If you had $25,000 to invest....

[#27TheDominator]

And another link with much more specific info.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703589404575417491742322262.html

That sounds like a bailout to me.

I'm not sure where you are reading bailout. The first paragraph of the link above contains this "an ironic position for the only U.S. car maker that didn't receive a government bailout last year."

Ford didn't need the bailout. They got the option of loan guarantees. They never took a nickel of them. Yes they got some concessions from private loans based on the guarantee, but they didn't borrow any money from the government. They specifically did that so they could pay their debt back faster without being at a competitive disadvantage compared to the others. They were paying their debt back timely without them. Bail out means you are sinking and are kept afloat. They were doing okay despite the downturn in the auto industry.

The money they got for making energy efficient and alternative fuel vehicles is generally available to all automakers, not just the Big 3.

[villain_the_foe]

I'm not sure where you are reading bailout. The first paragraph of the link above contains this "an ironic position for the only U.S. car maker that didn't receive a government bailout last year."

Ford didn't need the bailout. They got the option of loan guarantees. They never took a nickel of them. Yes they got some concessions from private loans based on the guarantee, but they didn't borrow any money from the government. They specifically did that so they could pay their debt back faster without being at a competitive disadvantage compared to the others. They were paying their debt back timely without them. Bail out means you are sinking and are kept afloat. They were doing okay despite the downturn in the auto industry.

The money they got for making energy efficient and alternative fuel vehicles is generally available to all automakers, not just the Big 3.

obviously you missed my "more specific" link that I posted. But believe whatever you want Dom.

Quote: "Ford increasingly has been able to pay back debt ahead of schedule in part by winning government loan guarantees that allow it to borrow funds more cheaply. It uses these government-backed loans to make investments in its operations (hence the 1.8 Billion it took from the dept. of Energy), then uses its own cash to pay down its privately issued debt." So they use government issued funds to pay off private debt. Thats called a bailout by definition lol. I mean c'mon, once you take out a loan the money is yours now aint it????

That was in the very same article that you read. You must have stopped reading once you felt like you came across something that supported your argument. Next time read the whole article.

Just because they dont call it a bailout doesnt mean its not a bailout. But its whatever you say Dom.

[#27TheDominator]

obviously you missed my "more specific" link that I posted. But believe whatever you want Dom.

Quote: "Ford increasingly has been able to pay back debt ahead of schedule in part by winning government loan guarantees that allow it to borrow funds more cheaply. It uses these government-backed loans to make investments in its operations (hence the 1.8 Billion it took from the dept. of Energy), then uses its own cash to pay down its privately issued debt." So they use government issued funds to pay off private debt. Thats called a bailout by definition lol. I mean c'mon, once you take out a loan the money is yours now aint it????

That was in the very same article that you read. You must have stopped reading once you felt like you came across something that supported your argument. Next time read the whole article.

Just because they dont call it a bailout doesnt mean its not a bailout. But its whatever you say Dom.

The quote above is DIRECTLY from your "more specific link". Maybe you should read the whole article. It's interesting and it shows that governments spend a whole lot of money on stuff we probably don't know or care about (other than the fact that the money is gone), but it doesn't show that Ford was bailed out.

Loan guarantees and loans aren't exactly the same thing. Ford never borrowed any money, they received guarantees that weren't used. The money it took from the Department of Energy was a completely different matter regarding more fuel efficient vehicles. As I said, the governments offers those loans to all manufacturers, not just US or those in trouble. For instance, Tesla and Nissan received money from the same program. Ford has used the (US and others) government for its own benefit, but it did not need the money for survival.

You seem pretty hostile about the whole thing. I haven't made any comment about your investment plans and I don't plan to, but I don't think you understand the article you posted.

[villain_the_foe]

This doesn't have much to do with your main point of gold vs. dollars,

Almost forgot.

And incase you think that I just listen to youtube vids simply to say that "im right" then here you go. The 2009 US Financial Statement for you to look through yourself. Start at page 82 (PDF page 82) for "Cash and other monetary assets" section and read for yourself. (the ENTIRE section, before you say that im wrong).

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009/09frusg.pdf

Gold and Silver are not in a bubble. It is reacting to inflation, but still heavily surpressed price wise.

[villain_the_foe]

The quote above is DIRECTLY from your "more specific link". Maybe you should read the whole article. It's interesting and it shows that governments spend a whole lot of money on stuff we probably don't know or care about (other than the fact that the money is gone), but it doesn't show that Ford was bailed out.

Loan guarantees and loans aren't exactly the same thing. Ford never borrowed any money, they received guarantees that weren't used. The money it took from the Department of Energy was a completely different matter regarding more fuel efficient vehicles. As I said, the governments offers those loans to all manufacturers, not just US or those in trouble. For instance, Tesla and Nissan received money from the same program. Ford has used the (US and others) government for its own benefit, but it did not need the money for survival.

You seem pretty hostile about the whole thing. I haven't made any comment about your investment plans and I don't plan to, but I don't think you understand the article you posted.

That time I was being sarcastic. you quoted from the very first paragraph. I know this. The problem is that you didnt read the whole thing because if you did you would have known that Ford received Billions (no millions) in money for its company. In the very article it states that Ford received billions that was used in "to invest in every day operations" and used its own profits to pay off debt. Problem is that they wouldnt have been able to do that without the loan....so what does that tell you?

Its a bailout. But like I said, believe what you want. You didnt read the article in its entirety, because again, if you did you wouldnt have made such a comment.

I'll leave the ford bailout talk at that. Im not going to waste my time if you dont read.

[#27TheDominator]

That time I was being sarcastic. you quoted from the very first paragraph. I know this. The problem is that you didnt read the whole thing because if you did you would have known that Ford received Billions (no millions) in money for its company. In the very article it states that Ford received billions that was used in "to invest in every day operations" and used its own profits to pay off debt. Problem is that they wouldnt have been able to do that without the loan....so what does that tell you?

Its a bailout. But like I said, believe what you want. You didnt read the article in its entirety, because again, if you did you wouldnt have made such a comment.

I'll leave the ford bailout talk at that. Im not going to waste my time if you dont read.

I read the article. You evidently did not. I did not deny that Ford received value and billions in US government money. First of all, maybe you should define bailout - Ford did not need to be bailed out. They were solvent and surviving. Even thriving. They had debt because they converted assets to cash and started restructuring before the bottom fell out, unlike many others. They sold off Land Rover, Jaguar and Volvo. They made some concession deals with the unions. The article you posted specifically states the following:

Meanwhile, Ford's two Detroit rivals have relatively little debt thanks to their U.S.-funded reorganizations.

Ford did not get bailed out and that is why they are stuck paying back their debt.

Second, as I have stated about three times, the billions they received were in the form of a loan from a totally different program, one available to all automakers and many energy companies. Simple question: Did the US government bail out Nissan?

[JetsFanInDenver]

this is a throw away comment but when Warren Buffett invests 10 billion in goldman sachs isn't that a bailout? When Chase decides it's the right time to buy Merrill... when Wells buys Wachovia... private money did invest where they wanted to... where they didn't (AIG, GM, Fannie/Freddie) the gov't stepped in.

even if it doesn't make a profit it was good for most that action was taken... bad for those with silver and guns in their basement but good for everyone else... the bailout started under 1 Prez and continued under another so this should not be a Dem/Rep partisan political issue. the government exists to serve many purposes and one of those purposes is to prevent economic collapse.

Warren Buffett got a special class of preferred shares for his investment in Goldman Sachs which no matter what happens to the price yield him 10% dividend annually. Had the taxpayers via TARP or any other bailout vehicle got the same sweetheart deal for bailing out Goldman and all other big banks you won't find me or any other taxpayer complaining.

I can go on about the individual takeovers of banks and their details but in the interest of saving myself time let me summarize. Those all are sweetheart deals where deposits and assets land with the banks for pennies to the dollar and the liabilities land in some black hole (the Fed) via FDIC. Unfortunately the FED is not audited.

The silver and guns people at a disadvantage are just a subset. The entire set of people who are at a disadvantage is the the SAVERS. People who spend what they can afford too, are conservative with their financial decisions, save money for the future, people who bought houses they could afford to pay for. These are the people who are finding out they are not being rewarded for their wise decisions. While people who have been irresponsible have been bailed out left and right.

I do agree this is not a political issue. There was a seamless transition from one administration to another.

[villain_the_foe]

I read the article. You evidently did not. I did not deny that Ford received value and billions in US government money. First of all, maybe you should define bailout - Ford did not need to be bailed out. They were solvent and surviving. Even thriving. They had debt because they converted assets to cash and started restructuring before the bottom fell out, unlike many others. They sold off Land Rover, Jaguar and Volvo. They made some concession deals with the unions. The article you posted specifically states the following: Ford did not get bailed out and that is why they are stuck paying back their debt.

Second, as I have stated about three times, the billions they received were in the form of a loan from a totally different program, one available to all automakers and many energy companies. Simple question: Did the US government bail out Nissan?

Okay.

Simple Answer: Why would the US govt bail out a japanese car company? lol. This is the end of our discussion.

[JetsFanInDenver]

and when the Bush Tax cuts expire Jan 1, no one will be buying anything because it will cause the economy to collapse and unemployment will surge to never before seen levels.

I for one do not believe that.

I am sure if you making that statement you have reasons.

[JetsFanInDenver]

what inflation? the only inflation that exists is predicted inflation... in reality prices are flat or decreasing.

That's not true.

While this is painting it with a broad brush but overall there is inflation in things we need and deflation in things we want!

[bitonti]

the fed is actually _trying_ to create inflation. It's not some sort of boogeyman worst case scenario. It's what hopefully happens.

[villain_the_foe]

Warren Buffett got a special class of preferred shares for his investment in Goldman Sachs which no matter what happens to the price yield him 10% dividend annually. Had the taxpayers via TARP or any other bailout vehicle got the same sweetheart deal for bailing out Goldman and all other big banks you won't find me or any other taxpayer complaining.

I can go on about the individual takeovers of banks and their details but in the interest of saving myself time let me summarize. Those all are sweetheart deals where deposits and assets land with the banks for pennies to the dollar and the liabilities land in some black hole (the Fed) via FDIC. Unfortunately the FED is not audited.

The silver and guns people at a disadvantage are just a subset. The entire set of people who are at a disadvantage is the the SAVERS. People who spend what they can afford too, are conservative with their financial decisions, save money for the future, people who bought houses they could afford to pay for. These are the people who are finding out they are not being rewarded for their wise decisions. While people who have been irresponsible have been bailed out left and right.

I do agree this is not a political issue. There was a seamless transition from one administration to another.

I agree, its a fraudulent issue amongst many political figures. "Conflict of interest" etc. Mr. Greenspan and his "genius" created the housing bubble that is bursting in front of us now. Given that he was part of the Fed then I'd have to agree that its not political. The Fed answers to no one.

However, for those people who could afford their house but are trying to use their estate as an ATM through equity then I dont feel sorry for them one bit. Thats not the purpose of a home, and if your intentions was to live in that house and not "flip" then the temporary decline in price shouldnt be much of an issue unless you're trying to use your house as an ATM machine to buy cars with for example.

I cant completely blame the banks, because people looked at housing as the new "wealth" status. But on the other hand, thats the way it was being portrayed. So my point is that you cant fool an honest man. And many men were trying to get rich on the cheap by taking out Mortgages that they didnt understand and hence, didnt know that they couldnt afford. However, banks were issuing these Mortgages KNOWING these people couldnt afford it.

Precious metals on the otherhand....now that will end up being a story for the ages.

[JetsFanInDenver]

the fed is actually _trying_ to create inflation. It's not some sort of boogeyman worst case scenario. It's what hopefully happens.

That's the sole reason for the FEDs existence. For the FED to admit there is no inflation is like a guy having to admit he is impotent!

But inflation or hyperinflation is not going to save the day!

[villain_the_foe]

the fed is actually _trying_ to create inflation. It's not some sort of boogeyman worst case scenario. It's what hopefully happens.

lol. Dude, you never seize to amaze me lmao.

[villain_the_foe]

Gold v. Cash

I am still however waiting for your response to the Gold v. Cash thingamajig. Maybe looking at that vid and reading the report and seeing things for yourself would help you with that.

I'd like you to share your thoughts on that. Because I think thats an excellent point on the manipulation of gold and the fact that its not in a bubble and for inflated/surpressed reasons HEAVILY undervalued.

I'll wait.

[Larz]

what I really want to know is;

"is it time to stock up on water filters and ammo yet ?"

[villain_the_foe]

what I really want to know is;

"is it time to stock up on water filters and ammo yet ?"

Water filters Yes.

When you take a shower and the flouride turns to steam and you inhale through the respiratory, it makes it to your blood stream and organs the quickest that way.

As for Guns, I'll pass. I might hurt myself.

[bitonti]

lol. Dude, you never seize to amaze me lmao.

here's my essential question: If you have no faith in the dollar... and want to invest in Silver and Gold... how/when are you going to sell these commodities?

Will you accept dollars for them? If not ever going to sell, it's not really an investment strategy. Or are you planning for the post apocalyptic barter economy?

[villain_the_foe]

here's my essential question: If you have no faith in the dollar... and want to invest in Silver and Gold... how/when are you going to sell these commodities?

Will you accept dollars for them? If not ever going to sell, it's not really an investment strategy. Or are you planning for the post apocalyptic barter economy?

If I had Gold and Silver I'd wait for the suppression to lighten...then I would exchange a few coins for dollars to pay off/clear domestic debts.

Speaking of suppression slowly losing grip, look what I came across today. lol.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cftcs-chilton-admits-silver-market-subject-fraudulent-influences-says-manipulation-should-be

Anyway, once debt is of no concequence to me I will be setting up a little something based on movements by the Fed/China. The Feds next meeting is November 3, and since I, like you, have interest in these meetings then I must say that my actions will be determined on if the Fed does in fact move forward with QE 2, which will piss off China. If they dont do QE 2 it will tank stocks that have risen parabolically and are depending on the cash for stimulation(google anyone??? lol). Or some sly way that they can figure out how to buy more of the nations debt without printing money, which is impossible because the Fed has no "reserves" in the first place. Their job is to print and lie about it if they have to.

Like I said, we'll see come November 3rd. After that I'll see what direction the Fed is going, which will let me know what direction im going. Just to let you know...because I dont think that you get it, when you think of markets, stop thinking domestic. Think global. Once you realize that, then you'll have a better understanding of Gold/Silver as a hedge and not some fantasy "barter economy" that you love to bring up to try and downplay the fact that you dont know anything about the market.

Truth be told though, if we keep going in the direction that we're going...that little world of yours in your head that you like to laugh at will be your reality. We'll see Nov. 3rd.

[Greenranger]

I for one do not believe that.

I am sure if you making that statement you have reasons.

It will be the largest tax hike in history, just about every federal tax is going up, combine that with the current economic situation the country is in, it will lead to a depression.

[JetsFanInDenver]

It will be the largest tax hike in history, just about every federal tax is going up, combine that with the current economic situation the country is in, it will lead to a depression.

That's very inaccurate statement.

It might be part of propaganda used in some media outlets. But its not true.

[bitonti]

If I had Gold and Silver I'd wait for the suppression to lighten...

so hold on... let's go back to the original statement.

are you willing to grant that we are NOT in either a recession or depression?

Recession is defined as 2 or more quarters of GDP reduction.

the US hasn't been in a negative growth situation since June 2009

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

[villain_the_foe]

so hold on... let's go back to the original statement.

are you willing to grant that we are NOT in either a recession or depression?

Recession is defined as 2 or more quarters of GDP reduction.

the US hasn't been in a negative growth situation since June 2009

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?Symbol=USD

lol. I dont entertain keynesian economics. Its a waste of brain power. Look, you just dont want to see it, and you've given your complete trust to the system. You'll see soon enough.

Dont say you "didnt know".

[Greenranger]

That's very inaccurate statement.

It might be part of propaganda used in some media outlets. But its not true.

Taxpayers currently in the 10% bracket will pay 15%, Taxpayers currently in the 15% bracket will pay 15%, Taxpayers currently in the 25% bracket will pay 28%, Taxpayers currently in the 28% bracket will pay 31%, Taxpayers currently in the 33% bracket will pay 36%, Taxpayers currently in the 35% bracket will pay 39.6%, the Marriage Tax penalty returns, the Death Tax returns at 55% of the estate you leave behind, the standard deduction for children will be slashed in half to only $500 per child, families caring for other dependents will see their tax credits reduced from $3000 to $2400. Today the top federal tax on long-term capital gains and dividends is at 15%. However, in January the maximum tax on long-term capital gains rises to 20% and the top rate on dividends surges to an investment-crippling 39.6%, and Payroll taxes are set to increase as much as 10%. Currently small businesses can expense out equipment purchases up to $250,000, that will be slashed all the way down to $25,000, larger businesses can expense only half of their equipment purchases, which will suppress expansions and hiring. Then there's the CommieCare crap that come into effect. You won't be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Then there's the "Special Needs Kids Tax", a provision that imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500, while currently there is no federal government limit.

But thats not a lot, its just propaganda. How could it possibly do any damage?

[bitonti]

lol. I dont entertain keynesian economics. Its a waste of brain power.

it's not keynesian. it's just economics. You keep calling this a recession, it's not technically true... overall... looking around, it's really not that bad. There's reams of historical data and there were many situations that were worse. It was worse in the early 80's for example.

anecdotally I go to a casino or a mall and it's packed with consumers... this isn't the bread lines...

[Greenranger]

it's not keynesian. it's just economics. You keep calling this a recession, it's really not that bad. There's reams of historical data and there were many situations that were worse. It was worse in the early 80's for example.

The thing is, it got better in the 80's. This is going to get much worse next year.

[JetsFanInDenver]

Taxpayers currently in the 10% bracket will pay 15%, Taxpayers currently in the 15% bracket will pay 15%, Taxpayers currently in the 25% bracket will pay 28%, Taxpayers currently in the 28% bracket will pay 31%, Taxpayers currently in the 33% bracket will pay 36%, Taxpayers currently in the 35% bracket will pay 39.6%, the Marriage Tax penalty returns, the Death Tax returns at 55% of the estate you leave behind, the standard deduction for children will be slashed in half to only $500 per child, families caring for other dependents will see their tax credits reduced from $3000 to $2400. Today the top federal tax on long-term capital gains and dividends is at 15%. However, in January the maximum tax on long-term capital gains rises to 20% and the top rate on dividends surges to an investment-crippling 39.6%, and Payroll taxes are set to increase as much as 10%. Currently small businesses can expense out equipment purchases up to $250,000, that will be slashed all the way down to $25,000, larger businesses can expense only half of their equipment purchases, which will suppress expansions and hiring. Then there's the CommieCare crap that come into effect. You won't be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Then there's the "Special Needs Kids Tax", a provision that imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500, while currently there is no federal government limit.

But thats not a lot, its just propaganda. How could it possibly do any damage?

I will leave you with this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html

Five myths about the Bush tax cuts

By William G. Gale

Sunday, August 1, 2010; B03

The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, known as the Bush tax cuts, are set to expire Dec. 31, and the fight over what to do is increasingly heated. Should the tax cuts expire, as some Democrats have said? Should they be extended, as most Republicans maintain? Or does the answer lie somewhere in between, as the Obama administration, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, has argued in recent weeks?

The cuts lowered tax rates across the board on income, dividends and capital gains; eventually eliminated the estate tax; further lowered burdens on married couples, parents and the working poor; and increased tax credits for education and retirement savings. Obama's proposal would extend most of these reductions, allowing only those for individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000 to expire.

Complicating the debate is a gloomy economic and fiscal outlook, one that is decidedly different from the rosy scenario that prevailed at the beginning of the last decade. That outlook has given rise to a number of stubborn myths about what extending the Bush tax cuts would -- or wouldn't -- do.

1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.

As a stimulus measure, a one- or two-year extension has one thing going for it -- it would be a big intervention and would provide at least some boost to the economy. But a good stimulus policy can't just be big; it should also offer a lot of bang for the buck. That is, each dollar of government spending or tax cuts should have the largest possible effect on the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office and other authorities, extending all of the Bush tax cuts would have a small bang for the buck, the equivalent of a 10- to 40-cent increase in GDP for every dollar spent.

Why? As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts.

2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

One of the most common objections to letting the cuts expire for those in the highest tax brackets is that it would hurt small businesses. As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently put it, allowing the cuts to lapse would amount to "a job-killing tax hike on small business during tough economic times."

This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.

3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.

A main selling point for the cuts was that, by offering lower marginal tax rates on wages, dividends and capital gains, they would encourage investment and therefore boost economic growth. But when it comes to fostering growth, this isn't the whole story. The tax cuts also raised government debt -- and higher government debt leads to higher interest rates. If estimates of this relationship -- by former Bush Council of Economic Advisers chair Glenn Hubbard and Federal Reserve economist Eric Engen, and byoutgoing Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and myself -- are accurate, then the tax cuts have raised the cost of making new investments. As the economy recovers and private borrowing rises, the upward pressure on interest rates is likely to grow even stronger.

I have used standard growth and investment formulas to calculate that the overall effect of the Bush tax cuts on economic growth has therefore been negative -- and it will continue to be negative if the cuts are extended.

4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year.

5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.

One theory holds that the country's long-term budget shortfall is "just" an entitlements problem, the result of rising costs associated with growing Social Security rolls and increased health-care spending (via Medicare and Medicaid). Republicans like this idea because it plays down tax increases as a potential solution. Democrats like it because it makes the recent health-care package seem like even more of a triumph.

But it just isn't true. The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020.

According to these same projections, the yearly deficit would rise to 6 to 7 percent of GDP by 2020. The Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP.

Compounding the problem: By increasing the government's debt, the tax cuts have already led to higher interest payments on that debt. So even if all of the cuts expire on Dec. 31, we will still be paying for them for years to come.

[THE ILK]

More propaganda...

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

[villain_the_foe]

it's not keynesian. it's just economics. You keep calling this a recession, it's not technically true... overall... looking around, it's really not that bad. There's reams of historical data and there were many situations that were worse. It was worse in the early 80's for example.

anecdotally I go to a casino or a mall and it's packed with consumers... this isn't the bread lines...

ITS A RECESSION BITONTI! You cannot have a jobless recovery. What part of that do you not understand? we went through this like a month ago. You cannot have your domestic companies leaving for foreign lands, have nothing to manufacture and expect a recovery...hence the near 20% unemployment rate.

Gold and Silver are being suppressed. Even Judges are retiring and making statements about it.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/blog/entry/2554/

Quote: "Judge Painter said that his colleague on the bench, Judge Bruce Levine, had entered into a secret agreement with former CFTC chair Wendy Gramm to rule against investors in every single instance." No wonder why the CFTC (who is supposed to put light to fraud) has a horrible prosecution record.

You're kidding me bit. like I said, you just dont want to acknowledge it. To each his own. You can think commodities (silver/gold) are stupid if you like. Like Rex always says..."we'll see about that".

[Greenranger]

1. Extending the tax cuts would be a good way to stimulate the economy.

Never said it would stimulate the economy, I said raising them would hurt the economy.

2. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would hurt small businesses.

One of the most common objections to letting the cuts expire for those in the highest tax brackets is that it would hurt small businesses. As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently put it, allowing the cuts to lapse would amount to "a job-killing tax hike on small business during tough economic times."

This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.

And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.

Everyone's taxes are going up. He has no intention of extending anything.

3. Making the tax cuts permanent will lead to long-term growth.

A main selling point for the cuts was that, by offering lower marginal tax rates on wages, dividends and capital gains, they would encourage investment and therefore boost economic growth. But when it comes to fostering growth, this isn't the whole story. The tax cuts also raised government debt -- and higher government debt leads to higher interest rates. If estimates of this relationship -- by former Bush Council of Economic Advisers chair Glenn Hubbard and Federal Reserve economist Eric Engen, and byoutgoing Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and myself -- are accurate, then the tax cuts have raised the cost of making new investments. As the economy recovers and private borrowing rises, the upward pressure on interest rates is likely to grow even stronger.

I have used standard growth and investment formulas to calculate that the overall effect of the Bush tax cuts on economic growth has therefore been negative -- and it will continue to be negative if the cuts are extended.

That is on the Fed.

4. The Bush tax cuts are the main cause of the budget deficit.

Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

The main culprit was the recession -- and the responses it inspired. As the economy shrank, tax revenue plummeted. The cost of the bank bailouts and stimulus packages further added to the deficit. In fact, an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that the Bush tax cuts account for only about 25 percent of the deficit this year.

Of course the tax cuts are not the main cause of the deficit, massive increases in spending the last decade is.

5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.

One theory holds that the country's long-term budget shortfall is "just" an entitlements problem, the result of rising costs associated with growing Social Security rolls and increased health-care spending (via Medicare and Medicaid). Republicans like this idea because it plays down tax increases as a potential solution. Democrats like it because it makes the recent health-care package seem like even more of a triumph.

But it just isn't true. The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020.

According to these same projections, the yearly deficit would rise to 6 to 7 percent of GDP by 2020. The Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP.

Compounding the problem: By increasing the government's debt, the tax cuts have already led to higher interest payments on that debt. So even if all of the cuts expire on Dec. 31, we will still be paying for them for years to come.

That is wrong. It is an entitlement problem because we spend over $1.5 TRILLION a year on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone. Half our Budget. But I have an idea, CUT SPENDING! Throw the Socialist Tyrant out, throw the Neo-Cons out, obey the Constitution, privatize Social Security, end Medicaid, privatize those on Medicare and stop new from coming on, and end the Welfare State altogether. Then replace the Progressive income Tax with the Fair Tax.

Plus, the whole article focus's just on the income tax. What about the rest of the taxes?

[Greenranger]

More propaganda...

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

Shhhhhh, not allowed to talk ill of Princess Pelosi.

[JetsFanInDenver]

Never said it would stimulate the economy, I said raising them would hurt the economy.

Everyone's taxes are going up. He has no intention of extending anything.

That is on the Fed.

Of course the tax cuts are not the main cause of the deficit, massive increases in spending the last decade is.

That is wrong. It is an entitlement problem because we spend over $1.5 TRILLION a year on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone. Half our Budget. But I have an idea, CUT SPENDING! Throw the Socialist Tyrant out, throw the Neo-Cons out, obey the Constitution, privatize Social Security, end Medicaid, privatize those on Medicare and stop new from coming on, and end the Welfare State altogether. Then replace the Progressive income Tax with the Fair Tax.

Plus, the whole article focus's just on the income tax. What about the rest of the taxes?

1. How do you know anybody's intention. I don't. But there was a proposal out there that made a lot of sense given our situation.

2. Fed is not some magic genie.

3. The tax cuts are not the only cause, but they are one of the causes!

4. If the argument was for eliminating Social Security i can see some benefits. But privatizing would do nothing! What will you invest that money in. Bitonti's stocks ?

[JetsFanInDenver]

Shhhhhh, not allowed to talk ill of Princess Pelosi.

Just when i am give you the benefit of doubt of being a serious, reasoned contributor to this thread you prove beyond doubt which side you are coming from.

[THE ILK]

Just when i am give you the benefit of doubt of being a serious, reasoned contributor to this thread you prove beyond doubt which side you are coming from.

What should he do? Purpose another $5 Trillion increase.

[JetsFanInDenver]

More propaganda...

Debt Has Increased $5 Trillion Since Speaker Pelosi Vowed, ‘No New Deficit Spending’

That comes back to what i was saying originally and not many paid attention to because it was viewed from respective political lense.

Both parties are drinking from the same fountain.

Over the last decade we have had both parties have their respective hands at the tiller. And our debt has balloned like crazy!

The problem is most people look it from one political parties viewpoint or the other!