Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (26008)	3/19/2005 8:27:57 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Another masterful blog that tells it like it is. None other than Warren Buffet has said that his class is waging a ferocious war on those lower down the income and wealth pyramid. And most of the latter still have not the foggiest notion of what is happening and why. Thanks Fillmore it is appreciated. It does take an enormous amt of time to write those. Answer me this however.... How do you get inflation out of the situation I described? I do not see it except as temporary abborations (as we are in now). The turndown in housing an the loss of jobs is going to wreck freaking havoc. Mish

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (26008)	3/20/2005 1:00:39 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Respond to of 116555

Housing and Trade: Virtuous Cycle about to Become Vicious? calculatedrisk.blogspot.com

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (26008)	3/20/2005 9:08:38 AM
From: shades	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Class war - what happened when that girl said "LET THEM EAT CAKE?" The congressmen of 1933 charged the 'fed' with stealing america. The rich screwed the poor back then too it seems - some interesting history - can any of you give me more insight? "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." -Jefferson Now it seems back in 33 they did it by being too tight when we needed liquidity, today they are going to do it by being too loose when we needed to bleed a little and tighten up. What do you think? Congressman, Louis T. McFadden 1932 congressional record: worldnewsstand.net 'A few days ago, the President of the United States with a white face and shaking hands, went before the Senate of behalf of the moneyed interests and asked the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might know that these United States would pay its debt to them. They are putting the United States Government in debt to the extent of $100,000,000 a week, and with the money they are buying our Government securities for themselves and their foreign principals. Our people are disgusted with the experiences of the Fed. The Fed is not producing a loaf of bread, a yard of cloth, a bushel of corn, or a pile of cordwood by its check-kiting operations in the money market. 'Recently in one of our States, 60,000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer in a single day. 71,000 houses and farms in Oakland County, Michigan, were sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed. The people who have thus been driven out are the wastage of the Fed. They are the victims of the Fed. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival of the institution of human slavery. 'Is there one law for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and another for the hungry veterans it threw off its freight cars the other day? Is there one law for sleek and prosperous swindlers who call themselves bankers and another law for the soldiers who defended the flag? 'The R.F.C. is taking over these worthless securities from the Investment Trusts with United States Treasury money at the expense of the American taxpayer and the wage earner. 'Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should the Fed be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? Do you know why the tariff was raised? It was raised to shut out the flood of Fed Goods pouring in here from every quarter of the globe- cheap goods, produced by cheaply paid foreign labor, on unlimited supplies of money and credit sent out of this Country by the dishonest and unscrupulous Fed. The people of these United States are being greatly wronged. They have been driven from their employments. They have been dispossessed from their homes. They have been evicted from their rented quarters. They have lost their children. They have been left to suffer and die for lack of shelter, food, clothing and medicine. 'Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens. Its chief foreign creditor is Great Britain, and a British bailiff has been at the White House and the British Agents are in the United States Treasury making inventory arranging terms of liquidations! 'Roosevelt's next haul for the International Bankers was the reduction in the pay of all Federal employees. 'Next in order are the veterans of all wars, many of whom are aged and inform, and other sick and disabled. These men had their lives adjusted for them by acts of Congress determining the amounts of the pensions, and, while it is meant that every citizen should sacrifice himself for the good of the United States, I see no reason why those poor people, these aged Civil War Veterans and war widows and half-starved veterans of the World War, should be compelled to give up their pensions for the financial benefit of the International vultures who have looted the Treasury, bankrupted the country and traitorously delivered the United States to a foreign foe. Only back then I think they didn't have the new bankruptcy laws we got coming - so when you lost the farm, you were out, today you lose the farm and still owe - the little guys are about to get it GOOD!

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (26008)	3/20/2005 10:47:25 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Washington's Fiscal Meltdown Published: March 20, 2005 Before leaving town for a two-week spring break, Congress indulged in its own form of March Madness. The Republican majority in the House and the Senate passed budget blueprints for 2006 that slash domestic spending by upwards of $150 billion over the next five years. Yet they still managed to increase the projected deficit by more than $125 billion over the same period (and by more than $1 trillion through 2015). How is it possible to produce that much red ink while slashing spending? Easy. Just cut revenue by giving huge tax cuts to - surprise, surprise - high earners and wealthy investors. The lawmakers will not make any final decisions until they cobble their separate proposals into one official budget later in the year, but the early signs are all bad - pointing to the least sensible tax cuts for the least needy recipients with no thought to the exploding deficit. Of all the favors they are determined to dispense, tax cutters in both the House and Senate are most intent on extending the special low tax rates for dividends and capital gains, through 2010. The preferential rates are not scheduled to expire until 2008, but lawmakers want to act now, apparently to spare their constituents worry about the future. And who are those fretful constituents? In 2005 alone, almost half of the tax savings from dividend and capital gains rate cuts will go to investors who make more than $1 million a year, the top 0.2 percent of the income ladder. Nearly three-quarters of the tax benefits will go to those making more than $200,000, about the top 3 percent. The cost to everyone else in the form of forgone revenue will be $23 billion. Also remarkable for their largess are two high-end tax breaks that would increase the amount well-heeled taxpayers would be allowed to write off for dependents and other expenses. They were enacted in 2001, but have been delayed. Now the budget proposals let them take effect. Once again, almost all of the tax savings would go to that lucky 3 percent of filers with incomes above $200,000. The lost revenue would amount to $95 billion over 10 years. In this particular piece of fiscal insanity, even the usual Republican argument - that letting a temporary tax break expire is the same thing as a tax increase - does not apply. These two changes have not even taken effect yet, so who would miss them if they never materialized? If you're President Bush, however, getting these two provisions is the tax policy equivalent of going all the way to Baghdad. The president's father originally allowed the deduction limitations on wealthy filers as part of the 1991 budget, the one that violated Bush père's "no new taxes" pledge and, in so doing, helped to end his chances for re-election. The wealthy would also be on the receiving end of two new tax-sheltered savings plans favored by President Bush: the retirement savings account and the lifetime savings account. These were not embraced by name by the Congressional budget leaders. But Congress could easily include them in the final budget, since they will not start losing revenue - about $30 billion a year - until much later, when investors cash them in tax-free. The accounts would allow a couple to shelter $20,000 annually, as well as $5,000 for each of their children, on top of however much they may already be investing in other tax-favored plans. None of this will be any help to the vast majority of average Americans, who do not even take full advantage of current I.R.A.'s. And then there is the 11th-hour tax cut slipped into the Senate proposal. It would repeal an income tax on Social Security benefits that applies to the wealthiest 20 percent or so of beneficiaries and whose revenue is dedicated to the Medicare hospital trust fund. The repeal would accelerate the fund's projected insolvency by four years, to 2015 from 2019. Now there's a plan! Give the best-off elderly a tax break and put all of the elderly who may have to go into the hospital at greater financial risk. When you step back and look at it, the collective tax-cutting psyche of Mr. Bush and his partisans appears to border dangerously on the grandiose. How else to explain their relentless profligacy in the face of the unprecedented Bush-era swing from budget surplus to deficit, the unmistakable long-term trend of a rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer income distribution, the ballooning costs of war, the weaker dollar, rising oil prices and record deficits in trade and investment - which now require the United States to borrow $2.1 billion a day from abroad? It's time for the people, the ultimate referees in a democracy, to call a timeout. nytimes.com