Where is the US economy headed?

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why should I answer questions

Why are you even here, parados, if you are incapable of expressing an opinion in regard to political policies? What are you afraid of?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, I don't look at the short-term outlook on the stock market. .....
.......

ci, thanks for your projections on the economy. I have wondered if the decision to park mutual funds into money markets right now, for a while, maybe a few months, would be a bad idea? I don't expect you to be a financial advisor with specific recommendations here, but that is one thing I have been tempted to do for the past couple of weeks or so. After some consideration, however, I think I will stand pat with the hope that the election will start things moving positively again

1 Reply

@talk72000,

bush hasn't enough testes to demand support

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not sure why you think the Republicans taking over would provide a boost to the market. Especially since Obama is still prez, and he certainly isn't going to sign any Conservative bills that may come forth.

Cycloptichorn

There are obvious reasons, cyclops, as to why the Republicans might boost the market. The primary one is that Republicans understand business and the economy far better than Democrats and the voters know this, and although Republicans cannot pass much of anything because Obama will not sign it, they can still prevent bad legislation from being sent to Obama for signing, such as really drastic raises in taxes, cap and trade, a value added tax, stuff like that which is murder on business. It is slightly possible that Obama might even agree with a delay in taxing long term capital gains if he sees that the market is responding positively to the possibility of it being done in Congress. Obama is perhaps not real smart, but maybe he is not so dumb as to pass up opportunities to help the economy and be able to take credit for it, perhaps crediting other of his policies for the success rather than minor stuff he supports the Republicans in. It may not be minor stuff he goes along with Republicans on, but he might think he could spin it as such, while crediting his other policies with turning around the economy.

Last but not least, the market responds to future outlook, so that is why I think it is possible that the market might begin to respond positively as it increasingly looks like a Republican landslide in November. We will be able to see if my prediction holds true by late October. However, the market will probably still be bucking a headwind throughout this whole process, as Obama's economic policies are not doing anything at the foundation of our economic ills to improve the long term business outlooks. As you pointed out, cyclops, a Republican majority in Congress is still not enough to reform the structural problems in grand fashion. The Repubs. will still need the Whitehouse to do that, which will take another 2 years.

0 Replies

@okie,

In my books, money market funds aren't worth the trouble. For one thing, money market funds equity can lose value as has happened during the past year or so. For the longest time, money market funds were valued at $1/share. It went below $1/share. Also, of you pay taxes, your actual return isn't worth the bother.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

Why should I answer questions

Why are you even here, parados, if you are incapable of expressing an opinion in regard to political policies? What are you afraid of?

That would be a good example of how RIGHTIST CONSERVATIVES ignore things that don't fit into their world.

You seem to have left off much of my sentence okie. Should we restrict our sentences to five words so you don't get confused?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Why are you even here, parados, if you are incapable of expressing an opinion in regard to political policies? What are you afraid of?

But back to being here to express an opinion okie, when are you going to provide support that the Constitution classifies taxes as theft.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

In my books, money market funds aren't worth the trouble. For one thing, money market funds equity can lose value as has happened during the past year or so. For the longest time, money market funds were valued at $1/share. It went below $1/share. Also, of you pay taxes, your actual return isn't worth the bother.

That's also why investment and new economic activity isn't happening in the present climate of unbounded regulation, redistribution, high taxes and a government inclined to pick economic winners and losers. It simply isn't worth the risk and bother. Where will it lead? We will have more and more political dispute about the proper regulation of less and less economic activity, and the redistribution of less and less wealth.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Wall Street is just playing politics. They are withholding spending to affect the elections.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

GWB is a turb turned into blossom by turd-blossom Rove.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

You do realize that he isnt the President, dont you?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

We are talking about GWB the (sub) man.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Political disputes are like death and taxes; they will be in perpetuity.

Since economics is an art rather than science, even the so-called expert economists differ in their analysis of how to best repair this economy.

I don't give it much hope when our government continues to spend money in a sloppy manner, and continue to increase social benefits as it increases our national debt.

As long as unemployment, which is estimated at 25%, (includes 10% underemployed) hovers at this level, we don't have much hope of our economy expanding - or even holding its own. With most of Europe in economic trouble, and China as the only growing economy, the current monetary policies will only exacerbate the world's problems.

We can't continue to support the war in Afghanistan as our government falls into deeper debt. Most Americans understand this, but government ignores the people's mandate. Our currency is barely holding up, but that day will soon expire when the world realizes that the interest on our debt is bigger than the cost of our defense budget.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

okie wrote:

Why are you even here, parados, if you are incapable of expressing an opinion in regard to political policies? What are you afraid of?

But back to being here to express an opinion okie, when are you going to provide support that the Constitution classifies taxes as theft.

Use a little logic, Parados. It isn't the idea or concept of taxing in and of itself. It is how the taxing is done, and it is how the government spends its tax revenues and what it does with it. For example, if the government engages in activities that are unconstitutional, it isn't the taxing that may be theft, but the activities that the government is doing, they could involve theft. I happen to believe that redistribution of wealth may be unconstitutional, especially certain forms of redistribution or the most obvious and blatant attempts at redistribution, parados.

Relative to what I have said in the above, here is Section 8 of the Constitution:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Now, if the government is collecting taxes in a manner that is not uniform throughout the United States, then it is unconstitutional. Also, the money should be spent on the common defense and the general welfare of the country. Of course, we probably have a big difference of opinion in regard to what constitutes "general welfare" and what defines "uniform." I think ican has debated this matter of uniform taxation previously, but the statement is real and I for one would like to know exactly what it means, according to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling that this constitutional section has been largely ignored and not dealt with or confronted directly and as precisely as it should have been so far.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie, You need to study that part of the constitution that allows our government to spend money. "General welfare" is a catch-all phrase without any restrictions outlined in the constitution.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"General welfare" is a catch-all phrase without any restrictions outlined in the constitution.

Actually, I doubt that to be true. Do you have a Supreme Court decision opinion that confirms that, or do you have some approved definition according to the law in regard to what "General Welfare" is and what it covers? I realize this has been a hotly debated issue, but I am unaware that any solid interpretation by the Supreme Court has ever been made, and it seems like it is a big matter of opinion, depending upon ones political views. For example, liberals use the phrase to virtually cover almost anything they want to the government to do, but I seriously doubt the framers of the Constitution intended it that way. I think the statement has been so blatantly ignored and abused for so long already by the federal government that folks like you assume it is okay to spend it on anything, and in fact that is what has happened, but is it constitutional, I doubt it very seriously, ci.

I think the real intent was that the money needed to be spent in a way that would benefit the general welfare of all people of the entire country, that it should not be spent unfairly to benefit only a few people or narrow segments of society. An example might be would it be constitutional to build a bike path in Tulsa, Oklahoma or one in St. George, Utah, as they would not actually be for the general welfare of the country, ci, not in my opinion if I was on the Supreme Court. I could think of hundreds of examples, but the functions of the federal government is clearly for national interests, not for stuff that should be left for the states and local governments to do for themselves.

2 Replies

@okie,

Lacking any SC ruling on the matter, you have no "leg" to stand on.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Use a little logic, Parados. It isn't the idea or concept of taxing in and of itself. It is how the taxing is done, and it is how the government spends its tax revenues and what it does with it.

Logic? I thought the Constitution was absolute and there was no room for interpretation. Are you now saying you are interpreting the meaning?

Either the Constitution classifies taxation as theft or it doesn't. Or you can admit that you are not using the actual text of the Constitution and are interpreting it. I don't care which one you choose okie. Either way you look like an idiot.

Quote:

I think ican has debated this matter of uniform taxation previously, but the statement is real and I for one would like to know exactly what it means, according to the Supreme Court.

Ican hasn't debated anything on this issue. He has made outlandish statements. If you want to know what the Supreme Court said about the issue than you should have followed the conversation with ican on the issue. His argument is complete hogwash.

Quote:

I have a feeling that this constitutional section has been largely ignored and not dealt with or confronted directly and as precisely as it should have been so far.

Ignored by you and ican perhaps. But it has been dealt with quite specifically by the Supreme Court.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I think the real intent was that the money needed to be spent in a way that would benefit the general welfare of all people of the entire country, that it should not be spent unfairly to benefit only a few people or narrow segments of society. An example might be would it be constitutional to build a bike path in Tulsa, Oklahoma or one in St. George, Utah, as they would not actually be for the general welfare of the country, ci, not in my opinion if I was on the Supreme Court. I could think of hundreds of examples, but the functions of the federal government is clearly for national interests, not for stuff that should be left for the states and local governments to do for themselves.

Utter nonsense from you okie. The court has ruled that Congress is given deference in deciding "general welfare" in how money is spent.

2 Replies

@parados,

This is what the court said about your statement in Butler okie.

Quote:

. When such a contention comes here, we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.

So, in order for you to argue that something is NOT covered by the general welfare clause the court requires that you show there is no reasonable possibility that such legislation could be for the general welfare. A standard that is difficult to meet and based on yours and ican's arguments wouldn't even come close to meeting.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know