McCain & Social Security

[Peter1469]

I *never* went to an African school on economics 

When Clinton pushed the tax increases thru in 92 (or 93 whenever it was) EVERY REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS SAID THE SAME DAMN THING YOU JUST SAID.

And it didn't happen. The economy grew, incomes rose, revenue went up and the BUDGET WAS BALANCED.

Again you are maintaining your keen ability to lump political activity and economic activity into the same mix and fail to notice that the effects of political and economic forces do not act in tandem. 

In other words the economy can increase in the face of poor political policy, just as the economy can do poorly even with good political economic policy.  Clinton benefited from an economic bubble that benefited the economy across the board, but primarily in the technical fields, and even more particular in the computer tech field.  Much of this business would never have been possible if the government regulations of the 1970s were still in place.  (I would not be surprised if Clinton would have eliminated these regulations has Reagan not already done it.)

You cannot even consider the possibility that the Clinton economy would have grown more had the tax increases been less, or not there at all. 

Tax revenues under Clinton did not rise because taxes rose.  Tax revenues rose because the economy expanded. 

Had Clinton not benefited from the prosperous economy that he did, do you truly believe that the tax increases would have been beneficial?  If so, explain. 

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

Actually the economy was pretty bad at the time Clinton took office ... it was one reason why poppa bush lost. Many of the bad news reports on the economy today claim that it's the worse since the 80's or early 90's. Are you even old enough to know what it was like back then

Can you name any regulations that existed in the 80's that prevented the internet boom from occurring during St. Ronnie's or poppa bush's presidency The internet was around during that time, but primarily was used by universities. It wasn't until the cost of computers came down to the point where everyone could afford them that the internet became the killer app. Nothing St. Ronnie, poppa bush or Clinton did caused that to happen.

[Peter1469]

I had already served four years in the infantry by the time Clinton won the election.  The economy was nowhere near as bad as was commonly believed and it was turning around before Clinton ever set foot in the White House.  You are correct about the Dot Com boom- it could never have occured during Reagan's administration for the reason that you cite. 

However, you fail in your analysis by concluding that because technology could not allow the Dot Com boom under Reagan then Reagan did not help the Dot Com boom.  Reagan cut the regulations on business that stifled business growth.  The regulations from the 1970s, not 1980s, would have prevented investment in Dot Com companies precisely because they increased the cost of doing business to such an extent that no sane person who have invested money in a company that had no profit margin.   

You are embarrassing yourself now. 

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

but ... but ... Clinton raised the capital gains tax with his tax increase in 93. That didn't prevent people from investing in any insane dot.com idea that proliferated during that time period.

Of course conservatives want to claim the economy was not as bad as it was in 92 ... conservative idealogy demands it. Those that think otherwise are just whiners 

[Peter1469]

The economy was what it was in 1992- and it was not as bad as the media made it out to be.  Just as it is not as bad today as the media makes it out to be.

Were you one of those losers that were convinced that the market was going to crash last week?  Did you pull you money out of the market on Tuesday after listening to the news coverage of doom and gloom?  (A lot of people did since over $1.5B was transferred from stocks to municipal bonds on Wednesday morning.)  If so, did you notice that you sold extremely low and that two days later all the losses were replaced by a 500 point gain?  https://www.etrade.wallst.com/v1/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?YYY220_/UfRI8EalsAnXZcz1MxnJIRtUgGqhUalgVOKi53Y/+mgCK6YLp2npSpR/iB8MUHlm0M30MNnXlHUlHBrUWQw9tDm/BRVro4i0UWFijftyoWGZA9kudTDWkHRnft4blfv+5ugfzMoFQ0ZNMhiZyCd7jWgf9iIYmFdzJR5wu/OiSoXFU4kD0ERjOIqIRkY1H0HxYlIFQp3zadOSb4JKj9A+jCiN4aSiwuSNpV5VCtRrmI=

The lesson- don’t listen to the media for economic news, that is accurate news.

Now you claim correctly that Clinton raised taxes and the capital gains tax in 1993.  Remarkably, you still insist that political economic policy drives the economic train!  It affects the economy; it is not the sole force and sometimes not that important of a force.  I maintain that there would have been more economic gains in 1993-97 had taxes not be raised.  BTW Clinton lowered taxes in 1997. 

[spunkloaf]

The economy is not THAT bad.

In fact, the media is doing more damage to the economy by telling people that it is slipping.

BTW--whatever happened to that rice shortage? 

However, I don't like to hear people say "WHAT PROBLEMS?"  There are definitely things that need to be fixed, but sending people into a panic is not the way to do it.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

We need to reign in speculation in markets whether housing or oil. If a man blows his life savings in Las Vegas it only affects him and his family. Market speculation (gambling plain and simple) affects the whole country. BTW, I have always wondered how many preachers who rant against lotteries have stock brokers in their congregations!

OswaldTheOsprey

[Peter1469]

Speculation is not always bad.  I posted a good article by Dr. Walter Williams on the subject some time back. 

Imagine corn.  If corn trades at $8 per bushel today but traders believe that corn will be more expensive tomorrow, traders will buy corn at $8 today to store and sell at a profit tomorrow.  This action will cause the price of corn to rise.  But consider the alternative: eliminate futures trading.  Corn is $8 today and the entire crops is sold domestically or exported.  Next year there is a drought and less corn is grown.  This will cause a larger price increase for corn- because of the shortage- than did the futures market trading. 

Hopefully I did Dr. Williams justice. 

Market speculation, done by the experts is not gambling.  If you or I did it, it certainly would be gambling.  BigTex appears to know something about the future’s market.  Perhaps he could provide useful information. 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

Speculation is not always bad.  I posted a good article by Dr. Walter Williams on the subject some time back. 

Imagine corn.  If corn trades at $8 per bushel today but traders believe that corn will be more expensive tomorrow, traders will buy corn at $8 today to store and sell at a profit tomorrow.  This action will cause the price of corn to rise.  But consider the alternative: eliminate futures trading.  Corn is $8 today and the entire crops is sold domestically or exported.  Next year there is a drought and less corn is grown.  This will cause a larger price increase for corn- because of the shortage- than did the futures market trading. 

Hopefully I did Dr. Williams justice. 

Market speculation, done by the experts is not gambling.  If you or I did it, it certainly would be gambling.  BigTex appears to know something about the future’s market.  Perhaps he could provide useful information. 

You may be right in an academic sense, but we are still facing $4.00 plus gas and record numbers of foreclosures.

OswaldTheOsprey

[Peter1469]

Oil prices have much more to do with OPEC collusion than the futures market.  Additionally we are witnesses the addition of ~1 Billion new members of the middle class in China and India, all of whom are purchasing their own cars that drink oil. 

The housing market problem is different.  Too much deregulation lead to very risky moves by banks and mortgage brokers.   When these risky moves burst the bubble the government bailout rewarded the risky behavior.  So the free market got screwed on both ends. 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

Oil prices have much more to do with OPEC collusion than the futures market.  Additionally we are witnesses the addition of ~1 Billion new members of the middle class in China and India, all of whom are purchasing their own cars that drink oil. 

The housing market problem is different.  Too much deregulation lead to very risky moves by banks and mortgage brokers.   When these risky moves burst the bubble the government bailout rewarded the risky behavior.  So the free market got screwed on both ends. 

Whatever the reasons for either, the ordinary people get hurt the worst.

OswaldTheOsprey

[Peter1469]

Well, there are solutions to both although what is being passed as solutions by the political class is off base. 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

Well, there are solutions to both although what is being passed as solutions by the political class is off base. 

Perhaps it is. What do you suggest?

OswaldTheOsprey

[Peter1469]

I have made suggestions:

Oil- get off it.  Move to an alcohol based liquid fuel economy.  http://www.energyvictory.net/ We can do this with 19th century technology.  Continue to research nuclear, solar, and wind to better produce electricity. 

Housing market: enact common sense regulation (not to get in the way of business, but to ensure that business stays honest).  The Federal Reserve has proposed such regulations; however they will not go into effect until October 2009.  They do many things: require banks to verify a lender’s income prior to providing a loan; outlaw many deceptive practices; prevent mortgages from being split and grouped for sale.  All of these proposed regulations make sense and it is a wonder that they were not already in place, much less having to wait 14 months for them to take effect. 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

I have made suggestions:

Oil- get off it.  Move to an alcohol based liquid fuel economy.  http://www.energyvictory.net/ We can do this with 19th century technology.  Continue to research nuclear, solar, and wind to better produce electricity. 

Housing market: enact common sense regulation (not to get in the way of business, but to ensure that business stays honest).  The Federal Reserve has proposed such regulations; however they will not go into effect until October 2009.  They do many things: require banks to verify a lender’s income prior to providing a loan; outlaw many deceptive practices; prevent mortgages from being split and grouped for sale.  All of these proposed regulations make sense and it is a wonder that they were not already in place, much less having to wait 14 months for them to take effect. 

Good suggestions. Perhaps they could be taken further.

OswaldTheOsprey