Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Post amnesty ...
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Stock market up 108%
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
We're already post amnesty, nearly 30 years post in fact.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Was that suppose to be funny? If so you forgot your emoticon .....
No, just pointing out that amnesty was passed some time ago.Was that suppose to be funny? If so you forgot your emoticon .....
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
So you're saying you are not aware of the current amnesty package the Democrats are attempting to push through?
Hes saying its nothing new and therefore not news. Speaket Boner is all for it. Checks have been written commitments made.
Now what is illegal, new and newsworthy is ignoring law in so many ways by the administration and no repurcussions from the other two hranches.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
That's not news....
I posted that comment because he asked me what I thought would be the time line for the GOP imploding!
I stated post amnesty!
Of course I'm aware of the current amnesty package.
Are you aware of the one that already passed, nearly 30 years ago?
and what does any of that have to do with people being powerless against the mighty Democrats?
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
Dude .....
You gotta try to stay on track with me here ... It has nothing to do with people being powerless against the mighty Democrats.
I was answering your question of when I thought the GOP would implode. I stated post amnesty. Considering the GOP has yet to implode obviously I wasn't referring to Reagan's amnesty in 1986.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
An interesting topic about when voters fed up with both parties will switch allegiance from dems to pubs. My answer is they will choose whomever will claim to "work together", and it matters not that they actually will work together.
On to talk about the increase in the stock market:
I had an epiphany this morning and then a moment later was reading the article I will link at the end.
We all know that the fed is "printing" money like mad which has several effects. 1. it spurs the economy (though it reall y does not do that well at all), 2. it increases interest in the stock market (pretty much the only growth our economy has seen), 3. it makes borrowing money attractive while making holding or investing money in low interest investments unattractive, 4. it makes the size of debt smaller in the future, 5. it inflates the price of goods and deflates the value of money.
Ok so clearly the fed is reluctant to stop "stimulating" the economy and has stated that it will only do so once the economy is strong again. The gov of course has trillions of dollars in debt so diluted money means that a side effect or benefit of QE is that it can make future payments on its very large debt with debased dollars.
The epiphany is not only does the gov like this arrangement but that this is quite possibly the most important reason for QE and it may never end until either the debt is eroded away or the inflation rate is so high that the screwed up system of QE just collapses. In short inflation is not so much a side effect of QE but the very reason for its existence. The fed will talk a big talk of ending or tapering QE but the program will continue as long as the gov can continue it with no fear of runaway inflation.
Here is the quote from an article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...t-to-retire-someday-must-oppose-janet-yellen/
Unlike the author I have no illusions that we can successfully oppose Yellen. We can only prepare for indefinite QE.
P.S. the official rate of inflation is quite low but calculating the rate of inflation using the methods of the 80's or the 90's yields a number of either 8% or 10%. I am not claiming that these are preferable methods of calculating the rate of inflation but that the present method grossly underestimates CPI inflation.
On to talk about the increase in the stock market:
I had an epiphany this morning and then a moment later was reading the article I will link at the end.
We all know that the fed is "printing" money like mad which has several effects. 1. it spurs the economy (though it reall y does not do that well at all), 2. it increases interest in the stock market (pretty much the only growth our economy has seen), 3. it makes borrowing money attractive while making holding or investing money in low interest investments unattractive, 4. it makes the size of debt smaller in the future, 5. it inflates the price of goods and deflates the value of money.
Ok so clearly the fed is reluctant to stop "stimulating" the economy and has stated that it will only do so once the economy is strong again. The gov of course has trillions of dollars in debt so diluted money means that a side effect or benefit of QE is that it can make future payments on its very large debt with debased dollars.
The epiphany is not only does the gov like this arrangement but that this is quite possibly the most important reason for QE and it may never end until either the debt is eroded away or the inflation rate is so high that the screwed up system of QE just collapses. In short inflation is not so much a side effect of QE but the very reason for its existence. The fed will talk a big talk of ending or tapering QE but the program will continue as long as the gov can continue it with no fear of runaway inflation.
Here is the quote from an article:
"Right now, the average interest rate the government pays is 2.6%. The historical average is 6%. A one percentag point increase will cost the government (on an annualized basis) as much as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. If interest rates returned to their historical average, the government’s annual interest expense would exceed 1 trillion per year."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...t-to-retire-someday-must-oppose-janet-yellen/
Unlike the author I have no illusions that we can successfully oppose Yellen. We can only prepare for indefinite QE.
P.S. the official rate of inflation is quite low but calculating the rate of inflation using the methods of the 80's or the 90's yields a number of either 8% or 10%. I am not claiming that these are preferable methods of calculating the rate of inflation but that the present method grossly underestimates CPI inflation.
I'm not sure just where you got your numbers, but the fact is that, when amnesty passed back in the '80s, the river of illegals reached flood stage. There must have been at least a thousand additional just in our little farming community. Our schools were overwhelmed with kids who didn't speak English, most of whom had little schooling.
Of course, it was the school's fault that test scores dropped, but that's another issue.
The difference is that the president at that time had an R after his name. This time, should amnesty even pass, the POTUS has a D. That's the main difference.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
That has nothing to do with it at all. Reagan's Amnesty was a disaster for California that only benefited the LEFT! The results will be equally disastrous for the entire Country if the Republicans once again go along with the Democrats and pass a national amnesty plan.
It will also seal the fate of the Republican party.
Amnesty benefited the "left" if you define "left" as employers of low wage workers who hire illegals. We have some big growers around here who would think being called "left" was fighting words, yet, they have no problem with hiring illegals. They say they couldn't get their crops in without them.
Further, if the Republican Party can survive GWB, it surely could survive a few more illegals.
Werbung:
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
California didn't survive it ...... neither will the US.
And, yes the left .... California has been a blue state ever since!
