TAX TAX TAX and more TAX

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=sdduuuude]
How ’bout we start with anything that involves “increasing homeownership”, “keeping people in their homes” or “reducing foreclosures”[/quote]

Those are just code for bailouts to the banks.
BTW, that would also mean ending the mortgage interest deduction.

*

But really, outside of stimulus money what would you cut out of the regular budget?

Since the right keeps on talking about cutting spending, they should present a bill to actually fulfill their promises.

But since I asked, I’ll answer the question. Here are a few ideas that would go a long way in restoring fiscal soundness.

* End the wars.

* Cut military spending. Close bases.

* Reinstitute the draft (nearly free soldiers) without medical or college deferment.

* Raise the retirement age to 68.

* Means test Social Security and Medicare. Wealthy folks would get no Social Security or Medicare at all.

* End mortgage interest deductions.

* Transition government employees’ pensions to 401k type retirement.[/quote]

Thank god you’ll never have a chance to be a politician.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]
You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa. [/quote]

I certainly could have missed something, but why? So I took $1 and bought a stock (say Ford) from you. That $1 went to your account, who then took the $1 you got from selling (Ford)and bought some other stock (say Alcoa) from flu. That $1 now resides in the account of flu who use to own alcoa. I own your Ford stock, you own flu’s Alcoa stock, and flu has the dollar. How did the money supply change?

The only way I know of money supply to change is for the FED to ‘print’, or banks to loan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]
You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa. [/quote]

I certainly could have missed something, but why? So I took $1 and bought a stock (say Ford) from you. That $1 went to your account, who then took the $1 you got from selling (Ford)and bought some other stock (say Alcoa) from flu. That $1 now resides in the account of flu who use to own alcoa. I own your Ford stock, you own flu’s Alcoa stock, and flu has the dollar. How did the money supply change?

The only way I know of money supply to change is for the FED to ‘print’, or banks to loan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]
You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa. [/quote]

I certainly could have missed something, but why? So I took $1 and bought a stock (say Ford) from you. That $1 went to your account, who then took the $1 you got from selling (Ford)and bought some other stock (say Alcoa) from flu. That $1 now resides in the account of flu who use to own alcoa. I own your Ford stock, you own flu’s Alcoa stock, and flu has the dollar. How did the money supply change?

The only way I know of money supply to change is for the FED to ‘print’, or banks to loan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]
You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa. [/quote]

I certainly could have missed something, but why? So I took $1 and bought a stock (say Ford) from you. That $1 went to your account, who then took the $1 you got from selling (Ford)and bought some other stock (say Alcoa) from flu. That $1 now resides in the account of flu who use to own alcoa. I own your Ford stock, you own flu’s Alcoa stock, and flu has the dollar. How did the money supply change?

The only way I know of money supply to change is for the FED to ‘print’, or banks to loan.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SK in CV]
You have a good point there. I didn’t really write what I was thinking. If an investor moves money from a bank account into the market by buying stock and the seller of that stock then acquired a different stock, the money supply has gone down. If the seller stays in cash, you are correct, no change to the money supply. And by trading, I meant sell Ford, buy Alcoa. [/quote]

I certainly could have missed something, but why? So I took $1 and bought a stock (say Ford) from you. That $1 went to your account, who then took the $1 you got from selling (Ford)and bought some other stock (say Alcoa) from flu. That $1 now resides in the account of flu who use to own alcoa. I own your Ford stock, you own flu’s Alcoa stock, and flu has the dollar. How did the money supply change?

The only way I know of money supply to change is for the FED to ‘print’, or banks to loan.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, now comes the hard part. What programs do you propose to cut? [/quote]

How ’bout we start with anything that involves “increasing homeownership”, “keeping people in their homes” or “reducing foreclosures”[/quote]

+1 vote here! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, now comes the hard part. What programs do you propose to cut? [/quote]

How ’bout we start with anything that involves “increasing homeownership”, “keeping people in their homes” or “reducing foreclosures”[/quote]

+1 vote here! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, now comes the hard part. What programs do you propose to cut? [/quote]

How ’bout we start with anything that involves “increasing homeownership”, “keeping people in their homes” or “reducing foreclosures”[/quote]

+1 vote here! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, now comes the hard part. What programs do you propose to cut? [/quote]

How ’bout we start with anything that involves “increasing homeownership”, “keeping people in their homes” or “reducing foreclosures”[/quote]

+1 vote here! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, now comes the hard part. What programs do you propose to cut? [/quote]

How ’bout we start with anything that involves “increasing homeownership”, “keeping people in their homes” or “reducing foreclosures”[/quote]

+1 vote here! 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

Thank god you’ll never have a chance to be a politician.[/quote]

That’s what I thought. Nobody wants to make the hard choices. Nobody wants to make sacrifices.

You have to cut spending first before you cut taxes.

The record is clear. It’s all lip service. Republicans do not cut spending. In fact, Republicans increased spending even more.

So considering that record, I’d much rather the money be spend by social progressives.

I believe that it takes courage to increase taxes while increasing spending.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is just plain irresponsible. That’s what Reagan and GWB did.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

Thank god you’ll never have a chance to be a politician.[/quote]

That’s what I thought. Nobody wants to make the hard choices. Nobody wants to make sacrifices.

You have to cut spending first before you cut taxes.

The record is clear. It’s all lip service. Republicans do not cut spending. In fact, Republicans increased spending even more.

So considering that record, I’d much rather the money be spend by social progressives.

I believe that it takes courage to increase taxes while increasing spending.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is just plain irresponsible. That’s what Reagan and GWB did.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

Thank god you’ll never have a chance to be a politician.[/quote]

That’s what I thought. Nobody wants to make the hard choices. Nobody wants to make sacrifices.

You have to cut spending first before you cut taxes.

The record is clear. It’s all lip service. Republicans do not cut spending. In fact, Republicans increased spending even more.

So considering that record, I’d much rather the money be spend by social progressives.

I believe that it takes courage to increase taxes while increasing spending.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is just plain irresponsible. That’s what Reagan and GWB did.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

Thank god you’ll never have a chance to be a politician.[/quote]

That’s what I thought. Nobody wants to make the hard choices. Nobody wants to make sacrifices.

You have to cut spending first before you cut taxes.

The record is clear. It’s all lip service. Republicans do not cut spending. In fact, Republicans increased spending even more.

So considering that record, I’d much rather the money be spend by social progressives.

I believe that it takes courage to increase taxes while increasing spending.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is just plain irresponsible. That’s what Reagan and GWB did.

[Author]

Posts