QE3 - Paper worthless, real assets soaring

Why would it help to have them fall further so that more people are trapped in underwater mortgages?

 

LOL. Every dollar based bubble in the last 100 years has popped. Of course its temporary.

Oil, gas, and food costs increase 15-20% in three months. Those without investments are hurt most by this.

 

They changed how inflation is calculated to hide it.

Gas prices have doubled, and will increase again by 50%

they are destroying America, but you think this is some kinda good idea.....

WTF

 

You'd have been foolish if you had. 0.6% increased because of oil price increases following 4 month of flat prices isn't really something to get excited about.

 

Sure thing. You can explain it more here: http://www.politicalforum.com/conspiracy-theories/

 

What would you say would be an indicator of out of control inflation? Lets practice some non-cognitive dissonance for a moment.

 

LOL, I guess in conservative world one of the best ways to fight inflation would be building pipe line from Canada.....

 

Fight inflation. Buy gold, buy assets, buy anything NOT fiat.

 

No one voluntarily paid 91% of their income in taxes. People had 91% of their income STOLEN by Democrats enacting Pillar #2 of the Communist Manifesto (A heavy progressive or graduated income tax) in the United States!

When YOU voluntarily pay 91% of YOUR money in taxes perhaps YOU can talk! YOU and others like YOU just want to take OTHER people's money to spend on what YOU want correct?

You and yours have the morality of a thief! You WANT others to be 91% enslaved so YOU can get what YOU want without working!

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”
― Margaret Thatcher ​

Your “argument” is irrelevant for two reasons.

#1 it is a straw man argument since it does not address my claim that “Democrats need debt to survive.” I pointed out how deficit spending HAD to increase dramatically due to the REQUIREMENT that the SSA HAD to buy that debt by law, and had the debt not gone up the SSA would have owned all the debt and they would have had no more to “buy.” What then? Answer the question... You have no counter to that FACT. Do you even comprehend my point, or do you just squawk Democrat squawking points?

#2. The government is to fund constitutional expenses found in the Constitution. They have no “right” or legal authority to take a certain percentage of the economy for their illegal purposes. If you get a raise (your ECONOMY grows) the price of a loaf of bread does not go up BECAUSE you got the raise. We the People are not SLAVES to DEMOCRATS! Democrats don’t get a percentage of what we make like a Tribute, or a Dividend!

 

Why are you people arguing about democrats vs. republicans when the fed is independent and boy george appointed bernake in the first place? Which, i might add, was the solitary thing he got right in the eight disastrous years he loitered around the white house.

As a real estate investor of 36 years, this is excellent news for me.

 

Do you ever reply without bashing Conservatives/Republicans? Why do you feel the need to try to deflect everything?

 

The economy is larger then you. I hope you dont have kids/grandkids because this "excellent news" is just pushing more debt down their throats.

 

What kind of retard thinks that a President controls the global commodity market for Gas ?

 

Well i agree the debt has to be dealt with, but the president can't do it without congress.

 

I think this is interesting if they do a QE3 now. Obviously, anyone with a brain knows a stimulus won't help, and more inflation is the last thing we need. So for the FED to stick this in right now leads me to believe that the FED forces believe Romney will win, so stick this on the loser's back on the way out.

 

I’ll tell you something else. Democrats had to REALLY start deficit spending due to Reagan, and the benefits of Reaganomics.

Reaganomics almost doubled the income into the Treasury between the years 1981-1989 so those evil economy expanding tax cuts are not responsible for any of the deficit.

http://citizencam.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tottaxrev.jpg

As you can see Reagan did not build the military up another 500 billion a year between the years 1981-1989.

http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg539_360_252.jpg

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

As you can see the Democrats did almost double their spending on their unconstitutional Welfare State between the years 1981-1989. Why was that? The late 80s were a pretty good time economically IF one WANTED a job... lol Must be tough defending the indefensible.

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/A3584600FC0D609B9ACA9B844297B5A4.gif?w=370&as=1

How can Reaganomics be responsible for the deficit when cutting taxes on the "evil rich" brought in way more extra money than was spent on the military buildup? See, the Democrats almost doubling their unconstitutional Welfare State which brought in no extra money is to blame!


Facts.

1. When Social Security was established the entire national debt (all the deficits ever run in the history of the country) were less than $29 Billion dollars.

2. By the time Regan took office the Social Security Trust fund had accumulated to $24.6 Billion. (almost to $29 Billion dollars, or almost the entire national debt at the time of the creation of Social Security)

3. When Ronald Regan took office the income for tax revenues were about $500 Billion a year, and the whole national debt a little over $1 Trillion.

4. When Ronald Regan left office the income for tax revenues were about $1 Trillion and the debt almost $3 Trillion.

5. Regan did not spend an extra $500 Billion a year on the military. Actually the cumulative increase (from 1980 to 198 was about $123 Billion a year more.

6. Had the Democrats not dramatically increased deficit spending on their unconstitutional welfare state and wealth distribution programs the proceeds from Reaganomics (and the scheduled growth AFTER 1989) would have retired the debt in something like 10 (maybe 15) years. Instead, the Democrats had to ramp up deficit spending to kill the surplus that would have been created by Reaganomics so they could say Reaganomics did not work, and so the Social Security trust fund would have debt to buy, and so the Democrats could have a reason to raise taxes. It's easier for them to raise taxes in support of Social Security than to fund pet tax breaks, or to fund "Cash for Clunkers" programs, or even to pay welfare recipients more than an entry level job!

Think of the Social Security "trust fund" as a license for Democrats to deficit spend. People will pay higher taxes to keep the Social Security system solvent since they have been forced to participate. They probably would not pay higher taxes to support most other Democrats social engineering and wealth distribution schemes. The Social Security "trust fund" is like PAC MAN, it just keeps eating pellets of debt allowing the Democrats to borrow more and more.

Reaganomics works! It just does not do that which Democrats want.

 

Coming up with a budget proposal that actually gets more then zero votes would be a good start.

 

Economist, right and left, agree that while the stimulus of 2009 was not aggressive enough, it did create 3 million jobs.

 

I believe republicans rejected the president's offer of $10 in cuts for $1 in revenue. This seems to me a generous deal.

 

Not when the Democrats have a history of pulling that scam. The tax increases happen, the cuts don't.

 

I am speaking about his budget proposals.... That and he formed a "super congress" and STILL couldnt get a deal in place. Not much of a leader.

Btw it was $10 in "PROMISED" cuts in exchanged for more taxes. Why not put forward a budget proposal that they can vote for with those cuts instead of just promise < wink wink> to make those cuts.

 

Exactly. They did the same kind of shenanigans with Reagan and George H.W Bush, and in both cases, the same thing happened. It was probably the biggest reason why Bush ended up being a one term President.

 

The growth from the stimulus is a band aid, where as the inflation is eternal. No one who truly had loftier ideals than that of simply lining their pockets would ever support such policy.

 

A 10-1 spending cut to tax cut is a scam? It would be a scam for Republicans.

But it would violate their sworn allegiance to Grover Norquist.

 

When the spending cuts depend on the word of a slimy progressive, absolutely.