Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you care what I do with them - they're "worthless" right?
I notice you wingnuts NEVER fork those "worthless" dollars over.
Why is that?
Oh yeah, because you need them to pay your internet bill (and other such "worthless" things).
Funny how you can use "worthless" dollars for that.
What do you care what I do with them - they're "worthless" right?
I notice you wingnuts NEVER fork those "worthless" dollars over.
Why is that?
Oh yeah, because you need them to pay your internet bill (and other such "worthless" things).
Funny how you can use "worthless" dollars for that.
Ken
I told you I have faith but people on here talking about the amount of deficit being smaller is worse off mentally than you say I am. They need a reality check. Our country cannot afford a deficit, period. We cannot afford a president and vice president and their families spending wildly to go on unnecessary vacations when the money for those vacations has to be borrowed from China. Wild spending needs to stop!
And you can use your own dollars to paper your walls. I have acres of trees and I might need my own dollars to plug up the holes in our homemade log cabin. Have a good day and keep up with this worthless thread.
I told you I have faith but people on here talking about the amount of deficit being smaller is worse off mentally than you say I am. They need a reality check. Our country cannot afford a deficit, period. We cannot afford a president and vice president and their families spending wildly to go on unnecessary vacations when the money for those vacations has to be borrowed from China. Wild spending needs to stop!
I agree it would better if deficit was a suplus, but we've survived high deficits before and will likely do so again. At the end of both WWI and again at the end of WWII the US deficit was HUGE. It wasn't as big in regards to the number of dollars, but based on what those dollars could buy and how the size of the deficit compared to the US budget and the total US economy, the deficit on BOTH those occasions was BIGGER than it is today.
Debt is a relative thing - $100,000 in CC debt would be HUGE for me, but not for someone with a 7-digit income. The US debt is enormous - but so too are the US budget and the US GDP. In relative terms - as I said, the debt in 1918 and in 1945 was BIGGER than it is TODAY - and in BOTH cases, that debt gradually became insignificant as the US economy grew.
Not say that will necessarily happen again (hence the fact that I WOULD like the see the deficit become a suplus so we can begin paying down the debt) but neither is it clear that it WON'T happen that way again.
Regarding cheering the falling deficit - it's unlikely the deficit will turn into a surplus without becoming smaller FIRST - hence EVERYONE should cheer a falling deficit. Even if you think it's not ENOUGH, it's still BETTER than we've had for a number of years. And THAT is GOOD news.
Ken
PS - and if you REALLY think ANYONE believes you simply use your dollars to plug up holes in your house, I have some oceanside property in Kansas to sell you (or maybe a newsletter promising economic salvation for $149).
I don't CARE how many people claim that QE is trickle down (or what side of the aisle those particular idiots are from) - they are largely the SAME people who think that the stock market climb is based solely on QE and that when QE ends the stock market is somehow going crash back to where it was in 2009 - and are wrong on BOTH counts. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true. If the consumer is DIRECTLY BENEFITTING (as consumers ARE from low interest rates everytime they buy a house or buy a car or take out a home equitiy loan), it's NOT a "trickle down" benefit - it's a DIRECT BENEFIT.
I have NOTHING against trickle down, it CAN and often DOES WORK - and voted for REAGAN TWICE - but QE doesn't meet the definition of trickle down. It's not something that provides benefit primarily for the wealthy who then decide to spend money which then benefits the working classes. Lower interest rates (which is the INITIAL function of QE) is not a "trickle down after-effect" but the PRIMARY EFFECT - one that affects ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE - NOT JUST THE WEALTHY. A middle-class person buying a house with low interest loan gets the benefit of that cheap money just as a wealthy business owner borrowing money with a low interest loan to expand his factory gets the benefit of that cheap money. They BOTH benefit DIRECTLY. The middle-class person is not simply waiting for the wealthy person to get a benefit first and then trickle some secondary benefit down to him. If he's borrowing money to buy a house or buy a car or whatever, he's at the front of the line for that benefit just like the business owner is. He get a DIRECT BENEFIT from QE - not a SECONDARY trickle-down benefit that's simply some kind of economic after-thought.
As I said, these are largely the same clowns who have claimed that QE is responsible for the stock market surge since 2009. I don't buy that argument - PERIOD, and I think I will be proven right (no matter HOW MANY people think otherwise). Will the end of QE result in stock market prices coming down a BIT? Possibly - mainly because of the psychological impact, but also because prices are a bit (note the word "BIT") high based on the historical P/E ratio so a relatively modest correction is probably in order. But I predict that even IF the market drops upon the end of QE, we'll see a max drop of maybe 15% - and considering that the stock market has climbed nearly TEN TIMES THAT MUCH - that's not a significant drop and such a small relatitve loss certainly won't support the idea that the market surge was somehow simply the result of QE the way many people out there - including the ones who wrote some of the articles you linked to - seem to think.
As I said, I don't CARE how many links you provide - or what side of the aisle they are from - those people are simply WRONG - just as they are wrong that the stock market climb has been simply fueled by QE.
That's my position and I'm sticking to it.
By the end of this year QE will be done and the market will either take a major nose-dive back to roughly the 2009 level or the market will have a fairly mild hiccup (or none at all) and continue upward. At that point you can either say "I told you so" or admit I was right all along.
Time will tell - and not too much time at all until we find out for sure.
I'm pretty confident events will unfold the way I predict.
Ken
You have not gotten a dollar from the QE program like big banks, yet it has trickled down to help you?
Obama puts in place QE supporters to control the Fed, therefore Obama is responsible for QE.
Big banks didn't "GET a dollar" - they TRADED Mortgage Backed Securities for U. S. Treasury Notes.
That pushed interest rates down and someone was able to buy my house in Seattle (with a cheap loan) at the price I wanted so I could move to sunny Arizona.
Big banks didn't "GET a dollar" - they TRADED Mortgage Backed Securities for U. S. Treasury Notes.
That pushed interest rates down and someone was able to buy my house in Seattle (with a cheap loan) at the price I wanted so I could move to sunny Arizona.
Ken
Oh so the benefits trickled down from the big banks to you. I am so happy for it to have rained from up high down on to you, may your grass be green from the trickles.
Oh so the benefits trickled down from the big banks to you. I am so happy for it to have rained from up high down on to you, may your grass be green from the trickles.
Do you realize how funny it is that they spent so much time arguing that money didnt go into the economy and then proves that it does..
I feel brain cells dying everytime I read something like this from them.
Oh so the benefits trickled down from the big banks to you. I am so happy for it to have rained from up high down on to you, may your grass be green from the trickles.
It's trickled to ME, but my BUYER got those benefits DIRECTLY.
If consumers get a direct benefit, it's not "trickle down" - and my buyer is a CONSUMER.
It's trickled to ME, but my BUYER got those benefits DIRECTLY.
If consumers get a direct benefit, it's not "trickle down" - and my buyer is a CONSUMER.
Ken
No. Your buyer also benefited from trickle down. The Fed buys things like mortgage back securities from big banks (direct) so that the banks can give out more loans and lower interest rates to people like your buyer that are getting trickled on.
Do you realize how funny it is that they spent so much time arguing that money didnt go into the economy and then proves that it does..
I feel brain cells dying everytime I read something like this from them.
Their argument is always what puts Obama in the best light regardless of facts or Obama's actions vs his words.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
