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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (64817)	10/24/2006 12:35:56 PM
From: Oblivious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

We've had good markets since tax rates have been reduced after Reagan was elected president. Earned income was taxed then at 50%. Unearned income was taxed then at 70%. Financial markets were in terrible shape before he took office.

To: bentway who wrote (64817)	10/24/2006 1:12:09 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

>>>Somehow, we had spectacular economic growth WITH "high" taxes during the Clinton era:<<< I have no love for Bubba, nor "W," nor Alan Greenspan. I think that the chart below goes a long way in explaining the so-called prosperity of the late '90s. hussmanfunds.com According to Hussman, there was a redefinition of deposits in about '95, which had the effect of reducing bank reserve requirements. This resulted in a monetary bubble. The monetary bubble had to go somewhere. How about stocks?? And then real estate??? Whereto next??? Clinton played money games. He had the benefit of the fall of "The Wall." He also had the benefit of Andy Groves and Bill Gates bringing about a revolution in office efficiency through the internet, PCs, etc. We were lucky enough to have MonicaGate keeping the government all tied up in knots so it couldn't do anything and therefore further damage the economy. I think that "W" has made a horrible mess, and fought the current war with the future generation's tax dollars. At least he could have spent it on roads, nuclear reactors, bridges, etc as long as he was going to print money. We would have some sort of asset at the end of the day. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that while both overspend, the Democrats create long lived "social programs" with lots of federal jobs. They can't be killed once set in place. The Republicans fight wars (which can be stopped at any time), lower taxes, or give easily reversible breaks to business. It is the "easily reversed" aspects of Republican pork which make it far preferable over Democratic pork. Of course in the case of "W" he created more Medicare pork, and ethanol pork, both of which will be hard to root out. The man on Mars program will be easily killed (as it should be). I don't consider "W" to be a Republican. At least in the Dems win in a couple of weeks, we might be able to count on Pelosi reneging on her promise not to impeach, and we can then have the government blessedly confounded for the next two years. Or didn't you notice that the MonicaGate period corresponded with the greatest market growth.