Romney tax plan helps rich most

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:30 pm

Not going to argue Franco but it's a hoot how everything that comes down the pike is Obama's fault with a Congress that does nothing but it's never just Bush's fault unless someone else & some type of sinister plot is included.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:32 pm

franco b wrote:
samhill wrote:Boy to think I was under the impression that this had all started before Obama & that there were members of both parties that were on the finance committee, learn something new everyday. I guess then that the day Obama took office everything was running well, we were in a position where we could start paying down the debt & shoring up SS & some other things Wait a minute silly me that was some other Pres..

If you are implying there were other idiots as well you are right. It still was a left wing program like most that sets out to help and makes things worse. Certainly Bush and Greenspan were among them.

Remember it was Cheney that said "deficits don't matter"

I guess he was right as long as you can keep printing money!

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:36 pm

I got back into the steel mill in 94 & we were running balls to the walls until I retired & they are still running pretty good, don't know when that cheap stuff was coming in but I know we even sold our off chemistry stuff to China before the last Olympics so I don't think they were dumping & then paying a higher price for our steel.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:09 pm

samhill wrote:Not going to argue Franco but it's a hoot how everything that comes down the pike is Obama's fault with a Congress that does nothing but it's never just Bush's fault unless someone else & some type of sinister plot is included.

Didn't I just say it was Bush's fault as well? When are you going to admit error on the part of Obama?

Obama is, like Stalin, an economic illiterate. His only talent is to lie convincingly. He is just as married to left wing ideology as you are to making the rich pay their fair share, regardless of what happens to the country as a result. The rich by the way, will under Obama, pay their fair share when hell freezes over.

Republicans and many Democrats in congress are willing to work with him to cut spending, but that is not on his agenda. The last thing he wants to do is jeopardize votes which currently is the only thing on his mind. Keep printing money and the current mess can be spun out probably until he leaves office assuming he gets re elected. When harsh reality sets in he will be gone. Then we can look back at the good old days of Obama. Some will blame it all on him, but he has had a lot of help. One man can't possibly screw things up that badly even though his ignorance helps a lot.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:18 pm

jpete wrote:Remember it was Cheney that said "deficits don't matter"

That's a pretty stupid comment by a man I don't think is stupid. I would have to see the context.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:37 pm

franco b wrote:
jpete wrote:Remember it was Cheney that said "deficits don't matter"

That's a pretty stupid comment by a man I don't think is stupid. I would have to see the context.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dick+cheney+defici ... 27t+matter

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:23 pm

jpete wrote:
franco b wrote:
jpete wrote:Remember it was Cheney that said "deficits don't matter"

That's a pretty stupid comment by a man I don't think is stupid. I would have to see the context.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dick+cheney+defici ... 27t+matter

Ask and ye shall receive. Even filled in google for me,(how did he do that?)

Well it proves once again that smart people can say and do stupid things. Even Achilles had a bum heel and he was immortal. Good reason to stick with what safeguards our Constitution still provides.

In defense though he did refer to Reagan deficits which did result in Russian economic collapse. His own context was different so deficits do matter and his allusion was incorrect.

Deficits and debt can be both good or bad depending on what that debt is used for. Roads that facilitate commerce is most often good debt because return outweighs cost. Debt with no return like an expensive vacation or most Federal and state spending is useless debt that lowers prosperity.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:25 pm

Debt is never good. Especially when you monetize it as we do.

It tends to lead to all kinds of bad things.

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:33 pm

jpete wrote:Debt is never good. Especially when you monetize it as we do.

It tends to lead to all kinds of bad things.

Ever increasing debt (on an exponential scale) is an absolute necessity in a fiat monetary system (like ours) where all money is loaned into existence, and as a result:
money = debt

Remove all of the debt from the system and you have simultaneously removed all of the money from the system. But only if money is loaned into existence at zero interest. Add interest and when all of the money is gone in an effort to pay off the debt, the interest would still be owed. In a fiat monetary system only "principal money" is ever loaned into existence, but it is always required to be paid back with interest. The em, 'interesting' part about this is that the money to pay back all of the interest owed was never once ever intentionally (or even unintentionally) created, so the money required to pay back all debt plus interest simply does not (and can not ever) exist.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:23 pm

I know that. And you know that. Trying to explain it to other people is the challenge.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:31 pm

jpete wrote:Debt is never good. Especially when you monetize it as we do.

It tends to lead to all kinds of bad things.

If debt is always bad you can't make it more bad by adding qualifications.

Some years ago the Bulova Watch Co. was selling to the trade an ultrasonic cleaner for
$5 per month until paid. This was a good size machine that could do clocks as well and the price was low. In effect it was like getting the machine for nothing because the increase in productivity dwarfed the payment. Was that bad debt?

A farmer buys a new tractor on time and doubles his land under cultivation which covers the payments plus a handsome profit. Is that bad debt?

Until the government interfered with housing it was one of the best things you could buy on time. It protected against inflation while providing a nest egg. Now that the government caused havoc has mostly played out it probably is a good investment again.

A community issues long term bonds and builds roads and an industrial park. Collects much more in taxes. Is that bad?

Henry Ford inaugurates time payments on his cars and puts the country on wheels. Roads are built, communication increases exponentially, commerce doubles, Was that bad debt?

Lincoln printed money to finance the Civil War. Inflation resulted but the war was won and the money printing stopped. Should he have lost the war instead? Maybe, I am not sure.

Politicians always say we are investing in our future. Sometimes that is true but more often we are investing in politicians which is always bad. So it does depend on the investment and what the payback is.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:39 pm

The answer to your question is would it have been better to pay cash for all those things?

And as Larry pointed out, our money IS debt. We have no hope of ever paying it off.

Unless and until we go back to hard currency, we'll be in hock to the Federal Reserve until the sun explodes.

samhill · By: **samhill** On: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:09 am

Franco, in your last line there which I totally agree with the post, you said the politicians always say we are investing in our future. It may have been that back then it was the countries future but the modern day politico's are only interested in their future. They ain't lying when they say our future, just speaking modern day political English. :cry:

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:57 am

samhill wrote:Franco, in your last line there which I totally agree with the post, you said the politicians always say we are investing in our future. It may have been that back then it was the countries future but the modern day politico's are only interested in their future. They ain't lying when they say our future, just speaking modern day political English.

Pretty much the difference in our positions is over which side has the most hypocrisy. A tragic way to run a country since we and the greater majority are looking for the same thing and basically agree.

franco b · By: **franco b** On: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:44 am

jpete wrote:The answer to your question is would it have been better to pay cash for all those things?

Sure it is better to pay cash. The point is though that without the credit and debt the benefits would never be realized that enable the debt to be paid with an increase in wealth that remains after the debt is paid. Without debt and assuming it is invested in furthering efficiency the cash will never be raised.

You are investing your time in study for a new career while receiving some government subsidy. Even if that subsidy were not there it still would be wise for you to go into debt to receive that training which will enable you to earn far more. If you had to wait and raise cash first it probably would never happen. If not for credit very few would own houses. Credit enables you to have that training, or tool, or machine, right away and immediately increase productivity or efficiency. Its also has given you time to come on to this forum and cause trouble by making me and others think. That's work too you know. Without credit or subsidy that probably would not happen because you would be too exhausted scratching for a bare living.

If I could buy a stove that would cut fuel use in half and pay for itself in two years would I be wisest to buy it now on credit or wait until I have the cash? To use credit for frivolous ends is of course stupid whether by individuals or government.

The thing with the Fed is a whole other story outside of the proper use of credit.

Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most

Re: Romney tax plan helps rich most