TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:The stock market isn't the issue, the issue is debt. <snip> ... There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change.

VMI77 wrote:The #1 problem in this country is the entitlement culture.

You went and changed horses on me... A bit unfair...

I'll agree with you 100% that the culture of entitlement will be our downfall. Our Founding Fathers predicted it.

http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogs ... thers.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

http://aolanswers.com/questions/foundin ... 8172757412" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote: There is no political will to address the problem and that isn't going to change.

Tea Party, 2010...
Romney picked Ryan....

If those two alone don't appear to be "(some) political will to address the problem", I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise.

I'll of course concede that we have a long way to go, and that both major parties (and voters) are to blame for the current mess.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP
Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels
Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ey#Deficit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... ney#Budget" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmmmm..... Note to self...
Always quote the OP when I'm the first to reply on a new thread.

Rex B wrote:Back to the original subject, IMO the stock market will start to rise when/if it appears pretty likely that Romney will win. It will surge if he actually does win.
OTOH, if Obama wins, it will drop precipitously, and possibly crash.

As a person nearing retirement with a lot of investment in the stock market, this is a big issue with me.
I don't want to miss out on a rally, but I sure don't want my retirement funds halved, or worse.

If I knew BHO was going to win, I'd have to cash out and invest in firearms, precious metals, and food

Today would be a good day to cash out.
Better to miss out on a portion of a rally than stick around too long and get caught in a crash.
You can reinvest 60 days from now if you're inclined, but you can't so easily recover from a crash if your retirement is invested mainly in stock. If you're that close to retirement, having a big chunk of assets in stock is a bad idea anyways.

WildBill wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Every single time tax rates have been cut, tax revenues have increased. That historical fact really is that simple.

Maybe some people don't understand the term tax RATE.

Exactly....

When activity increases taxes collected generally increases...

The lower the tax on a "thing" the lower the cost of that "thing", therefore, the higher demand for that "thing"
Thing = Work or profitable activity or return on risk, etc.

Lower rates = greater return from "work" (more take home pay in your paycheck, or more profit in your risky business investment). Greater return spurs greater effort, resulting in greater activity and greater total tax revenue because the base of activity is greater...

More specifically in the opposite direction.. I read an article by John Lott yesterday... I quoted it here somewhere... The article said, essentially, that for people who earn between 10 and 40,000 dollars per year and are on government assistance, they have a marginal tax rate of about 82%. That is, for every dollar more they earn by doing productive work, they give back 82 cents in the form of reduced welfare, taxes, etc. If your work only netted you $0.18 on the dollar, what incentive do you have to engage in greater economic activity? None. This is Obama's way.... He thinks this is a good economic plan. He's just removed the welfare to work requirement. What do you think will happen to all those rational people on welfare who give up $0.82 of every extra dollar they earn? Of course they will stay home and collect welfare. It would be irrational to do otherwise.

ETA: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... e-run-out/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

President Obama has increased the effective penalty even for low- and moderate-income families earning more money. Not only do people lose federal earned income tax credits as well as pay federal and state taxes as their income increases, but they also lose the ever expanding government handouts including housing subsidies, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and food stamps.

The loss of these welfare programs and taxes is so large that when the average person earning between $10,000 and $40,000 makes an additional dollar they lose 82 cents -- 53 cents worth of government welfare programs and another 29 cents is lost through reduced tax credits and higher taxes. Who wants to work more when they lose 82 cents of each additional dollar that they earn?

WildBill wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Rational people will behave in very predictable ways.

I think that fear and uncertainty make people think less rationally.

Actually, "rational" people will behave quite rationally (and for the most part, predictably) to fear and uncertainty. Just because a person is fearful does not make them "irrational". "Rational", the way I intended it above, excludes only those with dementia and other illnesses of the mind and or personality.

For example... today there is widespread economic fear and uncertainty. What is happening? People are spending less, corporations are spending less, holding on to their reserves in case they are needed later for more important things than Starbucks and dinners out.

The economy is driven by supply and demand. I can draw you a simple chart and use it to explain with reasonable certainty the answer to any economic question assuming an unregulated market. Rational people will behave in very predictable ways. It's not rocket science.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote: Well, Romney's proposing even more tax cuts if he gets in, so I don't see how his arithmetic is going to work for
the national benefit either.

The Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003 in order to help the "job creators" create jobs.
Well, where's the jobs?

The deficit has ballooned under both Bush, Jr. and Obama.

American corporations are sitting on a huge mountain of cash, but not creating jobs, due to diminished demand
for goods and services.

Would a Romney presidency do anything to free up corporate money to hire folks?

Why does the economy always have to stimulated? Why can't it grow naturally without government turning all
kinds of knobs?

SIA

Oh gosh... where to begin...

Romney is proposing cutting loopholes and then lowering rates. This not necessarily a tax cut for anyone. It's TBD.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to be permanent, but the Dems last minute politicking undid that. Then Bush went on to allow wild, out of control spending. It was not only his fault, but he failed (miserably) to lead to block it. BUSH IS NOT ROMNEY, RYAN IS A DEFICIT HAWK. DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ROMNEY FROM BUSH IS A HUGE MISTAKE.

American corporations are not creating jobs IN AMERICA for a variety of reasons. 1. Demand is down, but even more critically... 2. Economic uncertainty, 3. regulatory uncertainty and regulatory burden (how may coal and other energy jobs are going under for this Presidents idealogical energy policy?), 4. inability to repatriate money from overseas operations without getting hit with a huge tax, 5. Government interference (XL pipeline anyone?).. I could go on... You should do some critical research..

The economy does not have to be tinkered with... It needs to be left alone and regulated only lightly to ensure as level as possible a playing field. The problem is that the economy has been so tinkered with that it cannot maintain its own balance. Why? Because every time there's a hiccup, Americans think the government should "DO SOMETHING",... Americans are too stupid to realize, after myriad examples over 240+ years, that government intervention is rarely a good thing.

This President (Obama) is an economic IDIOT. Worse than Carter by far, at a time when economic competency is sorely needed. This President is, instead, a damn-the-torpedoes ideologue. Doubling down to the left instead of moving center. This President would rather see us destroyed than miss "his chance" to undo Americas faults, even if it means Americas undoing.

/soapbox.

Interesting first post.

Rush is a very large bag of very hot air. I am not a fan.
He is the Right's Rachel Maddow. Rush does us few favors with his speak-->think.
I suspect all the doomsayers (in both directions) are overstating things.
America is quite resilient.

All that said, there is LOTS of merit to the notion that we will experience economic hardship if Dear Leader is re-elected.