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 : Buy and Sell Signals, and Other Market Perspectives -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (40020)	11/7/2012 9:34:10 PM
From: Seismo	Respond to of 218284

Kirk, luckily we were able to vote FOR a candidate whose platform encompassed many of those views. He didn't win but I feel much better voting FOR views I like as opposed to voting against views I don't like.

To: Kirk © who wrote (40020)	11/7/2012 9:52:03 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218284

Why should the Federal Government give ANY tax deductions for having kids, being married, using debt to buy a home? I think it's a no-brainer to assist couples in having children, at least with regard to maintaining the population base (having at least 2.1 children). A declining population results in a declining future tax base as well as labor shortages which will be made up by immigration of (undocumented?) foreign labor. And the fact that this gov't was established for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of it's voting citizens, not some economic ideology (although my preference is competitive, entrepreneurial capitalism).. Mortgage subsidies are a bit harder to defend, outside of the fact that it promotes ownership over "renting".. (no one washes a rented car). But it also subsidizes the banks by pushing mortgage interest costs onto the broader tax base. For example, not including any other associated costs, a $100K mortgage (for simplicity) would incur $93K in interest (@ 5%) over 30 years, effectively doubling the original purchase price of the house. mortgagemavin.com That means that one's home has to appreciate at more than 5% per year in order to keep pace with the price of the financing. And obviously, taking away the mortgage deduction would be hugely deflationary for the housing market, which would crush home-owners who are already under water on the present value of their homes. Hawk

To: Kirk © who wrote (40020)	11/7/2012 11:13:09 PM
From: steve from ihub	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218284

there was a table going around that the US military spending comprises 43% of the worlds military spending. a wee bit out of line me thinks

To: Kirk © who wrote (40020)	11/7/2012 11:52:37 PM
From: Wayners	2 Recommendations Respond to of 218284

Military spending may seem high, but it's about to or is being dwarfed by Medicare and Social Security and Interest on the debt. You could cut military spending to zero and it won't help at this point. We should just surrender now to whomoever, the Caliphate or China or the Taliban because if we continue on this path, all tax money and borrowed money is going straight to Interest on the Debt, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security with not a single dime leftover. Moving even further forward into the future, 100% of the revenue and additional borrowings will go 100% to the interest on the debt with no funds leftover whatsover for a Government or anything else.