Although true for the initial issue of stocks it is no longer true from that point onward. All that happens from then on is a peice of paper changes hands the company no longer benefits from the trading of the shares they only recieved money from the initial sale of stock so the majority of the money spent by Americans on shares cannot be diverted to dividends it could benefit CEOs if they happened to hold large amounts of shares and the stock rose substantially but generally what you suggest is a fallacy.

The idea that money invested in stocks is money to be invested into that company and therefore the economy is a nice idea but in reality if the stock has already been issued then your money is just going to the person who sold you the stock nowhere else.

Repealing the tax cuts for the top 1% of taxpayers would go a long way toward covering the costs of the recononstruction and would ease the deficit pressure, but that won’t happen.

I’ll give you one example of how the administration are already ensuring that the money won’t go where it would do the most good. By suspending the requirement that federal contractors pay prevailing wages, the administration have initiated a process in which wages will be driven down because the competition for jobs will be fierce. But the feds are paying the contractors, not the workers, so any savings will go into the coffers of the contractors.

That money will be used not to create more jobs, but to retire debt, cover acquisitions or increase dividends and executive pay, depending on the company’s situation, none of which do much good for the economy. If the employees were getting that money, it’d get spent, which would be good for the economy, not to mention the workers.

Suspending the law is probably illegal, but it’ll take a while for that to percolate through the courts.

So yeah, it isn’t good biz, as you say. Corruption rarely is. I don’t know about constitutionality, but that’s setting the bar pretty low, isn’t it? Something can be constitutional and still constitute bad policy. And of course criminality isn’t constitutional.

A lot of homeowners and investors will be very unhappy in the relatively near future, I think, but their financial miscues are dwarfed compared to what the administration have done and are doing. Most homeowners aren’t turning to the Chinese to float their debt, or at least not directly, and they have at least some prospect of paying off their mortgages, which can’t be said of the one the administration has taken out on the country.

at least Rove & cronies are putting money into the US economy, which is more than I can say for the average head-up-the-a** American. more than twenty five percent of the equity extracted from mortage refinancing is going into the stock market, and with big biz still refusing to borrow or invest, it means that money is going straight out as either CEO compensation or shareholder dividences… meanwhile, to make the situation even more funny, the Dow stands where it did in 98′ and home mortage debt has nearly tripled.

this simple statistic suggests Americans have the leaders they deserve, doing the ‘hard yards’ they’re too greedy and ignorant to carry out.

so are you suggesting what Rove is doing is unfair? unconstitutional? not good biz? at least that’s dollars main-lined straight into the economy; more than I can say for the typical American’s investment choice.

What weekend newscyle is best?

One of the articles btw noted federal credit cards were used for breast implants. We need to see the photos, but darn if releasing photos is contrary to administration policy.