How Low Can It Go?

[Schneed10]

As soon as we begin to blame the President of the United States for what is happening to the stock market, you can pretty much call the market's behavior irrational. The president of the United States has very little control over the economy, big stimulus bills or otherwise.

The fact that people are blaming Obama shows that too many have no idea what's driving the downturn, which means prices have been driven down too far.

When lending turns around this market will bounce very high. Don't worry about whether you're getting in on the ground floor, just get in before you miss it.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As soon as we begin to blame the President of the United States for what is happening to the stock market, you can pretty much call the market's behavior irrational. The president of the United States has very little control over the economy, big stimulus bills or otherwise.

The fact that people are blaming Obama shows that too many have no idea what's driving the downturn, which means prices have been driven down too far.

When lending turns around this market will bounce very high. Don't worry about whether you're getting in on the ground floor, just get in before you miss it.

Agreed. But people ARE panicing in the stock market and many are doing so because of O' policies. I am not saying the policies do matter just that they are affecting people. O seems not to care.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Of course I do and they lost nearly 60% of their value. Why do you ask?

Well your using the tax code to your advantgae just like the people your complaining about but on a much smaller scale. While the goverment is at it why not do away with IRA's?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I think I'd be in quite high demand if I could answer that question. My asssertion is that we collectively pay too much in taxes. We pay an enorm ous amount in taxes as a nation and in the middle of a recession taking money out of the private sector and putting it into gov't is about the worse thing I can think of. Consumers drive our economy. Consumers buy products from our companies. Investors invest in companies. This all makes companies more successful. They hire more people. More people spend. Rinse/repeat. It all requires that people, rich and poor, have money and feel confident to spend it. The market tanking because investors are paniced by gov't policies is bad. It is a bad indicator of true economic stability but it quite obviously affects people's condidence nonetheless.

Somehow I doubt there is a real equilibrium. It is probably constantly changing. Just another argument why the gov't shouldn't be actively trying to manipulate markets. They can't react nearly fast enough. MOst of the "stimulus" money really won't get into the market until far past the point we really need it. Which is two days after 4 months ago.

My question is an invalid question, it was intended merely to highlight how indefensible your premise is from logical standpoint.

The premise of your argument is that taxes make people less rich which is bad for our economy. My question is at what threshold of taxation do we reach an equilibrium? Not too much taxes to be harmful to our economy and not too little to be beneficial to our economy?

Why would we need to find an equilibrium given that too little taxation benefits our economy?

[70Chip]

Okay. So far a lively debate but very few specific predictions. Those with balls are:

jsarno: 6000
djnemo65 5500
redskinjim: 5000
Saden1: 5000 (not out of the question)
FRPLG 4900
Slingin Sammy 33 4800
Buster: 3500
70Chip: 3499
CRedskinsRule: 0
That Guy: Less than 0 (possibly)

Of course the winner gets to inherit my Tom Tupa avatar.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

My question is an invalid question, it was intended merely to highlight how indefensible your premise is from logical standpoint.



Why would we need to find an equilibrium given that too little taxation benefits our economy?

I guess I am thoroughly confused by what you are trying to say then.

Indefensible? That's quite silly. It seems your point is that taxes at any level are fine. Why don't we just hand all of our money over to the gov't then? Would that be fine for our economy?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I guess I am thoroughly confused by what you are trying to say then.

Indefensible? That's quite silly. It seems your point is that taxes at any level are fine. Why don't we just hand all of our money over to the gov't then? Would that be fine for our economy?

The difference between you and I is that I never took the position that a) too much taxes are good for the economy and b) the impact of increasing the tax rate from 35% to 39% is always harmful.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Agreed. But people ARE panicing in the stock market and many are doing so because of O' policies. I am not saying the policies do matter just that they are affecting people. O seems not to care.

He shouldn't care. If people want to be irrational (ie retarded) and get all panicky and sell, that's their problem. Eventually someone else will come along and buy up those devalued shares, and they will be the ones to reap the rewards when the market goes back up. From a macro level, it's all good for the United States. Some will get panicky and lose by selling now, and others will pick up those shares and gain.

It's up to the people to decide for themselves to be smart or stupid with their money. If they're looking to the President of the United States to determine what the market is going to do, then they're categorically being stupid.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

The difference between you and I is that I never took the position that a) too much taxes are good for the economy and b) the impact of increasing the tax rate from 35% to 39% is always harmful.

No the difference is that you rarely actually take a position. You roam around these threads basically saying "nanny nanny boo boo you are wrong". You google around and find some links to support your hole poking and never say "this is what I believe..." It is quite tiresome. What do YOU think about taxes? More people than I have tried to get what YOUR position is. Are higher taxes ok or not? WHy or why not? Make an argument. It doesn't have to have nine artciles from various biased or unbiased aources to support it either. Just give your opinion. You don't always need the articles. People here know you aren't a dumdum.
.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by 4mrusmc

djnemo65, I may not be as profound as some of our esteemed members of this fine community. But, when the largest global domino (the U.S.) has a it's economy in the toliet. All of the other little dominoes fall suit.

When our president, and his supporters are openly hostile to people of higher means, what would you expect the economy to do?

The vast majority of the people who pulled the lever for the big O, stepped out of that same voting booth with their hand-out looking for a pay-out. Where as the vast majority of the people who voted for the other guy, simply tried to stem the tide. Most of the same people who chant "yes we can", look for government as a solution to their problems. It's not their fault, they just don't know any better. Do you really think that those "yes we can" people will want to roll up their sleeves, and create, innovate, and put forth anything that will have an impact on our current economic crisis? Really, do you?

I think that this government really needs to be aware of who really drives this economic machine, and stop fing with it, and being hostile to it.

Somewhere there is a community missing it's organizer. Interestingly ironic, yes it is.

Your argument would make sense if and only if the economy was in good shape, Obama got elected, Obama announced his new tax policies, the US market imploded, and then the rest of the world quickly followed suit. This happening wouldn't make your argument true, it would just make it not on face ridiculous.

Given that this isn't what happened the best one can say about your position is that you are failing to account for mechanisms much more complex than upper level income taxes. That's putting it charitably. Once you wade through the platitudes and slogans in your post what is left? Not much economic analysis.

Tremendous weaknesses in not just the US economy but the global economy have been exposed over the past year. It's not any one person's fault (no, not even Bush's) and it's a hell of a lot bigger than domestic tax policy (which isn't even going to be changed until 2011).

And I'm going 5500.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

He shouldn't care. If people want to be irrational (ie retarded) and get all panicky and sell, that's their problem. Eventually someone else will come along and buy up those devalued shares, and they will be the ones to reap the rewards when the market goes back up. From a macro level, it's all good for the United States. Some will get panicky and lose by selling now, and others will pick up those shares and gain.

It's up to the people to decide for themselves to be smart or stupid with their money. If they're looking to the President of the United States to determine what the market is going to do, then they're categorically being stupid.

I see your point an d fundamentally agree but here's the rub. While his policies kill the market real devaluation is taking place. People who don't have 10 years to wait for it come back are getting screwed in the ear. It is not going to bounce straight back up. It will probably be a slow and steady rise.

[KLHJ2]

I sold last September and I claimed my losses on my taxes. I am looking to buy back in within the next couple of months. By my estimation despite my losses I am about to make some considerable gains in the future. Is that wrong...Schneed?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Okay. So far a lively debate but very few specific predictions. Those with balls are:

jsarno: 6000
redskinjim: 5000
Saden1: 5000 (not out of the question)
Buster: 3500
70Chip: 3499
CRedskinsRule: 0
That Guy: Less than 0 (possibly)

Of course the winner gets to inherit my Tom Tupa avatar.

I'll go 4900.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As soon as we begin to blame the President of the United States for what is happening to the stock market, you can pretty much call the market's behavior irrational. The president of the United States has very little control over the economy, big stimulus bills or otherwise.

The fact that people are blaming Obama shows that too many have no idea what's driving the downturn, which means prices have been driven down too far.

When lending turns around this market will bounce very high. Don't worry about whether you're getting in on the ground floor, just get in before you miss it.

The POTUS has very little control by himself. A Democratic POTUS with a Democratic Congress has a great deal of control. In this particular situation where the housing market has tanked due to bad loan policies, it will take some gov't intervention to fix the situation and remove the bad loans from the system. Hopefully this will restore banks confidence in each other and people's confidence in the banks. Credit should begin to flow and people will spend again.

However in the face of this economic crisis a tax increase targeted at those who drive the economy, a capital gains increase, restoration of a 45% death tax and energy/pollution taxes (which will be paid by every American who has electric service or puts gas in his/her car), coupled with huge spending increases has a great deal to do with the current drop in the markets. Will they rebound, at some point of course. We came out of the depression and the 70s, but as FRPLG mentioned, we will most likely wind up with another lost decade if Obama's administration doesn't do an about face on their current policies/positions.

For the record I'm betting on a floor of 4800.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

No the difference is that you rarely actually take a position. You roam around these threads basically saying "nanny nanny boo boo you are wrong". You google around and find some links to support your hole poking and never say "this is what I believe..." It is quite tiresome. What do YOU think about taxes? More people than I have tried to get what YOUR position is. Are higher taxes ok or not? WHy or why not? Make an argument. It doesn't have to have nine artciles from various biased or unbiased aources to support it either. Just give your opinion. You don't always need the articles. People here know you aren't a dumdum.
.

LOL, touched a nerve have we? All my post stand on their own without having to click on the links. I'm not sure what you're looking for. I always answer questions posed, and I respond to posts I disagree with. The formula is that simple. If you have a problem with a post of mine I'll be happy to elaborate and clarify.

Much like you a few around here view me as the asshole guy, but the truth is I'd like to think of myself in a more positive light...Defender of Reason. I like the sound of that, what do you think?


1. What do YOU think about taxes?
Taxes are fine, they help organize and maintain the collective.

2. Are higher taxes ok or not?
I can't answer this question in its current form. The question is too complex to answer with a simple yes or no. Phrase the question better and I will answer it.

3. Why or why not?
I haven't answered question 2 therefore I cannot answer this question.