This week's screens might provide some interesting buying opportunities.Caution is advised though. The current administration seems intent on raising cap gains and dividend tax rates across the board.That vast majority of my investments are in tax exempt accounts of one sort or another, so this does not bother me much. However, I believe the typical investor is going to be seriously consider continuing to sell off their big dividend paying stocks and some cap gains winners.We might see a general sell off through the end of the year - meaning better bargains may be available in the near future.If it looks like the fiscal cliff (the sequestration bill, tax break legislation expiration, and imposition of huge new taxes to pay for healthcare), then that general slide might more closely approximate a crash.In democracies, the people get the government they deserve.
Caution is advised though. The current administration seems intent on raising cap gains and dividend tax rates across the board.There is little evidence for this. But, it is an assumption that some people are expressing. If the country goes off the "fiscal cliff" the bush tax cuts will be automatically reversed. However, it's looking more likely (IMO) that some kind of deal will be brokered probably before, or possibly shortly after, the plunge over the cliff. (Unlike the unfortunate lemming, we can climb back up the cliff face).It is likely that very high income people will be paying modestly higher taxes, but they, after all, are a very small minority. The fear, and likelihood, of a significant retreat from dividend paying stocks is, I think, overblown. After all, interest rates available elsewhere are scant.kelbon
Kelbon,My warning was not just of the expiration of tax cuts.There are at least 2 other issues:1) Sequestration bill2) Tax hikes mandated by Obamacare.In the near term, I don't expect #2 to dramatically affect any stocks except health insurance and health care companies.But either or both of the tax cut expiration and sequestration bills could cause dramatic gyrations in the markets.As for the expiration of the tax cuts only being minor impact to over all taxes paid. It is true that for the average investor they will not see a significant change to the taxes paid. However, it is not true that the tax implications are not important.The friction costs of performing transactions and the ROI of dividend stocks will be significantly impacted! Changing dividend taxes from 15% to 28% (as will happen in my case) is a nearly 100% increase in dividend taxes! It cuts a 2.3% dividend return from 1.955% to 1.656%! When looking at trying to keep ahead of increase levels of inflation this .3% of return is a very important edge.I'm sure you would espouse dumping a mutual fund with a 0.3% load factor above the the average for such funds, so I find it hard to understand why any savvy investor would attempt to explain paying this transaction cost as not important to the markets.I think of you as a savvy investor, so would you care to explain why you think this isn't important to the markets?
It is likely that very high income people will be paying modestly higher taxes, but they, after all, are a very small minority. I don't think it's worth arguing taxes with anyone who can say the above with a straight face.Denny Schlesinger
Jim,As far as the Sequestration bill goes, The President has said "it will not happen." and Nancy Pelosi chimed in with: "This is really silly. It's not serious." Chances are, given a more contrite and cooperative political climate, it won't happen. Given the mood of the country, if Members of Congress begin the shenanigans again, it'll likely be political suicide for them; at least I don't think either party is going to risk digging their heels in to an intractable extent. As far as a tax hike mandated by Obamacare, tax increases of various varieties are inevitable. And, the only way to deal with the deficit is to reduce spending and raise additional revenue. The market knows this, the people know this, and both political parties know this. This is what will happen.I agree that if the country does go off the figurative fiscal cliff the market is likely to react, but to what extent ? I wouldn't count on it happening. Though, I for one, will be buying if it does.As far as dividend tax-hikes go, as I said, there's nowhere obvious to run for better interest rates. If you hold dividend stocks in retirement for income, you're not likely to dump them all because of a tax hike. Mutual funds aren't likely to dump them because those who have shares in the funds pay the taxes on dividends and capital gains, and not the mutual fund companies. Denny,I don't understand your comment. I doubt anybody else does either. Very high income individuals are a very small minority of the population. Period. And, as election results suggest, their money doesn't go as far as some of them would like in buying elections. The conversation isn't about arguing taxes, it's about how increased tax rates, and more specifically, taxes on dividends, might impact stock market behavior. kelbon
What is often overlooked, those who live in high tax states like NJ and NY saw very little benefit from the Bush tax cuts due to AMT.
The President has said "it will not happen." and Nancy Pelosi chimed in with: "This is really silly. It's not serious." I won't go into my confidnece or lack thereof in the familiarity either of these two have with the truth as politics is frowned on here.the only way to deal with the deficit is to reduce spending and raise additional revenue.Increasing the tax base through increased employment or a change from income tax to a form of consumption such as the FairTax or some form of national sales tax is the way to do this NOT increase the number of taxes or rates of taxation. The best would be both.I undersatnd there are problems with implementation of a tax change and the near certainty that congress would never agree to give up their power of income taxation.
the only way to deal with the deficit is to reduce spending and raise additional revenue.This statement is false.There are three ways to deal with a deficit:1) reduce spending2) increase revenues3) bothIncreasing revenues has the added downside of suppressing economic growth - meaning any attempt to increase rates or increase the number of people paying will return less than the expected revenue increases.Putting it another way, increasing tax revenues might be a terrible long-term decision (or it might not).Through simple math it is easy to see that increasing revenues can't do more than scratch the surface. Just servicing the debt and paying entitlements will consume 100% of federal revenues in a very short period of time (off the top of my head it's like 7 - 10 years).Clearly the problem is on the spending side - specifically entitlement spending (DoD budget consumes less than 17% of federal outlays). Entitlement spending is not only the largest slice of that pie, it is also the fastest growing slice of federal outlays.Entitlement spending MUST BE CUT. Only the electorate just voted themselves a president who promised to deliver 4 more years of free food, clothing, shelter, cell phones, gas, cigarette money, and other goodies.Add to this the "quantitative easing" and we are left with a country that is in a bad way. If at anytime people start losing faith in the government, inflation is going to skyrocket. I give us a 50% chance of this happening within 4 years (depending upon how foreign economies go). If some part of the world economy starts to strengthen, the US will suffer some pretty bad inflation.
Entitlement spending MUST BE CUT.There are perceptual issues at stake here. I think given the election results and the changing demographics of the country, the number one issue the majority of "the people" would like to see addressed is the perception and implementation of trust and fairness.So…God forbid the government even attempt to raise money to help pay for its obligations. The fact that workers paid into social security all their working lives with the expectation of being able to withdraw at the end of the day be damned. This attitude just isn't going to wash. If you foresee a scenario where the "people start losing faith in the government" and the catastrophic consequences thereof, you need look no further. In spite of the fact that raising taxes on the "one percent" won't solve this country's economic problems by a long shot there is a good argument to be made that it should happen anyway. There is a broad consensus that the very rich aren't paying their fair share and government has been enabling them, and been bribed by them. "Trickle down economics" is largely a myth perpetuated by wrong-headed ideology and/or self interest. As to how it impacts ordinary Americans' prospects and prosperity, given globalization: most jobs created via this route end up in China, or elsewhere. A perception of fairness, trust, and compassion are necessary ingredients for a fully functioning and productive society. A leveling of the playing field, however slight, by raising revenue from those who can most afford to contribute a little more would be a step in the right direction, at least psychologically. After all, perception and inclusiveness are powerful forces.kelbon
God forbid the government even attempt to raise money to help pay for its obligations. The fact that workers paid into social security all their working lives with the expectation of being able to withdraw at the end of the day be damned.Kelborn,I never said to not tax the rich and to not cut defense spending. I said those things do not matter. Go ahead and tax the rich at 100% of income. Go ahead and cut defense spending to $0. In 10 years, neither of these will be enough.It is entitlements that are bankrupting us and therefore THEY MUST be cut! The rest is just political window dressing and completely irrelevant to the problem.A perception of fairness, trust, and compassion are necessary ingredients for a fully functioning and productive society. A leveling of the playing field, however slight, by raising revenue from those who can most afford to contribute a little more would be a step in the right direction, at least psychologically. After all, perception and inclusiveness are powerful forces.Perceptions of fairness, trust, and compassion combined with wishful thinking won't solve this problem.Go watch the short movie "The Cold Equations".This country will implode despite fairy dust, the money tree, defense cuts, and taxing the rich. The numbers do not care what the electorate wants for "free". The numbers do not care about politics. The numbers do not care with which party YOU agree on economic issues.I admire your advice in many ways, but you are completely wrong about this. Perhaps if you put your politics aside for a while and concentrated on examining this problem quantitatively?Project our federal outlays and federal revenue numbers out 10-20 years. Where does the democrat party platform put us? As a % of GDP how do our current and future deficits and debt compare to countries like Greece or Spain?Which country do you think will bail us out when we don't make the hard choices? What are democrat constituencies who have been promised "free stuff" for so long going to do when the democrats can no longer deliver on those promises. Why are you mortgaging the income of my children to support bad economic policies?What happens to the US economy when people have better options available? What effect will quantitative easing have when people no longer want to buy US government debt and/or dollars?Why is it OK to scape goat our problems on the most productive subset of our economy? If you think the rich should pay more, why don't you hand over more of your income to the IRS - after all, you want fairness put your money where your mouth is?
God forbid the government even attempt to raise money to help pay for its obligations. The fact that workers paid into social security all their working lives with the expectation of being able to withdraw at the end of the day be damned.This attitude just isn't going to wash. Pretend this country is a human body. This particular human body has been in an accident and suffered a variety of wounds.Democrats proposed to apply band-aids to the face because appearances are important.Republicans proposed to attempt to close up a gash to the femoral artery.Democrats won the election and plan to ignore the gash to the femoral artery. You have bought into the argument that appearances are more important than hemorrhaging to death.When triaging things like this you must stabilize the life (economy) threatening issues first. In this case, it is entitlement spending. I know that this might leave scars on the patient's face but the reality is we as a country can live with and later address such issues over the short term. We can't live with a hemorrhaging deficit like the one run up by Barack Obama & Co.
God forbid the government even attempt to raise money to help pay for its obligations. The fact that workers paid into social security all their working lives with the expectation of being able to withdraw at the end of the day be damned.This attitude just isn't going to wash. This is BS argument and you know it.Current and prior recipients of SS payments, on average, received more benefits than they paid into the system. People who are likely to start SS in the near future will likely get more than they paid into the system.This is because the government elected to use SS to "buy their vote."However, in my generation, 80% of the recipients will get less than they paid in and possibly they will get nothing if the system bankrupts itself. My kids will get an even worse deal.You are saying that people who voted themselves a great deal by spending the money of later generations, owe those later generations nothing. That's not very "fair". In fact, if any democrats cared about the youth in this country, they'd fall all over themselves trying to fix this inequity.As far as I'm concerned, I've written off SS. 15% of my pay for my entire working career and I'll likely receive nothing (thanks for thinking of me and the later generations Kelborn). I just hope to get the program axed before it screws my kids too badly. I know this isn't a realistic expectation, too many people are too selfish to think about "fairness" and making sure a program deals equally to all generations. Then again, that's par for the course for the party that preaches the government owes constituents "free stuff." Democrats won't even let me try to salvage a small amount of that 15% for my own retirement. Greedy b@$t@rd$ that they are.And yes, I'm willing to throw earlier generations under the bus to fix SS. After all, all of my ancestors had to pay into the program but got nothing back due to disqualification from their eligibility for other programs.
Gents (if there are any ladies in the argument, my apologies for missing it), This is highly political argument. It's interesting. One might even say it's relevant to investing in general. And I realize that it's a topic that worries everyone, no matter what their political persuasion. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians. Even the Donut Party, which my daughter recently invented, is worried about it.It's important. Really important. But ranting about which party is or is not going to fix it, it seems to me, is buying into a split that the Democrat and Republican Parties both benefit from. What I mean is, we are falling into a trap of blame. "IT'S THEIR FAULT!!! I DIDN'T DO IT!!!"Frankly, I don't care who did it. I don't care who's in office. I don't even care if the Tea Party invites the Donut Party over and they build the greatest coalition government the world has ever seen.What I care about is starting to take steps. It takes, usually, a left foot and a right foot to make a human walk well. So let's take a left step and then a right step and then another left step and then another right. Maybe we dance, maybe we go to the side a bit. But if we keep taking steps, I bet we can make progress.But this is a problem of the American people. All of us. The moment anyone becomes a voice of blame, we shift the problem to someone else. And the only place we can possibly look to solve this problem, no matter who we are and what our opinions, is in the mirror.ThyPeace, and isn't this the BMW Board where we talk about what it means when VZ hit its +2RMS on its 16 year chart, while being nowhere near it on its 35 and 40 year charts anyway?
Perceptions of fairness, trust, and compassion combined with wishful thinking won't solve this problem.No wishful thinking won't, but cooperation and sacrifice are not such bitter pills to take in a climate of fairness, trust, and compassion.This country will implode despite fairy dust, the money tree, defense cuts, and taxing the rich.Fairy dust will help some. The money tree will help some. Defense cuts will help some. Taxing the rich will help some. And, spending cuts will help some. The country won't implode.I acknowledge that spending because of "entitlements" is the biggest fiscal problem numbers wise, but it has to be dealt with as little hysteria and panic as possible, all the while being mindful of not irreparably injuring the patient.Democrats proposed to apply band-aids to the face because appearances are important. Republicans proposed to attempt to close up a gash to the femoral artery.Rather than putting a band-aid on a severed artery (or anywhere else) my slant was more along the lines of treating the whole patient holistically. I don't think it's helpful to look at this mess in such a polarized way; that is, with Democrats and Republicans taking diametrically opposing positions. They both have to take steps in the other's direction at this juncture, and hopefully, the electorate has delivered the message loud and clear. Which country do you think will bail us out[…]The U.S. will bail the U.S out. Unfortunately, one consequence might be an uncomfortable rate of inflation.As you bring up Spain's and Greece's indebtedness, it's worth considering what makes the U.S's situation different. There is no chance the the U.S will default on its debts unless it chooses to. This can't be said of Spain and Greece, because they, by joining a common currency, have given the up the right, and the ability, to print money. The U.S. is able to carry a heavy debt burden and pay very low interest rates to-boot, because borrowers trust that the U.S. government is as good as its word, that is: they will be paid back with interest. Entitlement spending hasn't accelerated so much because of this administration, or that administration's, generosity or recklessness. It's reached the levels it has because of "the pig passing through the python." Meaning: the baby boomers are retiring and drawing social security and medicare in large numbers that puts a heavy burden on the relatively smaller number of usually younger people who are employed and paying taxes.This is a logistical problem. Not an ideological one. Not a blame game. I don't think the Democrats have any delusions that entitlement spending has to be cut at this point. And, I don't think the Republicans have any delusions that tax/revenue increases (however symbolic a drop in the bucket some might see them) can remain off the table either. This is a problem that has to be solved in as logical and compassionate a way as possible with the minimum amount of mud-slinging and blaming. It's a situation the country now finds itself in because of the graying of America as much as the printing of the green.kelbon
There are three ways to deal with a deficit:1) reduce spending2) increase revenues3) bothPut me in the camp for number 1. I have a real hard time shelling out more money until the every cutback possible has been made. If I loan my brother-in-law money to pay his rent and he goes out and buys a laptop with it, why the hell would I give him more when he asks for more? Show me you are being RESPONSIBLE with the money you already have, then you can ask for more. It's a really easy concept.
Hi,How about someone (with more smarts/words than I) setting up a poll as to what to cut and what to tax and the percentages as to which.
There are three ways to deal with a deficit: 1) reduce spending 2) increase revenues 3) bothThis type of thinking in some ways.....is static.....there is a forth way to lower the deficits longer term.....economic growth.....through....lowering taxes on the middle classes or on work done.....a small raising of taxes on the wealthy.....back to the Clinton days....and with economic growth welfare spending of all stripes would decline.....This approach is more than simply a one year plan.....Dave
Dave,Yes, economic growth logically would contribute to deficit reductions. However, how to nurture economic growth is the million $ question. Stimulus spending, which some were so opposed to, is one tack; lowering taxes is another, but, lowering taxes would have negative repercussions, both on the deficit, and on the government's ability to pay its liabilities. There is a fourth way to lower the deficit long term…—Economic growth stimulated by lower taxes on the middle classes.Sort of.The middle class would have more disposable income to buy things. And, the psychological confidence to do so. However, this would have the consequence of reduced revenue, so back to square one unless government spending, on entitlement programs was proportionally slashed.—Raising taxes on the wealthySort of.At best, the effect on the economy would initially be negligible. However, as I've already argued, this isn't a reason not to raise taxes on the wealthy which should lead to the perception of a fairer and more cooperative society. (See previous posts).—With economic growth welfare spending of all stripes would decline.No. Not really. Not of all stripes.The "welfare spending" that would decline with an improving economy would be unemployment benefits as the number of those wanting jobs. Also, spending on Medicaid and food stamps would decline some. However, the lion's share of "entitlement spending" wouldn't decline as the number of baby-boomers, and older retirees, that are claiming Social Security benefits and Medicare, won't change. Inevitably, the burden will continue to increase with the "graying of America."kelbon
There are three ways to deal with a deficit:1) reduce spending2) increase revenues3) bothThis type of thinking in some ways.....is static.....there is a forth way to lower the deficits longer term.....economic growthI would say that this falls under "increasing revenues".Depending upon where the country sits on the Laffer Curve, increasing tax rates might decrease tax revenues (my suspicion is that we are in fact sitting in this region). The important point is that people wishing to balance the budget must be tax rate neutral. Too many on the left are convinced that increasing revenues by taxing the rich is the best way to do this. Honestly, that is a terribly ignorant position. Even if increasing tax rates would increase revenues, the amount raised by increasing it on only the rich is trivial.On the right, lowering taxes is considered the best way to do this (I happen to think they're right but am willing to concede that I could be wrong). This is a bit more enlightened position but those on the right need to be a bit more flexible.
However, how to nurture economic growth is the million $ question. Stimulus spending, which some were so opposed to, is one tack; lowering taxes is another, but, lowering taxes would have negative repercussions, both on the deficit, and on the government's ability to pay its liabilities. Except Keynesian economics has never been shown to work. $5.5 Trillion in stimulus spent on ...? What do we have to show for our Trillions: Bridges, military, infrastructure? How is our unemployment rate? How well is our economy growing? How well have those investments in green energy worked out? How about our purchase of GM and Chrysler stock."Obama doesn't pick the winners and losers, he just picks the losers" and he has a nearly perfect track record. Plus decreasing tax rates generally has shown increased tax revenues.Meaning, tax cuts don't worsen the budget, they make it better.
Jim,The election is over…
The election is over… However, my First Amendment Rights haven't been revoked, yet.
The election is over…...and America lost...
…and America lost…No, your America lost.
"...raise taxes on the wealthy which should lead to the perception of a fairer and more cooperative society."I'm tired of hearing the 'fairer' class warfare mongering.The top 2% percent of income tax payers, roughly those making over $250K, pay about 44% of the income tax in this country. Think about it - is that fair? I think not, but talking about raising that amount in the name of fairness is plainly dishonest - and stupid!rp
The top 2% percent of income tax payers, roughly those making over $250K, pay about 44% of the income tax in this country. Think about it - is that fair? I think notThen perhaps you're not thinking very deeply or hard. If you accept that an income tax is appropriate at all, it's self evident that it's dollars that are taxed, not individuals. Personifying taxes, as if taxes are designed to punish people for achievement, is dysfunctional thinking.It's also ironic that you would quote me and completely ignore the most important word in the sentence:" ...raise taxes on the wealthy which should lead to the perception of a fairer and more cooperative society."
The top 2% percent of income tax payers, roughly those making over $250K, pay about 44% of the income tax in this country. Think about it - is that fair?But what % of the income do those 2% make?http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewomen/2012/03/21/averag...The average annual income of the top 1 percent of the population is $717,000, compared to the average income of the rest of the population, which is around $51,000....Altogether, the top 1 percent control 43 percent of the wealth in the nation; the next 4 percent control an additional 29 percent.It’s historically common for a powerful minority to control a majority of finances, but Americans haven’t seen a disparity this wide since before the Great Depression — and it keeps growing.
" ...raise taxes on the wealthy which should lead to the perception of a fairer and more cooperative society."And how did that PERCEPTION of an unfair, uncooperative society come to be? Honestly...
No, your America lost.No, the UNITED STATES of America lost...
..and America lost...Geesh, finally get some sanity at NPI and now this board erupts with the nuttiness.It's like playing a game of whack a mole.Perhaps if you are so upset living with the results of democracy you could go Galt like Tinker.Somalia maybe?B
Former First Lady Barbara Bush has urged her fellow Republicans to 'move on' from Barack Obama's election victory.'I'm tired now of the elections,' Bush, who had endorsed Republican Mitt Romney, said at a forum on America's First Ladies in Austin.'People spoke. Move on, get on with it. I want to do other things and not to be ugly.''They are going to have to compromise,' said Barbara, the wife of former President George H.W. Bush. 'It's not a dirty word.'The notoriously outspoken Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is not one to dwell on the past, as he made abundantly clear when he stated that it is time for Mitt Romney to ‘move on’ after his loss in the election.'I always think this is kind of scapegoating after elections,' the governor said while appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Friday. 'When you lose, you lost.'
The majority of voters in the presidental election voted for Santa Claus.
We would be so much better off if the voters were sharp enough to understand what they are voting for.Our system seems to rely on Madison Avenue style advertizing and positioning that essentially treats voters as fools and buffoons--willing to vote based on whatever bs is presented.The Madison Avenue approach will probably continue as long as it works. If only voters would learn to reject it.
The majority of voters in the presidental election voted for Santa Claus.Go ahead, you keep on listening to/repeating Rush and we'll keep on eating your lunch come election time.Sounds like a sweet deal to me. :<)B
So you don't care that the majority of voters voted for Santa Claus. The Liberals have been telling the electorate this is what I will do for you. You are right it has been working for the democrats.
I know some of you guys are pretty hot under the collar about the election, but hopefully no one here has gotten this mad:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235205/Husband-run-...Snip:The man whose pregnant wife ran him over last week with her Jeep because he didn't vote in the election earlier this month may be permanently disfigured.Holly Solomon, 28, believes her family, and her unborn child, would suffer hardships over the next four years because of the re-election of President Barack Obama.She blamed his victory on her husband Daniel, who didn't cast a ballot, and was furious about the outcome of the election, investigators say.Her husband, who is in critical condition with massive internal injuries, said his wife 'just hated Obama.'Snip:Mr Solomon reportedly tried to hide behind a light post as his wife circled him in her SUV and shouted at him for not doing enough to ensure Republican Mitt Romney won the election.Police say as Mr Solomon attempted to flee, Ms Solomon ran him down, pinning him under the vehicle, according to Arizona Family.com.
Ah yes, the Republican "base" in all it's splendor. :<)B
An other vote for Santa Claus. I wonder how long the elves in the north pole will continue...
Sigh. I hope to be back to this board at some point. Y'all have fun.ThyPeace, done reading now.
So you don't care that the majority of voters voted for Santa Claus. The Liberals have been telling the electorate this is what I will do for you. You are right it has been working for the democrats.having a little hissy fit? the conservatives not only put us in this mess, but want to see only a few white males do well......most white males are doing just as badly as everyone else......Obama did not promise to personally put money in an envelope and lick the stamp.......if anything people will more than likely go back to work because of a more progressive tax scheme.......that would reduce some of the welfare rolls while bringing in more tax receipts.......As for the hissy fits when your candidate lost.....time to grow up....seriously my Republican spoiled brats time to grow up......I dont care if you are 60 years old or 70 years old....time to grow up.....we are not living in a dictatorship.......being a white male is not way of life for the elite......it is not a club to beat folks with......time to grow up..........to the birthers......look for another country.....you are not welcome......Dave
I don't understand why the conservatives have caused our problems. I find rich liberals designing policies. Socialism says what you make is ours. There is still a rich class is socialist societies. The board game of Monopoly illustrates how equalizing money lasts a short period of time. It appears the majority of voters want security over the opportunity to take a risk. It is hard to run against Santa Claus.
I don't understand why the conservatives have caused our problems. I find rich liberals designing policies. Socialism says what you make is ours. There is still a rich class is socialist societies. The board game of Monopoly illustrates how equalizing money lasts a short period of time. It appears the majority of voters want security over the opportunity to take a risk. It is hard to run against Santa Claus. I know I cant change your mind....but to most of us every last word is just rubbish......Supply side econ ruined this nation as we knew it would eventually. Rich liberals or rich anyones always run the nation. Socialism? Western European style or Russian style? I'll give you a wide ranging choice. But only if you admit that the US military is a socialist tool. So there is a rich class in a socialist societies.....where did I say there wasn't???Monopoly is a board game...so?risk for most folks? really??? what does risk by its lonesome mean? Tell us how that works? Santa Claus for who? the banksters? or the people.....no tax cut was ever rejected by the well-to-do......so why cant the working folks have tax cuts? who is the real conservative here? you or I???Dave
it doesn't matter who is being subsidized, you tax break is my tax loop hole. If you want more of some thing then reward it. If you want less of it then tax it. The majority of presidental voters voted for Santa Claus.
The majority of presidental voters voted for Santa Claus.You know, this is the problem I have with the Republican Party these days. They pick an idiotically simple statement that may or may not have any relation to fact and then all repeat it for a week or two. Then they pick another. Thoughtful republicans, even the very conservative, get shouted down by the Grover/Fox/Rush crowd.Look at who's on the outs now - Bill Kristol, Orin Hatch, any moderate republican. This is a problem for the party and for American politics.Dave(who didn't want to wade into the fray, but is sick of the stupid refrains)
I don't understand why the conservatives have caused our problems.I agree. It's the borrow-and-spend liberals like GWB, BO, GHWB, and RWR that caused our problems.There has been one fiscally responsible president in the past 30 years, and he was a democrat. Maybe a fiscally responsible republican president will be elected sometime in the next 3 decades. I doubt it would have been Romney.
...There has been one fiscally responsible president in the past 30 years....Hi JGBFool!I try to stay away from politics on the investing boards, but please note that it is Congress who authorizes spending our money....not the President. So when I hear someone talk about surpluses or deficits by President, or President "X's" economy, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.Cheers!MurphHome Fool
it is Congress who authorizes spending our money....not the President. So when I hear someone talk about surpluses or deficits by President, or President "X's" economy, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.The President submits the budget to Congress, then they tack on pork and authorize it.If it doesn't make sense that people talk about surpluses or deficits by a President, then why is the current President so frequently blamed for the deficit? (Often those pointing the fingers are ones who were strangely silent about the deficit during the previous President's terms.)
Well, JGBFool, the President can submit any budget he likes, but Congress can completely ignore it if they wish to.As to why we always hear about President "X's" economy? Here is my theory: ( think Wizard of Oz )http://boards.fool.com/the-wizard-of-the-united-states-20475...Cheers!MurphHome Fool
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |