Doesn't make sense
shadowcast
Posts: 2,231
They say stocks are tumbling because lack of faith in the US government. But, how come Treasury stocks are booming right now? Why would you be putting money into something that you are nervous about? They are all full of it. Bring back the taxes for the rich to where they were before Bush gave them a break!!!!!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Treasury- ... 4.html?x=0
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Treasury- ... 4.html?x=0
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's called a flight to safety. Just because Treasuries are declared "less safe", doesn't mean they're now more risky than equities. In fact, just as Treasuries became less safe.... so are risks associate with equities. Same holds for international investment.
We're in a period of transition. There's a reason gold prices are so high, and that reason is the rising risk associated with our government (including Treasuries). The typical response to heightened risk was always rush to risk-lowered investments (like Treasuries, which were sometimes called risk-free). Although some would argue Treasuries are no longer risk-free, that's still happening because investors do not know where else to park their money. So, although trying gold and commodities, for the time being Treasuries are still the go-to place. There's no other international body taking over..............yet.
The problem is that's starting to change, it's in the very, very, very beginning... so, routine is still apparent. But, let's see where we are in 10 years.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
What's your definition of rich? I think that's where the problem lies in that discussion. Just because someone makes more money than you does not make them rich. And what is rich in Nebraska is not the same as rich in NYC (whatever the fictitious thing rich actually means).
And Obama just signed his third budget extending those tax rates. And only 1 of them came with Republicans holding either house. So, they are almost as much his as they are Bush's at this point. So, let's agree to call them the Obash tax rates. (Or call them nothing other than the current tax rates so we can make decisions on actual financial terms rather than political pejoratives.) At some point Obama should start owning these problems. It didn't take Reagan this long to turn around the stagflation he was left with (Which was 20x's worse than what Obama came into).