User 273178's Comments

Opinion About Obama Coming Down to Earth?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:04:26 -0400

Very well said, right on down to my criticisms of President Bush.

On Mar 27 12:00 PM clam75 wrote:

> Nick, this submission is a pathetic political screed disguised as
> a financial article.
>
> 1. You fail to point out that Pres. Obama has "done everything feasible
> and necessary to handle the financial crisis and restart growth"
> from a Keyensian perspective. You make the assumption that (a) all
> readers agree with your Keyensian perspective and (b) Keyensian policies
> will work (despite the fact that they didn't work in 1930s America
> or 1990s Japan). SA is a website with many readers who do not subscribe
> to your Keyensian perspective.
>
> 2. You argue that Pres. Obama "is sacrificing his own interests
> and tranquility for the benefits of our future." What interests,
> precisely, is he sacrificing? His budget rewards his political constituencies.
> Education funding is increased under Pres. Obama's proposed budget,
> pleasing the teachers' unions. Pres. Obama wants more money to be
> used for healthcare, thereby pleasing advocates who wish for more
> governmental intervention in the healthcare system. Pres. Obama
> got the Stimulus Package passed by a lapdog Congress, a package that
> showers money on local government officials. Indeed, I cannot name
> a single "sacrifice" that Pres. Obama has had to make, except for
> maybe his casual discarding of promises of sane fiscal stewardship.
>
>
> 3. If you are going to criticize Pres. Bush, why not spell out exactly
> which "real, serious, structural problems " you believe he caused?
> Whenever I attack the Bush Presidency, I always mention his expansion
> of federal power (i.e. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D) and
> his willingness to bailout those who made incorrect investment and
> production choices (i.e. the TARP, GM).

Opinion About Obama Coming Down to Earth?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:41:07 -0400

Ok, so you are saying that those videos are somehow lies, and it was the Dems who wanted to fix the problem and not the Republicans on those vids. Gotcha.
And, I don't believe I ever said anything was filibustered. You know as well as everyone else that they do a vote count ahead of time, and if 60 aren't there, it usually won't go to the floor. You may be correct in a technical sense, but very wrong in a practical sense. Both parties do that.

Convenient how you won't address the youtube links though, but I understand. Those who are too firmly attached to a party often have a hard time seeing through the talking points.

On Mar 27 10:33 AM jpiretti wrote:

> Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with
> Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote. The
> majority did not need 60 votes because it never came to the floor
> thanks to Frist. DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign
> targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents
> obtained by The Associated Press .Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began
> shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
> sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All
> GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed
> it. Why did they oppose it? Because in committee an anti-predatory
> lending provision was deleted from the final version....which never
> made it to the floor!! Thanks to Frist. It was not fillibustered!!
> Look it up!
>
>

Opinion About Obama Coming Down to Earth?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:26:23 -0400

It's amazing how Frank is given a pass for not seeing the problem in 2003, but those who did see the problem then, are the ones being criticized. Fair-minded people realize that is a case of partisan talking points, and not reality. If one wants to give some a pass in 2003, instead of criticizing those who turned out to be right, maybe some props should be given instead of blame.

Then the discussion can start on why something wasn't done, and who blocked what.

The links above are powerful. And the Repubs NEVER had the type of majority in both the house and the Senate that the Dems now enjoy, so it was gridlock. Without 60 votes, you have nothing passing.

Opinion About Obama Coming Down to Earth?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:17:33 -0400

Hagel is a RINO, but you know as well as I do that without 60 votes, it is essentially blocked. And Dodd and Frank were the ones leading the pack. So basically you are saying that everyone that the Bush Administration sent to Congress to do something never happened?

www.youtube.com/watch?...
www.youtube.com/watch?...
www.youtube.com/watch?...

There are a ton of these, I'll post 'em all day if you want.

And what would be a better idea is if you didn't get snotty because you are not right on this issue.

On Mar 27 09:33 AM jpiretti wrote:

> Actually it was Chuck Hagel's bill and lobbiest firm DCI(led by Doug
> Goodyear) payed out 2 million to Repulicans (who controlled the Senate)
> to get Bill Frist (majority leader) to block it for a vote. The minority
> can't by definition block legislation from getting to the floor,
> they can only filibuster once there. It would be a better idea to
> have the facts lead to your conclusions.

Opinion About Obama Coming Down to Earth?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:44:52 -0400

Obama has done NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Putting us trillions of dollars in debt on social programs?
The yield curve and other measures have been forecasting an end to the recession later this year for quite a while. Let's not confuse business cycles with stimulus.

Oh I forgot, no one can criticize "The One". But it is ok for you to go after Bush.

As far as what the previous administration left us, maybe you should check out Bush's 2001 budget that called for regulating the GSE's and then in 2003 called them a systemic risk. And ask why anyone from the administration who issued dire warnings and testified at hearings in Congress were blocked by Blarney Frank and Chris Dodd. 2003, 2004, 2005 (McCain tried to address the problem). This problem was years in the making, and the previous administration was not the one pushing loans on people who couldn't afford them.

If you want to start pointing fingers, you won't like the direction they are facing.

"Populist perception is that everyone working in a big investment bank was greedy and/or incompetent. That is simply not true. This may sound shocking, but professionals who’ve built up a lifetime of skills, experience, and contacts do exist at these firms. They are not so easily replaced. I’ve heard rumblings already that anyone worth their salt has left any firm taking TARP money. If this legislation passes, that will no doubt be true." (Economist)

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:13:19 -0400

Wow, so secretaries, tellers, and support staff, and those not involved in the problem areas deserves to be tainted and targeted for life?

Do people actually believe that EVERYONE is guilty?
And that it's ok for Congress to write legislation to target 400 people with high taxes? Slippery slope, dangerous precedent when we give a few the power to target those they don't like in punitive ways.
If Congress had let them fail, and if Congress didn't make a mess of things, this wouldn't be an issue. A failed company has no bonuses to pay anyway. And it would have been 1 less time we violated the constitution last week (actually 2).

On Mar 20 04:01 PM css1971 wrote:

> "Populist perception is that everyone working in a big investment
> bank was greedy and/or incompetent. That is simply not true."
>
> Really? The evidence says otherwise.
>
> Anyone working at a bank taking TARP cash is rightly tainted for
> life.
>

The White House vs. Rick Santelli

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:46:05 -0500

media,

All you have done (from the parts of your novel I actually read) was quote extreme left view points that have little basis in fact.

Fact that you avoid is that EVERYONE in the world said he had them, dems and repubs, but you accuse ONE of lying. Did you ever think that he had information that we don't have?
And the information I posted was pretty strong.

Again, I am not on this earth, nor do I have time, to get you to see things the right way. Those links I provided are proof enough. I can just say I am very glad you are not President.

Because we had to give Iraq notice when we were going in, it allowed them to truck out their WMD's. And we know they did that.

He used them on his own people. You should read "Saddam's Secrets", by Iraqi General Georges Sada. There are about 20 pages at the back of the book detailing the WMD program and what happened to them.

Open your eyes.

The White House vs. Rick Santelli

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:34:18 -0500

I find it astounding that those pushing multi-trillions in spending, in the next breath, try to convince people that they will get the deficit under control-and that some actually believe it.

On Feb 25 10:35 AM Eric J. Fox wrote:

> "With one of their own in the White House, Democrats in Congress
> are moving to give domestic government agencies 8 percent more money,
> on average, to spend this year atop the whopping $787 billion in
> economic stimulus funds."
>
> "Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group, counted 8,570
> pet projects totaling $7.7 billion inserted into the bill by lawmakers."

The White House vs. Rick Santelli

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:31:57 -0500

media,

There are things Bush did that I didn't like. But you don't know all that was going on about the Iraq war. Did you know that Al Qaeda's no. 1 fled to Baghdad to get treated for injuries during the Afghan war? Ever hear of Salman Pak terrorist training camp where they found a hollowed-out Boeing with boxes of box cutters? Did you know that on 7/21/01 in the Iraq state-run newspaper Al Nasyria they did an expose on bin laden who talked about how he was going to bomb us? Was Hussein not a terrorist? Did he not kill his own people and continually violate UN resolutions by shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone? Did we not free 25 million people who don't have to worry about being gassed tonight?

Did you know that when terrorists went to attack installations in Jordan including ours, Al Qaeda confessed on tv that they got Iraq's WMD's that were buried in the sand in Syria? Did you know the whole world knew he had them because he used them on his own people? Or that a few of our troops got injured when they did find sarin and mustard-gas laden shells?

Newsflash. We got attacked on 9/11. To you maybe it was no big deal, but to most of America it was a direct attack on us, as we spent too long ignoring threats-waiting to be attacked instead of dealing with the problem. Did you criticize all of the dems that voted for the Iraq war? I guess they lied too, as well as the U.N., and the rest of the world. Why did you leave them out?

Constitutionally, one of the few jobs the gov't has is to protect its citizens. I thank President Bush for keeping us safe. NOT in the constitution is redistributing wealth and bailing out anyone.

archive.newsmax.com/ar...

archive.newsmax.com/ar...

archive.newsmax.com/ar...

www.frontpagemag.com/A...

archive.newsmax.com/ar...

If you insist on me trying to dig up the story on Jordan, which I cannot find at the moment, I will do so. But read those for starters. I am sure you support bringing Bush up on charges, I say go ahead and do it. I'd LOVE to see this stuff disclosed for all the world to see, instead of most in the MSM ignoring it because it discredits their position.

And, I don't have the kind of time to get you to see things properly on the prior topics. Everything you have said I have already addressed above, an with proof. Not just with harsh talking points. In my mind, those issues are settled.
Oh, and nice spin on the current deficit. I don't ever recall saying I supported that, in fact, I've made it quite clear I'm against the wasteful spending that is going on. You mentioned Reagan. I properly used the budget deficit as a % of GDP. Since you lost that round, all of a sudden you moved the goal posts. To a different stadium.

The White House vs. Rick Santelli

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:55:21 -0500

Media,

Not only do you spin, lie, and distort, but you put words in my mouth. Where did I EVER say I was for increased spending?

Fact is, you can have your opinions. You cannot have your facts though, and I have disproven yours and proven mine.

I will no longer respond to this or you. "A man convinced against his will, is of his same opinion still".

BTW, hell-bent on war?
Go do some research and look up 9/11/01. Something happened that day.

And yes, I will PROUDLY take capitalism over socialism or communism ANY day of the week.

One more point. Why did Clinton have a balanced budget?
CONTRACT WITH AMERICA! Hate to break it to you, but Gingrich and co. took over the house in 1994 and greatly weakened Clinton. Their initiatives went through, and a stagnate economy in 1994 took off in 1995.

www.house.gov/house/Co...

Man, talk about revisionist history. How you can give Clinton credit for that defies all logic. I can give him credit for signing the legislation. However, if he didn't, he would have likely paid the price in the next election.

On Feb 24 10:38 PM mediapro wrote:

> Revisionism is the child of desperation.
>
> If you truly believe that tax cuts, increased spending and unfettered
> capitalism are the answers to our economic woes, then you should
> feel comfortable with the past eight years that culminated the lunacy
> of the supply-side hypothesis.
>
> You and I are the only ones paying attention to this string, and
> you are a lost soul imprisoned in your blinder collar of loyalty
> to a man and ideas that have been not only proven false, but will
> perhaps bankrupt the country.
>
> More and more people are concerned about the disparity in wealth
> as not only immoral, but a dangerous precursor to revolt. It's hard
> to conceive of Americans finally realizing the tragedy of the past
> thirty years and radically changing this government, yet had we not
> taken a side step to give a more balanced view of history and economics
> a chance, you and I might be having quite a different discussion.
>
>
> Oh well, since you actually might read my retort to your poorly framed
> responses here goes:
>
> 1. Reagan compromised. With Tip O'Neil and the democrats in control,
> inserting their spending items, he knew that to get his broader proposals
> enacted, he had to give back. He was pragmatic in his approach. He
> wanted the line-item veto to help reduce the wasteful spending. He,
> and everyone else since, has been denied that. The truth remains.
> Cutting taxes ballooned gov't income and revenue, but it was outspent.
> That cannot be denied. We can pass the political football as to who
> was at fault, but Congress writes the legislation. If he vetos everything,
> then nothing he wants gets passed. He was NOT happy about the spending.
> Read his writings, you'll come to learn that.
>
> It's no political football at all. Reagan went on the same spending
> spree that you are now deriding Obama undertaking. His happened to
> be on wasteful and illogical defense projects (remember Star Wars?).
> If Reagan wrote about his disappointments in later years, he should
> have had the moral courage to corral his colleagues into a Senate
> fillibuster or veto the spending bills. The truth that you won't
> admit is that Reagan's compromise was over the margins of the budgets,
> not out of any concern for deficits or balanced budgets.
>
> 2. Budget deficits should always be measured as a % of GDP. That
> is widely agreed upon by economists. As an economy grows, a bigger
> current dollar number is not necessarily as big in percentage terms.
>
> The Federal gov't will always spend more as time goes on, especially
> in a strongly rising economy. If you are going to criticize Reagan
> for an increase in the size of the budget, then criticize every other
> president as well. And his defense spending made us safer. Communism
> and the wall fell without a single shot. Far more cheaper to do it
> by being strong, than be being weak and then being attacked. Read
> what the former leaders of the Soviet Union had to say, about how
> frustrated they were that Reagan out-maneuvered them.
> To say his budget deficit up to that point was by far the largest
> in history is simply untrue. In fact, I'll call it a lie.
>
> And your novel about "Republicans crying" leaves a lot to be desired.
> The deficit would have been gone, but see above. And I would say
> it was more important to revive an economy even if it meant compromise
> than to not compromise and continue in a malaise. Even you have to
> admit the markets and economy were in very good shape back then.
>
>
>
>
> Please take another stab at defending your guy's results. I spent
> a good paragraph showing your own analysis to be wrong based on historical
> fact:
>
> But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal

The White House vs. Rick Santelli

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:37:23 -0500

Mediapro: Your answers to my statements do not refute them, just spin them.

1. Reagan compromised. With Tip O'Neil and the democrats in control, inserting their spending items, he knew that to get his broader proposals enacted, he had to give back. He was pragmatic in his approach. He wanted the line-item veto to help reduce the wasteful spending. He, and everyone else since, has been denied that. The truth remains. Cutting taxes ballooned gov't income and revenue, but it was outspent. That cannot be denied. We can pass the political football as to who was at fault, but Congress writes the legislation. If he vetos everything, then nothing he wants gets passed. He was NOT happy about the spending. Read his writings, you'll come to learn that.

2. Budget deficits should always be measured as a % of GDP. That is widely agreed upon by economists. As an economy grows, a bigger current dollar number is not necessarily as big in percentage terms.
The Federal gov't will always spend more as time goes on, especially in a strongly rising economy. If you are going to criticize Reagan for an increase in the size of the budget, then criticize every other president as well. And his defense spending made us safer. Communism and the wall fell without a single shot. Far more cheaper to do it by being strong, than be being weak and then being attacked. Read what the former leaders of the Soviet Union had to say, about how frustrated they were that Reagan out-maneuvered them.
To say his budget deficit up to that point was by far the largest in history is simply untrue. In fact, I'll call it a lie.

And your novel about "Republicans crying" leaves a lot to be desired. The deficit would have been gone, but see above. And I would say it was more important to revive an economy even if it meant compromise than to not compromise and continue in a malaise. Even you have to admit the markets and economy were in very good shape back then.

3. Don't call me comrade. I find that offensive. And read what I have written in both posts.

4. You are spinning in a major way on the Laffer curve. I don't have time to debunk your points one by one. But the concept is given in the links above, let the other readers decide. I will post a quote here that I think is relevant, and very true. It also is why socialism that you propose never works.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

5. www.house.gov/jec/fisc...
This clears up all of your mis-statements on Reagan's tax cuts. Notice that in fact, the highest tax brackets saw a 9 point jump in what they paid, but the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. The middle class as defined in there saw their burden shifted upward, % by %.

I encourage all to read that link. It provides all the facts, the ones that people with socialistic principals spin the other way. Media, for all of your long-winded writing, your points are not borne out by the overall facts. In fact, I think you wrote all of that to convince others by volume instead of substance.

6. You have BDS. Point the finger where it belongs, at Dodd, Frank, Obama, Pelosi, et al. Frank was arguing for expansion of FNM last July! He's the chairman of the finance cmte.! He had no clue apparently. You can insult Bush and others by talking about irrelevant issues, but that is only to dodge the facts. Bush wanted more regulation. Frank and Dodd said no. And this crisis had it seeds long before Bush took office.

7. For a matter of record, I was always opposed to the elimination of Glass-Steagle. And I have always been for balanced budgets. If we as a nation were able to have discipline to do that on a regular basis, then some deficit spending when needed wouldn't be so painful.

8. Bush did not dodge the draft. He served in the Nat'l Guard. Clinton dodged the draft. But if you are going to go down that road, I could bring up a whole lot of stuff now, but I won't. That rhetoric only serves to distract, usually when the message isn't sound.

Bottom line is, tax cuts grow gov't income and revenue and increase growth. Budget deficit issues are spending problems, which neither party ever wants to get under control.

On Feb 22 10:28 PM mediapro wrote:

> Since most of the comments on my post were about me buttoning up
> my lip, I'll deal with the one substantive take on my analysis.

>
> To User 273...:
>
> 1. Congress was controlled by the dems during the Reagan administration.
> Net gov't tax revenue more than doubled under Reagan. They outspent
> the gains.
>
> Answer:
>
> The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's
> budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference
> between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to
> the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget.

>
> 2. You talk about the deficit ballooning from 50 to 200 billion?
> Why not look at it as a % of GDP. Oh, because that makes your point
> moot. Reagan had a recession right after he took office. The REAL
> stimulus was his tax cuts. The stock market took off, inflation fell
> to 3%, unemployment fell sharply, and we had a very good economy.
> The budget deficit as a % of GDP when he took office was 2.8% and
> rising. When he left, it was 2.8% and falling. Which is better?

>
> Answer:
>
> In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal
> government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of
> the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion,
> an increase of 68%. Whatever this is, it is emphatically not reducing
> government expenditures.
>
> Some economists say that these absolute numbers are an unfair comparison,
> that we should compare federal spending in these two years as percentage
> of gross national product. But this strikes me as unfair in the opposite
> direction, because the greater the amount of inflation generated
> by the federal government, the higher will be the GNP. We might then
> be complimenting the government on a lower percentage of spending
> achieved by the government's generating inflation by creating more
> money. But even taking these percentages of GNP figures, we get federal
> spending as percent of GNP in 1980 as 21.6%, and after six years
> of Reagan, 24.3%. A better comparison would be percentage of federal
> spending to net private product, that is, production of the private
> sector. That percentage was 31.1% in 1980, and a shocking 34.3% in
> 1986. So even using percentages, the Reagan administration brought
> us a substantial increase in government spending.
>
> by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the
> deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level
> that wouldn't budge, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures
> in one-shot reductions.
>
> This is by far the largest budget deficit in American history.

>
> One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan
> era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime.
> At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative
> Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits
> would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they
> were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual
> increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally
> with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had
> they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were
> doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan"
> to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and
> the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead,
> they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge
> permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate
> deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring
> confusion.
>
> 3. There were no record deficits under Reagan. In dollars, yes, but
> read above. The ONLY legitimate way to view that is as a % of GDP,
> and it was NOWHERE close. But the socialist viewpoint always spins
> the truth on this.
>
> Answer: Comrade, please see above.
>
> 4. The Laffer Curve is all about finding the optimal tax rate. Too
> high, and there is a disincentive to work and produce. Too low, and
> not enough revenue comes in.
>
> The Laffer curve rises again!
>
> Just a couple of minor points.
>
> 1. Tax collections fall to zero at 100% tax rate. This is always
> stated as a truism. However, there are many examples of people working
> for nothing (which is an equivalent thing). The one that comes to
> mind were the "dollar a year men" of the WWII era. Obviously money
> wasn't the motivator in their case. Charity work could also be cited.
>
>
> 2. There is a curve between the two zero points which has a maximum
> point for tax collection. This is also stated as a truism. In fact
> there are an infinite number of curves that can be drawn between
> the two points and there is no evidence that a parabolic shape is
> the correct one.
>
> 3. Taxes are in brackets so there is no reason to believe that there
> is only one Laffer curve. There might be a different curve for each
> bracket since people at different economic levels respond to different
> stimuli.
>
> 4. For the Laffer curve to have any value as a policy tool it should
> be presented with appropriate data points in any discussion. However,
> no one ever does so, it is always discussed in theoretical terms.
> If no one can display the curve how can those who quote it claim
> that we are on the side where lowering tax rates will raise revenue?
>
>
> The Laffer curve doesn't exist.
> heritage.org/Resea...
>
> 5. I'll only address those left-wing terms such as trickle down as
> to say that's what the left throws out there, ignoring facts. But
> if we're going down that road, then right now we are doing TRICKLE
> UP economics. Law of Gravity isn't the only thing fighting that.
>
>
> You can't address "trickle down" simply because it is a wacko concept
> promoted by Friedman, Laffer, Stockman (until he saw how intellectually
> dishonest the term was), and the "intellectuals" behind the Laffer
> Curve, Jude Wanniski and his handservant, that famous quarterback
> turned economist, Jack Kemp. What application of the Laffer Curve
> and trickle-down economics in the real world has proved is born out
> by the unfathomable national debt after the final eight years of
> this lunacy. What's even more incredible are the promoters who claim
> that without tax reductions under G.W. Bush the situation would have
> been worse than it is.
>
> 6. Whenever taxes have been cut across the board, the % paid by the
> top wage earners has gone UP. EVERY time. It happened with Bush 43,
> Reagan, and Kennedy. To suggest anything else is to ignore the facts.
>
>
> Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in
> 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted
> tax reform law of 1986? Didn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition,
> heroically held the line against all tax increases?
>
> The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous
> "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates
> for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person,
> taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole,
> the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of
> tax increase. One was "bracket creep," a term for inflation quietly
> but effectively raising one into higher tax brackets, so that you
> pay more and proportionately higher taxes even though the tax rate
> schedule has officially remained the same. The second source of higher
> taxes was Social Security taxation, which kept increasing, and which
> helped taxes go up overall. Not only that, but soon thereafter; when
> the Social Security System was generally perceived as on the brink
> of bankruptcy, President Reagan brought in Alan Greenspan, a leading
> Reaganomist, to save Social Security as head of a bipartisan commission.
> The "saving," of course, meant still higher Social Security taxes
> then and forevermore.
>
> Since the tax cut of 1981 that was not really a cut, furthermore,
> taxes went up every single year since, with the approval of the Reagan
> administration. But to save the president's rhetorical sensibilities,
> they weren't called tax increases. Instead, ingenious labels were
> attached to them; raising of "fees," "plugging loopholes" (and surely
> everyone wants loopholes plugged), "tightening IRS enforcement,"
> and even revenue enhancements." I am sure that all good Reaganomists
> slept soundly at night knowing that even though government revenue
> was being "enhanced," the president had held the line against tax
> increases.
>
> The highly ballyhooed Tax "Reform" Act of 1986 was supposed to be
> economically healthy as well as "fair"; supposedly "revenue neutral,"
> it was to bring us (a) simplicity, helping the public while making
> the lives of tax accountants and lawyers miserable; and (b) income
> tax cuts, especially in the higher income brackets and in everyone's
> marginal tax rates (that is, income tax rates on additional money
> you may earn); and offset only by plugging those infamous loopholes.
> The reality, of course, was very different, In the first place, the
> administration has succeeded in making the tax laws so complicated
> that even the IRS admittedly doesn't understand it, and tax accountants
> and lawyers will be kept puzzled and happy for years to come.
>
> Secondly, while indeed income tax rates were cut in the higher brackets,
> many of the loophole plugs meant huge tax increases for people in
> the upper as well as middle income brackets. The point of the income
> tax, and particularly the marginal rate cuts, was the supply-sider
> objective of lowering taxes to stimulate savings and investment.
> But a National Bureau study by Hausman and Poterba on the Tax Reform
> Act shows that over 40% of the nation's taxpayers suffered a marginal
> tax increase (or at best, the same rate as before) and, of the majority
> that did enjoy marginal tax cuts, only 11% got reductions of 10%
> or more. In short, most of the tax reductions were negligible. Not
> only that; the Tax Reform Act, these authors reckoned, would lower
> savings and investment overall because of the huge increases in taxes
> on business and on capital gains. Moreover savings were also hurt
> by the tax law's removal of tax deductibility on contributions to
> IRAs.
>
> Not only were taxes increased, but business costs were greatly raised
> by making business expense meals only 80% deductible, which means
> a great expenditure of business time and energy keeping and shuffling
> records. And not only were taxes raised by eliminating tax shelters
> in real estate, but the law's claims to "fairness" were made grotesque
> by the retroactive nature of many of the tax increases. Thus, the
> abolition of tax shelter deductibility was made retroactive, imposing
> huge penalties after the fact. This is ex post facto legislation
> outlawed by the Constitution, which prohibits making actions retroactively
> criminal for a time period when they were perfectly legal.
>
> But the bottom line on the tax question: is what happened in the
> Reagan era to government tax revenues overall? Did the amount of
> taxes extracted from the American people by the federal government
> go up or down during the Reagan years? The facts are that federal
> tax receipts were $517 billion in the last Carter year of 1980. In
> 1986, revenues totaled $769 billion, an increase of 49%. Whatever
> that is, that doesn't look like a tax cut. But how about taxes as
> a percentage of the national product? There, we can concede that
> on a percentage criterion, overall taxes fell very slightly, remaining
> about even with the last year of Carter. Taxes fell from 18.9% of
> the GNP to 18.3%, or for a better gauge, taxes as percentage of net
> private product fell from 27.2% to 26.6%. A large absolute increase
> in taxes, coupled with keeping taxes as a percentage of national
> product about even, is scarcely cause for tossing one's hat in the
> air about a whopping reduction in taxes during the Reagan years.
>
>
> 7. As to what got us in the credit mess, well, the pres. and McCain
> tried to warn everyone in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Frank and Dodd
> aruged against them saying they wanted more credit expanded to those
> who the banks knew couldn't pay it back.
>
> Oh yes, that was the same John McCain who had Phil Gramm as his chief
> economic advisor, whispering in his ear as late as July 2008 that
> the economy was "fundamently sound". As for Bush, when he wasn't
> on vacation, there was as much political bravery in criticizing Freddie
> and Fannie as his brave move as a Texas draft dodger.
>
> If you look at the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Gramm's eleventh hour
> amendment that eliminated oversight of the derivatives market, the
> repackaging of most mortgages into mortgage backed securities, and
> the subsequent "insuring" of those mortgages into consolidated debt
> obligations, Freddie and Fannie look like Kindergarten comparatively.
>
>
> 8. The end of your rant leads to one conclucsion. Welcome to Seeking
> Alpha Mr. Gibbs.
>
> If I were only half as smart as Mr. Gibbs, I would gladly accept
> your welcome!

Rick Santelli Speaks for the Silent Majority

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:10:02 -0500

LOL, you have no room to talk. You're FIRST SENTENCE IS INCORRECT!
It should read "Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the USAGE of the personal pronoun?"

Rick is 100% correct. I don't think a word out of place changes anything.

On Feb 19 07:21 PM User 360465 wrote:

> Has anyone ever exposed Mr. Santelli to the use of the personal pronoun?
> It's "people WHO" not "people that"...so embarrassing to hear him
> rant on TV at such a low skill level with the language. One doesn't
> have to be very bright to be a mainstream media spokesperson...I
> see that now.
> Review your pronouns, Rick!

The White House vs. Rick Santelli

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:57:23 -0500

For all of your numbers, you miss some key points.
1. Congress was controlled by the dems during the Reagan administration. Net gov't tax revenue more than doubled under Reagan. They outspent the gains.
2. You talk about the deficit ballooning from 50 to 200 billion? Why not look at it as a % of GDP. Oh, because that makes your point moot. Reagan had a recession right after he took office. The REAL stimulus was his tax cuts. The stock market took off, inflation fell to 3%, unemployment fell sharply, and we had a very good economy. The budget deficit as a % of GDP when he took office was 2.8% and rising. When he left, it was 2.8% and falling. Which is better?

3. There were no record deficits under Reagan. In dollars, yes, but read above. The ONLY legitimate way to view that is as a % of GDP, and it was NOWHERE close. But the socialist viewpoint always spins the truth on this.

4. The Laffer Curve is all about finding the optimal tax rate. Too high, and there is a disincentive to work and produce. Too low, and not enough revenue comes in.
www.heritage.org/Resea...

5. I'll only address those left-wing terms such as trickle down as to say that's what the left throws out there, ignoring facts. But if we're going down that road, then right now we are doing TRICKLE UP economics. Law of Gravity isn't the only thing fighting that.

6. Whenever taxes have been cut across the board, the % paid by the top wage earners has gone UP. EVERY time. It happened with Bush 43, Reagan, and Kennedy. To suggest anything else is to ignore the facts.

7. As to what got us in the credit mess, well, the pres. and McCain tried to warn everyone in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Frank and Dodd aruged against them saying they wanted more credit expanded to those who the banks knew couldn't pay it back.

8. The end of your rant leads to one conclucsion. Welcome to Seeking Alpha Mr. Gibbs.

On Feb 22 03:19 PM mediapro wrote:

> Those who like Santelli's, Cabrera's, and that stupid guy with the
> glasses that looks like an overweight chicken (what's his name?)
> all subscribe to the dangerous Chicago School and Uncle Miltie Friedman's
> failed supply side gambit that we have been playing for the past
> thirty years.
>
> Remember the Laffer Curve?
>
> It claimed that if income tax rates were cut, investment and production
> would be so stimulated that a fall in tax rates would increase tax
> revenue and balance the budget. When the budget was most emphatically
> not balanced, and deficits instead got worse, the supply-siders threw
> Laffer overboard as the scapegoat, claiming that Laffer was an extremist,
> and the only propounder of his famous curve.
>
> If your memory is fuzzy on the path we've travelled since 1980, let
> me remind you:
>
> Flash back to the neo-con's answer to 1970's stagflation and Milton
> Friedman's Shock Economics Theory he plied so well in South America
> for right wing fascists.
>
> Roll tape a bit forward to the Gipper. Cut taxes, spend on defense
> out the wazoo, run record deficits, de-regulate markets and watch
> Uncle Milties' magic work.
>
> While every right wing neo-con tape loop is buzzing with out-of-control
> GSEs, we all seem to conveniently ignore how all of this silly and
> frightening theoretical economic approach played out around the world
> through the likes of the IMF, World Bank, Halliburton, and their
> ilk.
>
> Look at any country where this supply-side, trickle down, deregulated
> gambit has played and look at how eeiry is the similarity between
> those countries and this one:
>
> 1. The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The
> top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial
> wealth at a whopping 8%.
>
> 2. In terms of inherited wealth only 1.6% inherit more than $100,000.
> 91.9% receive nothing. Yet the "death tax" was/is the highest priority
> on the ultra-conservative agenda.
>
> Now for some sobering reminders:
>
> Under Clinton we enjoyed a $287 Billion SURPLUS that's now an ever-growing
> DEFICIT that at last peek was nearing $1.4 Trillion and national
> debt that has grown from $5.7 Trillion to $10.2 Trillion in just
> seven years.
>
> Under Reagan the deficit increased to, at that time, a whopping $200
> Billion from $50 Billion under Carter.
>
> It wasn't because Clinton was an economic genious. He simply returned
> out-of-control revenue reduction (tax cuts) back to the Reagan rates
> and chose folks who shared his philosophy of government and its role.
> I'll put my money in the hands of the guys that believe that it's
> the government's job to invest in the 80% of us that need practical
> ways to grow our own wealth (smart energy policy, infrastructure
> development, education).
>
> As for the free market to right the ship by itself "over time", I
> have a few tickets on the Good Ship Lollipop for those knuckle dragging
> leftovers that can't seem to get it through their heads that they
> lost the last two national elections trying to teeter on the same
> tired platform that got us into this mess.

LEAPS of Hope

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:10:23 -0500

Wow, talk about drinking the Kool Aid. He's inspired who since he's been in office?
Every speech he gives, he says the word "crisis" constantly. 26 times in one speech. He warns of impending doom if he doesn't get to spend his trillion dollars. The author should do some studying of Reagan if he wants to see a Pres. who inspired people, and lifted the social mood. He was ALWAYS optimistic on this country. Not when it fits a political motive. Obama gives great speeches. Many however, are able to look beyond that.

Watch for Yourself: 60 Minutes Oil Story Was Spot On

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:50:39 -0500

Explain it well, and explaining what happened accurately, are 2 very different things. I would suggest to all, learning about Elliott Wave theory and mass psychology's impacts on the markets. It will give you an entirely different perspective.

On Jan 13 11:10 PM Allen Phatimer wrote:

> 60 minutes explained it pretty well. The arguments of there's always
> a seller for every buyer and they never take delivery are so amateur
> that you guys embarrass yourselves when you spew that crap. Think
> about what you're saying before you regurgitate what you heard another
> fool say. Let me make it really simple for you - SPECULATIVE ELEMENTS
> THAT BUY AND SELL A NEW PARADIGM TYPE LINE OF CRAP ARE KEY CONTRIBUTORS
> TO BUBBLES. Your buyer and seller for every transaction line suggests
> that buyers don't move prices higher and sellers don't push prices
> lower.
>
> I NEVER SAID THAT SPECULATORS WERE THE ONLY CAUSE OF THE OIL PRICE
> SPIKE. I SAID THIS: "The fact is that no one really knows when the
> world will run out of oil. Many factors influence energy prices over
> the long run, including production costs, the dollar, supply, demand
> and competition from alternatives, etc. But bubbles are usually borne
> of cyclical (and ALWAYS temporary) supply/demand imbalances exacerbated
> by analysts and pundits who con otherwise unsuspecting investors
> and traders with new paradigm type stories."
>
> By asserting the naive buyer and seller and delivery crap you are
> saying that speculators either don't exist or have no effect, which
> is naive. As pension funds and endowments and CTAs, and Hedge Funds
> (levered to the hilt) and brokerages and others buy into the madness,
> the buyers outnumber the sellers in a big way. Pension Funds, Endowments
> and non-commodity hedge funds should have never been involved - by
> getting involved to the extent they did, they became SPECULATORS.
> They talked about a commodity bull market that would last for another
> ten years. They declared commodities to be a asset class that should
> be well represented in everyone's portfolio no matter if you were
> a gunslinger or widow. They were dead wrong. How many of those
> guys do you suppose are still "holding for the long term" like non-specs
> do. Commercial and Speculative open interest increased much more
> than the 2% average increase in end market demand (demand was strong
> and Chinese were buying and we and everyone else was filling SPRs).
>
>
> Consumers do NOT buy oil; they buy refined products like gas and
> heating oil; the demand for which did not increase or fall anywhere
> near as much as they amount of energy futures did. If prices tracked
> end market demand alone, then you would never see anything like the
> parabolic move you saw. Calls for $200 and $300/ bbl oil were as
> absurd as calling for AMZN to go to $1000/sh. back in the internet
> bubble immediately before AMZN proceeded to give up 90% and fall
> back to $10. If that sounds stupid in retrospect its because it
> was.

Watch for Yourself: 60 Minutes Oil Story Was Spot On

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:38:52 -0500

Explaining it.

On Jan 14 07:29 AM romerjt wrote:

> romerjt - Are you explaining this or defending it - the market that
> produces these wild swings?

Watch for Yourself: 60 Minutes Oil Story Was Spot On

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:53:10 -0500

Sorry, but there is a lot wrong with this article, and the 60 minutes article. In the interest of time, I'll mention 2 things that anyone who's ever spent 20 seconds following an energy market should know, but have been ignored.

1. THE DOLLAR! When the dollar was collapsing, it made dollar-denominated assets (oil, gas) go up. The dollar stopped falling early in 2008, built a base, and started rising very sharply, and that coincided with oil's collapse. For the record, back in mid-July I called for the crash in oil, to 90 as an initial target, then lower potential. I also was bullish on the dollar shortly thereafter.
When the dollar started to rise, the opposite effect obviously occurred, so it helped oil to collapse.

2. The $25 dollar rise in oil on Sept. 22nd was horrendous journalism, and it is obvious they have no clue what caused it. I was watching the spot and 2 forward month contracts when that happened. Within 30 seconds, the reason for that rise was quite obvious. The current contract was due to expire that afternoon. Shorts were forced to cover. There was little volume because the real trading was occurring in the next forward month. So a short squeeze occurred. The next day, the oil contract switched months, and the price was back where it was.

How was it so obvious there was something contract-specific going on?
Besides the low volume and wide spreads in the trading, when that contract was up $25, the next 2 forward contracts were only up $4. Those 2 were trading as they should, and did NOT accelerate with the other contract. And gasoline didn't rise to match the oil rise either. They should have known this, or not even brought it up, because that one day spike had ZERO impact at the pump, or anywhere else.
I'm sorry, if one can't see this, as it is so basic, everything else said should be suspect.

Another fact. Bubbles occur, we've seen a number of them. That was a bubble that burst. For every buyer there is a seller. If the volume issues brought up were a reason for the rise, it wouldn't have fallen $112 from its high now would it?

Oh, and the author suggests the $25 move asserts that doesn't happen in the middle of moves, but more at a top or bottom. Wrong. It most certainly did happen in the middle of a move-a down move. Oil had fallen from 147 to 90, and that incident was during the bounce from 90 before the next wave down. News isn't required to move a security. Technical factors matter. The problem is, that the media always has to find a reason for the tiniest move, so people think the only reason something moves is because of news. Rather, news is written to fit the move. That is Elliott Wave territory, which could explain this a lot better than CBS certainly could.

50% Returns, No Risk?

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:32:21 -0500

A huge point being missed here is the benefit of dollar cost averaging, one of the reasons why 401 (k) investing is a good idea. During a bear market, the same amount of money per month buys more shares, so when the market rebounds, you've bought more shares low, fewer high. If one had invested a lump sum at the top in 1929, it would have taken many years (I think 17?) to break even, even with dividends. But if one had invested the same time every month, they would have broken even in 7 years. Someone at age 55 still has a life expectancy over 80, which is still a very long time. While I understand the point, this is not the best advice IMHO, that one could get, and I would have gone with the DCA angle.

Here are some DCA numbers:

If one invests 100/mo at 10 per share, they buy 10 shares. If it drops to 5 per share, they buy 20 shares. Let's suppose it drops $1 per month to reach 5, then rises $1 per month back to $10 per share.
month 1. 10 shares
month 2. 11.111 shares
month 3. 12.125 shares
month 4. 14.286 shares
month 5 16.667 shares
month 6. 20 shares.

After 6 months, one would have 84.189 shares, with $600 invested. Average cost is $7.13. So, if it rebounded at the same rate it fell (and even stopped contributing), anything past month 8 (approx) would see that old money AVERAGE a profit. If one just stopped investing at month 6, it is easy to see that by month 12, one would have $841.89, or a gain of 241.89 (a gain of 40%) over their original investment. Now that is in a market that went nowhere according to my example, from month 1 to month 12.

Reading the S&P 500's Crashing Waves

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:29:54 -0400

The wave count here is the most bearish possible. Other wave counts are possible. For example, it is possible this is an ABC from the top in Oct. (WXY from the prior top, we would be in wave Y, or another variation), and that we are mostly through it. In the ABC scenario, we would be in 3 of 3 of C of Y. Wave 4 would be a strong bounce, and in this case, Wave 5 might be considered a failure. A failure is when wave 5 does not go below the wave 3 lows. This occurs when the prior wave goes too far, too fast, and that certainly seems to be the case here.
In 1987 for example, that is considered by most to be a 3-3-5 correction. In other words, the new high was part of a B wave correction (3 subwaves), and then the C wave was 5 waves down. However, the wave 3 low that was the crash, was never broken by wave 5. After that crash low, a triangle pattern is traced out, which is common for wave 4's. The wave 5 after that held well above the wave 3 lows, and you can see that wave 5 subdivided further into 5 waves.

So, from an Elliott Wave perspective, the bear market probably isn't over even if we put in a good bottom here. But, from a price standpoint, that doesn't necessarily have to agree.

5 Reasons Why the $700B Bailout Could Translate to $250 Oil

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:16:55 -0400

There is a glaring error in this article. The day the Oct. contract soared to 130, but closed at 120, it was the only contract to do so. There was massive short covering, the likely result of hedge funds having to buy to cover, as that was the last trading day of that contract. In fact, it was rumored AND reported that a few hedge funds took big losses. Gasoline never followed the Oct. contract, and the Nov. and Dec. contracts both closed around 109, never rallying when the Oct. contract did.

As one who follows commodities, it was very easy to see what was going on. Volume was light in Oct contracts, but much heavier in Nov. and Dec. The very next day, people probably thought oil fell $14 when it closed at 106 or so, but that was because the quoted front month changed.

I have seen far too many use that anomalous trading day in one contract to draw conclusions about so many things. It had nothing to do with the economy, the dollar was down, but not nearly enough to account for that, nor did it have anything to do with any bailout, etc.

Unfortunately, common practice is to assign a cause for every single market issue, but the problem is, most of the time the causes claimed, are not the real reasons. There is an unwinding of many things going on right now causing more volatility, but there is no denying that commodities entered a bear market in July, and this is bear market behavior.