Will you Watch?

Are you planning to watch Tom Brokaw's interview with the emper ... I mean President? Personally, I've so little faith in the courage of the mainstream media that I may watch if I can't think of anything better to do, like change the cat litter or sweep the garage. While there are a host of questions that need to be asked, and are being asked outside of the modern America 'team spirit' attitude of network news, I have no doubt that Tom Brokaw will ask precisely the questions Bush wants to answer, and he'll do so in a way to put Bush in the best possible position to respond. If I were still a drinking man, I might make a drinking game out of his inability to use functional English - oops, he said nukular again, Drink!

It's a good thing that Bush is only surrounding himself with people who agree with him. I'd hate for him to be open to opposing opinions. All Hail!

Minus your somewhat witty sarcasm, I''d have to agree.

I''m not much for slow easy ones across the plate, but I blame the media more than anything else.

I''m not much for slow easy ones across the plate

What if he misses?

Depends on when it is on. I caught enough of it in clip form yesterday to gather that he prepared his remarks well in advance, as evident when Brokaw brought up yesterdays events with North Korea.

""Uh...er...um...yeah, those North Koreans are bad.""

Bush has people with opposing views on his team. Let''s be honest in your hatered Es.

Bush is the the lefts Clinton! You''ll be bitching and hating him for years to come! You''re LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!

What''s the left call? I want to get in the secret meetings!

I won''t watch it because it won''t have anything new. Now if he was interviewing Blair, I''d watch.

You''re LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!

Nope. I can hear other people, and when I look down I can see my feet. Other than that, I''ve just been feeling a little frisky lately. I''ll be rational later, it''s spring and my blood is pumping!

Minus your somewhat witty sarcasm

My favorite part is where you called it ''somewhat witty''.

What''s the left call?

Well, not have a massive tax cut, for one. Heck, Bush can''t even get this past a Republican dominated legislature without opposition all around. Additionally we might not have wasted billions of dollars on the largest expansion of government in decades (I thought conservatives were supposed to be about smaller government?). Also, we probably would have been able to invade Iraq, if we''d so chosen, without destroying a slew of alliances and friendships because we''d have an administration with at least a hint of diplomatic ability, though we''d have probably been more interested in supporting the general welfare of our nation by supporting education, health, and social security than randomly going to war.

You see, Ulairi, it''s not what the left would have done to replace what Bush does. It''s that the left rejects a large percentage of Bush''s priorities and would have had different projects and attentions entirely. The priorities would have been dramatically different.

Bush has people with opposing views on his team.

Yup. I hear there was big debate over how precisely we should blow people up in Iraq. And should the tax cut for the rich be 500 billion or only 300 billion. I loved hearing Bush saying of the House suggestion for a $300 tax cut that it was, and I quote here, ""tiny"". Wow, the trillion dollar deficit must be scant pocket change in his universe.


Yup. I hear there was big debate over how precisely we should blow people up in Iraq. And should the tax cut for the rich be 500 billion or only 300 billion. I loved hearing Bush saying of the House suggestion for a $300 tax cut that it was, and I quote here, ""tiny"". Wow, the trillion dollar deficit must be scant pocket change in his universe.

Compared to the GDP that''s a small deficit. I''ve gone on the record of no new tax cuts or spending until we know how much the rebuilding of Iraq will cost. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is what they do with the money. Do you think the Democrats would do anything different? No. They would spending and the Republicans will cut taxes. That''s what they do.

Compared to the GDP that''s a small deficit

Come on, you''re an economist (or will be). Is it really better to have a massive deficit - I just can''t call trillions of dollars small - a war, and a tax cut all in the same year much less administration? Even the most supportive economists I''ve heard express at least mild hesitation.

They would spending and the Republicans will cut taxes.

Not quite. The democrats would spend. The Republicans spend just as much if not a few hundred billion more but they also have tax cuts. For the party of fiscal responsibility, they''ve had all the financial restraint of a lottery winner the past few years. Also, when we spend, we blow up a lot less people.

"Elysium" wrote:
Nope. I can hear other people, and when I look down I can see my feet.

Priceless!


Come on, you''re an economist (or will be). Is it really better to have a massive deficit - I just can''t call trillions of dollars small - a war, and a tax cut all in the same year much less administration? Even the most supportive economists I''ve heard express at least mild hesitation.

Debt isn''t a problem. In the 80''s we had 8% debt compared to the GDP. When you''re in an economic down turn the best thing you can do to speed up the economy is to increase spending and cut taxes. That will move the aggregate demand to the right. A continuation of 2 percent or less economic growth will widen the budget deficit, not reduce it.

I''m with Milton Friedman. Temporary increase in after-tax income will never become part of the regular consumer-spending flow.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Elysium" wrote:
Nope. I can hear other people, and when I look down I can see my feet.

Priceless!

That is a very low blow. That''s like making fun of someone with cancer.

Well I don''t know about that, Ulairi. First of all he has his hearing back, and it wasn''t a particularly life threatening illness. Maybe think of it as picking on someone who had the flu instead. And, really, are we going to be all sensitive about Rush''s feelings?

In case you guys haven''t noticed, I''m not being entirely serious. I think the difference between when I''ve got a constructed response and when I''m being glib is pretty obvious, so let''s not take it all so seriously.

As for the economics thing, I didn''t understand a word of it. I guess I wish I had more faith that the guy proposing these cuts understood, and I just don''t.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Elysium" wrote:
Nope. I can hear other people, and when I look down I can see my feet.

Priceless!

That is a very low blow. That''s like making fun of someone with cancer.

Come on now. Yeah, obesity isn''t always a life choice, but its pretty darn close. When I hear that fast food companies are being sued for their food content, my sympathy goes wayyy down.

There are many ways for people to lose weight, many of them opt not to, and the rest of us are supposed to feel bad that they eat 5 times the amount of us?

However, in agreement with you regarding needing to spend in economic downturns (such as now). Don''t forget, the Feds still have the power to lower long term rates as well. Just think about what bringing the 10 year treasury down 1% (100 basis points) would do! I''m drooling at the thought. Refiance the house (again) and borrow as much as humanly possible, and investing short term fixed. Man, I can''t recall a time in history where the short term savings rate could be higher then the rate to borrow! (talk to a financial professional before doing anything as mentioned here)

I didn''t care about the fat joke. I didn''t think the hearing joke was in good taste. He could have lost is ability to work...that would have been horrible.

"Ulairi" wrote:
He could have lost his ability to work...that would have been horrible.

And here, my friend, we sadly part ways. It was a good run for awhile.....

"Yomm" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:
He could have lost his ability to work...that would have been horrible.

And here, my friend, we sadly part ways. It was a good run for awhile..... :cry:

It''s ok. Rat boy will make a post and we''ll regroup.

I think that would be a very bad thing Yomm. If the short term savings rate was higher than the rate to borrow. Then people will be encouraged to make money with money rather than making money by investing in companies.

That could force even more out of work. I''m not saying it would happen, but that is definitely a road we dont want to even come close too where its more fiscally sound to loan large sums of money and then let it sit in a bank.

"fangblackbone" wrote:
I think that would be a very bad thing Yomm. If the short term savings rate was higher than the rate to borrow. Then people will be encouraged to make money with money rather than making money by investing in companies.

That could force even more out of work. I''m not saying it would happen, but that is definitely a road we dont want to even come close too where its more fiscally sound to loan large sums of money and then let it sit in a bank.

From what I understand about this conversation, I agree whole-heartedly. Making money by doing work will always win out before making money by having money, simply on the virtue that money is an artificial metric at best, and anything that moves the metric away from the actual situation only increases error, and makes the metric worthless.

"fangblackbone" wrote:
I think that would be a very bad thing Yomm. If the short term savings rate was higher than the rate to borrow. Then people will be encouraged to make money with money rather than making money by investing in companies.

Well, in theory its very rare, and I can''t recall previous occasions, which makes the possibility so exciting. The rate at which the fed charges a bank to loan money, effects the bank''s rate to us. Now, if the Feds lower long rates, it will cause morgages and long term financing stuff to drop in turn. This will spurn more spending (new house, new car, construction and so on). BUT, we as individuals, could then turn around and borrow that money for a long term loan and invest it short term. I wasn''t very clear about that. I don''t think it would be possible to put the loaned cash in money market, however short term CDs even (6-12) month, could offer (and I stress could) a better return.

In essence, it will become very easy, especially considering the stock market is slowly starting to shed off it''s bear fur, to borrow money and make a good return. Capitalism at its finest!

Of course, the Feds are going to meet soon to discuss short term, but in my mind, they can''t really go any lower for any more effect. If the economy doesn''t start getting out on its own, the long term rates would be the next (and really, only thing left) to do.

edit: this is where our resident economist comes in and talks about the rate curve being inverted?

""Pyroman[FO wrote:
""
Making money by doing work will always win out before making money by having money,

This is where my Republican/Capitalist nature kicks in and offers in my own opinion, how utterly wrong that statement is.

I''d much rather have a few million to invest then work for it, and even if I was dumbass, would still have more to show for it.

Its all realitive of course. If you were making 10k a year and had zero expenses, you''d be better off then the millionare with 90% of income going to costs.

But assuming all costs were equal, your rate of return would be far greater with investments then a job. Now, I''m refering to a well balanced portfolio which includes income both taxable and taxfree, with a proper mix of equites well managed to take advantage of tax breaks (and yes, there is a VERY good reason to have tax breaks, to fund the economy that provides the jobs to spend on consumer goods, that ate the dog that ate the cat who swallowed the fly, I don''t know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she''ll die).

Even in the downturn in recent history, my portfolio will beat out your income (again, not even assuming you make contributions to an IRA, 401k ect. that my portfolio already includes).

I thought that was one of the liberals most heated whining topics: that the rich get richer while the poor get screwed.

""and yes, there is a VERY good reason to have tax breaks, to fund the economy that provides the jobs to spend on consumer goods, that ate the dog that ate the cat who swallowed the fly, I don''t know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she''ll die). ""

Right. That was my point.

Having investment money sitting in a bank gaining interest rather than investing it in job creation or spending it on consumer goods will be detrimental to the economy. If it becomes a more attractive to leave potential investment capital sitting in a bank earning interest, we are headed for trouble.

"fangblackbone" wrote:
""and yes, there is a VERY good reason to have tax breaks, to fund the economy that provides the jobs to spend on consumer goods, that ate the dog that ate the cat who swallowed the fly, I don''t know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she''ll die). ""

Right. That was my point.

Having investment money sitting in a bank gaining interest rather than investing it in job creation or spending it on consumer goods will be detrimental to the economy. If it becomes a more attractive to leave potential investment capital sitting in a bank earning interest, we are headed for trouble.

Ah, ok.

Well, usually money is invested in the markets which gives you all the stuff you said. Its just that investors are scared (and understandably so), but people flock to treasuries and bonds which offer the same benifts to the economy as equities. But yeah, the money markets are overstuffed with cash right now. To much cash then can be loaned out. Its starting to change now, though.

"Yomm" wrote:
"Pyroman[FO" wrote:
""]
Making money by doing work will always win out before making money by having money,

This is where my Republican/Capitalist nature kicks in and offers in my own opinion, how utterly wrong that statement is.

I''d much rather have a few million to invest then work for it, and even if I was dumbass, would still have more to show for it.

Its all realitive of course. If you were making 10k a year and had zero expenses, you''d be better off then the millionare with 90% of income going to costs.

But assuming all costs were equal, your rate of return would be far greater with investments then a job. Now, I''m refering to a well balanced portfolio which includes income both taxable and taxfree, with a proper mix of equites well managed to take advantage of tax breaks (and yes, there is a VERY good reason to have tax breaks, to fund the economy that provides the jobs to spend on consumer goods, that ate the dog that ate the cat who swallowed the fly, I don''t know why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she''ll die).

Even in the downturn in recent history, my portfolio will beat out your income (again, not even assuming you make contributions to an IRA, 401k ect. that my portfolio already includes).

I thought that was one of the liberals most heated whining topics: that the rich get richer while the poor get screwed.

Thats all entirely beside my point. My point was that as a society, we need our money actually doing things, not just sitting there and giving ourselves more money. Otherwise, why not just say ""I have 8 billion dollars!"" and have no grounding in reality whatsoever. I wasn''t talking about a personal level. Sure Id like to have 8 million dollars and have people pay me for the privilige, that doesn''t mean it''s healthy for the economy as a whole and that it should be encouraged. The fact that you or I would be making more and more money doesn''t neccisarily mean that we are worth more.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:
""]
My point was that as a society, we need our money actually doing things, not just sitting there and giving ourselves more money.

I thought I had replied to that. But in a nutshell: Although the rates of money market are very high right now, you also have Treasuries, T-bills, and other Gov''t general obligation notes to invest in. Also millions and millions have been moved from equities to Bonds, both high yeild (aka ''junk'') and munis. Bond investment inserts the same kind of capital into the economy.

Now whether or not making that move was a wise investment choice, is a total matter altogether.

"Yomm" wrote:
"Pyroman[FO" wrote:
""]
My point was that as a society, we need our money actually doing things, not just sitting there and giving ourselves more money.

I thought I had replied to that. But in a nutshell: Although the rates of money market are very high right now, you also have Treasuries, T-bills, and other Gov''t general obligation notes to invest in. Also millions and millions have been moved from equities to Bonds, both high yeild (aka ''junk'') and munis. Bond investment inserts the same kind of capital into the economy.

Now whether or not making that move was a wise investment choice, is a total matter altogether.

Okay, I see what youre saying. Good point.

I found the Bush v Bush debate on The Daily Show much more informative:

""...we will rebuild your country...""

""I don''t think we should use our troops for...nation building.""

"Rat Boy" wrote:
I found the Bush v Bush debate on The Daily Show much more informative:

""...we will rebuild your country...""

""I don''t think we should use our troops for...nation building.""

hey rat boy there was a little thing called 9/11 that happened, things changed. I know with such a small thing you wouldn''t think that people could change their minds...

There''s a difference between bringing justice to criminals that have committed a clear crime and conquering a nation led by a group that has no credible connection to the 9-11 terrorists.

The War on Iraq and the War on Terrorism are separate conflicts and no ammount of connecting junior Iraqi officials to minor al-Qaeda members will change that reality.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
There''s a difference between bringing justice to criminals that have committed a clear crime and conquering a nation led by a group that has no credible connection to the 9-11 terrorists.

The War on Iraq and the War on Terrorism are separate conflicts and no ammount of connecting junior Iraqi officials to minor al-Qaeda members will change that reality.

Nope. Iraq supports terrorist. Iraq is a leading cause on why there isn''t peace between PLO/Israel. Syria is ''changing'' now. After both Gulf wars we''ve had the best chance for peace. But, I guess that whole geo-political thing doesn''t enter into your mind.

I`d say that one of the main reasons why there isnt peace between Palestine and Israel is Israel`s revenge tactics. It has become real hard to tell which was the first now : chicken or the egg.

I mean, Israel tactics make sure that there are always new recruits to suicide bombers. New suicide bombings make sure that Israel keeps to its tactics. The bright minds of those English who promised one speck of land (and unfortunatly, of religious importancE) to two nations (one of which wasnt nation at a time and other which ceased to be a nation after a time) should be castrated.

One of them should be wise and stop. IMHO Israel should be more motivated, but then again, it has been quite dedicated to shorten its border while expanding its territory over the last decades, that it seems that their priorities lay in territories not ceasefire.

Having said all that, I have absolutely nothing against Jews. in fact, most of Jews I`ve encountered have been very pleasant to communicate and intelligent.

There can never be a cease fire because the PLO cannot or will not control terrorist groups. If the terrorist stopped blowing up pizza shops than Israel could not get away with anything.