The Residential Real Estate Crash Index Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (13772)	9/21/2003 10:24:48 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (2) of 306849

Silly me, I actually thought you were interested in a serious discussion. Calling me a Nazi because I can explain where national savings comes from and what it's used for is really beneath you. What could be more fiscally sound then building banking reserves from savings as opposed to fiat creation or foreign borrowings? Spending cuts will follow a rising deficit, as usual. They will have to, but if you want to examine the effects of trying to reduce a deficit immediately after a serious financial shock see post 1929 for reference. Spending cuts have never followed a tax increase or an increase in tax revenues. Now why is that? Times are good, people are flush, why do they always increase spending during these times? The only reason Clinton wasn't able to put through any new ruinous spending initiatives (see the national health care initiative) was because we had that most wonderful of all political conditions, a split government. Plus, maybe people are wising up to the fact that these things never stay the size they are suppose to (see Social Security and Medicare) Both Republicans and Democrats are terrible at reining in spending and both when they have control tend to raise it (on different things of course). The only thing that keeps them in line is a looming pile of debt that has a natural limit. It's funny you worry about the deficit, tax cuts going to the wealthy and tax breaks for a zillion middle class homeowners distorting home prices but you don't question the wisdom of giving earned income credits to 40 million Americans (in some cases giving them a negative tax rate) because they have children they can't fully support. Years from now people will shake their heads and wonder what we were thinking when we provided monetary rewards to poor people encouraging them to have more children when they couldn't afford to feed the ones they have. What is awful is that on the surface it seems like a good thing to do, an honorable thing to do. What could be wrong about giving money to the poor to help them feed their children as opposed to having them be forced to struggle through night school in the hopes of learning a better profession so they can support their children without government subsidies?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next