Dollar Will Weaken, 3 Sectors Will Rule: Strategists

[Steve]

Re-stating what some of us know but don't want to admit. We're broke.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

[Hugh_Hoy]

I remember these "Heritage" economists types stating during the debate raising taxes on the rich would crater the economy and make the deficits worse. They were wrong on both counts!

 

Of course reducing to zero deficit spending under Clinton reduced government borrowing and thus more money was available for private lending. This never happened under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHWB, or GWB!

 

I haven't checked what you say above, so don't know whether or not to agree. But I think that we must agree that you are continuing to rebut the message by attacking the messenger. Shows a degree of laziness that is consistent with liberals who want stuff spoon-fed to them; not work to accomplish a goal. So, I guess the Heritage essay is pretty-much irrefutable and your/Lizard King "Clinton Defense" has been penetrated and has crumbled before our very eyes.

 

HH

[rchapstick]

Well, attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message kind of presents a tacit agreement with what was written. :content:

 

Coming from you, this is hilarious

 

[Hugh_Hoy]

Re-stating what some of us know but don't want to admit. We're broke.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

 

If we're broke, how can the Demoncrats keeping spending? Hasn't anybody told them yet or they too fucked up to understand or care?

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

Well, attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message kind of presents a tacit agreement with what was written. :content: (However, I was anticipating such a response.)

 

If you need further evidence in support of the thesis noted in the article, just check out the NYSE composite index figures for, say, 1980-2007. I think those numbers significantly support the idea that the tax increases did not spur investment; that after the tax cuts were implemented, more investment was made.

 

You can start your analysis here: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5ENYA&a=11&b=31&c=1965&d=07&e=11&f=2010&g=m&z=66&y=132

 

It would seem to me that our "green" President would want to spur investment by individuals in emerging technologies, rather than tax the shit out of people for his bullshit stuff like "cash for clunkers", "calking", and turtle tunnels.

 

On the otherhand, commies/socialists/"progressives" do tend to favor government control of everything under the guise of "economic and social justice", no? Some of these folks are hardcore idealogues, some are plain dumb shits, some are good and decent folks who really don't think about the consequences of following the path laid out by "lefties". Obama is in the first group. Most of those who voted for him are in the last two groups, IMO.

 

HH

 

 

 

Heritage.org is about as far to the right a person can get. [color:red]I didn't think you were a Rushite?[/color]

 

Look at the stockmarket under Clinton then compare it after it fell under GWB then blame Obama for the mess GWB left behind.

[shygye]

I remember these "Heritage" economists types stating during the debate raising taxes on the rich would crater the economy and make the deficits worse. They were wrong on both counts!

 

Of course reducing to zero deficit spending under Clinton reduced government borrowing and thus more money was available for private lending. This never happened under Nixon' date=' Ford, Reagan, GHWB, or GWB!

[/quote']

 

I haven't checked what you say above, so don't know whether or not to agree. But I think that we must agree that you are continuing to rebut the message by attacking the messenger. Shows a degree of laziness that is consistent with liberals who want stuff spoon-fed to them; not work to accomplish a goal. So, I guess the Heritage essay is pretty-much irrefutable and your/Lizard King "Clinton Defense" has been penetrated and has crumbled before our very eyes.

 

HH

 

Nowhere in their essay do they explain why they were WRONG and that the Clinton rate increase on the rich EXPANDED the economy! The only thing they say is we have faith that the expansion rate would have been higher without the increase!?!

 

Somehow they missed the fact that you can cut taxes when you are having huge budget surpluses that Clinton had.

[Flashermac]

 

If we're broke, how can the Demoncrats keeping spending? Hasn't anybody told them yet or they too fucked up to understand or care?

 

HH

 

 

It's like folks who pay off one credit card with another credit card.

 

 

[unit731]

... well Warren Buffet agrees that the marginal rates of those making over $200K should go up! Buffet says now he pays a lower % of his income in taxes than his secretary!

 

Remember Clinton increased rates on the rich and the economy began a long growth phase, and deficit spending was eliminated.

 

 

Correct. And these 'born again' conservatives negate all the damage done by the Bush Brothers.

 

Fact:

 

There are bills to pay.

Someone has to pay the bills.

Tax the people that have the money to pay the bills.

 

This ain't rocket science.

[cavanami]

As much as I have tried...you can not drink yourself sober...same-same...you can not borrow your way out of debt, like the US gov is trying to do. They borrow $$$ from the Federal Reserve, at interest, which incurs added debt.

 

Until Washington, DC sprouts a brain and gets serious about the problems, bend over and kiss your azz (and your wealth) good bye!

[LizardKing]

Nothing to d with Washington...all do do with banks. TARP was BushCo and the GOP, so are the rules....