I know a lot of women who think exactly like these two.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28594[/ATTACH]
Printable View
I know a lot of women who think exactly like these two.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28594[/ATTACH]
I wonder how many of the people bitching about Obamacare actually have looked at what it says and does. I mean looked at independently. Because I have. I am not going to say I have read the whole bill but I have read most of the more salient parts. It isn't really very radical at all. I look at it as an investment in infrastructure. Your true low lifes won't have their shit together to buy insurance regardless. It is mostly going to help the working poor. It is socialism for sure, and wealth redistribution to a moderate extent. Mechanically what it does is create a constantly increasing marginal tax bracket instead of the 'cliff effect' we see now.
If you go to business school, you learn, or should learn, that having a product with inelastic demand is less risky than having one with elastic demand. These small businesses that are whining and bitching are going to learn this lesson again. Those with relatively inelastic demand will pass most of any cost increase on to consumers in the form of higher prices. That will lead to some inflation but the current environment can withstand some inflation. Those with relatively elastic demand will yield some profit to be redistributed. Hopefully they priced the risk of elasticity into the rate of return they demanded on their capital. If they did not, then fuck them.
[QUOTE=Dickhead; 429792]I wonder how many of the people bitching about Obamacare actually have looked at what it says and does. I mean looked at independently. Because I have. I am not going to say I have read the whole bill but I have read most of the more salient parts. It isn't really very radical at all. I look at it as an investment in infrastructure. Your true low lifes won't have their shit together to buy insurance regardless. It is mostly going to help the working poor. It is socialism for sure, and wealth redistribution to a moderate extent. Mechanically what it does is create a constantly increasing marginal tax bracket instead of the 'cliff effect' we see now.
If you go to business school, you learn, or should learn, that having a product with inelastic demand is less risky than having one with elastic demand. These small businesses that are whining and bitching are going to learn this lesson again. Those with relatively inelastic demand will pass most of any cost increase on to consumers in the form of higher prices. That will lead to some inflation but the current environment can withstand some inflation. Those with relatively elastic demand will yield some profit to be redistributed. Hopefully they priced the risk of elasticity into the rate of return they demanded on their capital. If they did not, then fuck them.[/QUOTE]
Most likely the most idiotic post you have ever made Dick. Go back to academia! You are so totally out of touch and it totally cracks me up. It is so apparent that you have never made a payroll in your life. Your investment comments made it clear to me long ago you just might be fool, this comment has removed all doubt. Give me a break! Stop pontificating on stuff you have no idea about. Book knowledge on its own is no replacement for real life experience. You and yours just crack me up! Crawl back into the university library and stop commenting on the real world dude. Sorry to burst your bubble but this comment shows nothing but pure ignorance. Nothing more. The US voting crowd asked for this, now just wait and see what they get. Be careful what you ask for professor, you just might get it. IALOTFLMAO. See ya. Toymann.
P. Damn, you are one dumb son of a be*tch!
pps. let me give you a snapshot on the post Abomacare landscape..... decreased providers, slower and decreased care, more expensive healthcare costs (especially for non-government insurers), welcome to socialist medicine in a hybrid system. Something you never factored into your ivory tower model dude. In canada, like almost all socialist countries with government healthcare almost ALL those with a job pay taxes. Not just 50% of the population. If ya flip burgers in canada guess what? Ya pay taxes. There are no deductions in socialist countries professor thus most everyone has some skin in the game. Love your analysis but damn, are you out to lunch!
The downgrading was because of the GOP.
Boehner said we must not let it go any higher, but he agreed that it was OK when a White Man was President.
The GOP is about to let our countries rating go lower, because of their Racist policies.
[url]http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/07/07/bush-raised-debt-ceiling-five-times/[/url]
[QUOTE=Silver Star; 429407]WT Congratulations on your win, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular vote totals for President.
I'm Libertarian and I'm stuck with Obama's economic BUBBLE that is going to pop faster than we think, did you see Treasury Sec Geithner wants to get rid of the debt ceiling completely so they can borrow forever? I'd like to make an even money bet with you during that during the current administration (thru the end of term in 2017) that S&P will lower the USA's credit rating (again) , if so I win. If S&P increases the rating back to AAA, I lose. If the rating stays the same as now at AA+ it is a tie. I won't include Fitch or Moody's since they haven't downgraded yet, that would be like taking candy from a baby, it's just a question of when not if on those 2. WT69, do you think the USA's credit rating will get better in the coming years, or maybe you just don't think deficits matter anyway. We sure got a lotta red ink in the last 4 years. Would like your thoughts on deficit spending and balancing the budget. I have a feeling your solution (if any) is tax the rich and not cut any spending) [/QUOTE]
Need I say More?
[QUOTE=Jackson; 429785]I know a lot of women who think exactly like these two.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28594[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;429803]Need I say More?[/QUOTE]They voted for Obama, so of course there's nothing more to be said.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 429796]The downgrading was because of the GOP.
Boehner said we must not let it go any higher, but he agreed that it was OK when a White Man was President.
The GOP is about to let our countries rating go lower, because of their Racist policies. [/url][/QUOTE]You have the part about the credit rating exactly backwards.
The US Credit rating is specific to the risk of US Treasury securities. That is the likelihood of a US default on it's obligations (interest and principal) as they relate to treasury securities. How could increasing deficit spending make the US less likely to default on its obligations?
Think about it this way:
- a guy makes $100k / year.
- His effective tax rate is 20, so he has $80K in disposable spending.
- he has a $5k / mo mortgage ($500k balance)
- he pays $1k / mo in car payments ($50k balance)
- he pays $1k / mo to service his credit cards ($50k balance)
- his monthly bills run $2k / mo.
Net of taxes, he brings in $80k. His annual expenses are $108K and he owes $600k.
You are the loan officer at the bank. If this guy is granted more debt, do you think that he will be more likely or less likely to default?
Now, what nobody seems to bother to say is that the US Govt can't default on its treasury securities. End of story. If the US didn't have the money necessary to meet its obligations, it would print more. Further, there is no shortage of funds within the federal government. The 'one' payment that they absolutely must make is on the federal debt. If there wasn't enough cash lying around, they would have to not pay other obligations (entitlements, etc.) in favor of servicing the debt (that is the law). If the president, regardless of skin color, failed to service the debt, it would be an impeachable offense. The fact that this president lied to the American people about a potential default, for political gain, is one of the more despicable things I have seen, and I have seen quite a lot.
How could refusing to increase the debt limit harm the US credit rating? It couldn't. The US credit rating was lowered strictly because of the fact that the US was/is not behaving in a fiscally responsible manner: was / is running huge annual deficits (more than $1T each of the last four years) ; the legislature has not passed a budget in three years and the national debt is growing at an exorbitant rate (increasing 50% every 3-4 years). The GOP's contribution to that problem is its legacy of bending over and spending, just like their liberal counterparts.
There is a black guy in the WH who called the prior white president unpatriotic for increasing the national debt. Now that same black guy says it is imperative for the good of the nation for him to cripple the country with debt (pretty twisted logic). In your way of thinking, he too is a racist (actually, I agree completely with you on this one, he is a racist).
If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;429812]If there aren't real spending cuts, I say, let's go over the economic cliff. The house controls the purse strings. They should just pass the spending provisions that they want and send it to the senate. If they (senate and president) don't like it, f*ck 'them.[/QUOTE]Since when did the US become a country of those that don't pay and those that think others need to pay! All Americans are supposed to be created equal. That said, lets all go over the falls together. It s absolutely preferable to giving the government MORE money to just piss away. Even Esten should be happy about going over the cliff. It works for moderate liberals as just look At all the cuts to defense plus the revenue generated would be substantial. Woo hoo, paddle as fast as you can, the falls are just around the next bend in the river. My dos centavos! Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann;429814]Since when did the US become a country of those that don't pay and those that think others need to pay! All Americans are supposed to be created equal.[/QUOTE]That's our progressive tax system we've had for a long time. I wonder when Republicans are going to make up their mind. On one hand, they bitterly oppose any increase in federal taxes, including for those who pay no tax. On the other hand, they bitterly complain about the people who pay no tax.
[QUOTE]Even Esten should be happy about going over the cliff. It works for moderate liberals as just look At all the cuts to defense plus the revenue generated would be substantial.[/QUOTE]I'd be fine going over the cliff, but it won't happen all at once. Republicans will cave to extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the lower brackets only. If they don't, the blame will be entirely on them. This is very predictable. Republicans don't have much leverage on this point. They are trapped with the expiration.
PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann...
[QUOTE=Esten;429817]PS. Why the childish, name-calling rants against other posters? Bad form, Toymann.[/QUOTE]Dude, this is the political thread. It's totally tradition here to rant and rave and call each other names. It's all in fun, don't ya know. Would you prefer some lame politically correct debate on this thread. How boring. Wt69 calls all republicans baby killing Neanderthals after his morning breakfast meeting with Nancy. Dickhead loves to pontificate like like he s some sort of academic arbitrator who is just so much smarter than the unwashed masses. I suppose that we should just all discuss like a boxing match regulated by queensbury rules. No low blows, biting, kicking, etc. Is this really what you want? How boring. That said, who am to howl at the moon. I will treat all posts going forward like a high school debate forum. Won't that be entertaining! It's all in fun and I suggest you look in the mirror my friend. At one time or another virtually every poster on this thread, including you, have shown "bad form", to put it in your terms. Just my dos centavos. Toymann
No... we don't want just boring, polite discussion! I'm just suggesting, when it comes to other posters on the board, maybe there's a balance somewhere...
Anyways, I have some reviews to post.
It seems Boehner and Obama had a bit of a love fest today and at least the stock market was optimistic about a compromise. A few weeks ago I said I thought the marginal tax rates above 15% would end up somewhere between the current rates and the previous rates and Boehner seemed to be saying the same thing. I think it also might happen that another bracket may emerge around $500, 000 and they will let that go to 39. 6. Then the Dems seemed to be willing to deal on Medicare or Medicaid or both. I think raising Medicare eligibility to 67 to conform to OASDI would be logical and tolerable, and could be phased in over say 5 years. That should be a pretty significant number, cut-wise. Medicaid I know less about but it seems like it would be hard to contract that after it was just expanded to 133% of the federal poverty level. Surprisingly, no one seems to be talking about capital gains tax rates and that makes me think they are going to let those revert to the former levels, which are still preferential. Everybody should keep in mind that dividends revert to being taxed at ordinary income rates next year absent any agreement to the contrary. You don't want to let taxes dictate your investment strategy, in general, BUT you might want to adopt a policy of, whatever stock you are planning on selling anyway, sell it a few days before the ex-dividend date.
I must admit I don't want to take Silver Star's bet about the downgrade. It could happen. If the debt gets downgraded a notch, interest rates will rise, but that will be a partial cure for the deficit in the short run. I don't think the chance of a downgrade is 50% so I should in theory take his bet, but I only bet on sure things. You have to look at how worldwide investors ran to US treasuries in 2008 and 2009 even though a lot of the problems originated in the US. It is a 'lesser of the evils' type of thinking, so I think a one notch downgrade and commensurate interest rate rise is not the end of the world. I mean, if you think about it, fuck it. We should just issue a shit load of junk bonds right now to fund the next say 100 years and then we screw people who haven't even been born yet.
This week I was looking at excess reserves in the banking system. Normally these would be zero, hence the term 'excess' but they are huge right now. Down just a bit from their peak but if and when an agreement, any remotely reasonable agreement, is reached, I think investment and growth will pick up pretty rapidly. The lenders are hunkered down in the face of the uncertainty and that's a big reason why the stimulative monetary policy of the past few years hasn't taken effect.
Yet.
Where does it say they voted for Obama?
Funny, Romney got 47% of the Vote. How's that for Irony.
[QUOTE=Jackson;429804]They voted for Obama, so of course there's nothing more to be said.[/QUOTE]
The first thing they should cut is the subsidies to the Tobacco Industries.
I know it isn't much S46, 000, 000, but it will help.
Because tobacco kills 1200 people a day.
Being a US investor looking to place funds right now, seems a lot like mongering at Ness. A lot of relatively unattractive competing opportunities.