No tax cut extension will crash the stock market Obama thinks he revived

[8537]

Wrong

If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus

Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.

No... try understanding a little thing called intergovernmental spending/borrowing

THAT is what happened... the surplus was a myth... the government has not run a surplus since 1957... and THAT is fact

I understand intergovernmental borrowing just fine, thanks. Intergovernmental borrowing is not public debt, nor is it held by the public, nor is it backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, nor are future governments obligated to pay those notes if they chose to amend the payments, nor would amending those payments impact our credit rating or our bond standing in the world market.

in fact, just about any reform to Social Security or Medicare iinvolves altering and decreasing the value of the intergovernmental debt.

 

[8537]

government spent 60K, earned 50K

Uhm, Beavis, this would be a deficit.

LOL! That was a rather inappropriate time to get my logic backwards!

I meant spent 50k, earned 60K.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

Lol, yes. That's my problem here!

You are mixing macro economics with stock market valuation.

No I'm not. I'm "mixing" macroeconomics and microeconomics as they apply to potential output.

But of course, you don't even know what that means so you'll respond with some more asinine commentary proving your lack of education.

What a riot. The good news is you aren't the most clueless poster on this site. The bad news is you are the most clueless poster on this thread.
You can't explain what you mean. This is because you have no idea what your'e talking about, just repeating phrases and snippets you heard while dozing through an econ class.

Clinton sank us nearly $2 trillion more into debt and he's yakking on about surplus'.

 

[8537]

Lol, yes. That's my problem here!


No I'm not. I'm "mixing" macroeconomics and microeconomics as they apply to potential output.

But of course, you don't even know what that means so you'll respond with some more asinine commentary proving your lack of education.

What a riot. The good news is you aren't the most clueless poster on this site. The bad news is you are the most clueless poster on this thread.
You can't explain what you mean. This is because you have no idea what your'e talking about, just repeating phrases and snippets you heard while dozing through an econ class.

Clinton sank us nearly $2 trillion more into debt and he's yakking on about surplus'.

You are an unabashed fraud...or too stupid to read what I wrote. I never said that Clinton ran a surplus over the entirety of his term. You made that up completely out of nowhere.

But hey, like a good conservative you lie when it fits your needs. I'm used to it by now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lol, yes. That's my problem here!


No I'm not. I'm "mixing" macroeconomics and microeconomics as they apply to potential output.

But of course, you don't even know what that means so you'll respond with some more asinine commentary proving your lack of education.

What a riot. The good news is you aren't the most clueless poster on this site. The bad news is you are the most clueless poster on this thread.
You can't explain what you mean. This is because you have no idea what your'e talking about, just repeating phrases and snippets you heard while dozing through an econ class.

"dozing through econ class." that's funneh!!!!

I certainly can explain what I mean - in fact, I already did! Here's let's review since you obviously don't read much:

"The potential output (Macro: potential GDP) is the equilibrium output level of an industry or an economy as a whole. It's the baseline upon which, in macro, the economy is performing above or below long-term growth potential. "

If you tell me which part of that you don't understand, I'd be happy to explain.

Sure.
Tell me wtf any of that has to do with stock market valuations.

 

[8537]

What a riot. The good news is you aren't the most clueless poster on this site. The bad news is you are the most clueless poster on this thread.
You can't explain what you mean. This is because you have no idea what your'e talking about, just repeating phrases and snippets you heard while dozing through an econ class.

"dozing through econ class." that's funneh!!!!

I certainly can explain what I mean - in fact, I already did! Here's let's review since you obviously don't read much:

"The potential output (Macro: potential GDP) is the equilibrium output level of an industry or an economy as a whole. It's the baseline upon which, in macro, the economy is performing above or below long-term growth potential. "

If you tell me which part of that you don't understand, I'd be happy to explain.

Sure.
Tell me wtf any of that has to do with stock market valuations.

Lol...let's review: "The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output."

No amount of 'capital' will attract investment if it has no potential output.

You took objection to the use of the term "potential". I explained it. you then asked what that has to do with valuation. it's rather self-referencing at this point.

 

[The Rabbi]

"dozing through econ class." that's funneh!!!!

I certainly can explain what I mean - in fact, I already did! Here's let's review since you obviously don't read much:

"The potential output (Macro: potential GDP) is the equilibrium output level of an industry or an economy as a whole. It's the baseline upon which, in macro, the economy is performing above or below long-term growth potential. "

If you tell me which part of that you don't understand, I'd be happy to explain.

Sure.
Tell me wtf any of that has to do with stock market valuations.

Lol...let's review: "The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output."

No amount of 'capital' will attract investment if it has no potential output.

You took objection to the use of the term "potential". I explained it. you then asked what that has to do with valuation. it's rather self-referencing at this point.

IOW you really have no idea.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You are an intellectual fraud and a sham debater with nothing to offer but hot air.

 

[8537]

IOW you really have no idea.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You are an intellectual fraud and a sham debater with nothing to offer but hot air.

An inability to follow the conversation and a lack of education on your part does not make me a sham. I have clearly explained my post - if you are still confused, I'd be happy to explain further.

 

[RDD_1210]

Chalk up another example of Rabbi being caught talking directly out of his ass.

 

[shintao]

Nobody is going to wait until 2011 to realize capital gains.

How big are your balls, President Pro Growth?

Delaying Tax Vote Could Crash Stock Market - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

Failure by Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts, especially locking in the 15 percent capital gains tax rate, will spark a stock market sell off starting December 15 as investors move to lock in gains at a lower rate than the 20 percent it would jump to next year, warn analysts. [See who gets the most money from the financial industry.]

While it is unclear how bad the sell off could be, it could wipe out the year's gains, they warn.

"Capital gains tax rate will increase from 15 to 20 percent if the tax cuts are not extended. The last time the capital gains tax rate increased--on Jan. 1, 1987 from 20 to 28 percent--investors realized their gains at the lower tax rate," said Daniel Clifton at a Washington partner at Strategas Research Partners. "We would expect a similar effect this time around as investors see the tax rate going up and choose to realize their gains and incur the 15 percent tax." [See a gallery of political caricatures.]

In a memo to clients, Clifton says that the date most clients are focused on is December 15th for a deal in Congress before beginning to sell. One reason: Many stock options expire that day and investors have to act.

So, let it crash, and let the investors get bit in the ass. I can see the river filled with tears now. Hopefully a bunch of republicans will form suicide groups and jump in mass from tall buildings.

 

[uscitizen]

Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.

So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?

That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.

And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.

Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...

1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)

1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)

It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.

If the Republicans don't allow the Democrats to 'extend' the so-called middle class tax cuts (which, AGAIN, the rich also get), then they will go UP in January. The GOP will be fully responsible for raising those taxes.

I still do not agree with the concept of letting a tax cut that was set to expire go ahead and expire as raising taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Chalk up another example of Rabbi being caught talking directly out of his ass.

Let's hear you explain stock market value.

 

[RDD_1210]

Chalk up another example of Rabbi being caught talking directly out of his ass.

Let's hear you explain stock market value.

Right after you do the basic math question I've asked you to do repeatedly. The question I asked, NOT the question you want to answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the Republicans don't allow the Democrats to 'extend' the so-called middle class tax cuts (which, AGAIN, the rich also get), then they will go UP in January. The GOP will be fully responsible for raising those taxes.

The GOP is all about continuing the tax cuts. They have been since the tax cuts were created in 2001 and 2003. The GOP fillibuster threat isnt a threat to fillibuster an extenstion to just the middle/working class tax cuts, but to fillibuster any legislation that does not deal with the tax cuts and/or the budget until the tax cuts/budget dealth with.

If the Dems decide that they'd rather pass a few of their pet projects thru a lame-duck conress rather than address the issue of taxes going up for millions of middle/working class families, then the Dems will be fully responsible for those taxes going up.

Further - if The Obama and the Dems don't get their act together and address the tax cuts/budget, they will blow their chance to repeal DADT (which created and passed into law by a bunch of homophobic bigots)

 

[kiwiman127]

Wrong

If you earn 60K... yet spend 90K.. and borrow 32K from your mom.... you are not running a surplus

Except, that's not what happened in 1999 and 2000. In those years, to use your example, the government spent 60K, earned 50K and was left with 10K extra to pay off the credit card bill they ran up surfing pron on their mommy's computer.

Bullshit. Clinton left with a near $6 trillion debt... he never once ran a surplus. here's the CBO numbers:

Year Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

Clinton's deficts never added up to 6 trillon dollars. Add up your numbers, the total adds up to about 1.4 trillion.

 

[Vast LWC]

2. Having a 15% capital gains tax encourages reliance on investments made with borrowed money (in other words, gambling), rather than making money the old-fashioned way, through work.

Could you please explain this comment. If I build a factory and employ hundreds of people but go to the bank for a loan, how is that any different from anything else??

No-one is building factories, not in the US anyway. Corporate profits this quarter set a record, and the unemployment rate is at 9.8%.

The investments I'm referring to are the artificial capital gains in the market that have become the norm, without any noticeable growth in the industry they represent.

Investors are not picking a company that they want to help grow, and investing in that company, they are playing the market like it's a giant roulette wheel.

 

[Vast LWC]

Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.

Bush did that to appease the Democrats?

What exactly are you smoking?

Bush did that so he'd look good for 8 years, leaving the bill to be paid by the next guy.

He also tried to change federal aid to the states into loans that would come due in 2009. Fortunately that effort was shot down.

 

[Vast LWC]

He has reduced you expected rent? Which in the real world means nothing. Can you spend expected income? Can you eat expected food? Can you drive an expected car? Of course not. It's called reality... try it sometime.

Yes, you can spend expected income.

It's called taking a loan.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm smart enough to know that when the National Debt goes up every year from 1992 - 2000, it is idiotic to argue we're running surplus'. He started with $4.4 Trillion debt and left with a $5.8 Trillion debt.

Clinton never ran a surplus. PERIOD. You are free to believe otherwise if it makes you feel better, I won't debate it further because you are wrong.

Buh bye.

Buh Bye? Well, hello again.

What is the interest on 4.4 Trillion dollars worth of debt over 8 years?

At 4%, it's 1.4 Trillion Dollars.

Now, if Clinton ran a surplus, that interest would still be tacked on to the debt now wouldn't it?

Unless you're going to claim that the pre-existing debt was also somehow Clinton's fault, that 1.4 trillion dollars is in fact attributable to the administrations that racked up the debt in the first place.

 

[Vast LWC]

[

Clinton's deficts never added up to 6 trillon dollars. Add up your numbers, the total adds up to about 1.4 trillion.

Which just so happens to be the same as interest on 4.4 trillion dollars in pre-existing debt.

How odd.