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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43214)	5/14/2010 4:10:00 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"Economic growth is the best bet." That's what I've been arguing for, Peter!

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43214)	5/17/2010 3:07:22 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

Senate Rejects Capping Fannie/Freddie Losses Posted by Mark A. Calabria Yesterday the Senate rejected an amendment by Senators McCain, Shelby and Gregg that would have capped the taxpayer losses on Fannie and Freddie at $200 billion each. The amendment would have also brought Fannie and Freddie onto the Federal budget, forcing the government to admit what most of us already suspect: we’re on the hook for their bad behavior. All Republicans, with the additions of Democrats Feingold and Bayh, voted for the failed amendment. As a substitute, which passed along party lines, Senator Dodd proposed that the Treasury Department would “study” the issue and report back to Congress. While it was not surprising that Dodd lead the opposition to the McCain amendment (it is not the first time he’s protected Fannie and Freddie), what was surprising was his repeated explanation that the National Association of Realtors and National Association of Home Builders opposed the amendment. With all of Obama’s talk about taking on special interests, I was starting to think the Senate might be serious. But what’s a few $100 billion of taxpayer dollars to insure that real estate agents can get a few more fat commissions. Even more bizarre was Dodd’s claim that his substitute amendment was a “tough study”. What exactly is so tough about requiring Treasury to do a study that they’ve already said they were going to do. For that matter, what’s so tough about a “study”? The failings of Fannie and Freddie, and their inherent conflicts, have been studied extensively for years. The rejection of the McCain amendment illustrates why we need GSE reform now, as the special interests are already claiming that another study is all we need. cato-at-liberty.org

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (43214)	5/18/2010 1:58:54 AM
From: RMF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Has that guy got a way to Whip That Out in the next 10 years?? "Easier said than done, of course. The Econ 101 way to boost growth is by having more workers becoming ever more productive. With the growth in the U.S. labor force likely to slow in coming years, workers and companies will need to get even more innovative. And there is no one policy to help make that happen. It will take a full-spectrum effort: lower taxes on companies and capital, pork-free spending on infrastructure and basic research (beyond health care), an education system that teaches students rather than feathering the nests of teachers’ unions. Every aspect of U.S. public policy will need to be optimized for economic growth. Now that sounds like a worthy subject for a Washington commission." He wants LOWER taxes on companies and capital (that should cut the deficit real quick, AFTER it explodes it some more). He wants a BETTER education system (I'm sure that will SAVE money in the short term after you pay MUCH higher salaries to better teachers) He wants everything "optimized for economic growth" (well THAT'S easy, which is probably why he just put that in ONE sentence without telling us WHAT he means) B..........S