|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Reagan spent the money -- not Congress. He forced HUGE defense and related
spending, and ran up the largest deficits ever as a result.
This congress-spending stuff is a myth of the Reagan years, propagated by
those involved, and also those who don't know anything about economics, but
believe anything they are told by their own politically correct info
sources. Reagan practiced Keynes theory big time, but preached supply side.
Biggest con job ever. Congress actually did not want to spend as much money
at that time. Revenue went way up -- exactly according to Keynesian
principles.
It may have been the right thing to do, but the misrepresentation was (and
is) very cynical, and plays on the educational ignorance of the USA public.
If a so-called "liberal" (the reduction of all viewpoints to a
one-dimensional right vs. left alignment is in itself idiotic, worthy only
of the Fox channel) had proposed the same programs at that time, he would
have been blocked by the Republicans.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sptrader" <sptrader@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
> That's what happened in the Regan years- revenue went way up due to the
tax
> cuts, it's just that congress spent the additional revenue Plus alot more.
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BobsKC" <bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 2:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
>
>
> > I believe his thinking is that if you reduce unemployment via the
creation
> > of jobs via spending by the public, you get a lot more tax money coming
> in.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > At 12:19 PM 5/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > >He has also stated a commitment to reduce the budget deficit. It
remains
> > >to be seen how the tax reduction he has argued for would accomplish
that.
> > >I haven't seen a single analysis that explains how this tax cut will
> > >reduce the deficit.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >DanG
> > >
> > >Kent Rollins wrote:
> > >>How is it inconsistent? First, he cut taxes. Then he cut taxes
> > >>again. Seems consistent to me.
> > >>
> > >>Kent Rollins
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>----- Original Message -----
> > >>From: <mailto:TheGonch@xxxxxxxxxxx>Dan Goncharoff
> > >>To: <mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 4:47 AM
> > >>Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
> > >>
> > >>Bush may (or may not) be smart politically, but there is clearly a
> > >>difference between his foreign policy team, which incorporates a
> > >>diversity of views, and his economic team, where very member of the
> > >>original team has quit or been pushed out. Bush seems to be lacking
the
> > >>economic policy equivalent of Rice, someone who defines a longer-term
> > >>consistent message. Until he gets one, I will not trust Bush's policy
to
> > >>be well thought-out.
> > >>
> > >>That to me is the biggest reason to be worried about the future of the
> US
> > >>economy -- a president (or administration) that doesn't understand
what
> > >>it is doing can cause a lot of damage.
> > >>
> > >>Regards
> > >>DanG
> > >>
> > >>Kent Rollins wrote:
> > >>> >The current economic condition is SYSTEMIC....and thus resistant to
> > >>> "Quick fixes".
> > >>>
> > >>>Three years of a down economy is not "quick". And "resistant" is not
> > >>>impermeable.
> > >>>
> > >>> >Bush fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and Lindsay) because they
told
> > >>> him you can't cut taxes, wage expensive war, and continue sponsoring
a
> > >>> huge, costly bureaucracy in Washington....it's economic suicide in
the
> > >>> long run.
> > >>> >That's why he fired them....but THEY were right.
> > >>>
> > >>>If O'Neill and Lindsay were in your opinion right, then why do you
> refer
> > >>>to them as Laurel and Hardy. This is part of your problem, MASSIVE
> > >>>Mark. You are overly critical of everything. We're either going to
> > >>>have MASSIVE inflation or MASSIVE deflation. You don't care which as
> > >>>long as it is MASSIVE and destructive.
> > >>>
> > >>> >These deficit projections are just the tip-of-the-iceberg.......and
> > >>> incredibly, there is still no talk of government cut-backs in
spending
> > >>> programs and transfer payments.....just incredible !
> > >>>
> > >>>Bush is smart politically. There was a study done in the late 80's
> that
> > >>>said for every new dollar of tax money brought to the government by
> > >>>economic growth, Washington spent $1.30 (or some figure like
> > >>>that). That was the 80's. I doubt things have changed. Bush is
> > >>>choking of Washington's money supply. That's the only way to get
them
> > >>>to reduce spending. It's the only way PERIOD. You seem to think
that
> > >>>these bigger deficits are a problem. Recently, there was a book
> > >>>published that studied the effects of large national debts on
> > >>>countries. England in the 1800's had a national debt that was 300%
of
> > >>>GDP. THAT'S MASSIVE, MARK. A number even you would appreciate.
They
> > >>>built up that debt thru wars and empire building. But it wasn't a
> > >>>problem for England. They paid it off and now they are just fine.
> > >>>
> > >>>The only way to make Tiny Daschle say "Well, I guess we don't have
> money
> > >>>for new social-dependency (aka vote-buying) programs." is to put him
in
> > >>>a deficit position. What are the Dumocrats really complaining about
> > >>>today? Listen carefully. They are complaining that they can't enact
a
> > >>>drug benenfits program (aka social dependency program, aka
vote-buying
> > >>>program). They are complaining that they can't make healthcare free
> for
> > >>>everyone. They don't want to pay down the debt. They want to take
our
> > >>>money from us and use it to make us dependent on a social welfare
> > >>>State. Despite the fact that we know socialism and welfare
> failed...MASSIVELY.
> > >>>
> > >>>The only way...THE ONLY WAY...to cut Washington's spending habit is
to
> > >>>take away their money. And THAT is exactly what Nucular George is
> doing.
> > >>>
> > >>>Do you see anything in the world today that is going right, MASSIVE
> > >>>Mark? Anything positive?
> > >>>
> > >>>Kent Rollins
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>>From: <mailto:mar.ko@xxxxxxxxxxx>Mark Simms
> > >>>To: <mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 12:55 AM
> > >>>Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
> > >>>
> > >>>I'm not thinking MASSIVE here, only LONG-TERM.
> > >>>Part of my bearishness comes from the current high PE Ratios for
> > >>>one....there just seems to be so much ANTICIPATION for a big recovery
> here...
> > >>>I don't see it, quite frankly.
> > >>>Bush fired Laurel and Hardy (O'Neill and Lindsay) because they told
> him
> > >>>you can't cut taxes, wage expensive war, and continue sponsoring a
> huge,
> > >>>costly bureaucracy in Washington....it's economic suicide in the long
> run.
> > >>>Bush did not want to hear this....moreover, he's
"dumb"...economically.
> > >>>That's why he fired them....but THEY were right.
> > >>>These deficit projections are just the tip-of-the-iceberg.......and
> > >>>incredibly, there is still no talk of government cut-backs in
spending
> > >>>programs and transfer payments.....just incredible !
> > >>>Unfortunately, Bush may be out of office before this is proven
> correct.....
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>From: Kent Rollins
> > >>>>[<mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >>>>Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 8:16 AM
> > >>>>To: <mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>Subject: Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
> > >>>>
> > >>>>How can YOU ignore everything besides the tech sector? If
everything
> > >>>>but the tech sector has turned the corner on the economy, that
sounds
> > >>>>like a good thing to me.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>With respect to the "derivatives bubble", prove to me that there is
> > >>>>one. This is the first I've heard about it. Lately, Warren Buffet
> has
> > >>>>been saying a lot of stuff with which I don't agree.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>FYI, consumers have been repairing their balance sheets as well.
> Sorry
> > >>>>I can't remember the numbers on that one either. It's not as
dramatic
> > >>>>as the improvements on the corporate side, but it was an
improvement.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>So you're joining Simms on predicting MASSIVE Great Depression II.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Kent Rollins
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>From: <mailto:bradcline@xxxxxxxxx>Brad Cline
> > >>>>To: <mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 2:08 AM
> > >>>>Subject: RE: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
> > >>>>
> > >>>>How can you ignore the tech sector? That's like pro forma
accounting.
> > >>>>If I didn't have to make my house payment everything is rosy. The
> > >>>>markets have seen their lows only if the derivitivies bubble doesn't
> > >>>>burst, or consumer debt doesn't come home to roost. Warren Buffet
has
> > >>>>said that derivities are a "time bomb" waiting to happen. Maybe the
> fed
> > >>>>will be able to balance everything out over time but I wouldn't bet
on
> it.
> > >>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>From: Kent Rollins
> > >>>>>[<mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >>>>>Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:12 PM
> > >>>>>To: <mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>>>Subject: Re: Re[3]: [RT] spx daily
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Corporations have been doing balance sheet repair for 2 years
> > >>>>>now. AT&T alone has eliminate over $50 BILLION in debt. I saw on
> the
> > >>>>>tube last week someone who had a stunning statistic on what the S&P
> > >>>>>profits are if you ignore the tech sector. Wish I could remember
> what
> > >>>>>that statistic was. And the tech sector will fall in line soon
> > >>>>>enough. You are stuck in a rut. The markets have seen their
> > >>>>>lows. Shake it off.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Kent Rollins
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
>
>>>><mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders-unsubscribe@
> yahoogroups.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > >>>><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
>
>>><mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders-unsubscribe@x
> ahoogroups.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > >>><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
>
>>><mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders-unsubscribe@x
> ahoogroups.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > >>><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
>
>><mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders-unsubscribe@xx
> hoogroups.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > >><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >
>
>><mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>realtraders-unsubscribe@xx
> hoogroups.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > >><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > >
> >
>
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=247865.3355058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705001
>
779:HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1053966084%3eM=2
>
47865.3355058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705001779:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1053
>
966084%3eM=247865.3355058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705001779:HM/A=1482
> 387/R=2>cb338.jpg
> > >cb367.jpg
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|