Cash for clunkers NOT suspended......

[countryBoy]

Quote from MattF:

once again...borrowing tomorrow to pay today.

Yes, dead on. Same as Community Reinvestment Act, etc.

At the root of the liberal flailings at fixing the economy, is a fundamental disrespect for the "P" in "GDP". That "P" stands for Production. Some people delude themselves into believing it has a twin brother, called GDS, Gross Domestic Spending. They think they can address that instead.

In the simplistic view, rich people produce more than they spend. And poor people spend more than they produce. Same thing at a national level. Production needs to go up, but subsidizing spending (Cash for Clunkers) may have no correlation to Production. The increased spending might only buy imports, or might only draw down inventories. It's called "pushing on a string". And the spending stimulus creates market distortions. Once the spending stimulus is removed, will this create more problems?

************

If a person could spend his way into prosperity, there would be no poor people.

One of the best ways to increase Production is to cut taxes. But liberals are philosophically opposed to this. To them it seems unfair.

This is the liberals' economic connundrum.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from fkbsuhites:


... "low life Republicans..."
...

the cash for clunkers program is a better mis-allocation of resources than giving some bumbble fuck crook on wall street 1 Trillion.
...

So now we are down to "low life Republicans" and which is the better "mis-allocation." You have made me chuckle.

 

[IanMacQuaide]

Quote from piezoe:

So now we are down to "low life Republicans" and which is the better "mis-allocation." You have made me chuckle.

Doesn't matter what you call them. The criminal political element is destroying us.
Jack Paar once said "Don't vote, it only encourages them!"

 

[fkbsuhites]

You are yet another RETARD drowning in republican cool aid

What is amazing is you actually post this incorrect bull shit on a day trading site where members watch the markets every day


yet another paper trading member of Elitetraitor

Quote from countryBoy:



If a person could spend his way into prosperity, there would be no poor people.

One of the best ways to increase Production is to cut taxes. But liberals are philosophically opposed to this. To them it seems unfair.

 

[countryBoy]

Actually, the S&P topped out at approx 1600 several months after Pelosi and Reed took control of Congress. And the stock market is still only about 50% of that level even now.

You many not know it, but all appropriations originate in the House, approved by the Senate. So, if we are financially going to hell in a hand-basket, you can look to Congress first, before the POTUS.

I was no fan of G HW Bush, but he really did try "no new taxes". Then Congress pretty much put a gun to his head. As I recall, if he didn't sign the tax increase, Congress was gonna make it real ugly.

Of the past 60 years or so, Congress has been run by Democrats for about 50, ~ 83% of the time?

Hope that helps with your history lesson, Skippy.

 

[fkbsuhites]

FAIL

Bush Jr and Paulson are the ones who LIED to congress about mass unrest to scare and blackmail congress into approving massive bailouts for his buddies on wallst.

http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/congress-passed-tarp-under-threats-of-an-epic-bank-run

Bush waged war without prior congressional approval and then requested funding outside of normal legislative procedures.


Congress is full of lowlifes with no backbone. It does whatever the office of the president wants to get done. What can you expect from a useless legislative body full of women and faggots ( on both sides )

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/iran-m14.shtml


FYI. We were doing great in the "past 60 years" until a third rate republican actor started the entire BORROW AND SPEND republican mess.

Quote from countryBoy:

Actually, the S&P topped out at approx 1600 several months after Pelosi and Reed took control of Congress. And the stock market is still only about 50% of that level even now.

You many not know it, but all appropriations originate in the House, approved by the Senate. So, if we are financially going to hell in a hand-basket, you can look to Congress first, before the POTUS.

I was no fan of G HW Bush, but he really did try "no new taxes". Then Congress pretty much put a gun to his head. As I recall, if he didn't sign the tax increase, Congress was gonna make it real ugly.

Of the past 60 years or so, Congress has been almost exlusively run by Democrats.

Hope that helps with your history lesson, Skippy.

 

[countryBoy]

Quote from fkbsuhites:

FYI. We were doing great in the "past 60 years" until a third rate republican actor started the entire BORROW AND SPEND republican mess.

Skippy - not that it's any of my business, but how's your trading account doing? When I'm feeling as low as you are, I step away, don't risk my capital. Hatred clouds the vision.

As a tip, also, avoid posting huge pics. Stuff over 800 px or even 640 px will often throw horizontal scroll bars. It is considered impolite / bad style by folks in the business. Resample all pic accordingly.

Have a great week!!

 

[jprad]

Quote from fkbsuhites:

The govt. spends 2 TRILLION on the military every year...

Total federal spending in 2008 was $2.9T and the defense budget, the largest ever, was $612B.

1/ buys down inventory and is therefore a DIRECT stimulant to the economy ( unlike bailing out the bumble fuck crooked bankers )

Care to explain how buying cars that were built close to a year ago helps the economy?

If you think that any of this is going to create one stinking job you're a complete fool.

 

[jprad]

Quote from fkbsuhites:

You are yet another RETARD drowning in republican cool aid

What is amazing is you actually post this incorrect bull shit on a day trading site where members watch the markets every day

All kool-aid, liberal or conservative leaves you with a warped mind.

Now, climb out of the particular pool you're drowning in, stop with budgetary games and go find the raw data on federal expenditures.

What you'll find is that every president since Roosevelt has left office with a larger government consuming more public money then when they entered it.

They all suck, every damned one of them, regardless of party affliation.

 

[countryBoy]

Quote from jprad:

What you'll find is that every president since Roosevelt has left office with a larger government consuming more public money then when they entered it.

They all suck, every damned one of them, regardless of party affliation.

With all due respect, jprad, I think Reagan tried to dismantle some large government activities. Specifically, he told his budget guy (David Stockman) to kill the DOE, then find some really "large boulders" to crush. He was talking about Medicare, Medicaid.

Of course the DOE was started by Jimmy Carter, to wean the U.S. off foreign oil. In the early 1980's it had no results to show. No change today.

Reagan's massive cost cutting initiative was laughed off the stage by the prevailing democratic majorities in Congress (You hear that Skippy?).

The rest is history.