Dow extends record run

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good news indeed.

You can't stop this roaring economy. :thumbsup:

The only thing roaring is that many of the rich boys sense that their free reign run is coming to a close and they are going on a last minute binge.

Good riddence.

Isn't it time for you mid-morning nap?

 

[International Machine Consortium]

I'm no economist like the Republicans in here obviously are, () but a couple of points:

1. The Dow is a rather meaningless bellweather for most of us. The S&P is far more important.

2. If the markets had continued the growth begun under Clinton, they would be in the stratosphere, not a bit higher than they were at that time.

Note: I'm not poor by any means, so the Hummer stuff, etc, doesn't impress me. Save that for Dave. (sorry Dave)

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good news indeed.

You can't stop this roaring economy. :thumbsup:

The only thing roaring is that many of the rich boys sense that their free reign run is coming to a close and they are going on a last minute binge.

Good riddence.

Isn't it time for you mid-morning nap?

Yeah, perhaps I need one. After closing a 600m dollar securitization conduit this morning for a Fortune 100 bank, negotiating all-time low fees and rates with the purchaser, I think I do need a nap. Ohh and my CFA membership is hopefully getting processed today.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

I'm in :thumbsup:

This doesn't shock me in the slightest. Sheeple following the rest of the flock. Too bad you are too clueless to know when to stop.

This economy is going down the crapper, read the housing thread. Or, if you dare, keep debating with me, I'll own you 7 ways to sunday. However, I doubt you'd take anything from it. I can't force to to learn.

Why do you assume that everyone but yourself is clueless about the economy? Your arrogant elitist attitude makes my success all the more sweet.

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good news indeed.

You can't stop this roaring economy. :thumbsup:

The only thing roaring is that many of the rich boys sense that their free reign run is coming to a close and they are going on a last minute binge.

Good riddence.

Isn't it time for you mid-morning nap?

Actually it will soon be time for me to take my 32 foot boat for a spin on the lake with it's twin 255 engines.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Irrational *cough* exhuberance

Did someone mention paying down the deficit faster than expected? Isn't that like claiming your income is up when you get a loan from your 401k?

Last I checked, the greatest expansion in entitlements since the New Deal was signed into law in 2003. Anybody betting on the repeal of that garbage by Republicans? If Democrats take control of Congress the best they are likely to do is raise taxes (amongst other things) to cover the doughnut hole. So our most likely scenario is having dumb (Republicans) followed by dumber (Democrats).

Further, the only way the deficit continues to decline after 2009 is if tax cuts expire and no changes are made to the AMT. I believe the SS surplus also peaks around 2009-2010.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good news indeed.

You can't stop this roaring economy. :thumbsup:

The only thing roaring is that many of the rich boys sense that their free reign run is coming to a close and they are going on a last minute binge.

Good riddence.

Isn't it time for you mid-morning nap?

Yeah, perhaps I need one. After closing a 600m dollar securitization conduit this morning for a Fortune 100 bank, negotiating all-time low fees and rates with the purchaser, I think I do need a nap. Ohh and my CFA membership is hopefully getting processed today.

I was replying to Dave, btw.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

I'm in :thumbsup:

This doesn't shock me in the slightest. Sheeple following the rest of the flock. Too bad you are too clueless to know when to stop.

This economy is going down the crapper, read the housing thread. Or, if you dare, keep debating with me, I'll own you 7 ways to sunday. However, I doubt you'd take anything from it. I can't force to to learn.

Why do you assume that everyone but yourself is clueless about the economy? Your arrogant elitist attitude makes my success all the more sweet.

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good news indeed.

You can't stop this roaring economy. :thumbsup:

The only thing roaring is that many of the rich boys sense that their free reign run is coming to a close and they are going on a last minute binge.

Good riddence.

Isn't it time for you mid-morning nap?

Actually it will soon be time for me to take my 32 foot boat for a spin on the lake with it's twin 255 engines.

Make sure you fill those gas tanks up high so that you can make the rich richer and the poor (you) poorer.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

I'm in :thumbsup:

This doesn't shock me in the slightest. Sheeple following the rest of the flock. Too bad you are too clueless to know when to stop.

This economy is going down the crapper, read the housing thread. Or, if you dare, keep debating with me, I'll own you 7 ways to sunday. However, I doubt you'd take anything from it. I can't force to to learn.

Why do you assume that everyone but yourself is clueless about the economy? Your arrogant elitist attitude makes my success all the more sweet.

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good news indeed.

You can't stop this roaring economy. :thumbsup:

The only thing roaring is that many of the rich boys sense that their free reign run is coming to a close and they are going on a last minute binge.

Good riddence.

Isn't it time for you mid-morning nap?

Actually it will soon be time for me to take my 32 foot boat for a spin on the lake with it's twin 255 engines.

Make sure you fill those gas tanks up high so that you can make the rich richer and the poor (you) poorer.

Yeah, I am a bit puzzled by that...for somebody railing against the rich, he's sure going to be wasting a lot of money.

 

[maluckey]

Nice math too, did you take that straight out of an economics 101 book?

I certainly did. I figured that way you might understand it. Defict means nothing without comparing income. The United States is fighting two wars, cleaning up after the worst disaster ever, and this is compounded with a full year of other hurricanes, and 12 million souls NOT paying taxes etc. Other countries (peers) have a worse deficit ratio that the U.S.

Of course this wasn't addressed at all, because you personally think (despite the evidence) that the economy is tanked.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Nice math too, did you take that straight out of an economics 101 book?

I certainly did. I figured that way you might understand it. Defict means nothing without comparing income. The United States is fighting two wars, cleaning up after the worst disaster ever, and this is compounded with a full year of other hurricanes, and 12 million souls NOT paying taxes etc. Other countries (peers) have a worse deficit ratio that the U.S.

Of course this wasn't addressed at all, because you personally think (despite the evidence) that the economy is tanked.

Actually we aren't fighting two wars. In Afghanistan, we are marking time as NATO slowly loses. In Iraq, we are marking time until the civil war goes full scale. Total cost $9B/mo . . . not counting startup costs.

The US isn't really cleaning up after Katrina . . . at least it's not a particularly expensive FEDERAL proposition at the moment. Further, the economic impact isn't that substantial b/c LA and MS aren't exactly CA and NY. Despite some lost refinery and gulf drilling capacity the price of oil is falling . . . fast.

I don't know much about the 12 million souls NOT paying taxes. I do know the highest earners in America are paying a LOWER percentage of their income in taxes.

I've never understood the appeal in pointing to France or Germany and saying, "LOOK . . . they are more inept than we are!"

Most Americans have a different perspective on the economy b/c they don't occupy the slim strata that's accumulated most of the benefits of the economic 'recovery'. I think Lou Dobbs can be a raving loon from time to time but his recent commentary on the class war is insightful and an ugly reality of the Bush economy.

Some of us are doing REALLY well. Some of us are doing terrible. The big (and shrinking) middle is largely treading water . . . and running out of energy. Further, this less than rosey situation is predicated on a federal government spending beyond its means (with a rapidly growing entitlement burden) and individuals spending beyond their means (with rapidly growing fixed burdens - healthcare, interest rates, energy costs).

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

I'm in :thumbsup:

This doesn't shock me in the slightest. Sheeple following the rest of the flock. Too bad you are too clueless to know when to stop.

This economy is going down the crapper, read the housing thread. Or, if you dare, keep debating with me, I'll own you 7 ways to sunday. However, I doubt you'd take anything from it. I can't force to to learn.

Why do you assume that everyone but yourself is clueless about the economy? Your arrogant elitist attitude makes my success all the more sweet.

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jrenz
I hope the rest of my rich republican fat cat brothers are making money as well Who wants to go on a yatch buying spree later? We can take my H2 down to the lot.

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good news indeed.

You can't stop this roaring economy. :thumbsup:

The only thing roaring is that many of the rich boys sense that their free reign run is coming to a close and they are going on a last minute binge.

Good riddence.

Isn't it time for you mid-morning nap?

Actually it will soon be time for me to take my 32 foot boat for a spin on the lake with it's twin 255 engines.

Make sure you fill those gas tanks up high so that you can make the rich richer and the poor (you) poorer.

Yeah, I am a bit puzzled by that...for somebody railing against the rich, he's sure going to be wasting a lot of money.

Yeah, because those who truly have a lot of money sit around demeaning those who do not. Yeahhhh.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Nice math too, did you take that straight out of an economics 101 book?

I certainly did. I figured that way you might understand it. Defict means nothing without comparing income. The United States is fighting two wars, cleaning up after the worst disaster ever, and this is compounded with a full year of other hurricanes, and 12 million souls NOT paying taxes etc. Other countries (peers) have a worse deficit ratio that the U.S.

Of course this wasn't addressed at all, because you personally think (despite the evidence) that the economy is tanked.

Because obviously my financial education is severely lacking. Heh.

So, if deficit is a function of income and spending. Saying that your deficit is only 20% of income is stupid, considering that 20% more than you need to be spendnig. Then, to reduce income further by cutting taxes increases deficit.

Furthermore, you can't compare sovereign deficit/debt to GDP, since you are forgetting one important piece, the entire country deficit supporting that GDP. Since we are actually in a negative savings scenario and more Americans are in more debt, then the aggregate debt to GDP is actually much higher.

What you are comparing is me saying something like this "Well, my total income (me + wife) is 150,000. She has 30,000 in debt, so our debt/income is only 20%, let's ignore my 30,000 debt".

Furthermore, considering that the GDP growth is only caused by additional debt, you are piling on the numerator but forgetting it's effects on the denominator.

Debt/GDP is a fallacious number, which is already understood by many economists.

 

[maluckey]

What you are comparing is me saying something like this "Well, my total income (me + wife) is 150,000. She has 30,000 in debt, so our debt/income is only 20%, let's ignore my 30,000 debt".

No, I am saying that my income and track record allow me to take a loan out on a new item that exceeds my annual income, though that is in fact a deficit. There is a high likelyhood of repayment given the fact that my income is solid. Other countries give the same credit to the United States. Economics 101, or do you need the book's explanation on this one as well?

Some of us are doing REALLY well. Some of us are doing terrible. The big (and shrinking) middle is largely treading water . . . and running out of energy. Further, this less than rosey situation is predicated on a federal government spending beyond its means (with a rapidly growing entitlement burden) and individuals spending beyond their means (with rapidly growing fixed burdens - healthcare, interest rates, energy costs).

OK,

I agree mostly about the middle class losing some ground. It's mainly the lower spectrum of the middle class though. They lose because the lowest class sucks off the economy, and the rich don't need to worry about mundane things like helth care and college funds as they have the solvency.

The 12 million souls not paying taxes are illegals, who pay no income taxes, use free healthcare do not support the schools but use them anyways, and do not support the roads, water sewage or garbage infrastructures. This hurts the middle class more than it does the top earners.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: maluckey

What you are comparing is me saying something like this "Well, my total income (me + wife) is 150,000. She has 30,000 in debt, so our debt/income is only 20%, let's ignore my 30,000 debt".

No, I am saying that my income and track record allow me to take a loan out on a new item that exceeds my annual income, though that is in fact a deficit. There is a high likelyhood of repayment given the fact that my income is solid. Other countries give the same credit to the United States. Economics 101, or do you need the book's explanation on this one as well?

Some of us are doing REALLY well. Some of us are doing terrible. The big (and shrinking) middle is largely treading water . . . and running out of energy. Further, this less than rosey situation is predicated on a federal government spending beyond its means (with a rapidly growing entitlement burden) and individuals spending beyond their means (with rapidly growing fixed burdens - healthcare, interest rates, energy costs).

OK,

I agree mostly about the middle class losing some ground. It's mainly the lower spectrum of the middle class though. They lose because the lowest class sucks off the economy, and the rich don't need to worry about mundane things like helth care and college funds as they have the solvency.

The 12 million souls not paying taxes are illegals, who pay no income taxes, use free healthcare do not support the schools but use them anyways, and do not support the roads, water sewage or garbage infrastructures. This hurts the middle class more than it does the top earners.

There is no likelihood that we will repay the debt, unless this country gets a severe case of spendthriftiness. The world will be happy to suck at our teet as we supply an endless stream of dollars out to the world while servicing our debt. Repayment comes in the form of dollar roles, whereby maturing paper is paid off using new issuance. Thus it will continue, until such a time as we cannot service the massive amount of debt any longer, or we pay it off. Meanwhile, we will be financing the growth of other countries, not only with our hard earned wages thought direct purchased, but also through tax revenue going to service the debt.

Of course, that can continue infinium, provided our revenue exceeds our servicing committment. However, as a greater part of our real revenue is sucked away we are left with less to commit to other programs. THe dollar rolls continue, but grow.

Yes, people continue to buy our debt, not because they eventually hope that we will reach 0, but in the knowledge that we cannot stop the rolling of paper and we must continually service it. They are happy to know that the American's inability to reign in spending only enriches them further and shackles our future generations to larger and larger debt payments.

I know quite well the economic variables, thank you, considering I spend my day modeling them into cashflow predictions for a 100 billion dollar asset portfolio.

The illegals issue isn't nearly as bad as your inability to reign in spending. The "war on fear" itself will cost a trillion dollars, or 10% of our sovereign debt and for what? Thousands of lives wasted. Lets not start on the tax breaks, which have shaved hundreds of billions off of the current and future revenue.

The foolishness of this country will catch up to it. Then, the sheeple will bleet that they had no idea, they were hoodwinked, and nobody warned them. Yet, as they basked in the sunlight of a spending spree that did nothing but borrow heavily from the future, they said or did nothing, claiming that it was all good fun when the Dow reached a new record. Let the good times roll.

 

[maluckey]

Spending is less than 30 percent of the income. What other industrialized and equivalent nation claims it's equal?

12 million souls not paying a cent then taking from the coffer roughly doubles the effective tax burden. Even at a measly 6000 dollars per year burden per person that's 72,000,000,000 dollars!! Hispanics average more than 2.5 children traditionally, so I'm giving the 80 percent of all illegals a cookie here.

SO the war on fear (1 trillion dollars) is only 25 percent higher than the load of debt for border enforcement (or lack thereof)? What's your point?

The United States got to be the worlds military and economic superpower by spending on programs that it feels will build it up. If that means borrowing against future returns and feeding other countries, the so be it. Deficit itself is not an issue.

Deficit is no higher than traditionally, though the numbers seem to scare you. If I earn 1000000 dollars every year, but spend more than that (Wayne Newton comes to mind) you are still solvent. Regardless of your spending, you can balance your budget so long as you do not exceed a reasonable percentage on the repayment.

Banks traditionally will loan to individuals at a debt to income rate of 30 percent (repayment load) to individuals, but to companies, will go higher if the particular company's track record merits this, even if the loan amount is more than the income for five combined years! Is this bad practice so long as your overall worth also increases?

It is normal practice to borrow against the future to expand growth.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: maluckey

What you are comparing is me saying something like this "Well, my total income (me + wife) is 150,000. She has 30,000 in debt, so our debt/income is only 20%, let's ignore my 30,000 debt".

No, I am saying that my income and track record allow me to take a loan out on a new item that exceeds my annual income, though that is in fact a deficit. There is a high likelyhood of repayment given the fact that my income is solid. Other countries give the same credit to the United States. Economics 101, or do you need the book's explanation on this one as well?

Some of us are doing REALLY well. Some of us are doing terrible. The big (and shrinking) middle is largely treading water . . . and running out of energy. Further, this less than rosey situation is predicated on a federal government spending beyond its means (with a rapidly growing entitlement burden) and individuals spending beyond their means (with rapidly growing fixed burdens - healthcare, interest rates, energy costs).

OK,

I agree mostly about the middle class losing some ground. It's mainly the lower spectrum of the middle class though. They lose because the lowest class sucks off the economy, and the rich don't need to worry about mundane things like helth care and college funds as they have the solvency.

The 12 million souls not paying taxes are illegals, who pay no income taxes, use free healthcare do not support the schools but use them anyways, and do not support the roads, water sewage or garbage infrastructures. This hurts the middle class more than it does the top earners.

You need to update your "talking points" statistics. A significant portion of illegal aliens ARE paying taxes. Typically, federal and state using fictitious or unmatched SSN/TIN. The great part is that these people will pay income tax and FICA but NEVER get the benefits.

Now on a local level its a different story . . . depending on the setting. Schools are indeed burdened by the increase in enrollment. Healthcare is a mixed bag. Overall, undocumenteds are NOT a significant issue but particular hospitals or localities may indeed face pressure from this population.

Much of our road budget comes from the gas tax. If they own vehicles, they use gasoline, and they pay the tax. In my state, the gas tax is 30 cents/gallon and many undocs drive SUVs, pickups, and beaters of every stripe.

In truth it's actually the wealthy (which tend to occupy elected/unelected positions in local, state, federal government) that decide NOT to provide additional funding for roads, water treatment, garbage collection, social services, etc. Accordingly, the middle class should blame them NOT aliens. The primary exception is that having a large, nonunion labor pool suppresses wages and benefits. The benefits accrue to the wealthy (owners/producers) while the costs accrue to the middle and below.


There is indeed a high likelihood that the US will repay its debts. BUT . . . it's a certainity that developing nations (plus OECD) will require capital to develop in the future. Capital flows to where it will show the greatests return on investment. There's ample evidence that the US is no longer the runaway best bet. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has already reached its credit limit . . . as a % of available foreign capital.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Spending is less than 30 percent of the income. What other industrialized and equivalent nation claims it's equal?

12 million souls not paying a cent then taking from the coffer roughly doubles the effective tax burden. Even at a measly 6000 dollars per year burden per person that's 72,000,000,000 dollars!! Hispanics average more than 2.5 children traditionally, so I'm giving the 80 percent of all illegals a cookie here.

SO the war on fear (1 trillion dollars) is only 25 percent higher than the load of debt for border enforcement (or lack thereof)? What's your point?

The United States got to be the worlds military and economic superpower by spending on programs that it feels will build it up. If that means borrowing against future returns and feeding other countries, the so be it. Deficit itself is not an issue.

Deficit is no higher than traditionally, though the numbers seem to scare you. If I earn 1000000 dollars every year, but spend more than that (Wayne Newton comes to mind) you are still solvent. Regardless of your spending, you can balance your budget so long as you do not exceed a reasonable percentage on the repayment.

Banks traditionally will loan to individuals at a debt to income rate of 30 percent (repayment load) to individuals, but to companies, will go higher if the particular company's track record merits this, even if the loan amount is more than the income for five combined years! Is this bad practice so long as your overall worth also increases?

It is normal practice to borrow against the future to expand growth.

Lets take a step back for a minute.

If I own a house that is 80,000 as of 1995 and is then 300,000 as of 2005 and I cash out 200,000 of that equity, not only do I have a 200,000 HELOC/HEloan/Refi, but I also use that cash. Now, what have I done? I have utilized equity as income.

Great, in as much as that equity contiues to be equity and I can, at some point, pay down that utilization. However, once we factor in that the housing market is a bunch of bullspit and that my house should have been worth 100,000, not 300,000, then all of the sudden I am screwed. Furthermore, your income that you spent wasn't income, it was cashing out of "equity" built upon smoke and mirrors. As my previous graph showed, the MEW (mean equity withdrawl) actually made GDP what it was. Americans assumed *MORE* debt, used it as equity, which drove the economy. However, your figure, which you point out as being so rosey, forgets that consumer debt is what drives GDP, you only look at Sovereign debt, which is still significant.

Then, if we look at the Shiller housing index, we see that housing prices are going to go down significantly, at least 10% nationwide in the next year. I persionally believe that this is more like 15-20%. Furthermore, if you looked at the other article I posted, you would see that more people are "house poor", meaning that they won't be able to spend as prolifically as you so love to point out in the GDP number.

Thus, if we have assumed more aggregate (sovereign + consumer) which has inflated GDP, then not only is your (sovereign/GDP) only capturing a small part of the problem (whereby you only align one portion of the debt that drives GDP, not the full portion, which is akin to only using equity to benchmark the return on a company, rather than the total cost of funding), but it is inflated by said debt.

Furthermore, your 30% figure doesn't capture consumer debt, only sovereign debt. What good is counting sovereign debt against the revenues of a whole country, when in fact that whole country is taking out more debt against it's revenues? Americans, in total, are spending more than they make (ie negative savings rate).

It is perfectly normal to borrow more than out make, for a short period of time. However, when you extend out that borrowing and keep borrowing more than you make for an extended period of time and *NEVER* pay that amount down, then you have a pretty big problem.

You keep forgetting that.

1. We dont pay down anything, just roll dollars.

2. Our debt as a % of GDP isn't including the debt actually owed by everything/body that makes GDP.

3. Servicing costs are increasing.


If we stripped out consumer debt spending from GDP and only used your sovereign/GDP, then that ratio would not only become drastically different, but it would be alarming. This is the crux of my argument. Everything that GDP has been founded upon is being propped up by consumer debt spending fueld by an out of control housing market/asset bubble.

It's not a matter of if this market collapses how bad GDP will look, but when it collapses, how bad the recession will be.

 

[maluckey]

Legend killer,

OK, I think that I get your concern.

You are saying that you feel that the housing market is a repeat of the .Com bust? It may well be, but the signs are, that it will not crash, but rather decline, then continue at pre-boom levels, which unlike the .Com bust is not zero.

BabyBaliDoc,

I 100 percent disagree on the illagal point. Remember, I worked the Southern Border (before qutting) for five years. Illegals are not paying a significant part of income tax. They ARE a significant burden on schools, roads and Health care to the point that the majority of visits to medical care are to emergency rooms because they have no method of covering health costs. Most all children of illegals are free, as is all the pre-natal care for the same reason.

The number of people that pay taxes with a fake SSN are miniscule, because the employer is most of the time complicit in the hiring process of that particular employee. SSN are easy to verify if the employer really wanted to do so. Roads are paid by Federal, State or local monies depending on the road. Census, surveys and actual traffic flow are used to determine how much money can and should be allotted. Census is worthless when they don't report, or if they do, they are NOT paying anything but sales taxes, and finally more than 30 percent of the income of illegals does NOT stay local, but is returned to the country of origin of the illegal. That's thirty percent that is NOT reinvested into the community where they are living.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Legend killer,

OK, I think that I get your concern.

You are saying that you feel that the housing market is a repeat of the .Com bust? It may well be, but the signs are, that it will not crash, but rather decline, then continue at pre-boom levels, which unlike the .Com bust is not zero.

Sigh, I *hate* repeating myself, but OK.

Housing, after growing at a small clip for the past 105 years, appreciates like a rocket.


http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

This is driven by exotic mortgages and other slow borrowing methods, which people can't pay for if they go up.

Now the signs of excess are crystal clear. Up to 80% of all option ARM borrowers make only the minimum payment each month, according to Fitch Ratings. The rest of the money gets added to the balance of the mortgage, a situation known as negative amortization. And once balances grow to a certain amount, the loans automatically reset at far higher payments. Most of these borrowers aren't paying down their loans; they're underpaying them up.

(older and errored Yahoo link)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15107993/


GDP, which has been fueled by rampant appreciation and housing building could have 1% whacked off right off the top, just from the stoppage of house building and associated industries. That's not even including MEW, which is below.

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/cpuplava/2006/images/0125.a.gif


This is going to drive depreciation, as many Rating Agencies are warning of.

http://usmarket.seekingalpha.com/article/17934

http://usmarket.seekingalpha.com/article/17829


in fact, with an 80% correlation and as a leading indicator, houses have made up as much as 2% of 3.5% GDP rates.

http://usmarket.seekingalpha.com/article/17172


Considering that massive spending has fueled GDP and that is about to be shut off. Considering that exotic mortgages are going into the tubes. I would have to say sovereign debt / GDP is nothing more an a crap measurement. If we whack 2% off of GDP that suddenly makes that ratio almost 3x higher. Whoops.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You can certainly disagree. You would be wrong, though.

I didn't say illegals were paying a significant part of income tax. I merely noted that some indeed pay income tax using fake SSN/TIN.

I explicitly said undocs place a significant burden on schools but I also gave the caveat that schools were underfunded BEFORE illegal immigration picked up. Schools have the additional burden of other policy initiatives that do little but do cost money.

I noted the burden on healthcare is sporadic. In some areas it is indeed significant in others it is miniscule EVEN in the presence of a substantial undoc population. I don't deal in anecdotes so if you actually look for peer-reviewed studies on the healthcare impact you will understand where I'm coming from.

Here's another tip . . . Google . . . gasoline tax. You will find that a substantial pot of money is generated from taxing gasoline. Money is fungible so sure governments can spend gasoline tax proceeds on anything they want. That doesn't change the fact that any undoc with a vehicle is paying the gasoline tax and that money is SUPPOSED to support roads/bridges.

Undocs that buy just about anything (even food in some states) are paying sales tax. In arsebackwards states like TX and SC a growing burden is placed on sales tax to support government as opposed to property taxes. Accordingly, in some of the very states with big undoc pops . . . they are paying a substantial % of income in taxes. Granted, they are recycling some of that money through the establishment of ethnic-, nationality-specific stores.

Undocs send their income home to their families in Central and South America. US corporations send their income (untaxed) to the Bahamas, Caymans, and Puerto Rico.

I'm not saying your argument is invalid. But I am saying it lacks context. BUT . . . if you really think undocs are such a big deal, I would support an enforceable federal law that made it felony to knowingly employ an illegal alien and a misdemeanor to unknowingly employ an illegal alien. The former punishable by a mandatory minimum 1yr in prison and $10k for each offense. The latter punishable by 1mo in prison and $1k for each offense.

Let's be honest . . . until you start putting some relatively well-off to rich, white people in prison . . . illegal immigration will remain a problem. Zoe Baird would be eligible for parole this year.

 

[maluckey]

BabyBaliDoc,

Here's a link (I list the source as not entirely unbiased, but the cited data is unbiased)

This is an analysis of Floridas burden of illegals

It's already on the books that fines of 10000 dollars AND all back wages owed to illegal for employer sanctions and penalties...but it isn't enforced any more than EWI (entry without Inspection) is a lifetime ban on ever entering the United States.

There are exeptions, waivers and blind eye allowances that make Immigration Laws a joke. Laws should be firm, fair and evenly applied, regardless of the religion or ethnicity of the criminal at hand. The only waivers should be under extraordinary circumstances, not just because.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: maluckey
Nothing says roaring like record governmental revenues. Deficit is being paid down substantially faster than expected. Unemployment is very low, interest rates are low, and despite 12 million souls evading taxation (and killing Social Security), everything is booming. Imagine if those freeloaders actually PAID TAXES like the rest of us...

I think you need a reality check. Government revenues reach new record highs almost every year because of inflation and a normal economic growth. You don't "pay down" deficits, you pay down debt. The federal debt continues to skyrocket. Unemployment statistics are artificially low, ignoring the millions of people who have been forced to accept part-time or lower-quality, lower-paying jobs, and those who were employed, would like to work again, but have given up on actually finding employment. Interest rates are hardly low, though they're not bad. Finally, while it's great that the Dow is up, wages remain stagnant, meaning this "recovery" is real for investors, not so real for working stiffs.

**BUZZZZ** Wrong, sorry, thank you for playing.

Let me know how that crow tastes, mkay?

Go to the link below and turn to page 26 and there you will see that revenue hit a peak in 2000 (Tech Bubble) and went down in 2001 and even lower in 2002 and 2003.

Yawn. Did you read you own link? Federal revenue hit a new record 41 out of 45 years -- 91% of the time -- from 1955 until 2000, through good economies and bad. In 2000, the economy went to pot ... and Bush cut taxes. The result? An unprecedented four-year string of lower revenues, finally ending in 2005.

If anything, this suggests your bleating about tax cuts increasing federal revenue is pure partisan propaganda. It certainly isn't supported by the actual data. I'll agree it doesn't prove reduced revenues were caused by George's tax loans -- correlation does not prove causation -- but it's absolutely delusional to look at the data and continue to claim they increased revenue.

If you look at page 28 you will also see that in 1998, 1999 and 2000 government revenue was at 20% of GDP, the ONLY time it has been that high since World War 2. Under Bush it has been restored to its traditional (post WW 2) 17-18% of GDP. (Edit: 40 year average is 18.2% of GDP so right now we are below that, while under Clinton we were 2-3% higher.)

More misdirection. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of tax cuts on revenue.

Since you stumbled into it, however, let's take a little broader look at the data instead of cherry-picking stats you want to spin. We'll note, for example, that federal outlays exceeded 20% of GDP every year from 1975 through 1996, peaking under Reagan with six straight years above 22% ('81 - '86). That's right, excluding WWII, your god Ronnie was the worst offender ever when it comes to big government.

Outlays finally dropped back below 20% in 1997, and coupled with higher taxes, actually balanced the federal budget in 1998 for the first time in 28 years. The three years you're whining about are three years of balanced budgets. That's not a coincidence. (See, one of the things they don't seem to teach in Republican accounting classes is that balancing one's budget requires revenue greater than outlays. Go figure. But please dont tell them. It will crush their delusions of being the party of fiscal responsibility.)

BTW: The estimated federal deficit for FY 2006 was $260 billion as of a month ago, that is down from the estimate of $423 billion when the FY budget was created. That means we trimmed $160 billion off the expected deficit in ONE year, damn good deal. $260 billion is also lower than FY 2005's $318 billion, we ARE moving in the right direction on deficits, lets hope it stays that way.

Unfortunately, the last time I checked, those deficit numbers are pure smoke and mirrors since they exclude Bush's self-declared off-budget expenses like Iraq and Katrina. I also constantly get a chuckle out of the Bush faithful desperately stretching to give Bush credit for finally reducing the deficits he created. Can you lower the bar any more?

If we keep up triming the deficit at this rate then we should balance the budget in 2008, before Bush leaves office.

Yet the data you linked shows deficit projections every year through the end of the chart in 2011. They also assume a 38% increase in the GDP over the next six years. Seems a bit optimistic to me, but we can hope.

We ALL need to keep our eyes on this and make sure the people in DC don't start to spend like crazy again.

Historical tables on page 26

Yep, that's why we need the Democrats to take at least one house of Congress this year. We need the gridlock to keep spending in check.

ProfJohn?

 

[Stunt]

You care about something posted 9 days ago...lol

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You care about something posted 9 days ago...lol

I care about deliberate misdirection, the regular use of disinformation to deceive and distract. I bumped this particular instance when I stumbled across it and noticed ProfJohn had never returned. (I still had a set of tabs open on one of my systems with this thread and some of the supporting links I used while refuting ProfJohn.)

I suppose I should LOL at you for picking such a lame excuse for attacking me. "You care about bumping a thread ... lol."

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: fitzov
Big deal. It grew from its high point from five years ago.

It is a big deal.

why? according to inflation-adjusted figures, the dow is smaller than in 2000.

http://home.earthlink.net/~intelligentbear/com-dj-infl.htm

Am I reading that right that 13,704 is the break-even point after inflation? If so we have a ways to go. It is still under 12,000 today.