American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/jobs/u-s-unemployment-claims-14-year-article-1.1976301[/URL]

US unemployment claims drop to lowest level in 14 years. This from the NY Post, the Fox of Print Media. The original report came from the Associated Press.

Is that good or bad news? Is the cup half-full or half-empty? Should we be cheering or moping? Does this mean that things are better now or worse compare to 6 years ago? Ah, so confusing! So many unhappy people in AP. Well, I guess you would be if things were so bad that you are eating wieners and beans everyday. No wonder, so much flatulence in the air.

[QUOTE=Esten;441787]Just switching words around without any research, pretty pathetic Tiny.

The sticking point was the revenue side, this is from Boehner himself. He said "Obama moved the goal posts", this is well documented. Obama already had agreed to spending cuts Republicans wanted. He was not pulled back. Cantor and others pulled Boehner back, and then they pulled out instead of continuing negotiations. They were too spineless to try to convince their peers, and their peers too headstrong to be reasoned with.

Everyone knows it is mainly the Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.[/QUOTE]Everyone knows it is mainly Obama, Harry Reid and other Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.

The reason negotiations fell apart was because Obama backtracked from his agreement with Boehner and Cantor to raise taxes by "just" $800 billion, and instead insisted on raising them by $1.2 trillion. This is well documented.

Just cause I want to see Esten try and spin it.

Smoke and mirrors accounting.

Bill Clinton claimed to have a budget surplus for several years which was nonsense. Now Obama is back with more smoke and mirrors accounting.

If the US Deficit is ‘only’ $483 Billion, why does the Government Have to Borrow $1.1 Trillion to Fill the Hole?

By Wolf Richter • October 16, 2014.

On Wednesday, the Treasury Department released its Monthly Treasury Statement for September and the fiscal year 2014. It’s the official account of how the US government arrives at its infamous deficit. And it was a doozie.

Without giving it a second thought, the media gushed about the headline number, how good it looked, how the US government was getting its fiscal mess in order.

Receipts rose $247 billion to $3,021 billion, outlays rose $50 billion to $3,504 billion (including “on-budget” and “off-budget” items) for a deficit of $483 billion. At 2.8% of GDP, as the media gleefully pointed out, it was proportionately the smallest since 2007. The deficit monster has been tamed. And unthinkable as that seemed a couple of years ago, it has disappeared as a political issue, even before the election!

There is just one teeny-weeny problem:

To fill that $483 billion hole, the US government borrowed $1.086 trillion.

Turns out, the US gross national debt, as I’d reported in early October, ended fiscal 2014 at 17.824 trillion, up $1.086 trillion from fiscal 2013. This is the real increase in real Treasury debt that real taxpayers will have to deal with in the future.

The chart of the gross national debt below is a mesmerizing picture of America’s fiscal condition as it developed over the years, with some peculiarities:

One, the US, had four years of official “surpluses” between 1998 and 2001 that at one point exceeded 2% of GDP. They should have brought down the gross national debt by the amounts of the surpluses. But not these “surpluses!” Instead, the debt increased in every one of those four years, in total by $394 billion. That’s how much real debt it took to cover these government accounting “surpluses.”.

Two, following four years of “surpluses,” the debt began to grow exponentially. Since 2002, the government has borrowed $12 trillion, or two-thirds of the total debt! Since 2008, it has borrowed $8.8 trillion, or about half of the total debt.

Three, in fiscal 2014, with that smallish deficit of $483 billion, well, look what happened: the debt soared by $1.1 trillion.

US-Gross-National-Debt-1972-2014-B.

We’re shocked and appalled.

Are they lying to us here in the land of open and transparent governance? Well, they’re not actually lying. They’re using government accounting. It’s like corporate accounting: a purposeful mix of revelation and obfuscation.

Part of the discrepancy is a result of last year’s debt ceiling charade. In March 2013, Treasury debt hit the ceiling set by Congress. To fund the government deficit, the Treasury Department borrowed from other accounts to be repaid later. “Extraordinary measures,” it was called. On October 17 last year, so in fiscal 2014, after Congress and the White house had agreed on a deal to avoid default, the gross national debt jumped by $328 billion in one fell swoop. Since most of it was spent in fiscal 2013, we can subtract it from the $1.086 trillion debt increase in fiscal 2014, which brings it down to $758 billion.

In the same vein, the debt jumped on October 1 – the first day of fiscal 2015 – by $51 billion, which kicked that portion of the debt increase into fiscal 2015. So, to get a better feel for fiscal 2014, we add it to the $758 billion debt increase. Hence, $809 billion (more on that below).

And then what happened?

Government accounting. On page 3 of the Treasury Statement, under the bottom line of “Total On-Budget and Off-Budget Financing” of $483 billion – so the official deficit – there is a section with three more lines, called “Means of Financing.” It explains the mega-difference between the official deficit and the official increase in the debt.

It states right there, in clear text:

“Borrowing from the Public”: $797.6 billion. That’s how much the Treasury admitted it borrowed in fiscal 2014 to cover the deficit of $483 billion; one line beneath the other. Pretty close to my estimate above of $809 billion. So let’s go with the Treasury’s number. And how was that $797.6 billion in newly borrowed money used?

$483 billion of it covered the official deficit. Got it.

$69.9 billion was ascribed to an “Increase in operating cash.” Ok, makes sense.

And the remaining $244 billion in borrowed money? That’s the doozie. It’s in the last line labeled “By Other Means.” It’s over 50% of the “deficit.”.

But it’s NOT included in the deficit.

That line doesn’t shows up again. After a brief appearance of how $244 billion was borrowed from the public and loaded onto future taxpayers, it disappeared from the statement into a complex web of government accounting to never be seen again by the public.

But it’s part of the deficit, as much as it is part of the debt. With it, the US deficit in fiscal 2014 amounted to $727 billion – over 50% higher than the stated deficit of $483 billion.

That’s one way to solve a nagging problem.

OK, I get it. Government accounting, like corporate accounting, is designed to pull a bag over our heads. We minions don’t need to know these silly details. This is the equivalent of Wall Street: don’t dig through the footnotes, just buy, buy, buy! It works with the mainstream media which abounded in praise for the economy and the government’s adroit fiscal management as the deficit is withering away before our very eyes. At this pace, pretty soon, they’re going to discuss once again how to spend the “surplus.”.

Theories abound why this is suddenly happening, after years of deceptive calm. Read… Toxic Mix Blows up: Oil Price Collapse & Junk Bond Insanity.

Where do the fines and settlements paid by corporate America come into play? The government minions obviously do not think they are part of government intake from taxpayers, because rather than debt reduction, they want to spend this "windfall" on new furniture, cars, offices, etc. In other words, when corporate America rips off the taxpayer and gets caught, rather than apply the penalty to the debt, and reduce the deficit, government wants to spend this money as if it belonged to the government, and not the taxpayers who were ripped off.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;441794]Everyone knows it is mainly Obama, Harry Reid and other Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.

The reason negotiations fell apart was because Obama backtracked from his agreement with Boehner and Cantor to raise taxes by "just" $800 billion, and instead insisted on raising them by $1.2 trillion. This is well documented.[/QUOTE]Who walked away from the table ?

BTW, the $800 billion was not a tax increase in terms of tax rates. It was $800 billion mainly from an improving economy, done in a way so that Republicans wouldn't violate their Tax Pledge to Grover Norquist. So really, there wasn't any compromise from the Republican side, and Obama was correct to ask for more revenue. Most Americans supported a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but the headstrong Republicans would not accept any tax increase.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441788]Ah another liberal tactic of attacking facts by trying to divert attention to meaningless statistics. You keep pointing to the falsified unemployment statistics that millions of not working and no longer counted as unemployed Americans will tell you is a lie.[/QUOTE]I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.

The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.

[QUOTE=Esten;441797]Who walked away from the table ?

BTW, the $800 billion was not a tax increase in terms of tax rates. It was $800 billion mainly from an improving economy, done in a way so that Republicans wouldn't violate their Tax Pledge to Grover Norquist. So really, there wasn't any compromise from the Republican side, and Obama was correct to ask for more revenue. Most Americans supported a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but the headstrong Republicans would not accept any tax increase.[/QUOTE]Go ahead and re-write history. Obama agreed to $800 billion in increased tax revenues, which indeed would not have come from higher rates, but rather elimination of loopholes. In addition, the Republicans were counting on some contribution to tax revenues from a more rational, simplified tax system, and Democrats were not. But they would have come together, except that Obama got push back from his party, especially after it looked like the majority of the Senate (but not the House) would support even higher taxes. So instead of sticking with the framework, he demanded 1.2 trillion in revenues, and the deal fell apart.

This is typical of Democrats. They have no concept of the distortions caused by the tax system, and the time and expense eaten up complying with it.

[QUOTE=Esten;441798]The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades.[/QUOTE]OK, but the problem is that there is no precedent for the current situation.

Look at labor stats going back 70 years - the size of the labor force grows at the rate of population growth, or higher.

Until 2009, when the labor force stopped growing.

[QUOTE=Esten;441798]I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.

The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.[/QUOTE]You poor delusional liberal. BO has really done a number on your psyche. You can't argue the facts, so spin the trend. Unlike you Esten, I don't pollute my mind with sources from the either fringe. All deficits under BO have been larger than the largest deficits of any of his predecessors. Spin away. Must be hard being a liberal under the worst liberal President since Richard Nixon. BO will probably set up a government funded support group for you.

"The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted." Not true Esten and you know better. There are several versions of unemployment. That is why they are called U3, U6, etc. Of course, they now use the rate that counts the least unemployed. But that was not the rate that was used in the days of less dishonest government.

And as far as the calculations themselves not being changed, wrong as usual Esten. Do you research any of these things or just defend BO with liberal spin? The funny thing about this article is that it proves my point against a liberal and it was written by liberals attacking Republicans.

http://chipshirley.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-did-not-change-unemployed.html

You are making this way too easy Esten.

The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.

So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.

[QUOTE=RevBS;441822]The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.

So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.[/QUOTE]

Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.

Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).

"Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".

Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?

And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.

Oh Esten,

Bragging about the deficit improving as a percentage of GDP? Did you actually look at the chart or stick with the large print? I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%. Looking at the CBO's own chart in 2012, it shows Obama's first deficits were in the 8-10% range. Looking at the historical data, the average for the last decade would be closer to 5%. That 5% average is due to Obama's terrible percentages. He raised the average so high that he could walk under it and you are bragging about that. Wow. That is some shameless spinning. And did you notice the deficit percentage starts increasing in a couple of years. Obama has to get credit for that too.

[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-22-2012-Update_to_Outlook.pdf[/URL]

[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/45xxx/45653-land-table.png[/URL]

When the government doesn't like the statistics they change the inputs. And voila instant improvement in the numbers. I give you the instant 3% increase in GDP.

[URL]http://blog.bea.gov/2013/07/23/gdp_changes/[/URL]

Keep spinning Esten, that way you can keep your eyes closed to what is really happening.

[QUOTE=Esten;441779]The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441828]I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%. [/QUOTE]Look who's the fool, reading too fast in his excitement to prove me wrong ! I said 40 years not 10 years. LOL You keep embarrassing yourself, give it up.

BTW, the deficits in Obama's first few years were triggered by the financial crisis -- a result of Wall Street greed and conservative free market ideology. Funny how conservatives always fail to mention that.

The deficit is now at a manageable level, but we need to get back to surpluses. I am a strong supporter of balanced budgets and hope we can get there soon. But we need politicians who can compromise. Americans should not (and won't) accept cuts to social programs and entitlements without corresponding tax increases on the top 1%, who have realized 95% of income gains in recent years, while incomes for the middle class have been largely flat. This is a result of capitalism, which is increasingly dominated by large corporations and Wall Street interests.

Esten is of the belief that a good lie will travel half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441825]Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.

Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).

"Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".

Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?

And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.[/QUOTE]My post was not a reply to your post and not directed specifically at you, but you have chosen to shoulder the cross. Good for you, and I appreciate your reply. I woke up early and was inspired to write it. I wrote 2010 instead of 2012, and most independent thinking person would have pick up on that typo. But everything I said can be validated by going to the thread archives. My thoughts on the Presdential candidates are my own, of course.

And yes, I live in Bangkok and it flies on it's own orbit. And as far as verbal abuse, I have been getting it on AP regularly, so nothing new.

A Suspended Lawyer.

An Illegal Alien.

A Pathological Liar.

A Muslim,

A Communist,

A Terrible golfer.

And a Black Guy walk into a BAR.

Bartender says.

"What'll it be Mr. President?".

Remember when they said that if you didn't make somewhere around half a million, you were not rich in America?

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/10/23/no_one_is_rich_or_happy_because_we_always_want_more.html[/URL]

Come to my summer camp in Bangkok.

[QUOTE=RevBS;441906]Obama bashers are just unhappy people![/QUOTE]You've got a real problem here, because by my observation Obama [U]supporters[/U] are pretty unhappy people also.

Jajajajajaja.

Thanks,

Jax.

I've spent the majority of my life working for the government in one form or another. Eight years with the federal government, fifteen years at three different states' universities, and I've worked for county governments, several city governments, a water and sewer district, and on and one. So I have seen lots of waste and inefficiency.

Now, I am working for a private sector company. I did not know when I was hired that it is largely government funded through the No Child Left Behind Act. The company gets $40 for each hour I am available to work with these underprivileged or low-income students, and they pay me $12. So that is a healthy profit margin and they have little overhead beyond the computer platform, and even that is largely a one-time sunk cost.

But the thing is, there are no students. Now I have "worked" about 70 hours and I have had two students, for a total of about 45 minutes. So 70 x $40 / 3/4 = $3,733 per hour, is what the government / taxpayers are paying. I'm only making $1,120 an hour which hardly seems fair. If you collapse the steps of the whole thing, the government is paying me $12 an hour to watch sports, read, and post on Argentina Private (I'm on the clock as we speak).

If the government simply hired me as an employee, they could just pay me $12 an hour to sit on my ass and eliminate the $28 an hour profit for the private company. That would remind me of the government job I had in college. I got paid for 8 hours to make dinner for 25-30 lowlifes at the county halfway house and then make them sack lunches. It took me about an hour, at the most, and paid about 50% more than a similar job in the private sector would have.

As an auditor, I saw just as much waste and fucking off in private sector as I did in the public sector. I really think it's a toss-up. And from an economic standpoint, if you have a large public sector presence, you have a greater ability to apply fiscal policy and decrease your reliance on monetary policy.

So really, the internet has definitely changed my working career. Before, I had to fuck off in more or less a specific location, which left me vulnerable. Now, I can fuck off anywhere in the world there is broadband. Progress is a wonderful thing.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;441930] I saw just as much waste and fucking off in private sector as I did in the public sector. I really think it's a toss-up. .[/QUOTE]Now you know why private sector companies want all those government service contracts. They do not have to make anything, useful or not, just charge the government and get paid. The government only loses "attrition" employees because someone has to look over the shoulder of the contractors to keep them "honest". That is why 20% of the people make 80% of what we consume, and many federal, state, or local jobs are nothing more than giveaways that keep the people in those jobs "gainfully" employed and off the streets. My dos centavos worth.

Tres3.

Are black Americans finally starting to wake up? Of all places this comes from Chicago.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUSRZo1BE5o[/URL]

This could be the beginning of a big problem for the [STRIKE]Democrat[/STRIKE] Plantation party.

So there is a big fuss in one of the neighboring counties because not enough Republican election judges have been hired. Accusations of favoritism and other isms are being bandied about. That county is majority Democratic but only about 55% and only about 30% of the judges are Republicans (if you throw the independents out of the denominator). Well, I can tell you why that is: the jobs pay $11 an hour. It has nothing to do with any malfeasance but rather the demographics of the hiring pool. The Republicans in that county probably have 2x the per capita income of the Democrats, for various reasons. My county is 60% Republican and since I was involved with the screening process, I can tell you that registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by over 2 to 1 in the applications we received.

By the way, this had the affect that almost all the Republican applicants got hired and we got way, way down into loser range. I'm not saying there was a higher percentage of losers in the Republican pool than in the Democratic pool; I'm just saying we got the cream of the Democrats and the full range of Republicans. And our county pays $12.75 an hour so what kind of applicants the neighboring county got, I can only imagine.

So I don't know about paying fast-food workers $15 an hour but do you really want $11 an hour clowns running your elections? I went to the informational meeting for that county and some of the people there looked they had been dumped out of a vacuum cleaner bag.

The Republicans are frothing and slobbering at the mouth at the prospect of taking control of the Senate. I figure if that happens there wont be much done in 2015-16, because Pres. Obama will be vetoeing bills to:

-Repeal the Affordable Care Act.

-Ban Gay Marriage.

-Ban all abortions.

-Blame the Democrats for Fast & Furious.

-Blame Hilary Clinton for the Bengazi attack.

-Blame the PO for Republican front groups not getting tax breaks.

-Trying to Impeach Pres. Obama.

We will see what happens Nov. 4 on election day.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442026]The Republicans are frothing and slobbering at the mouth at the prospect of taking control of the Senate. I figure if that happens there wont be much done in 2015-16, because Pres. Obama will be vetoeing bills[/QUOTE]And I'm okay with nothing being done, and maybe in 2016 we can have a Republican president and a Democratic senate and a bunch more nothing can get done. I think the ideal political situation resembles the Cincinnati-Carolina game.

My state looks to end up the same way so I am looking forward to as much nothing as possible on the state level as well. Except, we have a budget surplus and they might have to give us some of it back. That would be good, considering I was not here when the surplus accumulated but will still get the refund.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442026]The Republicans are frothing and slobbering at the mouth at the prospect of taking control of the Senate. I figure if that happens there wont be much done in 2015-16, because Pres. Obama will be vetoeing bills to:

-Repeal the Affordable Care Act.

-Ban Gay Marriage.

-Ban all abortions.

-Blame the Democrats for Fast & Furious.

-Blame Hilary Clinton for the Bengazi attack.

-Blame the PO for Republican front groups not getting tax breaks.

-Trying to Impeach Pres. Obama.

We will see what happens Nov. 4 on election day.[/QUOTE]The 1st item is accurate.

The rest is blatant fear-mongering.

Jax.

I was trying to find a rational reason for the Dow Jones to erupt these last 2 weeks. And so it dawned on me, it must be the impending takeover of the Senate by the GOP next week, and therefore Congress, that has the market in such an explosive and ebullient mood. After all, what has that Obama clown done in the last 6 years to be able to claim any credit for all the money the "egg-throwers" have in their pockets. And all that despite raising the taxes, that we were told was the "death knell" of growth. So difficult to comprehend! But I get it, I didn't finish 26th in my class of 40 for nothing.

Well money talks, and I am no exception. After all, Wall Street is carrying the load of whatever luxury I do happen to be able to enjoy. Otherwise, it would be rice & soya sauce,with a chunk of pineapple thrown in. So with much hand-wringing, I feel I have to throw Obama to the lions, if only the market can continue to roar. A sacrifice to the the money gods, eh!

[QUOTE=RevBS;442039]I was trying to find a rational reason for the Dow Jones to erupt these last 2 weeks[/QUOTE]The Dow is a price-weighted index, ridiculous, hugely flawed. Attention should not be paid.

[QUOTE=RevBS;442039]I was trying to find a rational reason for the Dow Jones to erupt these last 2 weeks. And so it dawned on me, it must be the impending takeover of the Senate by the GOP next week, and therefore Congress, that has the market in such an explosive and ebullient mood. After all, what has that Obama clown done in the last 6 years to be able to claim any credit for all the money the "egg-throwers" have in their pockets. And all that despite raising the taxes, that we were told was the "death knell" of growth. So difficult to comprehend! But I get it, I didn't finish 26th in my class of 40 for nothing.

Well money talks, and I am no exception. After all, Wall Street is carrying the load of whatever luxury I do happen to be able to enjoy. Otherwise, it would be rice & soya sauce,with a chunk of pineapple thrown in. So with much hand-wringing, I feel I have to throw Obama to the lions, if only the market can continue to roar. A sacrifice to the the money gods, eh![/QUOTE]The stock market is not much different than a ponzi scheme. The institutional investors and the rich have DIRECT access to Wall Street servers (computers) and get advance notice of sell-offs, etc., before any of the 'average' day-to-day traders. Thus, those 'special' investors are notified in advance to sell and avoid losses which the 'average' investor ends up bearing the brunt of any loses.

Which is why I, and many others, are leaving the stock market as it is a "no win" game used to trick middle America into investing in it to increase the values so those with direct knowledge can increase their wealth but sell off before anyone else and avoid losses.

This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of my investment advisor- a Vice President with Zacks investments.

Suerte.

Stowe.

Well I sure as fuck won! The stock market might be rigged against idiots who trade all the time (and the tax system is stacked against those people as well), but the road to wealth is paved with equities. Always has been and always will be. I just saw an interesting article about the [B]differences[/B] between the stock market and a Ponzi scheme; I'll see if I can find it.

Here we go:

[URL]http://www.cnbc.com/id/102125181[/URL]#.

The key point is the existence of an open market. You look at Ponzi, Madoff, so forth, there is never a secondary market. Even if you look at Enron, a major problem there was the derivatives they invested in had no secondary market. Then there was the promise of unreasonable returns in Ponzi and Madoff's schemes. The equity market doesn't promise unreasonable returns and pigs get slaughtered. Recently Robert Shiller made his data dating back to 1871 available. He has a calculator where you can see what has historically been the probability of achieving X% return on average compounded over Y years. So what's a reasonable return, after inflation? Let me see if I can paste in this chart:

Percentage of times S & P has outperformed Y% over X years (1871-2012).

Inflation adjusted.

Years 1 5 10 20 40

4%: 59.81% 62.53% 71.28% 77.12% 97.79%

5%: 57.51% 59.00% 65.28% 71.72% 87.42%

6%: 55.26% 54.26% 57.70% 60.79% 56.29%

7%: 53.19% 49.21% 48.93% 49.25% 33.01%

8%: 50.77% 43.25% 42.80% 36.20% 12.09%

9%: 47.58% 38.32% 36.11% 22.34% 6.54%

10%: 44.98% 34.25% 28.79% 12.84% 0.82%

Next line shows the median return:

50% 8.30% 6.82% 6.91% 6.95% 6.31%

The bottom line gives you the median. Buying and holding for twenty years, you can expect close to 7% (6.95%) [B]after[/B] inflation and after accounting for variation in the returns. Your chance of getting 5% is over 70% and if you look at 40 years, a common time frame for the accumulation stage, you'd beat inflation by 5 percentage points close to 90% (87.42%) of the time. So you just ignore the sell-offs. Ignore everything. You don't want to "sell before the sell-offs" anyway. Then when do you buy back in? Instead, you want to buy the piss out of the sell-offs, just like I did in 2008. Not because I'm a genius but because my system forces me to buy low and sell high.

I guess people who think the stock market is rigged can invest in some other asset that has produced better returns over time. Oh, wait a minute; there isn't one!

(Edit: The chart looks real good on the preview. Too bad what you see ain't what you get. Sorry)

The big question today is whether the Republicans will take majority control of the Senate. But I recall 2 years ago that was the same question. There were 6 key races in the country and the Dems won all of them. And guess what I remember from 4 years ago, that was the same issue, and the Dems kept control the Senate that time too.

We will see what happens today.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442100]The big question today is whether the Republicans will take majority control of the Senate. But I recall 2 years ago that was the same question. There were 6 key races in the country and the Dems won all of them. And guess what I remember from 4 years ago, that was the same issue, and the Dems kept control the Senate that time too.

We will see what happens today.[/QUOTE]hahahahaha

I wait for Esten's response to the new Republican Controlled House & Senate. How could a bunch of homophobic, racists, Bible toting, gun loving people who cling to their religious beliefs in fear of the liberal anti-Christ have won such a resounding victory?

Now the Republicans must govern, which I believe they will do well, but not from the stand point of the liberal elite. Wonder if the 2/3's majority in each chamber will materialize to override Obama's coming veto's? Will the democrats be running scared now they have lost both houses of Congress and fear for their own reelection or defeat in 2016 based on how they work with the Republicans? Could Obama's veto pen be out of ink?

While I don't believe impeachment of Obama would be a good thing for the country, it is now a very real threat after loss of control of the Senate. Perhaps this will reign in the Obama imperial presidency?

I await your response with amusement Esten.

Us 99%ers will be really fucked now.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442115]I wait for Esten's response to the new Republican Controlled House & Senate. How could a bunch of homophobic, racists, Bible toting, gun loving people who cling to their religious beliefs in fear of the liberal anti-Christ have won such a resounding victory?

Now the Republicans must govern, which I believe they will do well, but not from the stand point of the liberal elite. Wonder if the 2/3's majority in each chamber will materialize to override Obama's coming veto's? Will the democrats be running scared now they have lost both houses of Congress and fear for their own reelection or defeat in 2016 based on how they work with the Republicans? Could Obama's veto pen be out of ink?

While I don't believe impeachment of Obama would be a good thing for the country, it is now a very real threat after loss of control of the Senate. Perhaps this will reign in the Obama imperial presidency?

I await your response with amusement Esten.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442115]I await your response with amusement Esten.[/QUOTE]He's waiting for the DNC to send him his talking points.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;442119]Us 99%ers will be really fucked now.[/QUOTE]Wow man, you just don't get it.

The 1%ers, the Race Card, the War on Women, they all failed.

Thanks,

Jax

And so the worst scenario for Obama did come true. As far as his agenda goes, he had been handcuffed since 2010. But now the soap opera goes into prime time. Shenanigans a-plenty coming your way for your entertainment. Hannity will reach cult status!

But never mind, it's just another piece of the puzzle that makes for America's greatness in the 21st century.

"The business of America is business" The market did not miss a beat.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;442119]Us 99%ers will be really fucked now.[/QUOTE]No Democratic president will allow legislation that will worsen income inequality. But we may have to wait beyond the next 2 years for legislation that will help address the issue. That's OK, we have gained some ground from provisions in the ACA, and the expiration of Bush tax cuts on high earners. The economy will likely continue to do well in the next 2 years. Stay tuned for another strong jobs report tomorrow.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442124]Wow man, you just don't get it.

The 1%ers, the Race Card, the War on Women, they all failed.[/QUOTE]Nonsense. But that's what Fox News wants you to believe.

Republicans clearly excelled at messaging in the 2014 midterms, while Democrats clearly sucked at messaging. And what we learned is good messaging works, even if it's short on substance and long on spin, distortion and emotion. Well, at least it worked with the segment that helped Republicans.

That segment was small, about 20% of eligible voters in the country. Near record-low turnout, tilted older and white. Many of the races were in Republican-leaning states, including Senate pickups that Dems won six years ago in the 2008 wave election. Expect more spin from Republicans about how hugely significant it is, but putting it in context it's not much to crow about.

Little has changed. Government and the country are still divided and nothing will change without finding common ground or compromise. Polling continues to show strong support for many progressive positions and a 2016 Democratic President. Notice the states that voted to increase the minimum wage and legalize marijuana last night.

I am philosophical about things. The ACA was more than enough progress for Obama's two terms. I felt that way in 2010 and I feel the same today. It's a net shift forward. It's unrealistic to expect more near-term, a period of assimilation is needed before the next push forward.

[QUOTE=Esten;442129]Republicans clearly excelled at messaging in the 2014 midterms, while Democrats clearly sucked at messaging. And what we learned is good messaging works, even if it's short on substance and long on spin, distortion and emotion. Well, at least it worked with the segment that helped Republicans.

That segment was small, about 20% of eligible voters in the country. Near record-low turnout, tilted older and white. Many of the races were in Republican-leaning states, including Senate pickups that Dems won six years ago in the 2008 wave election. Expect more spin from Republicans about how hugely significant it is, but putting it in context it's not much to crow about.

Little has changed. Government and the country are still divided and nothing will change without finding common ground or compromise. Polling continues to show strong support for many progressive positions and a 2016 Democratic President. Notice the states that voted to increase the minimum wage and legalize marijuana last night.

I am philosophical about things. The ACA was more than enough progress for Obama's two terms. I felt that way in 2010 and I feel the same today. It's a net shift forward. It's unrealistic to expect more near-term, a period of assimilation is needed before the next push forward.[/QUOTE]Jackson, you were exactly correct in stating Esten needed to get direction from the DNC before he could respond, nearly word for word response from the DNC.

Messaging? The Republicans ran on OBAMA's record and the dislike of his policies and the ACA, they did not run on any platform beyond they were not OBAMA.

Oh, the election does not count because a majority of the voters did not turn out therefore it did not represent the true view of the electorate. Then I guess neither of Obama's elections of 2008 and 2012 represented the majority view of the electorate either as he got just a bit more then 50% of the ballots cast in both elections but only 61% and 56% respectively of the electorate actually voted meaning only roughly 30% of the electorate supported Obama.

Then next thing we will here from Esten is the Republicans need to compromise. Yea, like the Democrats "compromised" the first 2 years and when they lost the House in 2010 they continued to "compromise".

Obama and the Democrats got their collective asses handed to them on Tuesday. Hopefully enough Democrats will be scared enough to provide the 2/3's majority in both houses to over ride Obama's veto's!

We the People got fucked.

Big Business rules.

That is why this was the most expensive election Ever.

[url]http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=218404b9b7d17b8e087467c45&id=426bfe27de&e=edfb8e492c[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackson;442124]Wow man, you just don't get it.

The 1%ers, the Race Card, the War on Women, they all failed.

Thanks,

Jax[/QUOTE]