Dow to fall 400 points February 26th

[batonrougesooner]

More "Change You Can Believe In". We're just going to tax our country to death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26budget.html?_r=1

[sooner KB]

So a Republican administration that inherits a budget surplus from the Clinton administration cuts taxes for the wealthy, contributing to a larger budget defecit and more debt, and then leaves the country with the worst recession since the great depression.

A Democrat administration inherits a huge debt and a recession, but gets yelled at for rolling back a part of the Bush tax cuts (for the wealthy), something that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. And he gets called fiscally irresponsible.

"Taxing our country to death" according to batonrougesooner means going back to the tax rates of the 90's, a decade much more prosperous than the current one. I'm guessing Baton didn't refer to these Bush tax cuts that he doesn't want to see expire that contributed to the debt as "taxing our children to death."

And god forbid we raise taxes on the rich slightly and actually provide something like healthcare to our people, like every other first world country does.

[MrJimBeam]

So a Republican administration that inherits a budget surplus from the Clinton administration cuts taxes for the wealthy, contributing to a larger budget defecit and more debt, and then leaves the country with the worst recession since the great depression.

A Democrat administration inherits a huge debt and a recession, but gets yelled at for rolling back a part of the Bush tax cuts (for the wealthy), something that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. And he gets called fiscally irresponsible.

"Taxing our country to death" according to batonrougesooner means going back to the tax rates of the 90's, a decade much more prosperous than the current one. I'm guessing Baton didn't refer to these Bush tax cuts that he doesn't want to see expire that contributed to the debt as "taxing our children to death."

And god forbid we raise taxes on the rich slightly and actually provide something like healthcare to our people, like every other first world country does.

First of all, the federal government should never run a surplus. If they have money left over after meeting their buget then they should give the surplus back to those who earned it in the first place.

And if consumer spending sucks now does it make good sense to tax the only ones who have cash to spend?

[Half a Hundred]

While it's true that ceteris paribus, it is in the government's best interest not to run a surplus, at the same time, one could say the same thing about it running a deficit. The national debt is through the roof, and that is making countercyclical action much more difficult this time around. We're all seeing what too much debt does to a society, and it ain't pretty.

To me, the essence of being fiscally conservative, both in the public sphere and in the private sphere, is "Don't spend money you don't have."

[Harry Beanbag]

You would think the words "cut spending" would come up at some point, but I guess not. The entitlement programs that have been put in place over the last 70+ years that cannot be done away with account for like half the annual budget nowadays. We're screwed.

[MrJimBeam]

"Don't spend money you don't have."

Yes

I just hate the idea of sending the govenment "extra" money.

[Scott D]

*sigh* you people. There could be a news story that the CEO of Mrs. Fields sneezed so hard that he got a nose bleed and the Dow would drop 100 points from it these days.

[Penguin]

Really? There are people on here trying to argue that we should not raise taxes on people who make millions every year? If the last 20+ years have taught us anything, American are greedy. If a CEO gets a $100 million bonus, he is NOT going to create more jobs for everybody. He's going to throw it into a hedgefund so that some other millionaire can make millions. If a company starts losing millions of dollars, the ultra-wealthy owners are not going to dip into their savings so that they can create more jobs. No, they are going to cut jobs and make sure that their millions are going to their heirs.



Stop defending the ultra-wealthy. Trickle-down economics does not work. Never has and never will.

[soonerhubs]

So when Mr. President proposes to cut the deficit by a certain percentage, is the current boost in spending across the board similar to me fattening up prior to me taking my "before" shot?

[Condescending Sooner]

*sigh* you people. There could be a news story that the CEO of Mrs. Fields sneezed so hard that he got a nose bleed and the Dow would drop 100 points from it these days.

What do you mean "you people"?

[Oldnslo]

Really? There are people on here trying to argue that we should not raise taxes on people who make millions every year? If the last 20+ years have taught us anything, American are greedy. If a CEO gets a $100 million bonus, he is NOT going to create more jobs for everybody. He's going to throw it into a hedgefund so that some other millionaire can make millions. If a company starts losing millions of dollars, the ultra-wealthy owners are not going to dip into their savings so that they can create more jobs. No, they are going to cut jobs and make sure that their millions are going to their heirs.



Stop defending the ultra-wealthy. Trickle-down economics does not work. Never has and never will.


But how do you feel about this? When you sugarcoat things, it's tough to tell where you stand.

[JohnnyMack]

You would think the words "cut spending" would come up at some point, but I guess not. The entitlement programs that have been put in place over the last 70+ years that cannot be done away with account for like half the annual budget nowadays. We're screwed.

$2 Trillion in proposed cuts over the next decade. Since he's a D, guess where he's gonna find most of the cuts. You get three guesses, first two don't count.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/26/news/economy/Obama_budget/?postversion=2009022606

[tommieharris91]

The Dow is up 100 or so right now.

[StoopTroup]

First of all, the federal government should never run a surplus. If they have money left over after meeting their buget then they should give the surplus back to those who earned it in the first place.

And if consumer spending sucks now does it make good sense to tax the only ones who have cash to spend?

It's a good point Jim...that is if it had anything to do with our current reality. Throwing out the should have beens is easy. Actually trying to do something about it is a different story. I wouldn't want to be in the Obama Administration right now. They have everything to lose and not much to gain. The Republicans ran a campaign that said..."If you don't want to lose everything you have...stick with us.". Thing is not enough folks believed them. They weren't throwing out answers...they were just scaring everyone about how they can control how bad it gets. Folks wanted some fresh ideas not someone throwing out how it should be. Answers. I repeat Answers. I have noticed that most good answers aren't usually what we want to hear. We aren't hearing things right now that fix the here and now. Most of us have been holding our breath for awhile. It's time to take the good and the bad air in IMO.

[Frozen Sooner]

First of all, the federal government should never run a surplus. If they have money left over after meeting their buget then they should give the surplus back to those who earned it in the first place.

And if consumer spending sucks now does it make good sense to tax the only ones who have cash to spend?

So how do you propose we pay down the national debt?

[Scott D]

What do you mean "you people"?

hey you made a funny. congrats.

[sooner_born_1960]

So how do you propose we pay down the national debt?

My proposal is to tax the crap out of Alaskans. It's not like they are real Americans, anyway.

[Frozen Sooner]

Well, OK. But the simple fact remains that by definition there's no way to pay down the national debt without running a surplus.

[sooner_born_1960]

If debt service was actually budgeted, would that still be a surplus?

[Frozen Sooner]

By any reasonable definition of surplus, yes.

[OklahomaTuba]

Just do what the donks do to report a surplus, take social security, medicare and the other social engineering schemes off the books.

BOOM! Surplus magic. Works like a charm.

[sooner_born_1960]

So, if I include $1200 a month in my budget for mortgage and car payment(debt), that money is considered surplus? I don't get it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Both payments will increase net worth (minus any interest paid.) An increase in net worth is a surplus.

[JohnnyMack]

How much do you think we could sell Alaska back to the Russians for?

[Frozen Sooner]

Probably a lot more than you could sell Oklahoma back to the Indians for.

[JohnnyMack]

I know! I mean Alaska has hella natural resources, amazing purple mountain majesty **** and moose or meese. And polar bears. Gotta be worth upwards of 3 or 4 trillion.

[Frozen Sooner]

Well that and the Indians don't have a lot of money.

[JohnnyMack]

Casinos my friend. Casinos. They're slowly taking it back from whitey one 25c slot pull at a time.

[badger]

So... um... uh... AH-CHOOhasanyonepointedoutthatthestockswereuptodayCOU GH! Sorry, just had to cough... and sneeze.

[Frozen Sooner]

The DJIA retreated from the early rally and are actually down a couple of points. CORRECTION: back up 7 as of 1:40 EST.

That being said, this is looking like the worst prediction on the board since Homey declared McCain had the election won.

[Penguin]

Just put a tax on sex. Men will pay. They might complain about it for about 3 days or so, but they will start shelling out the dough.

[sooner_born_1960]

If batinrougesooner can't predict the market, the rest of us don't stand a chance.

[StoopTroup]

It's beginning to go down!

http://kennmakk.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/chicken-little1.jpg

[Oldnslo]

Just put a tax on sex. Men will pay. They might complain about it for about 3 days or so, but they will start shelling out the dough.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MAN, DON'T TELL MY WIFE11!!!1!!!!!

[Frozen Sooner]

Down 50 now. We'll see what happens in the next hour.

[sooner_born_1960]

It ain't over til it's over.

[soonerscuba]

That being said, this is looking like the worst prediction on the board since Homey declared McCain had the election won.Big Red Ron holds the record for ******iest prediction ever because he wrapped it in the guise of an "expert", followed closely by RLIMC's "Obama will win no more than 5 states" prediction. Homey thought he would win but didn't make an *** of hisself.

[Frozen Sooner]

Good point. Has BRR even been seen since the election?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I am amazed at the number of people who are for more centralized economic control and will allow their personal and monetary freedoms to be controlled.

[yermom]

what personal and economic freedoms are you fixin' to lose?

[bri]

ALL OF THEM! HAVEN'T YOU BEEN LISTENING?!?

These knuckle-draggers are the aggy of politics.

[Harry Beanbag]

$2 Trillion in proposed cuts over the next decade. Since he's a D, guess where he's gonna find most of the cuts. You get three guesses, first two don't count.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/26/news/economy/Obama_budget/?postversion=2009022606


Yeah, that link doesn't list a lot of specific numbers, but it looks to be around a $1.5 trillion or so cut from Defense. Awesome. :rolleyes:

What are the projections for the increase in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and this fancy new health care system we keep hearing about? The first three are costing us $1.5 trillion for just this year.

[Condescending Sooner]

ALL OF THEM! HAVEN'T YOU BEEN LISTENING?!?

These knuckle-draggers are the aggy of politics.

Like all the civil rights you were claiming we lost under Bush??

Name calling is an indicator of a poor argument.

[bri]

So is trolling.

[Frozen Sooner]

Like all the civil rights you were claiming we lost under Bush??

Name calling is an indicator of a poor argument.

You mean like Fuhrer (please take a marker and draw the umlaut in yourself, thanks)?

Looks like the DJIA ended up down 80-some. So not a completely terrible prediction, though I'm sceptical of the causation cited.

[batonrougesooner]

Well the response was muted to say the least.

I will predict however we will see the DJIA fall and linger in the mid sixes over the next couple of months. Announcements like the one today will not be helping matters.