Posted on 08/27/2005 3:14:08 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Are you saying that all these "401K's, IRA's, stock brokerage accounts, mutual fund holdings, direct stock investments [...]" some day might be worth no more than paper on which they are printed? At least gold will buy you some food?
I'm not excusing the irresponsible spending by the Republicans, but Greenspan is more a threat to our economy than the debt.
We did depend on inflation to cancel out the debt. After WW II debt, starting college salaries in 1949 were $2,500 per year now $50,000 [20 x]. Foreign nations are buying the debt. Maybe with our military we can just say screw you and cancel the debt or we can maybe beg for debt forgiveness as a 3rd world country.
People do not really care about the nation's debt. But people do care about what they can purchase. Today the means to purchase anything is available to anybody. All you need to qualify for a loan is a job. Every day people are urged to buy new or used vehicles by means of easy credit. "Nobody is turned away," say the television commercials. Mortgage brokers are saying the same thing to people every day. Anybody can buy anything. Using credit. Which brings me to my next point.
Far greater in importance is our personal debt. I know a guy that earns about $ 35,000 a year and he just bought a $ 200,000 house. Interest rates are about 3.9% or lower on ARM loans. Easy credit, means easy money. Easy money multiplies itself through the economy about three times (M3). Some economists believe that is really M4 today with interest rates so low. $1 spent in the economy really means a multiplied total of $ 3. With the current 'boom' (or 'bubble') in real estate, that $ 1 is $ 4. Inflationary pressures are working away in the economy. But nobody really cares as long as they can make their monthly payments.
What happens if the economy stumbles? Greenspan can always lower interest rates again. Or, is that what got us into this mess at the outset? Not for me to worry, anyway. Nobody cares about my opinions.
We've have an unprecedented boom for 25 years, thanks largely to Volker and Greenspan Ronald Reagan.
When will you learn that Presidents have almost nothing to do with the economy?
Learn how your country works before you correct anybody.
On the one hand we have two micromanagers of the economy who believe that things like wealth, growth and full employment (whatever that's defined to be) cause inflation. On the other hand we have a great American who slashed regulations, cut taxes, had confidence in Americans and empowered them. I know which one I'm taking.
Not at all. Just like the CPI is a cheat, so is any study of "savings rates" - they only count "savings accounts" as savings.
If you have $100,000 in a money market account, it doesn't count as "savings"
Firstly, they do not "micromanage" the economy; they give it a slight push in one direction or another. And, secondly, nobody has ever said that wealth causes inflation.
When you want tickets to a game that are no longer on sale, you pay a premium, right? That is, the price of the tickets goes up --- inflation. The same applies to labor. When employment is full, no more labor is available, and whatever you, the employer, can get costs you more (usually through overtime paid at a higher rate). That increases the cost of goods you produce, and you recover that costs through higher prices charged to your customers. In turn, the one that purchased your goods --- say car parts --- paid more and now has to recover his cost by charging more for cars. And so those higher prices trickle down through the economy. Full employment creates inflation.
What problem do you have with that?
Presidents do play a role in putting certain issues in focus. But it is the Congress, not presidents, that slashes or raises taxes and/or regulation.
Presidents to do not influence the economy: Congress and the Fed do --- the former through fiscal policy (budget, spending) and the latter through monetary policy (interest rates charged to bans, reserve requirements, etc.)
I think the IRS should look into the "top 100" on the Forbes List to see if their "legal" tax shelters have been abused.
For example, I think that capping tax-free income from "tax-exempt" bonds at, say, $1,000,000 would erase some of the unfair advantage that inherited "old money" seems to have over hard-working (taxable) "new money".
Such a standard might require TeREsa Kerry to film a few "ketchup" commercials in order to maintain her otherwise un-deserved "sans-souci" life-style.
We can stop right there. That's a market price increase, not inflation.
Yes, the Republican Congress (House and Senate) and President approved this.
There are lies, d**m lies and statistics.
Leaving out the types of savings you mentioned may not be honest -- but it sure does make for stimulating "sound-bites"...
If there were a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, the national debt would increase at "warp speed".
All the special interest groups that dominate the Democratic party would demand and would receive their pay-offs.
People don't want to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and anything the government gives, it first has to take away from the people.
Apparently 2/3 of the people are getting something from the government and that's why they don't want to see spending cut.
If you spend your own money on yourself,
you care how much you spend and how well you spend it.
If you spend your own money on someone else, you care how much you spend, but you don't care how well it is spent.
If you spend someone else's money on yourself, you don't care how much you spend, but you do care how well it is spent.
And finally, if you spend someone else's money on someone else, you don't care how much you spend, and you don't care how well it is spent. That is government.
This article must be a big lie . . .
after all, President Bush can throw $15 billion to Africa and forgive most of the foreign debt owed to us, plus throw away other billions on third-world cesspools, plus spend $200 billion plus on police action nation building in Iraq.
And, the UN says we should give 7% of our GDP to the "poor nations".
So, obviously, we have money to burn, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.