Message from discussion Trader4 was right?? gensets vs. car inverters.....
Received: by 10.224.220.136 with SMTP id hy8mr338884qab.3.1352824213299;
Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.175.73 with SMTP id by9mr4435836vdc.1.1352824213243; Tue,
13 Nov 2012 08:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Injection-Info: 10g2000vbu.googlegroups.com; posting-host=126.96.36.199; posting-account=C1SVQAkAAACfJY63oQnKBve0H-yhg4CH
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
Trident/5.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; HPDTDF; .NET4.0C; BRI/1; BRI/2; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Subject: Re: Trader4 was right?? gensets vs. car inverters.....
From: "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:30:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Nov 13, 6:56=A0am, "Robert Green" <robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:77e9a745-38de-41d4-8bf3-
> =A0"Robert Green" <robert_green1...@yah00.com> wrote:
> > "Gunner" <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > <stuff snipped>
> > Maybe if you had a video of Carville saying what you allege it would be
> > provable but only ranters showed up in my search, not Carville.
> > every idiotic thing any politico says nowadays ends up on YouTube, that=
> > another clue your alleged quote is bunk. Screwed by your puppetmasters
> > again. Don't you hate that? (-:
> > > And its not Bush's fault either!!
> > Crashing the economy was Bush's (and Congress's) fault but spreading BS
> > that doesn't pass the smell test was probably not.
> <What specific acts did Bush take during his term that caused the collaps=
> Easy fella, I responded to Gunner's gratuitous "It's not Bush's fault."
> But if you want a real answer, Bush's tax cuts decreased revenue and his =
> wars increased expenses. =A0That's a pretty damn simple way to pump up th=
> debt. =A0Recent surveys show people believe that's exactly what happened.=
> do I.
First, it's a false premise that Bush's tax cuts decreased revenue.
When Bush left office, revenue was higher that it had ever been
in history. Those tax cuts stimulated the economy. Had there
been no tax cuts, the economy would have grown slower, there
would have been higher unemployment, and perhaps LESS
revenue. The deficit was steadily decreasing over Bush's
final years. It was down to a mere $160bil in 2007. Today,
And second, you blamed Bush for CRASHING THE ECONMOMY.
There is no link at all between the recession and federal debt.
It was caused by a huge speculative bubble in HOUSING.
And if deficit spending and debt is the problem, why is it that
all you libs want to spend even MORE, borrow even
more and are perfectly happy with Obama doing exactly that?
In other words, as usual, you make no sense.
> Bush pursued the free-marketer's goal to deregulate Wall Street which hel=
> build the housing bubble and allowed financial institutions to pursue ris=
> trades unchecked.
Again, please point to the specifics attributable to Bush.
Glass-Steagall repeal was the major deregulation that many
point a finger at. That was repealed under CLINTON.
> In fact, Bush's minions, Greenspan, Levitt and Rubin were
> claimed to be dead set against regulating derivatives, something that mig=
> have blunted the severity of the collapse.
Yes, maybe. But then Congress has direct involvement with
Fannie and Freddie, their quasi-govt agencies that they created.
What good did that do? Barney Frank pronounced them both
sound weeks before they went bankrupt.
> Instead, they preferred to let the market "sort it out" while they kept
> ratcheting the cost of money down to unheard of lows. =A0People took the
> nearly free money and bought dumb things. =A0The ride down was very rough=
> plunged the nation into the Great Recession.
The low interest rates were Greenspan's doing, not Bush.
Yes, Bush reappointed him, but Greenspan has headed the
fed since 1987, including during the 8 years of Clinton.
So, again, pointing the finger at Bush doesn't work.
> The SEC declined to regulate CDS's even though NY's Eliot Spitzer had bee=
> after AIG for quite some time for selling what was basically insurance
> without a license. =A0He was concerned that they sold "swaps" without the
> proper reserves that various agencies require of insurers. =A0When AIG wa=
> forced to pay off on this insurance, they got caught in the death spiral =
> insufficient reserves and Uncle Sam stepped in. =A0Lots of that bailout m=
> as I am sure you know, when to banks in Europe. =A0The SEC was asleep at =
> switch. =A0Bush starved that agency in an attempt to reduce their
> effectiveness and it worked.
LOL. Typical. The poor SEC just doesn't have enough tax payer
money to do it's job. Let's send it even more money, that's always
the solution, right?
>The SEC should have grown in proportion to the
> market it was designed to regulate, but it didn't. =A0Bernie Madoff flour=
> and the CDO/CDS mess exploded nearly collapsing the economy.
If you look back through history there have been many, many
Bernie MAdoffs and speculative boom/busts, with or without
> The Bush tax cuts - over 50 percent of which benefited the richest 5 perc=
> of American taxpayers - cost well over $2 trillion in lost revenue over t=
> decade after they were enacted. Ten years later, Bush's tax cuts are stil=
> considered by many (like me) to be the most important reason for the
> increase in the national debt. =A0The ten year experiment has been a fail=
That's becaue you don't know what you're talking about. First, the
starting falacy is that the economy is static. You think if you
tax rates from 30% to 40%, you'd get an additional 10% in revenue.
It doesn't work that way.
And second, how can you say the Bush tax cuts are the most important
reason for the increase in the national debt? Per your own alleged
numbers above they amounted to $2 tril over 10 years. The deficit
for the year that just ended under OBama is $1.1Tril alone. We've
added $5.5 tril under his 4 years and we're continuing to add more.
Obama rails against the rich and insists that we must raise taxes
on those earning $200,000 a year. I would not call those people
rich. But even if you did exactly what Obama wants, you obviously
have no idea at all how insignificant it would be. Raising taxes
on those making over $200K a year would bring in $75bil to $90bil
a year in additional revenue. The deficit is $1.1Tril. See the
It's not taxes, it's that SPENDING is out of control. And Obama
is actually paying to run ads to encourage more people to apply
for food stamps.
> The myth that tax cuts for the wealthy creates jobs in *America* may fina=
> die the death it deserves this year in Congress. =A0There's no mechanism =
> any of the tax cuts that require those benefiting from the break to inves=
> in America or American jobs. =A0It's clear from the steady loss of jobs i=
> US that the cuts failed to do what was claimed.
There was no steady loss of jobs. Those tax cuts went into effect
with the recession that Bush inherited when he took office. They
got the economy moving again, they created jobs, and we had the
lowest unemployment in history. Yes, that changed with the recession.
A recession caused not by tax cuts. It was caused by a speculative
bubble in real estate. And if you want to blame tax policy, there is
blame there. It's that the govt for decades has had a tax policy that
encourages people to speculate in real estate. The mortgage
interest is tax deductible. The real estate taxes are tax deductible.
And perhaps best of all, if you claim it's your residence, it's
exempt from any tax when you sell it a big profit. Then people
wonder why people speculated in housing?
=A0So why give the top earners
> a break if, after the 10 years "test" period incorporated in the law to m=
> it palatable (and passable), the jobs never materialized?
The jobs did materialize, look at 2000-2007
> The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end up costing the country trillion=
> of dollars. This is pretty simple macroeconomics. =A0Cutting government
> revenue while spending vast sums on two 10 year wars had the predictable
> result: =A0It exploded the deficit and evaporated the surplus accumulated
> under Clinton.
The economy was in recession when Clinton left office. The stock
market had started collapsing in the spring of 2000. Did you accuse
Clinton of screwing the stock market? Of him and Greenspan allowing
that bubble to go on? That booming stock market was a key part of
Clinton's brief surplus. With the stock boom over and the economy
in recession, the budget was going into deficit regardless. And if
Bush had not cut taxes, the recession would have been deeper and
the govt would have wound up with about the same deficits.
As to the wars, the total cost of more than a decade, including
both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan is around $1.3 tril.
The deficit is now $16tril. We've added $5.5 tril under Obama.
So, sorry, but the wars and the Bush tax cuts are not the problem.
SPENDING is the problem. Spending has increased by 40% since
Bush left. And that with one war entirely over.
>=A0Now the deficit is priority one for the party that ran up
> war debts, spent at least another trillion on intel and security upgrades
> and God knows what on the Part D drug plan. =A0Pretty soon, we ended up t=
> eyeballs in debt, especially with so many people unemployed from the cras=
> making claims on the federal and state social safety nets.
And it obviously is no priority at all for Obama and the Dems.
He doesn't even talk about it. When asked what the level of
national debt was when he took office by David Letterman,
Obama said he didn't know....
> > And why is your list so limited and yet contains Bush, with Congress as=
> after thought?
> Bush pushed those two wars and he pushed them hard. =A0That's why Congres=
> in parentheses as a sort of unindicted co-conspirator. =A0<humor alert> =
> you think we would have been so deeply involved in AfRaq without Bush's
> initiative? =A0I don't.
What would you have done? Send Bin Laden a cake? What did
John Kerry, Hillary, Bill Clinton, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy all say
in 2001? They were saying the exact same things about Iraq
that Bush and Cheney were.
What has OBama done? He's still waging war in Afghanistan
4 years after Bush is gone.
> <I will give you credit for at least including Congress, where every othe=
> Dem, with Obama leading the way, just blames it all on Bush.>
> Gee thanks, you don't know how much that means to me. =A0<sarcasm alert>
> <In fact, there is a long list. =A0In addition to the above, I would plac=
> lot of the blame on the FED and Greenspan. =A0It's their job to track the
> economy and they have thousands of employees doing exactly that.>
> And I did blame Greenspan - but Rubin and Levitt were involved, too, and
> they were part of Bush's administration. =A0He could have throttled them =
> had he chosen to do so.
> <Anyone could see that real estate had gone up way too far, too fast. =A0=
> the FED believe those homes in Las Vegas and Miami really were worth doub=
> what they were worth just a few years earlier? =A0 Yet, they ignored the
> housing bubble and kept interest rates very low.>
> Absolutely. =A0The administration, under Bush's direction, didn't see wha=
> happening. =A0Who gets the blame for that? =A0The captain of the ship. =
> reverse, R's seem happy to blame Obama for Fast and Furious and the death=
> in Libya. =A0If you consider Obama "at fault" for the actions of fairly l=
> level members of his administration, the same kind of blame should attach=
> Bush for his economic advisor's bad decisions. =A0Hoover had very little =
> with the Great Depression but he certainly has taken the blame for it.
> Fair? =A0Not really but that's how the cookie crumbles.
Do you blame Clinton for the very similar stock market bubble
that burst because he didn't do anything about it? And that
bubble was a lot more obvious. Presidents don't buy houses
every day or know that real estate has doubled in Las Vegas.
But I bet they know what the DOW and Nasdaq are doing.
> <Whether the wall street derivatives blew up or not, you still would have
> had a recession and
> severe decline in housing prices. =A0 It just made it worse.>
> I agree. =A0There was a perfect economic storm that hit us from a number =
> angles. =A0A lot of it had to do with the Fed's cheap money policy. =A0I =
> not one of those brainiacs thought about what would happen when the rates
> got closer and closer to zero. =A0Those reductions pumped up the economic
> stats but it was really not true growth - as you cogently pointed out the
> doubling of house prices didn't represent real equity - just the effects =
> lots of nearly free money and a bubble expanding like the Big Bang.
It was real growth. The economy does not just consist of housing.
Other sectors were performing well with real growth.
> <You also have players involved like Fannie and Freddie, both creations o=
> Congress decades ago and heavily supervised by Congress. =A0 Yet they tho=
> it was peachy keen to keep buying mortgages on houses that had gone up
> drastically in a bubble.>
> I completely agree. =A0There's plenty of blame to go around but the basic
> flaws were spending money on wars while simultaneously cutting revenue.
That is just such total BS. You really need to take some courses
in economics. There is not one bit of evidence that the collapse in
housing prices, the collapse in derivatives had anything whatever
to do with tax cuts. And revenue was NOT decreasing. The
federal govt took in more revenue in 2007 than ever before in
history. The deficit was just $160bil. Today it's $1.1 tril with
an economy that's been growing for 2 years now.
> That's pretty much on Bush, I'm afraid. =A0The Congress foolishly agreed =
> involve us in the disastrous AfRaq wars without a single care, it seems,
> about how to pay for them.
Again,with the cost of the two wars over a decade+ at $1.3 tril,
the wars are NOT the major factor. So, why must you libs always
pretend that it's so? And then blame Bush for it all, while all the
leading lib Dems were saying the exact same things about Afganistan,
Iraq, WMDs, etc?
They seem very concerned now, but I believe
> that's just political theater. The deficit, as it almost always does, as =
> recover. It will shrink when revenues pick up and claims for unemployment=
> etc. decrease.
Yes, it would if you had a president that was pro-business
instead of being anti-business. And a president that had the
right policies. But we don't. For examples of that, look at
past recessions and where we would be today. Reagan
inherited one hell of a mess. By this time in his administration,
we were creating 400,000 jobs a month. One month, it
reached $1.2mil. Today, we're lucky to see 90,000.
> =A0I fear that the sudden move to austerity is going to
> contract the economy and lead to another recession. =A0It's going to be a=
> interesting few months as Congress deals with sequestration. =A0I hope th=
> don't force another downgrade of the US's creditworthiness. =A0That was
LOL. Austerity? What austerity? The Republicans didn't
force a downgrade. The USA piling on debt, increasing spending
40% over what it was in 2007, is what resulted in the downgrade.
All the Republicans are guilty of is insisting that there finally
be real SPENDING cuts. The libs idea is to first start with
a fantasy baseline. Pretend that the war in Iraq is still going on.
Pretent that the war in Afghanistan would go on for another 10
years. Put in every other spending idea they can. Add all that
up, then propose to cut it by 1% in future years and demand
that taxes go up immediately as part of it. The net result is
the tax increases are real and the spending cuts are totally
bogus and never materialize. That's why we're spending
40% more now than in 2007.