|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
How much extra money did people have available to spend? How much money
did producers/manufactures save? The cost of energy is in what you eat,
what you wear, how you heat or cool your home or place of business. Look
at Murphy's intermarket analysis of energy price vs. the SnP. When you
return to the economy $15 x 16, 000,000 Barrels of Oil per day, you return
how many billions of dollars per day? Money that can be passed along in
increased consumption, revenues to producers, additional employment, pay
raises to workers, development of new product lines -- the general economic
stimulus claimed by advocates of tax cuts.
(And before any one starts on the Kennedy tax cut -- Remember the
Eisenhower stimulus package?)
At 07:32 PM 5/26/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>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/
|