Still Don't Think The Federal Reserve Needs To Be Dissolved:Read This

[FaninAma]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=1

If not dissolved then a heck of a lot more information on its operations needs to be provided to the taxpayers who ultimately pick up the tab for the high rollers who use the Fed's programs.

[NormanPride]

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153206

[OULenexaman]

scroll down...

[SoCaliSooner]

Don't worry, I have that covered. You raise government deficit spending and lower taxes during a recession. You lower government spending and raise taxes during a boom period. Easy Peasy.

The big, big problem is that nobody wants to lower government spending and raise taxes during the boom periods. And, when they are forced to do it during the recessions, it just makes the recessions so much worse.

Okay ST, I know that didn't answer your question. I think that, at the end of the day, that tax reform will eventually have to be addressed. The numerous tax loop holes afforded to the rich serve a good purpose, like tax-free status on investing in municipal bonds. But, all of those tax loop holes really need to be put under a microscope of cost-benefit analysis. I have no doubt that there will be more and more local government failure. Government employees will just have to deal with the shock, just like private sector employees have. There are just NO guarantees in this life.

It is an important junction in our country's history. We supposedly have the best minds and the best schools in the world. It is about time that we get someone strong enough to pull us together. Otherwise, we are just going to tear each other apart.

[bigfatjerk]

Don't worry, I have that covered. You raise government deficit spending and lower taxes during a recession. You lower government spending and raise taxes during a boom period. Easy Peasy.


I've heard this, but we've basically been raising government spending no matter what since the 80s and we've had boom periods since then. Heck everyone champions how Clinton and the republicans were during a boom period in the 90s and while that's somewhat true we ended up raising spending to where it was around 5 trillion under Bush. Bush only went up about 1 or 2 trillion for most of his term. Most of it really went up the end of this term when the Bank bailouts happened.

I think the government should be spending within it's means at all time and we won't have to worry too much about busts all the time. Right now the government is way too far involved in all of that and it really hurts during bust periods and extends them. We've had longer recessions since the 1930s when we started doing this type of market interventionism with our government. You can look at the Great Depression which was government caused. The periods in the late 60s and late 70s and early 80s. They were all basically government caused extended depressions. I'm not saying getting the government out of it gets rid of bust periods but they wouldn't be that extended.

[OUHOMER]

that artical makes me want to puke

[FaninAma]

scroll down...

Guess I'll have to get my glasses
prescription updated after all.

The Fed's ability to operate outside the control
of Congress and outside the scope of Constitutional
oversight presents a real threat to our democratic
republic style of government.

Dean,could you delete or merge this thread with
the other? Thanks.