less money for bikes
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    227

    less money for bikes

    So look at it this way. Yes the economy is going down the tubes because of the cost of the war and Bush spending money like there's no tomorrow, and really stupid people loaning and borrowing adjustable rate home loans ( don't get me started on that) but if we put Obama or Hillary in office, they both said they were going to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So you would have even less money for bike parts. If this happens it will be the largest tax increase in US history! Just what we need to keep the country going forward.
    Where have all the Conservatives gone??????//
    BTW, the only thing lower than Bush's approval rating is the Democrat controlled Congress's rating. WTF?
    I thought Nancy Pelosi was going to change things? It's been over a year now and what the &^%* have they done?
    I am not a fan of the economic stimulus plan either. We have borrowed enough money from China and Kuwait as it is so why borrow more? Then if that's not enough, Nancy wants another package later on.... So what are most American going to do with their money? Go to Wal Mart to buy more Chinese goods
    I expect one day for the Chinese to go into the White House and evict the President and announce they are moving in. Just my 2 cents worth..

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: Live Steam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,685
    Please explain how the war has effected the economy. I hear this all of the time, but no one seems to be able to explain it. As for Bush spending money, the president doesn't have that power. Congress does. Additionally, we haven't "borrowed" money from anyone. We sold government treasury bills which anyone is entitled to purchase and which the feds has always done. As for the remifications, China now has their economy tied to ours in more than one way. The US is the largest market for their goods. It is in their better interests to ensure our economy thrives and to similary ensure our dollar stays strong or their "investment" shrinks instead of grows.

    You spout off these silly notions because you either heard them from some libby source or read them on a libby blog. So why not tell us how this works?

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    227
    Number 1. We are on the same on the fence so don't even label me as a tree hugging liberal. A treasury bill is essentially an IOU. Yes everyone is entitled to buy one but at sometime we have to buy it back with interest. That takes care of that issue. Number two, 1.9 billion dollars doesn't effect our economy?? How do you think the Government could better spend that money? How about new bridges,( I'm not talking about the famous bridge to nowhere) roads and security for our ports and borders. Illegal immigration isn't costing this counrty any money? So where do we get this money from to fix these problems if we don't have it in our coffers? Borrow ( sell T bills) or raise taxes. That doesn't effect the economy? Our dollar is decreasing in value against almost every other currency. Foreign companies are flocking into the USA to buy US goods and properties while this does help our economy now, what going to happen later on? Who knows. Don't get me wrong, going to Iraq was a good thing, I think we would have been better off doing something about Pakistan and Iran but that's another issue. Let's stop being politically correct and fight this war the way it nees to be fought. If the terrorists are in a Mosque, blow the SOB to shreds. Yes, that's a little dicey buts that's just my opinion. I believe almost nothing of what I read on the internet and only some of what I read in conservative print. I believe moveon.org is a communist/socialist organization, I never listen to NPR or have any use for the new democrat party.
    As for the President not being in charge of the money,you are right. Does the word veto ring any bells?
    In the end, China is still a Communist nation, yes it may be in their best interest, at this moment to keep our economy growing, but what happens if they decide we are no longer beneficial to their plans, and want to cash in all of their T-Bills at once? Would Barry Goldwater ever let this happen? I think not. My sources are Fox News, Lexis Nexus, Wall Street Journal and others.
    Last edited by arinowner; 04-13-2008 at 08:58 AM.

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: SleeveleSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    858
    Quote Originally Posted by Live Steam
    Please explain how the war has effected the economy. I hear this all of the time, but no one seems to be able to explain it. As for Bush spending money, the president doesn't have that power. Congress does. Additionally, we haven't "borrowed" money from anyone. We sold government treasury bills which anyone is entitled to purchase and which the feds has always done. As for the remifications, China now has their economy tied to ours in more than one way. The US is the largest market for their goods. It is in their better interests to ensure our economy thrives and to similary ensure our dollar stays strong or their "investment" shrinks instead of grows.

    You spout off these silly notions because you either heard them from some libby source or read them on a libby blog. So why not tell us how this works?
    What are you talking about? Selling government treasury bills isn't borrowing money? That's news to me. Someone gives us money with our promise to pay them back some specified amount at some later date. That is pretty much the definition of borrowing. Is is defined as to take or obtain with the promise to return the same or an equivalent. We are taking their money with the promise of returning an equivalent amount of money in future dollars. Interest accounts for inflation over time. As to the war, do you think we had a half a trillion dollars lying around in some room? If we had that kind of money, we wouldn't have to worry about education or Social Security. No, we borrowed the money, and it has devalued our own currency. Not everyone who is against spending money we don't have is "libby," so don't stereotype. Some people are conservatives in the fiscal sense, not just the moral sense.

  5. #5
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,526
    Have you ever heard of an override? Congress holds ALL the spending cards, they have to agree to play them though.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    227

    2/3

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit
    Have you ever heard of an override? Congress holds ALL the spending cards, they have to agree to play them though.

    2/3rds majority though. Democrats don't have that.......................

  7. #7

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    328
    I gotta say, I like how you guys can't even agree. You all agree NPR is enemy and moveon is communist - oh fear of fears. You forgot to add godless in there somewhere.

    As for the Dems, of which I am one, we all agree on one thing regardless of the Hilary - Obama thingamagig - anyone besides the Republicans and party of Bush for the office. Someone could walk off the street, literally, and still win.

    New day is coming, my friends, get on your bike and celebrate!!!!!

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,526
    Quote Originally Posted by arinowner
    2/3rds majority though. Democrats don't have that.......................
    But that doesn't mean that the President is in control, it means there are two parties and they disagree and by the Constitution, neither can run roughshod over the other. Doesn't mean they can't cry foul at the top of their lungs as if they were being cheated though.

    The veto gives political cover for unwise political decisions. A Representative from either party can appear to be in favor of something stupid that his constituancy believes is a good thing, the President vetoes the stupid bill and he/she can then claim they did all they could but that damned President ........... sorta like those military spending cuts?

  9. #9
    Cowboy up
    Reputation: Art853's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,886
    GOP: the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

    http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20080406

    It's a rare spending bill that Bush doesn't like. After over six years he never used a veto for anything. That is until the stem cell research issue came along.
    Last edited by Art853; 04-13-2008 at 10:57 AM.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    227

    Last comment

    Quote Originally Posted by Art853
    GOP: the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

    http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20080406

    It's a rare spending bill that Bush doesn't like. After over six years he never used a veto for anything. That is until the stem cell research issue came along.

    That's what I am saying, Bush never met a spending bill he did not like. Everybody agrees that we need change, I am not thrilled about McCain, but given the choice between dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia or the elitist attitude of Obama, I will pick the RINO everytime. Guys, thanks for a great discussion.

  11. #11

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,387

    Nice talking points...

    Quote Originally Posted by arinowner
    That's what I am saying, Bush never met a spending bill he did not like. Everybody agrees that we need change, I am not thrilled about McCain, but given the choice between dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia or the elitist attitude of Obama, I will pick the RINO everytime. Guys, thanks for a great discussion.
    Nice talking points, straight from the GOP's mouth.

    How is Obama any more "elitist" than anyone else currently running? Silly talking points based in what most people like to call facts and all.

    Oh, and yes, getting rid of the Bush tax cuts is going to put MORE money back into middle class pockets, by increasing the tax rates on the more wealthy, back to the levels that they should be taxed at. Hillary and Obama are talking about taxing the extremely wealthy more, and giving back to the middle class. How did those tax cuts put more money into middle class pockets before? They never did. So unless you're earning millions of dollars per year, you won't see a tax increase for your burden.

    I believe it was Warren Buffet who said that he pays less taxes than his assistant, and that's just wrong.

    If conservative economic policies were so great, how come during Bush I, we had a recession. Bush II? Recession. Regan? Not so good. Carter? Yeah, he stunk it up too. Clinton? Gangbusters.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,526
    Quote Originally Posted by magnolialover
    Nice talking points, straight from the GOP's mouth.

    How is Obama any more "elitist" than anyone else currently running? Silly talking points based in what most people like to call facts and all.

    Oh, and yes, getting rid of the Bush tax cuts is going to put MORE money back into middle class pockets, by increasing the tax rates on the more wealthy, back to the levels that they should be taxed at. Hillary and Obama are talking about taxing the extremely wealthy more, and giving back to the middle class. How did those tax cuts put more money into middle class pockets before? They never did. So unless you're earning millions of dollars per year, you won't see a tax increase for your burden.

    I believe it was Warren Buffet who said that he pays less taxes than his assistant, and that's just wrong.

    If conservative economic policies were so great, how come during Bush I, we had a recession. Bush II? Recession. Regan? Not so good. Carter? Yeah, he stunk it up too. Clinton? Gangbusters.
    Oooooo, you gonna be so surprised. Wait till you find out just how much money you make.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    227

    communist view

    Quote Originally Posted by magnolialover
    Nice talking points, straight from the GOP's mouth.

    How is Obama any more "elitist" than anyone else currently running? Silly talking points based in what most people like to call facts and all.

    Oh, and yes, getting rid of the Bush tax cuts is going to put MORE money back into middle class pockets, by increasing the tax rates on the more wealthy, back to the levels that they should be taxed at. Hillary and Obama are talking about taxing the extremely wealthy more, and giving back to the middle class. How did those tax cuts put more money into middle class pockets before? They never did. So unless you're earning millions of dollars per year, you won't see a tax increase for your burden.

    I believe it was Warren Buffet who said that he pays less taxes than his assistant, and that's just wrong.

    If conservative economic policies were so great, how come during Bush I, we had a recession. Bush II? Recession. Regan? Not so good. Carter? Yeah, he stunk it up too. Clinton? Gangbusters.

    Yes, it was a cheap shot at Obama but you have to admit the dodging sniper bullets is funny. LOL. But the taxes thing, I think, you are totally wrong on. I have two children and the Bush tax cuts gave me back more than 1000.00 than before the cuts. So if you take that away and go back to the higher tax table, which they are both saying are going to be across the board, how does that put more money in my pocket? Let's see, taking more money from the rich and passing it around, Socialist/ Communist policies? What's wrong with working hard and making something of yourself ( not you just a figure of speech ) and making lots of money? I never went to work for a poor man. That's borrowed from Sean Hannity.
    The Fair Tam proposal that Mike Huckabee wanted would be my cup of tea for sure. Read about it if you haven't already. We might agree on that. But taxing the wealthy simply because they are rich, is definetely not right.
    Look I am not saying that the Republicans are without fault. I have major issues with both parties but the Democrat tax and spend policies along with most of their give away programs will not get us out of this slow economy. BTW the definition of a recession is "2" consecutive quarters with no or negative growth. That hasn't happened yet. Fact.
    There has to be some reason why Bill was the only 2 term Democrat President since FDR.
    We could go on and on all night going tit for tat. The fact is all of us want ( to borrow a line from Obama) "change". I think we are in trouble either way we vote. The main thing is go vote. If you don't vote, I don't think you have any grounds to complain about the outcome. As I said before, thanks for

    Just to let you know. I wanted to vote for Bill Richardson (D) from New Mexico. I believe the man know more about foreign policy than any of the candidates. As for the Clinton's, I live in the state of Arkansas so I think I know alittle about their exploits. Thankx again.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    69,526
    Quote Originally Posted by arinowner
    Yes, it was a cheap shot at Obama but you have to admit the dodging sniper bullets is funny. LOL. But the taxes thing, I think, you are totally wrong on. I have two children and the Bush tax cuts gave me back more than 1000.00 than before the cuts. So if you take that away and go back to the higher tax table, which they are both saying are going to be across the board, how does that put more money in my pocket? Let's see, taking more money from the rich and passing it around, Socialist/ Communist policies? What's wrong with working hard and making something of yourself ( not you just a figure of speech ) and making lots of money? I never went to work for a poor man. That's borrowed from Sean Hannity.
    The Fair Tam proposal that Mike Huckabee wanted would be my cup of tea for sure. Read about it if you haven't already. We might agree on that. But taxing the wealthy simply because they are rich, is definetely not right.
    Look I am not saying that the Republicans are without fault. I have major issues with both parties but the Democrat tax and spend policies along with most of their give away programs will not get us out of this slow economy. BTW the definition of a recession is "2" consecutive quarters with no or negative growth. That hasn't happened yet. Fact.
    There has to be some reason why Bill was the only 2 term Democrat President since FDR.
    We could go on and on all night going tit for tat. The fact is all of us want ( to borrow a line from Obama) "change". I think we are in trouble either way we vote. The main thing is go vote. If you don't vote, I don't think you have any grounds to complain about the outcome. As I said before, thanks for

    Just to let you know. I wanted to vote for Bill Richardson (D) from New Mexico. I believe the man know more about foreign policy than any of the candidates. As for the Clinton's, I live in the state of Arkansas so I think I know alittle about their exploits. Thankx again.
    In my lifetime, every time Democrats have taxed the rich, they included me and damned if I could believe it, they always had me rooting for 'em.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: bahueh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    19,389

    do you think...

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit
    In my lifetime, every time Democrats have taxed the rich, they included me and damned if I could believe it, they always had me rooting for 'em.
    open checkbooks really last that long? did you think this type of war spending and national debt were not going to have to repaid at some point?

    somebody has to fill the coffer now that its empty...that somebody would be you and I.

    you can send your check to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC.
    Not banned yet.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    If you know anything about economics, you would know that the economy has peaks and valleys and they run in about 8 to 12 year cycles. These things aren't easy to control. As far as Clinton is concerned, didn't Bush II step into a recession? Believe me, a recession doesn't usually start overnight. Do you think Clinton might have had anything to do with that one?

    When Bush II got into office, a similar bill to the Economic Stimulus Package was passed, wherein I think taxpayers got $300 or $600 back in a tax refund, kind of like what we are seeing here. Maybe that worked back then to stimulate the economy and they are hoping that it will do so again. Me, I am against it because it is money that needs to be paid back and it is just furthering the debt.

    Another thing that you guys forget is that a lot of foreigners are buying US real estate. With the dollar's value being low and US real estate sinking, it won't be long before China and the Arab nations own most of the US and we will be paying them rent. Maybe not on an individual level, but certainly on a corporate level. You would be surprised at the numbers of companies that the Arab nations own a majority share of the stock in.

    As far as the war is concerned, that can also be viewed as an economic stimulus move. Didn't WWII help get us out of the Great Depression because it required a ton of manufacturing in the US. Hopefully, most of the war products are being made in the US and this war money is being spent in the US. If it is, I have no problem with it.

    Last but not least, I think a financial class should be a requirement in high school, just like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and it shouldn't only be a semester's worth. When I talk to my clients about money, and the value of starting a retirement account at a young age, I am usually talking to the wall. I have way too many clients with no retirement accounts, and one of them is a couple that is 55/54 with 28 years left on their $250K mortgage and a combined yearly income of $40K. What are they going to do?

    As far as taxing the rich is concerned, don't you think it will have an affect on the poor. When I was working at a law firm, I know my yearly bonus was tied to how well the firm did that year. Do you think the partners would take home less than they did the previous year and still give me the same bonus?

  17. #17

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by fabsroman
    If you know anything about economics, you would know that the economy has peaks and valleys and they run in about 8 to 12 year cycles. These things aren't easy to control. As far as Clinton is concerned, didn't Bush II step into a recession? Believe me, a recession doesn't usually start overnight. Do you think Clinton might have had anything to do with that one?

    As far as the war is concerned, that can also be viewed as an economic stimulus move. Didn't WWII help get us out of the Great Depression because it required a ton of manufacturing in the US. Hopefully, most of the war products are being made in the US and this war money is being spent in the US. If it is, I have no problem with it.
    So above you say the economy ebbs and flows and if we knew anything we'd know that. Then you say the war is a economic policy move. So what is it? Does policy matter or is time the only thing that effects the economy? You need to get your points straight.

    Oh, and Bush hardly had a recession on his hands in 2000, most every economist argue he compounded it with his policies. Bottom line: he was asleep at the switch and the emperor has no clothes. Are you really going to argue otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by fabsroman
    When Bush II got into office, a similar bill to the Economic Stimulus Package was passed, wherein I think taxpayers got $300 or $600 back in a tax refund, kind of like what we are seeing here. Maybe that worked back then to stimulate the economy and they are hoping that it will do so again. Me, I am against it because it is money that needs to be paid back and it is just furthering the debt.


    Another thing that you guys forget is that a lot of foreigners are buying US real estate. With the dollar's value being low and US real estate sinking, it won't be long before China and the Arab nations own most of the US and we will be paying them rent. Maybe not on an individual level, but certainly on a corporate level. You would be surprised at the numbers of companies that the Arab nations own a majority share of the stock in.
    Well at least we can agree $300 or $600 isn't going to do anything for the economy. And neither is eliminating eighteen cents from gas when we already have a deficit. As for foreigners buying land, calm down. First, it's Bush and his policies that enabled that. Two, I seem to recall everyone screaming when the Japanese bought US Steel and looked what happened there 20 years later. Bush is killing the dollar no doubt, but don't focus your thoughts on foreigners, focus it on the enabler, er the decider.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    I said they are hard to control, but that doesn't mean the peaks and valleys cannot be limited to a certain extent, which is what policy makers try to do. There is no way that we can have a flourshing economy for decades on end, much less a century, but the powers that be can try to limit the depth and length of recessions. We also went through one in 1993 under Bush I.

    Clinton let the stock market get out of hand and people were buying on paper profits. I believe Bush was elected right after or right before the stock market decided to take a dump. Then, Bush let the real estate market get out of hand and people were borrowing on all the home equity they had in their house.

    When the stock market went bad, investors pulled their money out and put it into real estate. REIT's were the "newest" and "greatest" thing. Now, after getting hit in the stock market and the real estate market, investors are shy about both and have no idea where to put their money since banks, the safe investment, are now lowering their interest rate on savings and CD's. I have one client that figured out where to gamble next, and that is in foreign currency. So far, she only lost $3,000 in 2007. She bought a real estate investment property on 100% leverage in November 2005, and if she were to sell it right now she would lose $40K on a $210K investment. She was also in the stock market back when it got hit hard and she is carrying some pretty nice losses forward.

    Does that make my position on economic policy and the ability to prevent downturns for eternity clearer?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.