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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (679377)	10/17/2012 12:14:57 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573213

Housing Starts Surge 15% By SARAH PORTLOCK And ALAN ZIBEL U.S. home building surged in September to the highest level in more than four years, the latest sign that housing is becoming an increasingly important boost to the troubled economy. Housing starts increased 15.0% last month from August to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 872,000, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. Compared with a year earlier, new construction was up 34.8%. Construction of single-family homes, which made up 69% of housing starts last month, grew 11.0% in September to a rate of 603,000 units--the highest level since August 2008. Single-family construction was up nearly 43% from a year earlier. Multifamily homes of two units or more, meanwhile, jumped 25.1% from a month earlier. The figures were well above expectations. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast overall housing starts would grow to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 768,000, which would have been a 2.4% jump from August's previously reported figures. Starts in August were revised up to a rate of 758,000, reflecting a 4.1% increase from July. wsj.com

To: i-node who wrote (679377)	10/17/2012 3:13:39 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573213

Okay. So, we cut taxes -- as we've done under JFK, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Under JFK you have a point. Top bracket was 90%. That was too high. Under Reagan, he cut taxes and then raised them back a little. However, two factors were keeping the economy back. High oil prices and high interest rates. Interest rates were cut and OPEC fell apart. Neither had to do with cutting taxes..The deficit spending he ran during those years was also stimulative. Under Clinton, he raised taxes on the upper end and lowered taxes for the middle class and poor. However, by that time, the economy was already recovering from the bellyflop under Bush I Under Bush II, there was an economic slowdown due to the dotcom bubble bursting and 9/11. It just isn't possible to claim that the economy would not recover from those things for your thesis to work. If nothing else, the massive increase in the deficits and the debt were very stimulative.The bulk of the money from his tax cuts went to people who don't spend a large fraction of their income on consumer goods. With 70% or more of our economy depending on consumer spending, it should be obvious to everyone but the blindly partisan that if you want economic growth, you make sure that the ones who get it are most likely to spend it in the economy. Unless, of course, you have insufficient investment. A stock market of 10,000+ is not a sign of insufficient investment.