|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
How would that increase revenues, which went up substantially?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Marchand" <c_r@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
> Can't let this pass -- the Reagan tax cuts have become a mantra of
> Republican policy. Fact is the tax cut of 1986 was accompanied by the
> collapse of oil prices. In January '86 prices went from over $25/BO to
$10
> or so. The US was using around 16,000,000 BO PER DAY. Do the math.
>
> Charles Marchand
>
> At 04:14 PM 5/26/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> >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=105
3
>
>966084%3eM=247865.3355058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705001779:HM/A=148
2
> >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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
|