|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
(1) Actually, the president does "spend" the money, as the executive
branch of government, to be precise. Congress "authorizes" it. But that is
to trivialize a much more complex issue than merely reciting constitutional
authority. By the logic of Congress controlling all, Congress -- and not
Reagan -- was responsible for the defense buildup that broke the USSR.
Hmmmm...
Also, by this logic, it must be Congress that is responsible for the
spending $70B or $100B (or whatever the number is) that the Iraq war et al
will cost.
No, the president has much to say about the legislative agenda and what
actually gets approved and spent, and it was defense that made up the
biggest ramp-up in spending during the Reagan years. (Gee...he must have
been trying to veto the Congressional authorization of that defense
spending, and just couldn't stop it, no matter what he tried!)
(2) Regarding the government revenue impact of tax cuts...if we were not
an economy loaded with debt, then the added tax cuts might stimulate more
economic activity. But, in light of the possible personal and corporate use
of tax cut moneys to either pay down debt or to improve balance sheets
(statistically speaking), rather than generate demand, the impact on
government revenue may not be positive.
(3) Interesting will be the conflict between lowering interest rates, the
related weakening dollar, the need to attract capital to finance government
spending, and deflationary forces. Most of these factors seem inflationary,
but we seem to be going the other way. We are not in a macro-economic
vacuum, and the limits of our ability to control the monetary system may be
within sight.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sptrader" <sptrader@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
> and the congress was controlled by the Democrats during the Reagan years.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hill, Ernest E" <ernie.hill@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:09 PM
> Subject: RE: [RT] spx daily
>
>
> > No President Republican or Democrat has ever spent "the money" only
> > congress can fund federal spending. Gov. 101.
> >
> > E
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snpforecasts/
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Johnson [mailto:dsj000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:32 PM
> > To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [RT] spx daily
> >
> >
> > 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-unsubscr
> > >>>>ibe@
> > > 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-unsubscri
> > >>>be@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-unsubscri
> > >>>be@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-unsubscrib
> > >>e@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-unsubscrib
> > >>e@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=170
> > >5001
> > >
> > 779:HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1053966084%3
> > eM=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/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ******************************************************************
> > This email and any files transmitted with it from the ElPaso
> > Corporation are confidential and intended solely for the
> > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> > If you have received this email in error please notify the
> > sender.
> > ******************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
|