The Result of the Impending Inflation

Discussion in 'Economy' started by PoliticalChic, Jun 6, 2009.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,793
    Thanks Received:
    15,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,955
    ”In the last five months, according to the Federal Reserve Board, the money supply in the United States has increased by 271 percent. It has almost tripled.”
    TheHill.com - Coming next year: Obama's inflation

    “When the government has approved government spending on an order of magnitude far greater than any conceivable increase in the supply of goods and services (as in the case of the Obama Administration), the only way to avoid inflation would seem to be to reduce the supply of money.
    There are three ways to do this (which can be done in any combination):
    1. Increase taxes.
    2. Remove money from circulation by selling government bonds.
    3. Increase bank reserve requirements.”
    Capital Flow Watch

    Here are three questions that I would like answered:
    a. Which of the three choices will the Obama Administration use?
    b. Will they be successful?
    c. What will be the impact on the price of gold?
     
  2. wimpy77
    Offline

    wimpy77 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    591
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +10
    you ask three very good questions. toro and possibly paulie can answer those for you. but those are three very good questions. there's no doubt that i think taxes will be raised.
     
  3. alan1
    Offline

    alan1 USMB Mod Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    18,845
    Thanks Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Shoveling the ashes
    Ratings:
    +3,769
    Inflation is a "tax" that most do not understand.
    If I get a 10% raise but everything costs 10% more and I pay tax on it, then I just lost out.
     
  4. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    My take on all of this isn't very popular, but here goes again anyway.

    The economy was never as bad as it was made out to be, and isn't as bad as they're still making it out to be. I don't think we're going to see the hyper-inflation we experienced in the mid-late 70s. I think there's way too many doomsayers and Chicken Little squawkers out there.
     
  5. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,769
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    Can the fed, indiscriminantly just "print money" on their own and put it in to circulation without congress? I don't know, but it seems that this is what i have read the fed has been doing? What am i missing on all of this....?

    there was a ton of borrowing on the bush watch, but because we borrowed from overseas, we were able to skirt some of the inflationary impact that should have had....in a global market, why did this work this way? you would think there is only so much money to go around, even globally?

    there are so many things that don't make sense...

    and yes, i think gold would be a good investment to protect against inflation.
     
  6. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Important to remember, the POTUS has no real power when it comes to spending and/or borrowing. That's Congress.

    The POTUS gets way too much credit when things go right, and way too much criticism and blame when things don't. And that's ALL Presidents.
     
  7. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,769
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    well it IS the president's Budget, that congress tries to follow when they are appropriating the budget....it is the general theme of the President's budget, with alot of bribes being paid added to it....

    and the president can veto a spending bill and send it back to congress to get it more in line with his budget that he sent them....these are constitutional duties of his....?

    so, i think i disagree, to a degree! :)

    care
     
  8. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    If "following" the budget means piling the pork on, sure.

    Vetoes really are nearly impossible for a POTUS to do anymore, on funding bills. For two reasons. First, they figure out the things he really really wants and give it to him, with as much pork and earmarks attached to it as they possibly can. Now, if he vetoes this bill they will howl, saying the President "doesn't care about kids" or "the troops" and such. Or whatever the lever is.

    Second, they can and will override the veto and STILL get to make the howls.

    This is the wink and nod, co-dependency relationship Bush entered into with Congress, and it continues with Obama today. Bush wanted war funding, they gave it to him happily as the truckloads of pork rode those coattails. And he was powerless to do anything about it. And that's just one example.

    We REALLY need line-item veto back, and need Congress to back up their mouth and pass a paygo bill that actually has some teeth. Bill Clinton reaped the benefits of these, truly he was the most powerful President ever, due to these tools the courts took away.

    A President's budget merely lays out what his particular priorities are and how much he thinks needs to be spent on it. Congress actually opens the purse. Or not.

    Here's a good example of that: Obama signed an executive order allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Okay, fine. Very nice. But it's meaningless without Congress actually funding it. The President cannot execute any spending independent of Congress. And Congress still hasn't funded ESCR, and in fact hasn't even tried.

    Therefore, on fiscal matters I give them the lion's share of the blame, the criticism, and the credit if they deserve it.
     
  9. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,769
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    makes sense MM except i disagree on the veto...it should be used, regardless of the politicking and screams of foul!
     
  10. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    I agree too, but what's the POTUS to do? The veto has no teeth on spending bills anymore. Not only would it be a wasted effort, but sending a bill back to the sumbitches gives them more time to pile more shit on it.

    As a symbolic gesture, vetoing it on nationwide TV while saying something like, "I regret I have been forced to veto this bill, but I know no other way to communicate to Congress my desire to control spending" then yeah, he might put political pressure on them.

    But at least we can all agree, no matter our stripe, that the present deficit situation is intolerable. It's the same situation we had for eight years, except now magnified, amplified, a hundred times! It's towering, when one stops to realize that a trillion is a million million million!

    We need paygo and line-item veto back, to give the POTUS some control over these wasteful, spending like a drunk sailor on leave, imbeciles in Congress.
     

Share This Page