Re: OT: Rants on election

The GOP. At least the Democrats have the balls to tell people that they've got to pay for their pork.

Right. Republicans have been eliminating taxes that were levied by law, and taxing, instead by the evaporation of the U.S. dollar by paying for everything with borrowed money. And that is a tax that cannot be eliminated by passing another law.

Every dollar you have saved and every dollar you, your children or grandchildren will ever make in the future will buy less because of this hidden tax and irrevocable tax.

Remember that whether or not you get the bill first, your government taxes you when they spend money.

This Republican administration has been spending unbelievable amounts of money while pretending that they have lowered taxes when they have just made them unaccountable.

That's inflation. We've always had that. Buy real estate.

Yes.

Congress passes the budget, and levies taxes. The Executive does neither.

John

That's been a Democrat-controlled Congress for how many years?

Why are liberals so ignorant?

...Jim Thompson

Congress passes about 14 or so appropriations bills annually for most Federal spending. The President can veto them.

For example, in one of the fiscal years of the current president's first term, he requested an $8B "Energy Bill" and got from Congress a $14B one. He did not veto it and ask Congress for something leaner.

Or are taxation and spending not issues to consider when voting for President - only to consider when voting for congresscritters?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

p,

It takes two parties to have a stalemate, so don't unduly blame the Dems!

Besides, there's an inertia built in to these sorts of things. Otherwise, Greenspan would have stopped the housing bubble long ago. Think about it. It will come to you....

But just in case it doesn't... From the Turkey's point of view, life couldn't be better - right up until Thanksgiving day.

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

There not ignorant. They just intentionally want to ruin the world...

"Turkey"? Isn't that vernacular for liberal ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

You're kidding, right? The loose money policy has generated a glut of excess of residential and commercial property. If all goes well, it might take a year or two to burn through the inventory. But prices will remain depressed fr significantly longer.

That's if all goes well. If the economy remains sluggish, we might end up with a situation like Japan had when its speculation bubble burst. A stagnant economy for over a decade while they refused to cut their losses and move on.

The government made a halfway correct move in taking over Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. It would have been better if they'd waited for them to go Chapter 7 and then purchased selected assets (mortgage contracts, furniture, etc.) and left the bankrupt remains with the executives' employment contracts.

You're a jerk! Face it. Without a government to _give_ you what you want, you'd be a bum on the street corner.

...Jim Thompson

Super! Now is the time to buy.

John

They call it price inflation, but it is really fiat currency devaluation, and it has happened only when a dollar ceased to be defined in relation to any thing of value and became based on only (inversely) on how much money the government borrows (prints). The government is seriously and intentionally underestimating the current rate of inflation it has generated with its borrowing. This is necessary to keep it from having to borrow even more to cover all the inflation corrected promises it has made.

They pass the legislation and spend more than they have, together. And they all lie about the amount and cause of inflation and how it is really a tax.

Since it's the only game in town, and neither you nor I can change it, the thing to do is accept the situation and deal with it.

Actually, all of life is like that.

John

snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:

the real question is WHY did he not veto it? Because there was some necessary or critical funding in there along with the waste.(perhaps money to support our troops...)

Yes, this has basically been the case since Nixon. During the Nixon years the supply of money exceeded the amount of metal that could back it up. The costs of the Vietnam war were coming due. Nixon was faced with the choice of the US having to take a hit to pay of the debt or to devalue and duck out from under the debt. He took the latter.

Remember what they spend on matters too. Investments in infrastructure have a value that can support the increased money supply but things like the Vietnam war were like making a bonfire out of the wealth.

It's impossible to "pay off the debt", short of reintroducing colonization and pillaging the Third World. When an entire nation has over-consumed and under-invested, the deed is done. We can't tax ourselves enough to pay ourselves back. So we inflate the currency and sort of forget the whole thing.

This whole tax/spend/debt/government/politics thing is silly, looking at the wrong end of the problem. What matters is productivity versus consumption, a fundamental idea like conservation of energy.

The US won't adopt the policies that would result in longterm productivity increases because of the short-term outlook and business-hating sentiments of the public, who elect morons to go to Washington on their behalf.

But as an environment to live (and design electronics) in, it's not bad at all. Just don't play their game.

John

ixon

ixon was faced

Allow me to just slightly modify a statment you made...

...the few in power are greedy. When it comes to transfer of wealth, the average American is powerless to do anything about it, short of becoming an expert in finance. This powerless situation, unfortunately, extends to the voting booth.

The nations' wealth, has, rather quickly, morphed from an industrial - manufacturing blue collar base to derivative financing and "paper" wealth. Without which, in the long term, probably won't work, -- or if it does, will only do so on the backs of hard-working Americans.

I submit, greed itself is boundless, but the framework in which it operates is not. Eventually, the rich will have all the money that can be extracted. (housing, taxes, wars, etc...) When they fail to re-invest, the mechanisms that create that transfer will fail.

I did. ...though I also sold last year.

No, totally wrong in my humble opinion. The people elect representatives who mostly do what they want. That's the dangerous kind of greed, the Robin Hood thing to tax the rich and give to the poor (where "rich" is defined as "anybody who makes more than me") and bash business. Businesses compete; most citizens and unions don't want to.

What's new is that US workers are now competing with the world, and they don't like that. Populist anti-business policies (ie, punishing companies for creating jobs) have exported a lot of blue-collar and service jobs, increasing the rich-poor spread.

The rich and the pension funds are the only people who do invest. Most people consume all of their earnings, if not more.

But technology, courtesy us engineers, has raised productivity to the level that most everybody in the country could be happy. Granted, a lot of people don't know how.

John