Bush: Economy Needs $145B Shot In The Head.

[jimmydean]

eer, Arm. I meant arm.

Link. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/18/business/main3726586.shtml)

Mr. Bush said that to be effective, an economic stimulus package would need to roughly represent 1 percent of the gross domestic product - the value of all U.S. goods and services and the best measure of the country's economic standing. White House advisers say that, in current terms, 1 percent would amount to around $145 billion, which is along the lines of what private economists say should be sufficient to help give the economy a short-term boost.

"Letting Americans keep more of their money should increase consumer spending," he said.

Mr. Bush said that Congress should work as soon as possible to send him legislation to "keep our economy growing and creating jobs."

[LordOpie]

absolutely idiotic. How can anyone support this?

It's becoming an exponential downward spiral.

[LordOpie]

I should say, more to the point, if money is an issue, fvck Iraq and do a controlled withdrawl.

[Jim Mac]

...and upon that fabulous 7 minute speech by Bush, the market drops even lower...............

[Westy]

Cool, we can buy 150 billion worth of chinese products.

[MMike]

Cool, we can buy 150 billion worth of chinese products.


NOt with your worthless currency.....

[Westy]

I hope we get a refund. To quote Bender.

"now what to do? Get a $300 hookerbot or 300 Dollar hookerbots"

[RenegadeRick]

absolutely idiotic.
Yes it is.
How can anyone support this?
It's rare that I support Bush, but on this I would. After all, it is OUR money.
It's becoming an exponential downward spiral.
Absolutely. It's gonna be a helluva ride.
I should say, more to the point, if money is an issue, fvck Iraq and do a controlled withdrawl.
I would support this more, and it would have more benefit, but I'll take what I can get.

[jimmydean]

I should say, more to the point, if money is an issue, fvck Iraq and do a controlled withdrawl.

But it would be twice as expensive to move troops from US soil into Iran, so keeping them in Iraq is far more economical for future war ventures.

I want to know how the hell he is going to fund the war in Iran when he keeps cutting taxes?

[stevew]

I want to know how the hell he is going to fund the war in Iran when he keeps cutting taxes?
monopoly money.

[Westy]

monopoly money.

That soon may be more valuable than the dollar.

[jimmydean]

That soon may be more valuable than the dollar.

Last time I checked, the Canadian dollars was already stronger.

[SPINTECK]

Why don't we just take back the divident tax cut that Bush passed in 2001?? If the richest 1% own 90% of the stock market, that would double the amount of revenue going to federal funing, basically going back to the clinton days. Of course that 1% is going to see more of that 145billion than any of us middle class.

another idea, pay down the debt so more of our tax money goes to services and less goes to interest. Of course this again would be Clinton economics. Bill actually spelled that out in a speech, but I don't think americans understood that.

I notice I'm sounding like a broken record, but suprised no one has given me sh1t for it.....yet. If you guys are sick of hearing it, tell me and I'll stop killing threads with it. Did I mention that rich Divident holders rule the world and this country:) Which is fine, but they should pay their fair share of tax and FICA.

[dante]

monopoly money.

a new term for oil revenue?? :lighten:


i think this is a complete boneheaded move, and can't fathom dumping an additional $150b onto the national debt... however, if this goes through ($800/working adult I think?), I will say "thank you Washington" and dump the entire $1600 (my wife and I) into CC debt, mortgage principal or possibly invest a small portion in the stock market if it looks sufficiently beaten-down. Based on the '01 tax "rebate", this will probably do jack to actually strengthen the economy...

[reflux]

So let me get this straight, is this economic stimulus package separate from his push to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent? Call me an e-economist, but that math doesn't quite add up.

Stagflation is starting to not seem like a far-fetched concept.

[$tinkle]

If the richest 1% own 90% of the stock market,
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/photohosting1234/Fail/fail-1.gif

[dante]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/photohosting1234/Fail/fail-1.gif

well...... that's an interesting question. right now:

Currently the richest 1 percent of American households own 33.5 percent of all stocks, the next 9 percent own 43.4 percent.

*However*. I want to know what the breakdown is on tax-deferred accounts vs after-tax accounts since you don't pay capital gains on those anyway? I would bet that if you took out any $$ that's currently in a tax-deferred account (401k, 403b, Trad IRA, Simp IRA, Roth IRA, etc), that 90% of the benefits of the cut in capital gains taxes went to the richest 1%.

[SPINTECK]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a62/photohosting1234/Fail/fail-1.gif

Wow, nice challenge, but I though you would at least throw up some conservative numbers or maybe even a source.

Give me 2 minutes.

[$tinkle]

but that's not what he posted. he posted "if the richest 1% own 90% of the stock market". it appears you're making an inference that the source of the funds is without regard to the households being american. for his hypothetical (he did write "if") to be true, we would have to negate all foreign investment, which is certainly permitted in the stock market (if it even cares).

just sayin'

[SPINTECK]

So I heard this on Sunday Morning the TV show. So lets assume I concede and agree that's a liberal number, even conservative numbers put the stock market ownershop at 80% by the top 10%. I


http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/la-op-klein9sep

09,1,6102055.story?coll=la-headlines-business-invest
Indeed, in an era of inequality like the one we're going through now, in which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says the top 1% control an astounding 19% of the nation's income, the market is less attached to the fortunes of ordinary Americans than ever. In 2004, the wealthiest 1% of Americans owned 36.9% of all stock. The wealthiest 10% controlled 80% of all stock. That means the skips and dips of the market tell you very much about how the best-off are doing, but considerably less about how the great bulk beneath are faring.

http://www.pww.org/past-weeks-2000/Stock%20Market%20gateway.htm

If we exclude the richest 10 percent, the remaining 90 percent of all families own only 16 percent of stock (directly, or through mutual funds or retirement accounts). On the other hand, the richest 1 percent of all families each holds millions of dollars in stocks. Together, this small group of families owns half of all stocks.


http://www.communityknowledge.net/overaccumulation_ed.html
In 1983 the richest 1 percent of households in the United States owned just under 34 percent of the net wealth. By 1998 their share had grown to over 38 percent and their average net worth had climbed to $10.2 million. For many Americans their biggest financial asset is their home. If we remove home ownership from the equation we get a better picture of the ownership of financial assets. When we do this we find that the richest 1 percent owns 47 percent of all financial assets. The category "financial assets" gives us a better idea of how investment capital is distributed.

[$tinkle]

while we've been circle-jerking, america has gone $45,000,000 more in debt.

you know how many thai boys greenspan could get for that?

[Echo]

The economy is screwed. The USA is screwed. And because of those two facts, the world is screwed.

I really don't see any possible way it could be fixed, other than a catastrophic event that wipes out 90% of the world's population. Every time someone tries to make it better, they make it exponentially worse.

[Westy]

Where are all the deficit spending apologists now?

[narlus]

Where are all the deficit spending apologists now?

put out the alert that there are free cosmos.

that sound you will hear is the roar of a mighty FJ.

[$tinkle]

$145 isn't so much: Zimbabwe: Now, the $10 Million Bill (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/world/africa/18briefs-dollars.html?ref=world)

that's what - 14,500 of those, right? ustreas can crack off a few dozen sheets by peak hour.

[reflux]

The economy is screwed. The USA is screwed. And because of those two facts, the world is screwed.
Not necessarily. Everyone who owns oil and Halibuton stock has done quite well.

[LordOpie]

monopoly money.

Here's the thing, since coming off the gold standard, our money has been Monopoly Money. It's been kept afloat by the trust in the US Govt back it. We could print as much as we wanted.

With the decline in the dollar, we're in trouble. If the world stops using US currency as a primary standard for global trade, then printing more just lowers the value.

I know y'all know this, but I don't think the sky-is-falling message is being yelled loud enough.

And a tax rebate only lowers the dollar's value even more, reducing confidence, and the spiral is fueled.

Start stockpiling canned goods, alcohol, and fire arms.

Where are all the deficit spending apologists now?
There's deficit spending and then there's fockin' stupid.

[narlus]

has there ever been another nation that aligned its currency w/ gold?

[$tinkle]

i'm sure ancient rome or the greeks did

[LordOpie]

has there ever been another nation that aligned its currency w/ gold?

I don't remember, but I do know that fixing our currency to something solid helped establish it as a world currency and then subsequently going off the standard, we kept the money supply growth restricted.

It was very respected, even if it was fake (fiat).

[Westy]

Loopie just wants to drive the market up for his Jew's Gold.

[Changleen]

England had it till 1931.

[LordOpie]

England had it till 1931.

And lost the Pound as the primary global currency after two wars by over-extending themselves (for a worthy cause).

Too bad no one in DC reads history.

We're doomed! Doooomed!

[Changleen]

I think you're in for a small economic correction.

[jimmydean]

And lost the Pound as the primary global currency after two wars by over-extending themselves (for a worthy cause).

Too bad no one in DC reads history.

We're doomed! Doooomed!

So you're saying the "War on Terror" isn't for a worth cause?

How long have you hated freedom?

[LordOpie]

How long have you hated freedom?
http://stewiesplayground.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/griffin-puke.png

[reflux]

I think you're in for a small economic correction.
So true, yet potentially so far off base. Perhaps the smartest sentence written in this thread thus far.

[dante]

has there ever been another nation that aligned its currency w/ gold?

ummmm, almost every other country in the history of the world.... :twitch:

remember, currency USED to be gold. or other precious metals. the $5 gold coin in your pocket was worth $5 b/c it was made of $5 worth of gold. various stamping, engraving, etc were used so that people could rely on the fact that it really was $5 worth, and not $4.50, or $4, etc. edges were textured to prevent people from "shaving off" the sides to make it worth a little bit less.

paper currency (in the US) started out as gold and silver certificates. you got a piece of paper that stated that you could turn in that piece of paper any time you wanted for it's worth in gold/silver. up until 1971 you had Silver Certificates (I've got some around someplace) that stated (something like):

This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, and may be exchanged for it's value at the US Treasury (can't remember the exact wording).

It's only been since 1971 and Tricky Dick that the dollar hasn't been backed by... anything. Nothing, really, besides the economic weight of the US government. If the world all of a sudden decided that they didn't want the US greenback anymore, we'd be screwed and the dollar would be worth... ummm, the paper it's printed on?

[Plummit]

has there ever been another nation that aligned its currency w/ gold?

The US did, abandoning it in 1933 as a means of fighting the Depression, but returning to a modified form in 1945. The dollar's relation to gold changed several times before finally floating free of the gold standard in 1972. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_dollar#Gold_standard)

This article claims the US took away gold backing to the dollar in 1971 (http://money.howstuffworks.com/currency7.htm)

And more on the subject from Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/pi20071121_848642_page_2.htm)November 21, 2007

[SPINTECK]

has there ever been another nation that aligned its currency w/ gold?

Yes, swiss is all gold backed as is South african currency - the legendary gold kuegeran.

[LordOpie]

The Dutch used Tulips. How crazy is that?

[ohio]

$145 isn't so much:


Holy crap: "The new $10 million note is the equivalent of about $4 in American currency at the black market exchange rate used by most Zimbabweans"

[SPINTECK]

Here's the thing, since coming off the gold standard, our money has been Monopoly Money. It's been kept afloat by the trust in the US Govt back it. We could print as much as we wanted.

With the decline in the dollar, we're in trouble. If the world stops using US currency as a primary standard for global trade, then printing more just lowers the value.

I know y'all know this, but I don't think the sky-is-falling message is being yelled loud enough.

And a tax rebate only lowers the dollar's value even more, reducing confidence, and the spiral is fueled.

Start stockpiling canned goods, alcohol, and fire arms.


There's deficit spending and then there's fockin' stupid.

You hit the nail right on the head. THe federal reserve is not owned by the US. Rumor had it took powers that be 2 weeks just to come up with an authoritative name. I believe the Reserve is owned by the worlds super wealth Rothchild group or something, but I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONCRETE INFO ON THAT. Now you see how the worlds super rich can play with countries.

You notice how Sarkozy in france wants to weaken the EURO "to be competitve" but Germany said "we don't think so". It's all modern day empirialism driven by conflict and uneducated consumers.

[DaveW]

The Dutch used Tulips. How crazy is that?

Man thats like flower power man ya dig man!

[Plummit]

The Dutch used Tulips. How crazy is that?

Which, like any bubble, ended in a crash. In a particularly cruel irony, during the ensuing crash some of the "investors" ended up so destitute that they were forced to eat their once incredibly valuable tulip bulbs. Have you read Tulip Fever (http://www.amazon.com/Tulip-Fever-Deborah-Moggach/dp/0385334923)?

[$tinkle]

The Dutch used Tulips. How crazy is that?x-post? (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149004)

[Changleen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money

[Plummit]

And it's not just monkeys who are confused about what to do or where it will take us. Dow 6,000 or 14,750? From the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/business/19markets.html):

David W. Tice, a renowned bear, said Friday that the Dow would sink to 6,000 by the end of the year as the country slides into a recession.

But Abby Joseph Cohen, the superbull at Goldman Sachs, maintained that the Dow would roar back to finish 2008 at a level 22 percent higher — 14,750 is the number — as the economy perks up later in the year.