PDA

View Full Version : Obama Classic Obama double-speak


petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:13 PM
Obama said the top priority in solving the country's fiscal crisis "must be jobs and growth."

White House press secretary Jay Carney said the president would bring to the table a proposal for $1.6 trillion in new taxes on business and the wealthy when he begins discussions with congressional Republicans, a figure that Obama outlined in his most recent budget plan. The targeted revenue is twice the amount Obama discussed with Republican leaders during debt talks during the summer of 2011.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49821777

Ok, you can't say on one hand your #1 priority is "jobs and growth" and on the other hand talk about raising taxes on business.

For the economically challenged, raising taxes on businesses raises the cost of doing business which does not spur job creation nor growth of the economy.

I swear listening to this Admin and his party makes me feel like I took a handfull of crazy pills sometimes.

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:15 PM
He said he would raise taxes on the rich at every speech during the campaign. Now he says he's going to do just that. A politician that does what they say they would do is shocking, I agree.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:17 PM
This reminds me of when Obama was first elected and he was talking about his plans to help spur job creation. One of the ideas was to make it easier for business owners to borrow to buy no equipment.

That's a great idea and all but if less and less people are walking through your door, all the new equipment in the world isn't going to make you more profitable regardless of how cheap it is to borrow.


They simply don't get it when it comes to economics and finance.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:18 PM
He said he would raise taxes on the rich at every speech during the campaign. Now he says he's going to do just that. A politician that does what they say they would do is shocking, I agree.

I said nothing about raising taxes on the rich, I said BUSINESS! You know, those things that create jobs? Do you not understand that? Has your liberal math failed you so badly that the concept of higher cost of business leads to less job creation?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:20 PM
He said he would raise taxes on the rich at every speech during the campaign. Now he says he's going to do just that. A politician that does what they say they would do is shocking, I agree.

The problem is Obama and the Democrats, along with most of DC for that matter, don't understand what it means to grow tax revenues. So they come up with stupid ideas like making it more costly to do business in hopes that somehow that will create jobs later while DC lines its pockets now.

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 08:20 PM
He said he would raise taxes on the rich

It's going to be so awesome when your taxes go up. LMAO

And I'll be there every step of the way, twisting the knife.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:22 PM
Obamacare, + EPA regulations + higher taxes = stonger economy and more jobs????

I simply just don't see how they come to this conclusion?

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:23 PM
It's going to be so awesome when your taxes go up. LMAO

And I'll be there every step of the way, twisting the knife.you keep bumping old threads for no reason, your going to have to twist that knife under a new name.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:23 PM
you keep bumping old threads for no reason, your going to have to twist that knife under a new name.

Stop being a board nazi

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 08:24 PM
you keep bumping old threads for no reason, your going to have to twist that knife under a new name.

Those threads were relevent to the current calls for secession on whitehouse.gov

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:30 PM
Those threads were relevent to the current calls for secession on whitehouse.govYou bumped an old thread to insult a poster not talk about the subject.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 08:31 PM
He is doing what he said he would. The people voted and he is following through with it.

Cutting taxes for the job creators hasnt worked and we need to actually fix this mess.

I am not for raising taxes on anyone, normally, but this isnt normal. It HAS to be fixed and SOON!

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:31 PM
Stop being a board naziHow about you learn to get your news somewhere other than Drudge? And quit spamming the board?

stevieray
11-14-2012, 08:35 PM
Stop being a board nazi
libs are more concerned about how you feel, rather than their own feelings.
you know, tolerant as long as you agree...cry about conservatives and their 'social' issues, then turn around and push social issues.

pretty sure their panties have been in a bunch over Texas......prolly can't get enough of it...the country is more divided than ever.


sad, really.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:35 PM
How about you learn to get your news somewhere other than Drudge? And quit spamming the board?

How about I haven't even looked at Drudge today, dumbass? This was on CNBC.

stevieray
11-14-2012, 08:37 PM
It HAS to be fixed and SOON!
this can't be fixed. ever.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:37 PM
He is doing what he said he would. The people voted and he is following through with it.

Cutting taxes for the job creators hasnt worked and we need to actually fix this mess.

I am not for raising taxes on anyone, normally, but this isnt normal. It HAS to be fixed and SOON!

I am not talking about raising taxes on individuals. I am talking about business. I swear some of you have a huge failure in reading comprehension.

Tell me, what does raising taxes on businesses acomplish in the way of jobs? How does that "fix this mess"?

jd1020
11-14-2012, 08:37 PM
If only he would just eliminate PBS and then our debt would be wiped clean.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:43 PM
If only he would just eliminate PBS and then our debt would be wiped clean.

The PBS line is as about as worthless as tax the rich. Neither are going to produce a dent in solving our problems.

Do you really think for 1 second this spend happy machine we have in DC is going to curtail spending if they get a new source of revenue?

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:45 PM
How about I haven't even looked at Drudge today, dumbass? This was on CNBC. You got aggressive first pal.

What did you do click on the wrong site?

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 08:46 PM
I am not talking about raising taxes on individuals. I am talking about business. I swear some of you have a huge failure in reading comprehension.

Tell me, what does raising taxes on businesses acomplish in the way of jobs? How does that "fix this mess"?

I fully understood your post. Business's may have to forgo a little extra profit to help "fix this mess" as all of us should. I think they should let all of the tax cuts expire, for now. As I stated, I am not for raising taxes on anyone, normally. The tax cuts helped put us here and should be expired. If we are going to get serious about fixing this then we need to raise taxes as an immediate response, massive cuts should be the next step.
We are all in this and we should all have to help out. Starting with those who it hurts the least is at least a start.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:48 PM
I fully understood your post. Business's may have to forgo a little extra profit to help "fix this mess" as all of us should. I think they should let all of the tax cuts expire, for now. As I stated, I am not for raising taxes on anyone, normally. The tax cuts helped put us here and should be expired. If we are going to get serious about fixing this then we need to raise taxes as an immediate response, massive cuts should be the next step.
We are all in this and we should all have to help out. Starting with those who it hurts the least is at least a start.

Ok, so in your proposal, we will increase the cost of doing business AND...AND raise taxes on everyone with a sputtering economy and jobless rate at the 8%ish level. Congratulations! You just put us in a recession.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 08:49 PM
The PBS line is as about as worthless as tax the rich. Neither are going to produce a dent in solving our problems.

Do you really think for 1 second this spend happy machine we have in DC is going to curtail spending if they get a new source of revenue?

That BS, both of those things would make a dent.

Everyone keeps saying, "taxing the rich wont fix the problem", "cutting PBS wont fix the problem". The truth is, no one thing will fix it, it will be the sum of a LOT of things, just like those.

loochy
11-14-2012, 08:50 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49821777

Ok, you can't say on one hand your #1 priority is "jobs and growth" and on the other hand talk about raising taxes on business.


well sure you can

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 08:53 PM
Ok, so in your proposal, we will increase the cost of doing business AND...AND raise taxes on everyone with a sputtering economy and jobless rate at the 8%ish level. Congratulations! You just put us in a recession.

The time for indecision has past, its time we DO something.

We tried lowering taxes and lowering the cost of doing business and where did we end up....in a recession.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 08:54 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49821777

Ok, you can't say on one hand your #1 priority is "jobs and growth" and on the other hand talk about raising taxes on business.

For the economically challenged, raising taxes on businesses raises the cost of doing business which does not spur job creation nor growth of the economy.

I swear listening to this Admin and his party makes me feel like I took a handfull of crazy pills sometimes.

Because job creation means more govt jobs for bureaucrats to Obama. ROFL
Those new IRS agents for Obamacare will have to be paid too. ROFL

Gawd! What an effin' commie this guy is. It's really gonna come out now in his second term. Please, Republicans, do your jobs and box him in so he's the lamest duck president we've ever had. We're gonna need that.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 08:55 PM
The time for indecision has past, its time we DO something.

We tried lowering taxes and lowering the cost of doing business and where did we end up....in a recession.

I never said it wasn't time to do something. It's past time. But that doesn't mean raising taxes on business is the answer. There is an answer and it's a clear answer that continues to elude the economic challenged politicians in DC

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 08:56 PM
The time for indecision has past, its time we DO something.
Actually, doing nothing is the best thing because then automatic cuts in spending and taxes will happen.
That right there IS doing something. Precisely what both parties called for earlier.

They can also default. That'd be doing something too. Our govt is bankrupt.

Crying about a fiscal cliff is code for save the govt!!! I prefer to save the people!!!

We tried lowering taxes and lowering the cost of doing business and where did we end up....in a recession.
ROFL


And you guys cried foul about all the spending Bush and his Republicans engaged in, while the Bush Fed engaged in stimulus. It's no wonder we had a recession.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

BigRedChief
11-14-2012, 08:57 PM
The time for indecision has past, its time we DO something.

We tried lowering taxes and lowering the cost of doing business and where did we end up....in a recession.Watch out your your close to being called out for advocating dictatorship.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 08:57 PM
Because job creation means more govt jobs for bureaucrats to Obama. ROFL
Those new IRS agents for Obamacare will have to be paid too. ROFL

Gawd! What an effin' commie this guy is. It's really gonna come out now in his second term. Please, Republicans, do your jobs and box him in so he's the lamest duck president we've ever had. We're gonna need that.

I generally respect what you say even if I dont agree with it but this...

How could you think 4 years of accomplishing nothing, because of the stand off is what we need?

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 09:00 PM
I never said it wasn't time to do something. It's past time. But that doesn't mean raising taxes on business is the answer. There is an answer and it's a clear answer that continues to elude the economic challenged politicians in DC

I think the "clear answer" you are speaking about is massive cuts, and Im all for that. I just dont think it will be enough. I really wish we didnt have to raise taxes on anyone but, I think we will have to.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:00 PM
I generally respect what you say even if I dont agree with it but this...

How could you think 4 years of accomplishing nothing, because of the stand off is what we need?

Because it really is doing something—>automatic cuts and taxes occur.

They can also default. ( I edited and added this but you may have missed it.)

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:00 PM
Actually, doing nothing is the best thing because then automatic cuts in spending and taxes will happen.
That right there IS doing something. Precisely what both parties called for earlier.

They can also default. That'd be doing something too. Our govt is bankrupt.

Crying about a fiscal cliff is code for save the govt!!! I prefer to save the people!!!


ROFL


And you guys cried foul about all the spending Bush and his Republicans engaged in, while the Bush Fed engaged in stimulus. It's no wonder we had a recession.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

ACtualyl doing nothing is not going to fix anything either. The clear answer that continues to go unrecognized has little to do with Obama, Congress or taxes though they play a part.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:01 PM
I think the "clear answer" you are speaking about is massive cuts, and Im all for that. I just dont think it will be enough. I really wish we didnt have to raise taxes on anyone but, I think we will have to.

Uhhh..nope!

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 09:03 PM
Actually, doing nothing is the best thing because then automatic cuts in spending and taxes will happen.
That right there IS doing something. Precisely what both parties called for earlier.

They can also default. That'd be doing something too. Our govt is bankrupt.

Crying about a fiscal cliff is code for save the govt!!! I prefer to save the people!!!


ROFL


And you guys cried foul about all the spending Bush and his Republicans engaged in, while the Bush Fed engaged in stimulus. It's no wonder we had a recession.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Your first quote is actually a good point. One that I forgot about. I would actually be OK with that part even though it would mean higher taxes for all.

Your second quote is way off, I dont know what you mean by "you guys".

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:03 PM
Your first quote is actually a good point. One that I forgot about. I would actually be OK with that part even though it would mean higher taxes for all.

Your second quote is way off, I dont know what you mean by "you guys".

Higher taxes for all will choke off what little growth we have going

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:05 PM
I am amazed at how some of you fail to see the forest through the trees. Taxes and spending are just a small piece of a bigger puzzle.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:06 PM
ACtualyl doing nothing is not going to fix anything either. The clear answer that continues to go unrecognized has little to do with Obama, Congress or taxes though they play a part.

Actually it is doing something, because automatic spending cuts will aid economic growth.
That is unless you're into MS economics which is Keynesian economics. Unfortunately, even Republicans fall for the BS that govt spending helps the economy.

This crying about the "fiscal cliff" is begging for another can to kick down the road until we backed into the same situation again. It's about keeping big govt intact.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 09:06 PM
Higher taxes for all will choke off what little growth we have going

Looking at that on the surface, it sounds logical but when the rates were higher, we didnt have any growth issues. I am not convinced the two are related.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:07 PM
Actually it is doing something, because automatic spending cuts will aid economic growth.
That is unless you're into MS economics which is Keynesian economics. Unfortunately, even Republicans fall for the BS that govt spending helps the economy.

This crying about the "fiscal cliff" is begging for another can to kick down the road until we backed into the same situation again. It's about keeping big govt intact.

Spending cuts will not aide economic growth. I am not saying we shouldn't cut spending, I am just saying that they won't aide economic growth.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:08 PM
Why this:

Cote said the 12 CEOS at the meeting "felt good" by what they heard. He said they were left with the feeling that "OK, these guys could actually get something done."

and then your outrage?

It seems like the people running the businesses are ok with what he said. What's your problem?

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:08 PM
Your first quote is actually a good point. One that I forgot about. I would actually be OK with that part even though it would mean higher taxes for all.
Yeah that is true. But ya' know if everyone pays and feels it, that's the only way they will begin to see why we need to cut the size of the government. It's only continuing to grow because people think they can just pass the costs onto someone else. That has to end. Feel it and there's more hope for reform

Your second quote is way off, I dont know what you mean by "you guys".

Sorry, I don't see you here much and I thought you were on the left.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:08 PM
Looking at that on the surface, it sounds logical but when the rates were higher, we didnt have any growth issues. I am not convinced the two are related.

You are scratching the very, very tip of a much bigger iceberg though you don't realize it.

Tell me, when rates were higher:

What was the cost of a gallon of gas?
What did milk cost?
What were energy bills then compared to now?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:09 PM
Why this:

Cote said the 12 CEOS at the meeting "felt good" by what they heard. He said they were left with the feeling that "OK, these guys could actually get something done."

and then you're outrage?

It seems like the people running the businesses are ok with what he said. What's your problem?

These are the same people who benefit in the short term by cutting 1,000's of jobs.

Next...

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:10 PM
Spending cuts will not aide economic growth. I am not saying we shouldn't cut spending, I am just saying that they won't aide economic growth.

Then we disagree. The federal govt after WWII cut spending dramatically and there was an economic boom.
The more the govt needs for revenue, the more it has to take out of the private economy. That suppresses it.

You're a Keynesian. I am not. I'm an Austrian economics advocate.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:12 PM
Then we disagree. The federal govt after WWII cut spending dramatically and there was an economic boom.
The more the govt needs for revenue, the more it has to take out of the private economy. That suppresses it.

You're a Keynesian. I am not. I'm an Austrian economics advocate.

I am not an Keynesian. But regardless, federal spending cuts will not create jobs nor spur the eceonomy to any significant degree.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:12 PM
These are the same people who benefit in the short term by cutting 1,000's of jobs.

Next...
12 CEO's all looking at the short term and siding with an unpopular business sector president vs. the prospect that it's nowhere remotely as dire as your agenda would like us to believe

What's more likely?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:14 PM
12 CEO's all looking at the short term and siding with an unpopular business sector president vs. the prospect that it's nowhere remotely as dire as your agenda would like us to believe

What's more likely?

WOW, 12? Really? Whew, I feel better now.

That's the rub... short term. Which is what CEO's focus on too much and why we are in the economic mess we are in.

What is my agenda?

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:16 PM
WOW, 12? Really? Whew, I feel better now.

That's the rub... short term. Which is what CEO's focus on too much and why we are in the economic mess we are in.

What is my agenda?

12 guys out of 12 guys invited if I read that correctly. You obviously have a very butthurt anti-obama agenda.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:18 PM
12 guys out of 12 guys invited if I read that correctly. You obviously have a very butthurt anti-obama agenda.

That's because Obama, and the rest of DC have their head so far up their ass that they are not going to ever do anything worth a fuck until they focus on the problem and not political BS.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:19 PM
That's because Obama, and the rest of DC have their head so far up their ass that they are not going to ever do anything worth a **** until they focus on the problem and not political BS.
So it was 12 out of 12?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:20 PM
I'm sorry but I think some of you here have a severe misunderstanding on not only what the problem is but even moreso what the solution is. Your focus is completely in the wrong area and focused on the wrong tactics

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:21 PM
I'm sorry but I think some of you here have a severe misunderstanding on not only what the problem is but even moreso what the solution is. Your focus is completely in the wrong area and focused on the wrong tactics
What exactly makes you the enlightened one? That being said it was 12 out of 12 right?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:23 PM
So it was 12 out of 12?

I don't give a fuck what it was. Obama, won't and can't fix the problem. Neither can the Democrats or the Republicans. They can aide it, they can produce some band-aids here and there but they cannot fix the problem.

They can tax this person, lower taxes for that person, implement this regulation, de-regulate that industry, flip that thing, spin this thing and it will have some but little effect.

And that's assuming they quit stepping on their own foot in that process.

dirk digler
11-14-2012, 09:23 PM
I don't know if that statement is entirely correct in regards to the business taxes.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, provided a bit of good news this afternoon to those worried about painful compromises ahead in the negotiations over the fiscal cliff. President Obama, he said, still wants $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue (over a decade) in any package to reduce the deficit.

That’s almost impossible to achieve without raising rates on high incomes. Reverting to Clinton-era rates on incomes greater than $250,000 would raise $1 trillion; the rest could come from capping deductions, the method Republicans prefer but which would be insufficient alone.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:24 PM
What exactly makes you the enlightened one? That being said it was 12 out of 12 right?

Who cares if it was 12 out of 12? It makes 0 difference. They walked away "feeling" like something could get done. But about what?

Nevermind these are the same CEO's who have benefited under Obama the last 4 years while millions are out of work but let's not go there because you won't like it.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:26 PM
What exactly makes you the enlightened one? That being said it was 12 out of 12 right?

And what makes me the enlightened one? It has nothing to do with being "enlightened". I just happen to understand the fundamentals of economics and how ALL parts play in the game. And I am telling you now, the Federal Gov role is impacting but not to the degree at which you think.

That's why no matter what tax laws get past they won't do anything more but lessen the sting or add fuel to the fire. But they will never fix anything.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:29 PM
I am not an Keynesian. But regardless, federal spending cuts will not create jobs nor spur the eceonomy to any significant degree.

We disagree. It leaves money in the private sector. It helps. Unless you only want the military industrial complex to make money.
Of course cutting regs and getting Bernanke to lay off his QEs would also help.

The pain is coming either way....because the markets must be allowed to clear and correct. That has not been allowed under Bernanke, Bush (at the beginning) or Obama. Plus Obamacare should be repealed as it has $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 09:31 PM
Speaking of the immediate, we have what 50 days to do something. We need to raise revenue AND make serious cuts!

Raising revenue can be done through job creation, expanding the tax base. However, that takes time. That leaves us with raising taxes as the only immediate response to raise revenue.Coupling that with cuts is the balanced approach he is talking about.

For the moment, thats all we have.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:33 PM
We disagree. It leaves money in the private sector. It helps. Unless you only want the military industrial complex to make money.
Of course cutting regs and getting Bernanke to lay off his QEs would also help.

The pain is coming either way....because the markets must be allowed to clear and correct. That has not been allowed under Bernanke, Bush (at the beginning) or Obama. Plus Obamacare should be repealed as it has $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

OOOOOH! You almost got it! You were almost there and then you flopped!

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:33 PM
Speaking of the immediate, we have what 50 days to do something. We need to raise revenue AND make serious cuts!

Raising revenue can be done through job creation, expanding the tax base. However, that takes time. That leaves us with raising taxes as the only immediate response to raise revenue.Coupling that with cuts is the balanced approach he is talking about.

For the moment, thats all we have.

What cuts is Obama proposing? Especially since he gave us Obamacare which has $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:34 PM
Speaking of the immediate, we have what 50 days to do something. We need to raise revenue AND make serious cuts!

Raising revenue can be done through job creation, expanding the tax base. However, that takes time. That leaves us with raising taxes as the only immediate response to raise revenue.Coupling that with cuts is the balanced approach he is talking about.

For the moment, thats all we have.

And how is a tax plan going to create jobs and expand a tax base? Specifically when higher taxes are being called for?

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:34 PM
OOOOOH! You almost got it! You were almost there and then you flopped!

Almost? Is the bold supposed to be where I flopped?

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:34 PM
Who cares if it was 12 out of 12? It makes 0 difference. They walked away "feeling" like something could get done. But about what?

Nevermind these are the same CEO's who have benefited under Obama the last 4 years while millions are out of work but let's not go there because you won't like it.

I would think that in the world of a CEO, at least in presentation alone, would be the interests of the shareholders. Do you disagree?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:35 PM
Ok, you guys are fucking killing me. You miss the the oh so very obvious time and time again because you choose to focus on the politics of economics instead of the economics of economics.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:36 PM
The problem here is pete you are anti-establishment, therefore it doesn't matter what they do.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:36 PM
I would think that in the world of a CEO, at least in presentation alone, would be the interests of the shareholders. Do you disagree?

Yes, the shareholders. Which is why they have a 3 month focus and kill jobs left and right. Just stop before I educate you beyond your comprehension.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:37 PM
The problem here is pete you are anti-establishment, therefore it doesn't matter what they do.

OMFG, I have tried and tried to point you in the right direction in hopes you would figure it out on your own....but you can't. It has nothing to do with Bush, Obama, Democrats, Republicans or Taxes.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:37 PM
Yes, the shareholders. Which is why they have a 3 month focus and kill jobs left and right. Just stop before I educate you beyond your comprehension.
I have no problem being "educated," in the end it's win win.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:37 PM
Ok, you guys are ****ing killing me. You miss the the oh so very obvious time and time again because you choose to focus on the politics of economics instead of the economics of economics.

Austrians say economics should even be part of any govt role. So, no, I was addressing the economics of economics. I only tried to move more govt out of the way to allow the economics.

Europe is going to wash up on our shores no matter what. The socialist democracies are going down.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:37 PM
Almost? Is the bold supposed to be where I flopped?

No, it's where you got really warm...then ventured off.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:37 PM
OMFG, I have tried and tried to point you in the right direction in hopes you would figure it out on your own....but you can't. It has nothing to do with Bush, Obama, Democrats, Republicans or Taxes.

So what is your solution that you're keeping secret from us?:harumph:

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:38 PM
OMFG, I have tried and tried to point you in the right direction in hopes you would figure it out on your own....but you can't. It has nothing to do with Bush, Obama, Democrats, Republicans or Taxes.
Your OP is "obama double speak" and how it's affecting you. What is your point?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:39 PM
Austrians say economics should even be part of any govt role. So, no, I was addressing the economics of economics. I only tried to move more govt out of the way to allow the economics.

Europe is going to wash up on our shores no matter what. The socialist democracies are going down.

BEP, you get so close then revert. You even touched base on it but stopped.

Let me give you a HUGE hint:

What organization has the most financial impact yet is not part of the government?

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 09:39 PM
What cuts is Obama proposing? Especially since he gave us Obamacare which has $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

His proposal in the "grand bargain" had 4.3 trillion in cuts and he was willing to put medicare and social security in the discussion. Something Democrats would never offer up. Republicans wouldnt even sign that, normally a Republicans dream. Im not sure that specific plan is still on the table but I think it gives us an idea of what he is willing to do, regarding cuts.

Rather we like it or not, he is serious about trying to fix this.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:39 PM
No, it's where you got really warm...then ventured off.

Well I did mention Bernanke earlier. He's definitely a big part of the problem. But that allows the spending to continue unabated too.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:39 PM
Your OP is "obama double speak" and how it's affecting you. What is your point?

No, I said it was stupid to say you want to create jobs then say you want to hike taxes on businesses. It's counter-productive.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:40 PM
Well I did mention Bernanke earlier. He's definitely a big part of the problem. But that allows the spending to continue unabated too.

Holy fuck, you're so close.....

WHY? WHY is he part of the problem? How has he allowed the spending to continue?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:41 PM
Come on BEP...I know you can get this....

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:43 PM
No, I said it was stupid to say you want to create jobs then say you want to hike taxes on businesses. It's counter-productive.

Did you not say that the problem has nothing to do with taxes? Wasn't it you that put "classic obama double speak" in your OP

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:43 PM
Holy ****, you're so close.....

WHY? WHY is he part of the problem? How has he allowed the spending to continue?

The increase in the money supply means that is money to spend. That allows the govt to spend and to pay back with cheaper dollars. It allows them to avoid using taxes alone to fund the govt or there would have been a taxpayer revolution a looooong time ago. Unfortunately, it debauches our currency. It leads to a bubble which will bust even worse than last time. If the economy should pick up more, then we'd see double digit (perhaps worse inflation).

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:43 PM
Come on BEP...I know you can get this....

Really...Make your point.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 09:44 PM
BEP, you get so close then revert. You even touched base on it but stopped.

Let me give you a HUGE hint:

What organization has the most financial impact yet is not part of the government?

Oh my gosh! The Illumanti!

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:44 PM
The increase in the money supply means that is money to spend. That allows the govt to spend and to pay back with cheaper dollars. It allows them to avoid using taxes alone to fund the govt or there would have been a taxpayer revolution a looooong time ago. Unfortunately, it debauches our currency. If the economy should pick up more, then we'd see double digit (perhaps worse inflation).

DING DING DING! Now carry it through....

What did Clinton have and Bush destroy and Obama finish what Bush started???

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:45 PM
Oh my gosh! The Illumanti!

Shad up!

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:45 PM
Oh my gosh! The Illumanti!

Thank holy Jesus Tom Hanks is still with us.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 09:46 PM
DING DING DING! Now carry it through....

What did Clinton have and Bush destroy and Obama finish what Bush started???

The Holy Grail!!!! PETE YOU DISCOVERED IT!!!!!!!

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 09:47 PM
DING DING DING! Now carry it through....

What did Clinton have and Bush destroy and Obama finish what Bush started???

Hillary?

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:48 PM
DING DING DING! Now carry it through....

What did Clinton have and Bush destroy and Obama finish what Bush started???

I dunno? The ability for the president to get a blow job in the oval office?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:48 PM
Really...Make your point.

No, because I want you to learn something of value. But I will help you learn.

You understand what commodities are, correct? Oil, copper, natural gas, coffee, orang juice, pork bellies, etc.?

Now ask yourself, who uses commodities? Answer: Everyone!

Now for the fun part.

Commodites are denominated in what currecncy? Answer: The US$

So now basic economics come into play

What happens to say, the price of copper when the currency in which it is denominated loses value?

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 09:49 PM
this can't be fixed. ever.

Even if it could, Barry would be the last guy you'd hand a power tool too.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:50 PM
Also Bernanke's policies could kill any recovery.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:51 PM
Also Bernanke's policies could kill any recovery.

Well, you are correct but I find your answer weak due to lack of explanation. :p

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 09:55 PM
No, because I want you to learn something of value. But I will help you learn.

You understand what commodities are, correct? Oil, copper, natural gas, coffee, orang juice, pork bellies, etc.?

Now ask yourself, who uses commodities? Answer: Everyone!

Now for the fun part.

Commodites are denominated in what currecncy? Answer: The US$

So now basic economics come into play

What happens to say, the price of copper when the currency in which it is denominated loses value?
I have a basic understanding of inflation. Please indicate where you feel it will be a problem.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:56 PM
DING DING DING! Now carry it through....

What did Clinton have and Bush destroy and Obama finish what Bush started???

He had a Republican congress...but I don't think you're looking for that....because it doesn't fit your question.

I dunno. I'm stumped. I'll buy a clue though.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:57 PM
Ok, I will give...

It's the fucking $ people! And all the tax reform in the world will not do dick for the $.

The Federal Reserve has the most impact on the US$ via interest rates. The lower the rates, the lower the value of the $. The lower the value of the $ the higher the costs of commodities denominated in said $.

So in plain english:

The lower the $ the higher the cost of oil
The lower the $ the higher the cost of copper


Are we getting it now?

The Federal Reserve has had a policy over the last several years of keeping the interest rates at excessive and some economists say artificially low levels.

So if Obama was actually educated on the economics of our market place, when he was asked in the debate why gas was lower and now higher, he would have said "because the $ is lower which drives up the cost of good such as oil, instead of his bullshit answer of "the economy was bad then".

The cost of commodities impacts everyone from rich to poor. What fucking good does it do to give someone an extra $20 a paycheck in tax cuts if that just goes to that gas tank because gas prices are high?

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 09:58 PM
I see Obama as the embodiment of both Bush and Clinton. So I don't know what Clinton had that Obama doesn't.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 09:59 PM
I have a basic understanding of inflation. Please indicate where you feel it will be a problem.

Inflation will not be a problem for a while simply because the pendulum has swung so far in one direction it will take a while for it to swing back to the other.

Our economy not only could withstand higher interest rates we actually NEED higher interest rates for a vast amount of reasons. It benefits our society in so many ways at so many levels.

Basically at this point a stronger $ eliminates the hidden tax we have all been paying for quite some time.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 09:59 PM
So your answer is to raise interest rates?

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:01 PM
Ok, I will give...

It's the ****ing $ people! And all the tax reform in the world will not do dick for the $.

The Federal Reserve has the most impact on the US$ via interest rates. The lower the rates, the lower the value of the $. The lower the value of the $ the higher the costs of commodities denominated in said $.

So in plain english:

The lower the $ the higher the cost of oil
The lower the $ the higher the cost of copper


Are we getting it now?

The Federal Reserve has had a policy over the last several years of keeping the interest rates at excessive and some economists say artificially low levels.

So if Obama was actually educated on the economics of our market place, when he was asked in the debate why gas was lower and now higher, he would have said "because the $ is lower which drives up the cost of good such as oil, instead of his bullshit answer of "the economy was bad then".

The cost of commodities impacts everyone from rich to poor. What ****ing good does it do to give someone an extra $20 a paycheck in tax cuts if that just goes to that gas tank because gas prices are high?

Oh, okay....I call that debauching the currency instead of saying it like that.

Just one thing though, the debauching of the currency began under Greenspan and continued for 16 years. It was mainly due to cheap imports from China and technology advances which makes certain goods cheaper that inflation didn't rear it's head. But it did by 2007/08.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:01 PM
So your answer is to raise interest rates?

EXACTLY! Sounds insane doesn't it? Do you know why the Fed won't raise rates and why we hear all this bullshit about raising rates will hurt the economy?

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:02 PM
EXACTLY! Sounds insane doesn't it? Do you know why the Fed won't raise rates and why we hear all this bullshit about raising rates will hurt the economy?

Because we want people to make big purchases.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:02 PM
So your answer is to raise interest rates?

Actually, that should be part of the solution. One of the problems has been they've been too low.
The zero percent offers were part of the Bush stimulus.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 10:02 PM
EXACTLY! Sounds insane doesn't it? Do you know why the Fed won't raise rates and why we hear all this bullshit about raising rates will hurt the economy?

Im listening...

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:02 PM
EXACTLY! Sounds insane doesn't it? Do you know why the Fed won't raise rates and why we hear all this bullshit about raising rates will hurt the economy?

Why?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:03 PM
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/28/saupload_us_20dollar_20index_20long_20term_20chart_20aug_202009.png

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 10:05 PM
I agree that the rates need to rise. I also saw the need to keep them down--to keep people buying and stimulate the economy.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:05 PM
Because we want people to make big purchases.

When people are in fear of or are losing their jobs you are not going to get sustained purchases of big ticket items.

You want peope to make big purchases? Make their food and gas cheaper.

An extra $20 a week that doesn't go to the gas tank goes towards disposable income.

Higher rates mean higher returns on things like savings accounts that seniors depend on. The more they earn on interest the more they spend. The less they earn the more they save.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:06 PM
I agree that the rates need to rise. I also saw the need to keep them down--to keep people buying and stimulate the economy.

How's that worked out? What has the consequence been of keeping rates low? Higher gas and food bills. The cost of living has gone up while incomes are not.

In other words, get rid of the hidden tax burden.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:06 PM
Interest rates encourage savings, which eventually lead to capital formation for investment and new businesses.
Without it there is no additional capital for the economy and that includes capital for labor.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:07 PM
How's that worked out? What has the consequence been of keeping rates low? Higher gas and food bills. The cost of living has gone up while incomes are not.

In other words, get rid of the hidden tax burden.

That's right, the expansion of the money supply acts like a hidden tax because the dollar buys less and less.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:09 PM
Why?

Because our spend happy Gov can borrow at the cheapest rates it has ever had in God knows how long!

Wall St. has been benefiting hand over fist because of these low rates.

Main St. on the other hand? Higher gas prices at the pump. Higher grocery bills at the store. Higher utility bills in the mail. Higher costs on basic materials to make things.


Not a very fair tradeoff.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:10 PM
I agree that the rates need to rise. I also saw the need to keep them down--to keep people buying and stimulate the economy.

No production is more important than consumption. You can't have the latter without the former. You can't just stimulate consumption with monetary gimmicks...we have to produce and then exchange what we produce.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 10:11 PM
Given that this thread started out about job creation...wouldnt charging business's more money to borrow, stifle job growth in the same way as raising taxes?
The difference being, the government would get the gain as opposed to the banks.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:15 PM
Because our spend happy Gov can borrow at the cheapest rates it has ever had in God knows how long!

Wall St. has been benefiting hand over fist because of these low rates.

Main St. on the other hand? Higher gas prices at the pump. Higher grocery bills at the store. Higher utility bills in the mail. Higher costs on basic materials to make things.


Not a very fair tradeoff.

Yeah, I never thought of the govt being able to get the cheapest rates ever. I knew it encouraged excessive spending. I did know that Wall St benefits more than Main Street. The Keynesian model actually does make the rich richer and the people poorer. Especially the elderly who are on fixed incomes. This protects the assets of the wealthy as it keeps their values from falling and they can afford to borrow more, then pay back with cheaper dollars. Not the little guy. This is why the poor and middle-class are getting poorer while the upper percent gets richer.

I think this is why the left keeps crying "trickle-down" doesn't work. They just haven't identified the real cause is all.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:15 PM
Given that this thread started out about job creation...wouldnt charging business's more money to borrow, stifle job growth in the same way as raising taxes?
The difference being, the government would get the gain as opposed to the banks.

NO! Why? Because you are offsetting that cost by putting more disposable income into the economy.

In other words, if I am spending $200 a month less on gas and food I am spending that $200 in your store. That increases your customer base thus allowing to compensate for higher interest rates

The government gets more $ through increased sales tax and incomes from the increased spending in businesses


See, that's called growing the tax base. As a business owner it would be easier to handle higher rates if I have more people walking through my door because they have more money to spend in my shop instead of the gas station.

On the other hand if customers are still spending out the ass at the gas station they don't have extra $ to spend in my shop and higher taxes are going to hurt even worse.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:16 PM
Because our spend happy Gov can borrow at the cheapest rates it has ever had in God knows how long!

Wall St. has been benefiting hand over fist because of these low rates.

Main St. on the other hand? Higher gas prices at the pump. Higher grocery bills at the store. Higher utility bills in the mail. Higher costs on basic materials to make things.


Not a very fair tradeoff.

If a small business takes out a line of credit at their bank, what is their payment rate based on?

Low rates will have to go up again, but it's not because that will make groceries cheaper.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:18 PM
Given that this thread started out about job creation...wouldnt charging business's more money to borrow, stifle job growth in the same way as raising taxes?
The difference being, the government would get the gain as opposed to the banks.

It would also allow for capital formation which would eventually create jobs. That would be because it's encourages savings then just consuming all the time. There has to be some balance.

It wouldn't happen overnight but the someone needs to slam on the brakes the way Volcker did under Reagan.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:18 PM
Yeah, I never thought of the govt being able to get the cheapest rates ever. I knew it encouraged excessive spending. I did know that Wall St benefits more than Main Street. The Keynesian model actually does make the rich richer and the people poorer. Especially the elderly who are on fixed incomes. This protects the assets of the wealthy as it keeps their values from falling and they can afford to borrow more, then pay back with cheaper dollars. Not the little guy. This is why the poor and middle-class are getting poorer while the upper percent gets richer.

I think this is why the left keeps crying "trickle-down" doesn't work. They just haven't identified the real cause is all.

Plus the fact that the Fed has been buying all these bonds and what not, the treasury doesn't want to be paying higher rates to the Fed while the Fed is buying chunks of treasury bonds.

It's a giant ponzi scheme. This is why the $ is never talked about. It's boring and most people don't understand currencies. And politicians like it that way because they can blame the big bad oil companies when gas gets high instead of correctly identifying the real cause.

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 10:19 PM
How's that worked out? What has the consequence been of keeping rates low? Higher gas and food bills. The cost of living has gone up while incomes are not.

In other words, get rid of the hidden tax burden.

There's a couple of problems I see with your hypothesis. First you are assuming that the increased gas prices are associated with lower interest. While this may be the case, it may also be the case that increased demand in developing countries and in China may have pushed the cost up. (which is what is widely being reported) The second is the effect on low interest rates on large purchases such as homes. These are both untestable and cannot be assumed. It must also be proven that higher interest rates must achieve the desired results.

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 10:20 PM
Yeah, I never thought of the govt being able to get the cheapest rates ever.

If you are in debt, you want a 0% interest rate.

The worlds biggest debtor is the US federal government. They control the interest rate, so....

Who cares about retirees who planned their retirements for the last 30 years on getting a 3 to 4% interest rate on their savings?

Fuck em, they can eat dog food.

http://pumasunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/obama-as-hitler.jpg

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 10:21 PM
NO! Why? Because you are offsetting that cost by putting more disposable income into the economy.

In other words, if I am spending $200 a month less on gas and food I am spending that $200 in your store. That increases your customer base thus allowing to compensate for higher interest rates

The government gets more $ through increased sales tax and incomes from the increased spending in businesses


See, that's called growing the tax base. As a business owner it would be easier to handle higher rates if I have more people walking through my door because they have more money to spend in my shop instead of the gas station.

On the other hand if customers are still spending out the ass at the gas station they don't have extra $ to spend in my shop and higher taxes are going to hurt even worse.

But that two hundred dollars will now go towards your car payment, credit cards and loans. I just dont see that it would make a real difference.
The business would also have to pay higher interest rates, therefor charging that same customer more.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:22 PM
If a small business takes out a line of credit at their bank, what is their payment rate based on?

Low rates will have to go up again, but it's not because that will make groceries cheaper.

And therein lies the problem, Jenson. All this talk about helping the middle-class and all that is bunk as long as the $ stays at these low levels. Plus there are all other sorts of bad consequences that go with it.

Right now the biggest tax break you could give to all americans without touching the tax code is to strengthen the $ to the price at the pump and grocery store come down. People will spend that extra money and business will be more than happy to pay a little higher rate.

Lower costs of borrowing only make sense when there is a reason to borrow. If I own a business and I have less and less people walking through my door, I don't care how low rates are, I am not going to increase my borrowing because there is no driving need to do so. That was the problemw ith Obama's approach when he tried to make it easier for businesses to borrow for new equipment. If they are seeing a drop off in sales, why would they borrow more?

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:22 PM
Anybody taking Pete's word on economic and finance policy should just keep in mind that this is the guy who believes aliens built the pyramids.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:23 PM
If you are in debt, you want a 0% interest rate.

The worlds biggest debtor is the US federal government. They control the interest rate, so....

Who cares about retirees who planned their retirements for the last 30 years on getting a 3 to 4% interest rate on their savings?

**** em, they can eat dog food.

http://pumasunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/obama-as-hitler.jpg

3%-4% That's a joke right now. You're lucky to get 2% on anything in a bank that would be considered "savings"

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 10:24 PM
If you are in debt, you want a 0% interest rate.

The worlds biggest debtor is the US federal government. They control the interest rate, so....

Who cares about retirees who planned their retirements for the last 30 years on getting a 3 to 4% interest rate on their savings?

**** em, they can eat dog food.

http://pumasunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/obama-as-hitler.jpg

What are these people investing in to get that 3 to 4 percent return nullified?

J Diddy
11-14-2012, 10:25 PM
Anybody taking Pete's word on economic and finance policy should just keep in mind that this is the guy who believes aliens built the pyramids.

He's making some valid points.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:25 PM
3%-4% That's a joke right now. You're lucky to get 2% on anything in a bank that would be considered "savings"

Yeah. It's really bad. No sense in saving with that kind of return.

BucEyedPea
11-14-2012, 10:27 PM
But that two hundred dollars will now go towards your car payment, credit cards and loans. I just dont see that it would make a real difference.
The business would also have to pay higher interest rates, therefor charging that same customer more.

Well, of course anyone with debt in this scenario pays back with cheaper dollars. However, in continues to encourage debt and where's that at? Besides, you're still getting poorer at the same time.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:29 PM
But that two hundred dollars will now go towards your car payment, credit cards and loans. I just dont see that it would make a real difference.
The business would also have to pay higher interest rates, therefor charging that same customer more.

I think you need to re-think that just a TAD!

I cannot help people who make bad financial decisions like takeing out a variable mortgage with the expectation rates will never go up and if they do they fuck that person. That's on them, sadly and sorry.

Car payment: If I have a car payment currently I am already paying on it so the lower cost of goods make it easier for me to pay that payment and still have spending money

Credit Cards: Yes, rates would go up. Go back to my point on mortgages for this.

Business would pay higher rates but in the context of increased business. As opposed to higher taxes with decreased business. I'll take the former over the latter all day long.

The fact is lower gas and food prices benefit EVERYONE! The trucking company may have to pay a higher rate on new truck purchases but the cost of fuel is down and their business revenues are up due to the increased disposable income in the economy.

It's an overall win due to the increased spending power for everyone. Especially the lower incomes.

Comrade Crapski
11-14-2012, 10:36 PM
Yeah. It's really bad. No sense in saving with that kind of return.

You're actually losing money because the inflation rate in twice that.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:37 PM
Yeah. It's really bad. No sense in saving with that kind of return.

Which brings me to seniors on a fixed income.

Someone who is retired and say has $300k in s savings account. Right now after taxes and inflation they are net-net losing money. On a savings account!!! So that forces them into riskier investments like bonds and stocks. No place for someone in that situation but what choice do they have. Suddenly they are at the mercy of Wall St.

So naturally that person is most likely spending less and less because they are trying to preserve their capital.

Now put them in a situation where they are earning 4%-5% on a CD again and suddenly they are hitting the gut-buster more often.

chiefforlife
11-14-2012, 10:37 PM
I think you need to re-think that just a TAD!

I cannot help people who make bad financial decisions like takeing out a variable mortgage with the expectation rates will never go up and if they do they fuck that person. That's on them, sadly and sorry.

Car payment: If I have a car payment currently I am already paying on it so the lower cost of goods make it easier for me to pay that payment and still have spending money

Credit Cards: Yes, rates would go up. Go back to my point on mortgages for this.

Business would pay higher rates but in the context of increased business. As opposed to higher taxes with decreased business. I'll take the former over the latter all day long.

The fact is lower gas and food prices benefit EVERYONE! The trucking company may have to pay a higher rate on new truck purchases but the cost of fuel is down and their business revenues are up due to the increased disposable income in the economy.

It's an overall win due to the increased spending power for everyone. Especially the lower incomes.

Interesting, I have to admit, I had never really thought about it that way.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:38 PM
He's making some valid points.

This whole inverse proportionate gas & grocery/interest rate thing is a bit loose in fact, to put it mildly.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:40 PM
I'm just saying that a stronger $ benefits an economy. Lower interest rates have their place but just like anything, too much of anything is a bad thing. We have had rates too low for too long and it is impacting us in the worst way at the worst time. Right now we should be easing the burden of gas and food prices, not increasing them.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:43 PM
This whole inverse proportionate gas & grocery/interest rate thing is a bit loose in fact, to put it mildly.

go slap a chart of the US$ against the price of oil or copper then get back to me.

In 1995 the 30 yr bond was at 8% and oil was at $20 barrel.

Now the 30 yr is half that rate and oil 4-5 times that price

It's not loose, it's a fact of economics and math. If the currency in which a commodity is denomitated is worth more the commodity costs less and vice-versa.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:47 PM
And FTR, every prediction, justification and reason Ben Bernanke has given for his actions have been wrong at just about if not every turn. The best thing Obama can do and I hope he does is get rid of this guy and get someone in who gives a shit.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:52 PM
Oil is such a unique commodity that it's hard to slap it across another single chart and find the key to its price trend.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 10:54 PM
And FTR, every prediction, justification and reason Ben Bernanke has given for his actions have been wrong at just about if not every turn. The best thing Obama can do and I hope he does is get rid of this guy and get someone in who gives a shit.

And your recommendation is that someone come in on Jan. 1 and allow the interest rate to naturally flow up to what rate?

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:54 PM
Interesting, I have to admit, I had never really thought about it that way.

Most people don't and unfortunately it's the best kept, dirty little secret of our society. I happen to follow the financial markets closely and have for going on 20+ years now.

Don't be fooled though, there are peope who will take the other side of the coin on this argument and say higher rates would choke off the economy, hurt borrowing and what not.

I call that bunk because of the impacts it has on everyday people like I have described. My argument is if you make the cost of living cheaper then people will have and spend more money thus offsetting any impacts to borrowing.

It actually drives consumption which will drive demand which will drive borrowing.

As opposed to the status quo where we make it cheaper to maintain the status quo.

We have had rates low for years and what have we seen? Increased joblessness. Increased failed businesses and a housing market that is in no better shape than it was 4-5 years ago. We have seen gas prices soar, energy prices soar and food prices soar.

So you can be the judge but I think it's time to try what we have been stubbornly refusing to try for the last few years.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 10:59 PM
And your recommendation is that someone come in on Jan. 1 and allow the interest rate to naturally flow up to what rate?

I don't know that you can have a specific target, Jensen. You have to let the market make that decision for a while until the data starts to show some overheating. But given the state of our economy we are a long way off from overheating. When we get back to 5% unemployment it's probably time to worry about inflation.

But that's just it. We are not making data-driven decisions. We, we being the Fed, are making stereo-typical, Wall St. benefiting decisions. These economits know the impact of a weak $ and they will claim they have no control over the $, just interest rates. But that is bunk since one directly impacts the other.

How many times have we heard Bernanke now come out and say "we are going to keep rates low until...". First it was into 2012, then 2013, now 2014.
Meanwhile the imapcts of those decisions are burying the everyday Joe.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 11:00 PM
My argument is if you make the cost of living cheaper then people will have and spend more money thus offsetting any impacts to borrowing.

But paying your monthly mortgage and car payment is your cost of living. And especially businesses who are thinking about making purchases. A farmer who wants a new combine cares about interest rates and depreciation rates. A clothing store that wants to expand into the adjacent room cares about interest rates.

We have had rates low for years and what have we seen? Increased joblessness. Increased failed businesses and a housing market that is in no better shape than it was 4-5 years ago. We have seen gas prices soar, energy prices soar and food prices soar.

We actually haven't seen increased joblessness and failed businesses. We haven't even seen soaring food prices.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 11:04 PM
I don't know that you can have a specific target . . . .

Damn, man. Talk about market uncertainty!

petegz28
11-14-2012, 11:08 PM
But paying your monthly mortgage and car payment is your cost of living. And especially businesses who are thinking about making purchases. A farmer who wants a new combine cares about interest rates and depreciation rates. A clothing store that wants to expand into the adjacent room cares about interest rates.



We actually haven't seen increased joblessness and failed businesses. We haven't even seen soaring food prices.

First of all what you are arguing in the current context is to do nothing but throwing a lifejacket to someone who is in a whirlpool. Sure a farmer cares about rates. But I bet he cares about the sale of his crops too! A clothing store may want to expand but if less people are walking through their door then what is the point in expanding, regardless of cost?

And yes, we have seen joblessness increase. We have seen food and gas prices go up.

A mortgage and car payment could be argued that it is not a cost of living. I know plenty of people who rent and either pay cash for older cars or take the bus. But to cede your point I still have to put gas in that car, pay for the utilities on that house and eat.

I don't know any business owner who would argue at paying a higher interest rate at the expense of increased business. In fact I would argue that the increased business would give them reason to expand, referring to your clothing store analogy, even at a higher cost.

I mean what you are arguing is like saying someone wants to only make $15k a year as opposed to $150k because they don't want to pay higher taxes.

petegz28
11-14-2012, 11:10 PM
Damn, man. Talk about market uncertainty!

WRONG! What makes markets uncertain is when goverments get to pawing things. Markey analysts analyze the markets and have a good bead on things when they are market driven. It's when regulation and tax reform start getting thrown into the mix that you start getting the "uncertainty".

petegz28
11-14-2012, 11:12 PM
I'm out for the eve. Peace!

petegz28
11-14-2012, 11:14 PM
Oil is such a unique commodity that it's hard to slap it across another single chart and find the key to its price trend.

Horseshit but whatever. Oil, copper, gold. These things have all soared while our $ has tanked. Why? Certainly not inflation like the myth would have you believe. It's because they are denominated in $'s and the $ has been getting sold off since the middle of Bush.

La literatura
11-14-2012, 11:17 PM
I don't know any business owner who would argue at paying a higher interest rate at the expense of increased business. In fact I would argue that the increased business would give them reason to expand, referring to your clothing store analogy, even at a higher cost.


One thing that occurs to me is that you make it sound as if the retail industry has been in a 4 year spiral with no hope of stabilizing. Do the facts really back you up on that?

Joe Seahawk
11-14-2012, 11:23 PM
I'm out for the eve. Peace!

Awesome Thread Pete.. Couldn't agree more!

Joe Seahawk
11-15-2012, 12:13 AM
How about you learn to get your news somewhere other than Drudge? And quit spamming the board?

ROFL Please read this thread with an open mind BRC.