesses and am involved in my community. I have regular neighbors, no gated community, public schools, community fundraisers, etc, etc. I've watched and EXPERIENCED the tentacles of government reaching further and further into our lives. And I'm decent at math.
If you don't know a "retired" government official that is in his/her early/mid 50's then I'd say you live in an extremely "rich" neighborhood. If you haven't seen someone on disability that you know isn't disabled then I'd say you lead a very sheltered life. And actually its not surprising as folks in the .05 percent aren't interested in faking disabilities.
And when you reference "everyone", I have to assume you mean the rest of the .05 percent. You see the government bureaucrats and politicians cater to you - so yes, you see only good. You see only service. You see things catered to you - and depending on how your making your money - you may even use these folks to prevent competition and further increase your earnings. You don't see the loss of freedom and liberty.
I've stated many times - we don't have government of the people, by the people, for the people. We have government of the bureaucrat, by the politician, for the financial elite.
We are taking the backdoor way to the same type of state that existed in the Soviet Union. Its just we are doing it slowly - day by day, law by law, bureaucrat by bureaucrat... always done with nice sounding words like "security", "safety", "fairness", "protection", "care", "provide for those that need it", etc. Your electronic communications are stored and scanned. Your phone conversations can be listened to without a warrant. In fact, you can be arrested and held without a warrant or even being charged with anything. 91% of new cars contain a black box and legislation is there to make it 100% - of course - trust us we only use data from right before a crash. Drones are soon to roam our skies. Your personal financial transactions are reported to the government. Where exactly does it end?
If your in the .05 percent I have to assume you regularly travel and are subjected to government sponsored molestation in order to board your flight. I would think you notice it when a man, under the guise of "security" is groping you.
And please reference one post where I advocate religous laws?
You can have your .05 percent - and I have no issue (unless your taking it from the government) with however much you earn and whatever you decide to do with it - I'll take my freedom and liberty.
So, it is higher taxes on us top earners and we don't care if there is fraud in the system frankly. We don't feel we are losing any liberty at all. We are too busy working and earning even more. We don't care if our taxes go to pay for public servants high wages or pensions. All we care about is less nonsense in the economy. Yes it is a sheltered life but since it is our taxes that is paying for all of these, is it really that unfair to ask that the rest of the country buzz off when it comes to higher taxes on us?
As for the rest of your concerns, look, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. So yes, I am equally pissed at the Govt intrusion into personal life. But what does that have to with taxes? Just take my damn taxes and make the economy grow so that I can earn more and and net-net I win. I would rather pay 15% more in taxes if that paves the way for a 20% income increase. The ROI is positive.
Tell me how my thinking is wrong here?
The problem is that by allowing all those things ensures there will be a steady erosion of freedom and liberty and fewer and fewer like you in the future. Losses of liberty and freedom means long term loss of economic opportunity.
I'm not in the .05 percent but I've done well in my life. I'm not concerned about myself - I've had my time and I've been very fortunate in life (all IMO of course). But I don't share the same outlook for my children and certainly not for their children.
Our freedoms and liberties are by nature restricted by government. To live in a civilized society we all agree to abide by the laws duly established and allow the government to run programs established under law. Theoretically each law is a loss of freedom - equally theoretically each law is passed to limit the loss of freedom while achieving its purpose. Bureaucrats are then hired to run these law and programs. But what is the bureaucrats interest? Keeping the program and associated laws small? Or expand their programs, pass more rules under said law - hire more bureaucrats - pass more rules, rinse and repeat every year. And these bureaucrats ACTIVELY are taking our freedoms and liberties. And one day they will be at your child's/children's door if one of them don't happen to be in the .05%. And then its too late to vote for liberty and freedom.
So you should care deeply about the millions on disability stealing from the system. You should care that "public service" is just that, when the bureaucracy pays more than those they serve - you no longer are attracting public servants - you are establishing an elite.
I was fortunate enough to live for a few years in Eastern Europe in a former communist country. People there are astounded at the things we are allowing in this country of ours. The majority of people there want nothing from the government outside of the most basic of services - they KNOW from living through it - that larger and larger government will take your freedoms and liberty - and then the same majorities that the government made promises to will all live much lesser lives, while those in government will lead better lives.
Let me give you just a small example. During the financial crisis a woman about 3/4 miles from me was laid off - as was her husband. She is good a knitting or sewing and makes blankets and other such things by hand. On weekends she set up a small tent in her side yard - hung out some street signs on Friday night saying there was a sale Saturday afternoon. She did this probably 3/4ths weeks the entire summer. She was doing this to earn money - to which I say good - thats what should happen. She was shut down by the GOVERNMENT. She actually had obtained a sales tax number to remit sales tax - but it was a residentially zoned area - and she didn't have a traffic flow study done and approved before selling her blankets on Saturday afternoon - in her own yard - with people parking in her own driveway and directly in front of her house on the street. It wasn't like there were lines of cars buying pillows! Seriously. Now if that isn't a sign of too many bureaucrats with way too much misplaced power - then I don't know what is. It is beyond my comprehension.
And that small example is repeated millions of times across our country. The problem is that you won't realize when its gone from the "small stuff" to the over-riding "big stuff" which will then lessen your freedom. Then its too late. And being in the .05% you'll be catered to by the politicians and bureaucrats - you won't be impacted until you threaten their place in the triumvirate! But for the young man or woman starting out - their path to where you are currently at will be much more limited and much more tied into government.
The reason most of the Eastern European countries have flat tax systems is people don't want the government involved in deciding who should do what - they all pay their 17% and leave them the heck alone!
Think for a minute about the "loss of middle class jobs". Then think about how many small businesses have been displaced by big box retailers. Now, I compete with some of them - and I have no problem doing so. But I have a big problem when the politicians and bureaucrats - who are mostly idiots IMO - fall over themselves to roll out the red carpet (and give away my tax dollars) for the Walmarts, Lowes, etc of the world. In my local community - Walmart got - for free - new roads, new traffic lights (without the required traffic flow studies I might add), immediate rezoning, money for 'training" - because you know a 100 billion dollar company needs help in that area - when they wanted a second outlet from their parking area - no problem - violate zoning laws to allow exit onto a local residential street. No real estate taxes for several years - reduced taxes after that...... How many middle class jobs did the idiot bureaucrats and politicians give away? I'd estimate about 25 in my town (over and above what they create in the new business). All paid for with the community's tax dollars I might add. Thats a loss of economic freedom - and in those companies there are people in the top .05 percent saying - hey I'll pay more. But what about those 25? Think they've felt the loss of economic freedom - and there are a few VP's at Walmart saying, hey tax me more - I'm willing to pay - of course! Because expanding the beast ensures they will remain in the .05 percent and there will be much less competition - after all its a nice setup when the idiot bureaucrats give you your competitors tax dollars to put directly on your bottom line!!! As just a business owner I'd be thrilled - until I think about the larger implications.
So I'll allow you to decide how to contribute to your community rather than further enable bureaucrats and politicians continue their assault on my freedom and liberty. I realize this means I might be poor, might be without some medical treatment in old age, might have to think on my own two feet. But I'll choose liberty and freedom over those things all day every day - after all - isn't the saying something like "I'd ride more hot-air balloons" or something like that - never heard the one about "I'd want one more government program". And more than anything in this world I want my children and grandchildren to have the opportunity to live a full and meaningful life - without liberty and freedom those odds are reduced drastically.
And that is why I am adamantly opposed to the enlargement of our government. I don't care if the vote is 365 million to one (well at least two - hopefully my wife will stick with me) for government programs over liberty - I'll be the one.
And finally, we passed capitalism a while ago. What we have more and more is state sponsored economic activity - crony capitalism - whatever you'd like to call it. The fact that you are currently personally benefiting from this doesn't make the world a better place nor does it make it right. Perhaps your one of those Walmart VP's.
You currently find yourself as part of the triumvirate. Communist party members of the USSR had no need for liberty either - they were the elite. The problem is that in the long run without liberty and freedom economic growth and prosperity will slow, then stagnate, then decline. And yes, there will still be individuals that do well for themselve in that system - but that should hardly be the goal.
So perhaps I misunderstand your posts - maybe what your really posting is that...... Hey, life is good for me, lets ensure there are enough scraps for the heathens at the bottom so as to not upset the cart and I'll pay more taxes to ensure they keep getting scraps.
I'm saying freedom and liberty not only leads to the creation of more wealth, but also allows more people to earn a living, improve their lives, and creates more positive outcomes than scraps guarantees. It also promotes hope, work ethic, and dreams. And I dare say freedom and liberty are the foundation upon which we built this country. To think we can now discard it and everything will be just as good because some really smart people will run the government and make the decisions - is simply misplaced at best.
It is very hard for me to understand what freedoms are getting lost, as it seems that your two main gripes were 1) zoning laws, and 2) allowing WalMart in and subsidizing it. I am not a fan of corporate subsidies at all as I told you. So I am with you if you want to cut out corporate subsidies across the board. But the days of small business are ending. Corporates have scale, and with scale comes efficiency and lower cost for consumers. I welcome the corporates. If that means middle class small business goes away, so be it. That's capitalism. You may not like it, and I am with you on the subsidy front, but big business has a right to compete as well. To me, that is not a matter of loss of freedom in any way. It's a dog eat dog economy out there.
As fro zoning laws, I am not very familiar with them, but I would personally be pissed if my neighbor opened up a shop in his/her yard. I leave in a charming residential neighborhood and opening up such a shop would definitely depress home values here. I would be sympathetic if the neighbor was forced to do so because of loss of job - that's why we have unemployment. But that doesn't give the neighbor a right to bring down my property value. That's not an expression of freedom, that's pissing in public.
Anyway, if you main point is cut red tapes and let more and more people start their own business, I am fine with that. However, that's not what the Tea Party is pushing, now is it? It is pushing starving kids by cutting off food stamps while giving money to the military to buy F35s, all the while blocking taxes on people like me that causes market turbulence and causes me to lose more money that the proposed taxes.
Tell me, how does that help anyone?
I agree and fully support successful CEO's being well compensated. I also support corporate governance reform that actually re-introduces some form of a market. What we have today is two layers between management and the actual owners. The boards - often full of management's friends, families, former business associates - AND professional fund managers. Neither of these groups have shareholders NOR employees interests at heart.
And so as not to go on all night - I'll just further add that CEO's that take over a company (in terms of being named CEO) are taking over what someone else built. They are usually smart and work hard - usually. But lets not confuse CEO's with the folks that started and built the company - including the employees.
Small businesses aren't going away. I compete on quality and service. Want to deal with an idiot - head to Walmart. Want to deal with someone that actually has knowledge you'll walk through my doors. Want to hear corporate BS when there is a problem - head to Walmart - want a manager empowered to handle your problem you'll walk through my doors. You'll also find your child wearing my Little League uniforms, having their fund raisers at my business, handing their signs up for various events and activities in my door. Walmart will tell your kid about their corporate policies.
But my main point - which you either don't want to acknowledge or simply find irrelevent is that freedom and liberty is exactly what helps people.
Your perfectly ok with the crony capitalism that allows the large business to displace those who worked hard to build a business - and give the spoils to others - and your perfectly ok with government officials enriching themselves at taxpayer expense - your even ok with "elite class" of government workers. And who cares about your liberty to raise chickens.......But then your upset about the subsequent fallout from those developments - more hungry kids!!!
Again, your position seems to be - lets just keep them in their place - throw them enough scraps - and let the gravy train roll on and I'll pay some more taxes and that make it all ok.
There is NO economic outcome for an individual that can EVER replace freedom and liberty. In every tyrranical state there are those that live well - the nice dictator - is still a dictator.
If your BS is true, I totally understand you now - you can afford to support Obama's redistribute politics. I can't. It sickens me to see SNAP cards swiped at the Wal-Mart (yeah, I shop there, don't mind admitting it) for food we can't afford. Or the ultimate 'EBT' scam, buying non-essentials, just because 'hey, poor people need other stuff, too'.
You are Mr. High Horse. Don't pretend to be a defender of the poor and down-trodden. You're nothing other than a disingenuous pompous ass.
I am not sure what you want to do about WalMart? Do you want the Govt to stop WalMart from competing with small businesses? Isn't that more Govt regulation?
As for big coprorations keeping their shareholders and employees in mind, for the former, the solution is to strengthen the SEC, which means more govt laws, and the latter is unions, which the conservatives systematically disbanded and hence can't cry about it any more.
You claim that the market is not pushing up the wages of govt employees. Well, then it is the unions, right? So now, when unions push up wages for Govt employees, you don't like it. When lack of unions push down wages of corporate employees, you don't like it either. So tell me, what do you really like? I am confused to say the least.
Do you think less regulations will keep WalMart out of your backyard? Hell no, it will just allow WalMart and its ilk crush small businesses faster. Be careful what you ask for. Your main problem seems not to be with the govt. It seems to be with capitalism.
In capitalism there are winners and losers. Few winners, and many losers, in fact. Hence, democratic capitalist countries create a social safety net for the losers by taxing the winners. This is how America has always worked and shined.
Do you really want to go back to the days before the 1920s? Have you read the Sinclair Upton book The Jungle? Small businesses were not exactly thriving them, and workers were dying on the job. The social safety net and govt regulations made things better. Be careful what you ask for my friend.
Now, what if you didn't have to pay taxes at all and only people who make $250k or more have to pay taxes. Would you still be upset with food stamps? Remember, it won't be your money that would be going towards food stamps. Most people don;t realize that it is not their money that gets spent on the poor anyway. They get back far more than they pay in taxes just in public schooling for their kids, never mind the roads, the defense, the infrastructure, what have you.
So why do you care? I don't. to me it's not a matter of high horse. It is a matter of making the most money. The policies followed by Republicans are horrendous for my pocketbook. That's why I support Democrats. If Republicans made improving the economy their number one goal rather than punishing the poor, I would vote for them. Well, they would also have to become socially liberal as I am not going to let a religious person dictate how I lead my personal life, but that's another story.
Your boy Bill Clinton was as instrumental in shipping our manufacturing jobs overseas as was any Republican.
Nobody in Washington cares about anything other than deflecting blame and getting re-elected.
You're a good dude. Don't be a sheep.....vote for a third party candidate next time.
May be someday a political party will come along that will be socially ultra liberal (e.g., about abortion), politically kind (e.g., about safety nets) commercially responsible (e.g., about global warming), and economically pro-growth by incorporating the best of Friedman and Keynes. That would be my party.
So I don't want more government regulation - I want government to be neutral - no favors for big business just because they can contribute the campaign funds for the politicians. Let them pay the same fees, have the same processes, same everything.
I support reforming corporate governance laws. Government exists to do what an individual cannot - and one of those functions is to regulate markets. Our corporate governance structure was developed before we had the amount of passive ownership in our publicly traded companies.
I support private unions. I totally oppose public unions. The two are not the same. Public unions are negotiating with those they help to elect. Private unions are negotiating with people interested in profits in addition to the well being of their employees.
There is no "market" for government wages. There is bribery and corruption - not a free market. We donate to your campaign fund. We arrange for your brother-in-law to get a 300K consulting gig. We get your cousin appointed to some board. And YOU the politician raise our pay and benefits. That is not a market - its corruption. And notice that we had all the government employees we needed in 1975 when we paid about 40-50% less???
And again I'm not asking for more or less regulation in regards to Walmart - I'm asking for the same enforcement of what exists (I am in favor of eliminating a lot of legacy regulations which have no bearing to today's society). Kmart came and went. Walmart is here. Lowes is here, some electronic place has come and gone. The other chains are here - some have gone. I'll do just fine. I'm not aware of any regulation "protecting" me. Instead I'm aware of regulations that I adhere to and impede me that are swept away magically by politicians currying favor with "big business". I used it as a real life example of what I'm saying.... I do appreciate your concern for my business though!
Where do I advocate removing all regulations and going back to the 20's?? I repeatedly post that government should do what an individual cannot be expected to do. Regulating markets is one of those tasks. But regulating markets isn't establishing regulations.... and then magically deciding that some don't have to follow them - or worse that others (myself and other existing businesss paying local and state taxes) will pay for their business to receive give-aways!!!
After all - if you and I each have an ice cream stand directly across from each other - and the government has regulations that cost you 50 cents a cone - and they waive the same regulations for me and I have zero costs - who is going to have a better chance? You might win by providing better service or better flavors - its not impossible - but its likely I'll be the "winner". Not because I'm the better business-man - but because I got the government to waive the same requirements they hold you to. That is a total loss of economic freedom and its crony capitalism at best - and since I was probably able to achieve my waivers through a monetary way - its corruption. And just because we legalize corruption doesn't make it right nor does it make it capitalism.
And finally, I believe that previously I said I'd be happy to allow you to means test SS and Medicare if you recognize that life spans are longer and the ages for the programs should be increased. And at no time have you expressed any in-depth actions that will cause health care costs to decline. Which is the real issue.
But all of this is just background noise - which I think you realize. Freedom and Liberty are the foundation for the wealth that exists in our country. Freedom and liberty is what allows people to improve the quality of their lives, to dream dreams, to take actions, to do what others don't think they can do. No government program will ever, ever replace that.
You do not like public unions. Great. Get rid of them and the wages of govt employees will drop super low. That should make you happy, right? But then low wages for people who work in the private sector make you unhappy. So what is it? You just want govt employees to be underpaid but private employees to have unions and be overpaid?
You know what is funny? Conservatives have done a masterful job here. They are the ones who opened up the doors for corporate contributions. They are the ones who corrupted the polity. Then, they channeled the anger of the people at the corporates towards Govt itself, instead of at the corporates, who are the largest donors of the Republican Party. You should campaign for capping corporate political donations instead. Then the Republicans will be out of power. Forever.
I do not want to cut any health care costs. I want to raise taxes on the rich (people like me) and cut defense. That is enough to pay for healthcare costs. This is why I want that. The more money consumers have in hand the more they spend in the consumerist society that we have. The more money consumers spend the better is the economy. The better the economy is, the more money I make. I will happily pay a little bit more in taxes so get more money in the hands of consumers, especially those at the lower rungs of the economic group as they spend almost all the money they have. (The rich save it instead.) I do far better economically if the poor and the middle class have more money to spend, even if that means I pay a little bit more in taxes.
I am not going to kill the golden goose (American economy growth) just to get the eggs (lower taxes). That's just dumb. Do you understand what I am saying here? Bankrupting American families by not covering healthcare is just plain stupid. I would rather have them spend that money on durable goods like washing machines and cars and what have you. I need the economy to boom.
Tell me, from my perspective, why would I want the economy to crash so that I pay less taxes on far less income? You are a businessman. You should get this fast. The Tea Party idiots are not businessmen. That's the main issue.
I have to tell you, in the real world " The only way to get rid of it is to restore our liberty and freedom and gut the government to the point it only does those things that it is not reasonable for an individual to do for themselves." doesn't work. There are real problems affecting real people, causing real issues that can't be resolved by fantasy land ideology.
"Unfortunately, its not going to change with a few good men coming to run things." I disagree. I have to tell you I am privy to some of the efforts being made in the NYC area, they are slow, but they are having an effect. Yes the corruption and cronyism are rampant, but your favoring of blunt instruments will cause unnecessary harm to muscle along with the fat.
----------------------...
I think any study shows both parties are awash in money - both parties. Liberals didn't protest money - they just protested what they consider to be the main source of Republican money. And you miss the whole point - neither the Democrats nor Republicans care about liberty and freedom - they care about the party. Again- the triumvirate of the bureaucrat, politician and financial elite are systemically plundering the country's existing wealth and stealing from future generations. The fact that you happen to be a member of the financial elite doesn't make the system ok.
And your wrong that the more money consumers spend the better the economy - our economy was just fine in the days that people saved 10% or more of their income. It lead to business creation, capital investment and a stronger economy. It was in those day where people didn't expect the government to take care of them - way way back in 1980.
The golden goose is liberty and freedom itself! And its being choked to death - day by day - law by law - bureaucrat by bureaucrat - lost freedom by lost freedom. You live with blinders on from your own success. Again, in every society there are those that live well. Communist party members lived better than those they ruled. So I'm glad ou live well - you seem totally unconcerned with our future beyond your own financial interest. If you think our economy will be booming in 10 years with the fiscal path we are on then your just ignoring history - and not ancient. Greece, Spain are the worst case - Japan has more similarities. But what about Thailand and Korea? When they had fiscal problems similar to what we are experiencing - what did we force them to do???? Oh, drastically cut government spending and bureaucracy - attack corruption - improve personal freedoms..... and what happened??? Prosperity.
Freedom and liberty IS the path to prosperity. We're now living on the past - divying up the vast wealth that exists - while borrowing and spending to buy the domestic peace, growing the bureaucracy and lessening both liberty and freedom. Thats a game with a bad ending. For everyone.
Unless we take our medicine now in the form of much lower government spending - restore our liberty and freedom - our children's future and our grandchildren's future will be much less than our's was. Keeping it all going is just like keeping a ponzi scheme going - its going to end - the only question is how big the fall.
I respectfully disagree. Both Korea and Thailand did just that during the Asian crisis. They cut deeply, cleaned out much of the bureaucracy and red tape, restored and enabled personal freedom and liberty..... and the economies thrived and people's standards of living has advanced greatly. And yes, for 6 months - 9 months things were tough, but guess what - people - individuals - are dynamic - when given freedom and liberty they adapt - and soon folks figured out the new environment and both countries are and have been doing well economically. And I'd say that there is an energy that you can feel in both countries..... much like the energy you used to feel in the USA. People are doing things there - no one is sitting around waiting for the government. Its all from liberty and freedom.
When things get so bad that there are endless lists of distractions (much like you can see in Macro's replies) and reasons why not to change anything - thats when its time for blunt instruments. That is the only way to truly cut government and restore liberties.
Do you know of a country called Malaysia? They faced the same challenges as Thailand and South Korea. They were asked by the IMF to cut spending. They told the IMF to go pound salt and instead put in foreign exchange controls and increased spending to stave off the run on the currency and recession. They did far better than South Korea and Thailand.
The EU zone is undertaking the same austerity measures that you love. They are suffering from it. Deeply. They will continue to suffer from it till someone tells the Germans that enough is enough. I am willing to take a bet with you that the US economy will be booming in 10 years if USA doesn't go down the austerity path. Here's the bet. If I am wrong, I will switch to voting Republican. If you are wrong, you will switch to voting Democrat. Deal?
The austerity measures that you so love were tried by Hoover. They failed. People who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Thankfully, the USA as a country has learned.
But most importantly, you sidetracked my question when I asked you if you want corporations to not get any subsidies who is a better bet for you - Republicans or Democrats? Can you please answer that? If the answer is Republicans, then I can easily prove to you that you are wrong. If the answer is neither, then I presume you have been voting for third parties? And if the answer is Democrat, the right answer by the way, then I presume you are voting Democrat, eh?
You have a lot of anger at corporations getting handouts, and rightfully so. But you are channeling that anger towards the working poor. I have no idea why you are doing that. If more kids get thrown out of food stamps, how will that make the playing field level between you and WalMart and the like? Can you please answer that directly without again going off on liberty and freedom?
Thanks much in advance!
I took a quick glance at world bank data metrics and it doesn't support your assertion that they have done far better than Thailand and South Korea - all three have done well. I'll at it more if/when I get a free evening. But you'll have to debate someone else in regards to whose approach was best.
The EU is NOT undertaking austerity. Continuing to spend and spend is NOT austerity. But parts of the EU are good examples of what happens when your population dreams about becoming bureaucrats.
I am not a Republican. I do vote for more Republicans than Democrats - but I vote down ticket majority of the time for 3rd party candidates. In the 1980's I was voting Democrats as the majority down ticket. And I vote for anyone that I believe is an actual leader as opposed to bought and paid for stiff. So your political party vote is not my concern.
Hoover restricted trade and lessened money supply at the same time - where have I advocated that??? Please stop making things up that you would LIKE me to say.
NEITHER Dems nor Republicans want to cut corporate giveaways - they just each have their favorites to give money away to!!!!!
I don't channel my anger towards anyone. You are the one constantly trying to tie food stamps and liberty and freedom together. You try to make the argument small - oh, you want spending cut - it means kids starve and your a hater.
You state "those that ignore history"..... well all the things that your benefiting from personally were built upon liberty and freedom. And no, I don't claim we've always had it right throughout our history and many things corrected took too long - many of them you reference - and they were overcome due to FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. What we have is a direct result of liberty and freedom. Not any government program - not any safety net - FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And before I go off to my Sunday tasks I'll leave you with one other historical reference - "Give me liberty or give me death"!! Remember that one????
Government programs is NOT freedom and liberty. Freedom and LIberty do not guarantee economic outcomes. They guarantee that you have the ability to make your own way in the world.
And isn't it ironic that shortly after ensuring that all our citizens have freedom and liberty, and helping 100's of millions to experience freedom and liberty in Eastern Europe - that we are systemically restricting and taking away our freedoms and liberties?????
I have attempted to show you practical, local examples of this to illustrate - which you simply choose to turn the debate into those small topics and fall back on the fact your doing well.
So since my wife just expressed her annoyance that I'm still typing and not working on the remainder of "our" weekend tasks (funny how that seems to always involve me doing work), we'll just have to agree to disagree because otherwise my wife will be further restricting my freedoms.
Bottom line, having a Govt is not a loss of freedom of liberty. It is the prerequisite for a modern state.
Nowhere do I specify who should benefit from tax dollars nor indicate who should not. Nowhere do I say I don't want to pay taxes. Nowhere do I say there should be no government.
I've provided many examples of practical losses of personal and economic freedom. You can choose to ignore them. You can make up words I have said.
Government exists to do the things that an individual cannot be reasonable expected to do. I'm very consistent in stating that.
And having an ever expanding government, one which displaces private activities and enriching those involved with it - is totally a loss of freedom and liberty.
I happen to believe in the American people - that left to their own devices, with a properly functioning government, that they will take care of their communities. You seem to believe the worst in people - that unless they are forced to pay taxes to the almighty bureaucrat that there will be starvation and old women roaming the streets looking for food.
I'll choose my freedom and liberty. I'll trust my neighbor. I'll help my community. You can have the bureaucrat and the politician.
I am sorry, but your example of not being able to run a business out of a residential area is not a loss of freedom. There are zoning laws for a reason. You gave no other example of loss of economic freedom except corporate handouts, which, as I have said many times before, is something the conservatives engage in far more than liberals. So, till you show me there is real example of loss of economic freedom from the actions of big Govt liberals, I would conclude that there really isn't any loss of freedom.
I only mentioned taxes and who gets the benefit from such because you have complained in the past about America not having a flat tax like East Europe, and govt employees getting paid too much. If taxes and what the taxes are used for doesn't bother you, why confuse me by going off on those topics?
except the money goes to not the poor.... to the bureaucrat with a cut to the politicians.
----------------------...
I haven't complained about not having a flat tax - I believe I shared that the people I know in Eastern Europe (where I was fortunate to live and work for a couple of years) have no issue with flat taxes as it keeps the government's powers a little bit further from them. And I've repeated stated on this forum that I have no issue with - and in fact support a progressive tax code - I just want one where the rates are set and everyone pays - no government deciding what is good or bad uses of their money. And I'm very consistent on that.
Perhaps it was someone else that last week I laid out in fairly good detail how the government used regulations to force my church out of the charity of providing meals to those that are hungry. If so I apologize. The same for other examples I've laid out. If you think the government scanning your emails and listening to your phone calls without warrants, detaining you without charges, mandating black boxes in your cars, and proposing flying drones in your backyard aren't loss of freedom then we just agree to disagree. I try not to repeat myself as I'd get tired of reading the same stuff over and over.
I don't know what community your living in - but where do you get the idea that there are only rich people in a community or only poor people in a community? If a community is truly so poor that there are no resources in that community then people need to move. As that would imply there are no jobs, no capital, and whatever jobs and capital that used to be present has left. And I'm aware of several religous groups that have charities directly to provide for those considered to be living in poverty (including one in the denomination of my church). So I see no lack of willingness to provide.
And we have to look at this wonderful system you want to continually enlarge. We declared war on poverty in the 1960's. Why haven't we won? I've asked you that before - is it perhaps that the only people that have "won" are the bureaucrats?
And finally, I've stated clearly before I am not a Republican. I vote for more Republicans than Democrats. I vote down ticket for as many 3rd party and independent candidates that I can (which is usually the majority). And I'll vote for anyone that I believe is an actual leader as opposed to a stiff taking money.
I don't see myself ascribing what other folks say to yourself and I see no reason for you to do that to me. I don't hate anyone. I don't want anyone to starve. I don't dream of the land with no government. I support the government doing what it is not reasonable for the individual to do. Plain and simple and consistent. I support public education (and I adamantly want it to function for our children and not the adults). I support the idea that we have far too many people in prison. I support reform of corporate governance and support the government regulating the air, water, ground, medicine and food. And I want public servants that perform well to lead decent lives - I just don't subscribe to the idea that we need tons of them nor that they should constitute the new upper middle class. If your not interested in service then the private sector beckons.
But before all of that I support freedom and liberty. And no amount of nice words of safety, security, fairness, etc will change that. Nor will any amount of harsh attacks about hating, starving, cutting.
I think we both understand each other very well. I will vote for the party that looks out for the poor and the middle class and if that means higher taxes for me so be it. If that means handouts, I am fine with it. I know that the economy booms when the poor and the middle class has more money to spend, and in turn I make far more money, and far more than the increased tax burden. I do not see Republicans being that party. I do not also see any lack of liberty or freedom.
Good discussion. Thanks!
w/o reading anything other than your reply, I'd like to answer you. Yes, it WOULD upset me. I can empathize with someone who has more than me that is being taken advantage of. I don't get all warm and fuzzy thinking of John Kerry or Al Gore's millions, but I don't begrudge them for having said millions. I don't think they should pay any more taxes than me, either.
Good for Mr. Kethcup and Mr. 'I invented the Internets'. They did well in life and should pay no more than absolutely necessary in taxes. Bare minimum, in their case, as they are paying the lion's share of revenue into the US tax slush fund.
Your success has clouded your vision - you indeed are on a high horse, and have no idea what's going on in the "middle class".
Let's say you were the ultimate decision maker on taxes for me. Let's say I told you that it is financially much better for me if my taxes were higher but the tax money went to subsidize the poor and the middle class. Would you still insist that I be required to pay lower taxes and accept a worse financial situation?
Where's your empathy?
I would absolutely like to know what's going on in the middle class and how, in particular, any Republican policy is going to help the middle class.
Yes, I would subject you to a "worse financial situation". Taxes suck. Period. But it would be "fair" (in your case, apparently, lower taxes would be a "bad" thing - sorry).
As far as what's going on in the middle class, I guess I can speak to that... Both me and my wife work, her full time, me (self-employed) when I can get work, our 2012 tax return return will show gross receipts less than 100k.
I see people gaming the system all the time. I see the "entitlement" abuse first-hand. I work with these people. It sucks.
I truly want you to succeed. I want you to move into the .02%. I want the same for myself (I have a lot more work to do than you...).
Republicans at least address the facts that perpetual unemployment "benefits" are not the path to employment, and that raising taxes on a few people is not a good way to address our nation's accounting problems.
Me? I say cut military spending big time. But cut social spending at least as much, preferably twice(3, 4 times?) as much.
You want me to succeed? I just told you the way. Pump more money into the hands of the poor and the middle class. Have them spend it all. Raise the money by taxing the rich. The economy grows, and the rich make so much more money that they don't even feel the higher taxes.
If you want me to succeed why wouldn't you go with this solution? I think you want me to fail.
I am with you on the military spending cut. Most of that money is spent overseas and doesn't juice the domestic economy. But social spending juices the economy like there is no tomorrow. The more the economy is juiced, the more money I make.
You see the Dem party as ":the party that looks out for the poor". I see it as the party which institutionalizes poverty. I have known a great number of poor people. I have represented many in court. I have rented housing to many. I have worked alongside many. I sincerely believe that our federal programs keep giving money to "parents" to choose to buy drugs rather than food for their children. I see people who choose not to enter the workforce (and therefore never advance) for fear of losing their housing assistance and other benefits. I have represented clients who have chosen to stay on crack or crystal meth rather than keep DSS from taking their children. Who is paying for those drugs? Uncle Sam.
The payroll tax is incredibly regressive. It's receipts are not protected for the "ss trust fund", but commingled with other tax receipts and used for general spending. It is a prevarication to say that it is a contribution as if one has a sanctified retirement account being held by Uncle Sam as fiduciary.
Sales taxes are regressive, Property taxes are regressive. License and permits are regressive taxes. Traffic and other fines are regressive tqxes. Vice taxes on cigarettes, liquor, wine and beer are regressive. Fuel taxes are regressive.
Most Federal taxes are regressive and almost all local and state taxation are regressive.
Even imbedded taxes are regressive, for example, the corporate income tax is passed along with the cost of goods as surely as sales taxes are.
People don't always analyze why they are conservative in these terms, but they do realize they are getting screwed by govt. at all levels and they want less of it and the means to accomplish more fairness is to reduce govt.
I know not everyone is poor. I know poverty is govt-supported.
Nonetheless, your question is understood. My analysis is influenced by my experiences with others just as yours is influenced by your experiances with others.
My concern is that our programs seem to do more harm than good.
Good points.
It's more political theatre than substance, designed to suck the average person into believing that what politicians do for them is important. Even if a measure passes the Senate, there will be no vote in the House of Representatives. After the failure of Plan B to get enough votes, Boehner will not be risking losing his Speaker of the House position. I do not expect anything to pass until after the Speaker of the House position is secure. Also, the Secretary of the Treasury indicated that extraordinary measures can avoid the Debt Ceiling until the end of February, meaning that there is little reason for any politicians to push through solutions before that time. It looks like a repeat of August 2011. Perhaps after politicians had to give up their insider trading perks, they have decided the only way to profit is to plunge markets due to their inaction.
That is his voter base... I guess everybody else does not matter.
Does he not realize corporations are moving their income base overseas in droves, because of over taxation and regulation, and the wealthy ( his target for new taxes ) are making other arrangements for tax protection, or out of the country investment opportunity ?
He may think his strategy is cute, clever or ingenious, but it is destined for failure, just like all of his stimulus schemes, that produced nothing but debt.
I will have to cut back on my cleaning lady from 3 days /week to 2 days/ week
I'm sure Obama will fill the difference somehow , by redistributing someone else's hard -earned income - - -otherwise she'll have less food for her kids ... too bad , as they say on the left , for those greedy wall streeters
But ,
Champagne , caviar and truffles from aby kirsch at my house New Year's Eve , is still on .
I'm not cutting out the good stuff , only staff hours... for the "little people"
You know , consequences and stuff
Happy New Year to all you redistributionists !!!
IMO.. I don't consider Medicare or SSN an entitlement (other than people that paid in are 'entitled" to benefits) its the mega freeloaders like O's Aunt and Uncle as an example.. who contribute squat but think we owe them.
The problem is some have turned this country from land of opportunity into land of the free ride.
The game plan was/is simple: Lax immigration laws + expanding welfare=one party rule.
IMO...Only way out is increased states rights or the productive take their assets elsewhere...which many are already doing.
http://seekingalpha.co...
The fiscal cliff is not Armageddon. If it were to happen, and I expect a deal that nominally avoids the full impact of a fiscal cliff soon, all that means is that the tax rates return to the levels seen in the 1990's, plus additional Medicare 3.8% tax on high incomes. So, yes, taxes would be marginally higher than during the last secular bull market period that ended in 2000. But not so much as to prevent a future bull market from developing.
If a fiscal cliff were to push us into recession, so what? The country has survived and recovered from many recessions before, and I would guess would recover from the fiscal cliff-triggered recession this time as well. Better yet, we would actually see deficits plummet if the cliff actually happened. Tax revenues would obviously rise while federal spending on sacred cows like defense would be slashed. After the 2013 recession is anniversaried in 2014, things would look much better for our fiscal balance sheet and for future growth.
What I am saying is that the fear of the cliff's impact is very much overblown. If a temporary recession was the result, so be it.
I have to say after being initially hostile to Bernanke's strategy, I have come to appreciate its brilliance. I think history will conclude that he was instrumental in saving our sinking ship, a ship that might sink a bit deeper thanks to Tea Party intransigence. But no matter how badly the right wing arm of the Republican party wants the economy to stay depressed (January 21, 2017, perhaps?), we will pull out of this, fiscal cliff plunge or not.
Whoever came up with the term "Fiscal Cliff", did al of us a great disservice. More likely a small fiscal speed bump.
There is a lot of good news in the country.
Yesterday I read an article in The Atlantic magazine about "Insourcing". http://bit.ly/ZPy5Fz
The article is about a project by General Electric (GE) to bring the manufacture of appliances back to their huge appliance campus in Louisville, Kentucky. This campus grew from nothing in the 1950s to over 20,000 employees in the 60s and was outsourced down to about 1800 employees at the low point. By the end of this year, hourly employment will be 3600. That doesn't include the engineering and production professionals that will find new jobs or the jobs in the businesses that will supply and support the appliance center. The bottom line is that outsourcing is "out" and insourcing is "in".
Education:
I have been aware of, using, and talking about the Khan Academy for years. http://bit.ly/Vf838j
This is the most amazing and promising thing that I have seen, perhaps, in my lifetime. Sal Khan is promising and delivering a world class education for anyone in the world for free. Imagine the impact of this on those young people who would be looking into the gigantic debt incurred to get a decent college education. This is huge for individuals and the country....well I guess, the world. All started by one person kind of by accident. Please watch the link to learn what the impact this will have on education at all levels.
Energy independence:
We are rapidly moving toward energy independence in America. Despite the empty promises of politicians for 40 years, the true solution is the result of relatively few individuals who developed horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas from massive shale deposits. George P. Mitchell comes to mind as one of the pioneers of this technology.
Every day the amount of money sent offshore for energy is lower than the day before. What a turn-around from a handful of years ago.
The last recorded monthly (September 2012) crude oil production for the U.S. from the Energy Information agency was up 17% year over year (scroll down for the monthly data). http://1.usa.gov/SbEylH
The rate of increase appears to be accelerating while U.S. consumption is falling. The low cost of natural gas is helping to accelerate the insourcing of manufacturing discussed above. Plastics companies are re-opening operations in the U.S. because of the low NG prices.
Obviously, petroleum will be exhausted at some point in the future, so efforts on alternative energy sources need to continue. Nuclear energy is my personal favorite, thorium reactors in particular. http://bit.ly/Vf84ZC
The Federal Reserve:
The Federal Reserve is doing some things never done before. The U.S. central bank is buying residential mortgage backed securities. that sounds simple, but the ramifications of that affect everyone in America, and in a good way.
Basically, the action puts downward pressure on mortgage interest rates, thus allowing homeowners, who qualify, to re-finance their mortgages. This amounts to hundreds of dollars worth of savings per month to millions of "average Joes" who can really use the relief.
What is less well understood is that the interest that is generated by the Fed on these mortgages is ultimately paid to the U.S. Treasury where it helps to lower deficit spending.
As our geniuses in Washington D.C. work through the tax revenue increases and spending cuts necessary to avoid the "fiscal cliff", this interest income from the Fed could contribute a new, non-tax source of up to $200 billion per year to help reduce the budget deficit. http://seekingalpha.co...
Housing:
After four years of depression, the housing market is recovering much faster than many would believe.
The above are five major macro trends that are moving in the right direction to the distinct benefit of the country and the economy. Each of these have been discussed in different venues, but when considered in combination, the positive effect on the economy could be truly remarkable.
This summer, I have to admit I was quite bearish about everything. But once QE3 started and I did a lot of research, I grew to understand Bernanke's strategy. It certainly is unprecedented, but we live in unprecedented times. The central question is how do we return to growth, in particular middle class wage growth. People seem to forget that we are coming out of a 21st century version of a depression. A cycle that usually takes more than a decade, way longer than most anyone's patience, certainly more than Congress's. Thanks to Obama and Bernanke, the punishment to society at large is more mute, though the cost to the debt is high. But that kind of risk, to me, is the more sensible approach, as opposed to austerity, which while seeming good for the bean counters seems to me to only hold the middle class and poor down longer. We are battling enormous structural challenges as well as pessimistic outlook sentiment. The Bernanke put coupled with continued stimulus and a slow conversion of bears to bulls will help broaden investment, entrepreneurship, and introduce a new phase of our economy. I am bullish all the way.
"Give me what I want or there will be no deal. I want taxes now. We can talk about spending issues later. I am tired of waiting for what I want."
He thinks he is Emperor. He also is convinced that his sheeple will accept his claim that rejection of his demands is "about" him; i.e., he is playing the race card. The indisputable fact that he is leading the charge to subjugate Americans to a totalitarian central govt seems ignored in the debate.
Most folks, including moderates and centrists, suggested that he needed to come out harder if he wanted to get anything done. Especially in light of the compromises made to get Romney-care and Dodd-Frank passed.
And that's what he's doing. He's swinging hard, because no one else - Dems and Repubs both - wanted to compromise with him earlier in his Presidency, and now you got the whiners who disagree with him crying. And cry they should, because if they had moderated their stances earlier, he'd likely be more open to compromise today. Too bad.