Under the 114th Congress, I predict that both schadenfreude and the Dunning-Kruger Effect will reach all-time highs, although the US dollar probably won't.
Printable View
Under the 114th Congress, I predict that both schadenfreude and the Dunning-Kruger Effect will reach all-time highs, although the US dollar probably won't.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442324]Jackson is obviously consumed again by a flare up of an unfortunate chronic illness he has been afflicted with since 2008, ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). I happen to know that generally Jackson is a logical, rational person when not having a particularly acute flare up of ODS, as is the case here. If his logical thought process was not being overwhelmed by the symptoms of ODS Jackson would have realized that ALL INSURANCE IS PAID FOR BY THE "HEALTHY" SO THE "SICK" CAN USE IT. This is true of health, auto, fire, flood, home owners, liability insurances etc etc.
Lest the rest of Jackson's ultra right wing fan-boys forget, lets talk about today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide, the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low, more people have health insurance than ever before, inflation is low, the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world and oil prices are plummeting.
Jackson and his fascist fan-boy lackey's are so blinded by ODS and their rejection of any policies not seen by them as benefiting their WASP ultra right wing greedy ilk they are unable to see just how good they have it under Obama's watch.[/QUOTE]Your response is nothing more than political distraction, as in "Don't look over there, look over here at these shiny baubles.".
Do you have to say about the actual topic of my post: MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber's comments in 2013 about the strategies behind the passing Obamacare?
Thanks,
Jax.
[QUOTE=Jackson;442336]Your response is nothing more than political distraction, as in "Don't look over there, look over here at these shiny baubles.".
Do you have to say about the actual topic of my post: MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber's comments in 2013 about the strategies behind the passing Obamacare?
Thanks,
Jax.[/QUOTE]What is the objective relevance of the opinion about the process of how Obamacare was passed through Congress? It was passed by the US Congress using legal means and procedures and later upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS and is now the law of the land. You posting the opinion of some MIT professor about the process shows that YOU are only interested in political distractions when it comes to anything Obama.
As I stated earlier, today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide, the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low, more people have health insurance than ever before, inflation is low, the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world and oil prices are plummeting. No amount of ODS derived nonsense offered by you or your fascist right wing fan-boys/lackeys cannot refute this reality.
MIT professors might not be very credible. We had a monger on this board who taught there. He was Argie and finally moved to Montreal. We gave him a going-away party at Nuevo Estilo and we all chipped in to buy him an hour with a chica. Later we found out he did a half hour and pocketed the difference. How very Argie.
So don't trust MIT professors.
The latest posts from Doppel and Jackson are just more examples of the Conservative modus operandi: [B]Focus on something small or anecdotal, make it sound negative, and portray it as typical or representative of the whole.[/B]
Gruber is only one person, and speaks for himself. Any dope who was paying attention to the health care debate knew that features like the mandate and the age 26 provision were all about getting more, healthy people into the insurance pools to pay for the sick. Most people know that's how insurance works. Republicans had and used every opportunity to scare Americans about the law, and went far beyond such points. And still failed. Remember the creepy Uncle Sam ad ? Or the "death panels", "don't let the government get between you and your doctor", "massive job killer", etc. All lies from the Republicans who are the masters at misleading Americans. Their isolated accusations of Democrats may have some truth, but are simply laughable coming from them.
Anyways, carry on folks. I must fly South to attend to some important monger business. :)
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337]What is the objective relevance of the opinion about the process of how Obamacare was passed through Congress? It was passed by the US Congress using legal means and procedures and later upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS and is now the law of the land. You posting the opinion of some MIT professor about the process shows that YOU are only interested in political distractions when it comes to anything Obama.
As I stated earlier, today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide, the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low, more people have health insurance than ever before, inflation is low, the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world and oil prices are plummeting. No amount of ODS derived nonsense offered by you or your fascist right wing fan-boys/lackeys cannot refute this reality.[/QUOTE]Yaks, ah-huh, oops, catch a falling star, oh sure, bazooka, mama mia, amen!
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337]What is the objective relevance of the opinion about the process of how Obamacare was passed through Congress? It was passed by the US Congress using legal means and procedures and later upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS and is now the law of the land. You posting the opinion of some MIT professor about the process shows that YOU are only interested in political distractions when it comes to anything Obama.[/QUOTE]Unbelievable. Gruber's comments would be like one of the Neoconservative architects of the Iraq war saying the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was fabricated. But because Gruber is a Democrat and the ACA was Obama's idea, you call this a mere distraction.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337]As I stated earlier, today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide,[/QUOTE]There are a lot of moving parts in the stock and currency markets, most of which the president of the United States, acting solely through the executive branch of government, has little or no control over.
The Merval index hit new all time highs about every other month during Nestor Kirchner's presidency. Kirchner must have been great for Argentina.
Yes, the USD gained massively against the JPY, because Japan orchestrated a massive devaluation of its currency. And against the EUR, in part because some European countries have, for decades, followed failed policies that Obama has done his best to implement in the USA. These policies resulted in high unemployment, low or no growth, and lots and lots of government debt, and the Euro is weak versus the dollar as a result.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337]the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low[/QUOTE]Indeed it is. And after a series of unprecedented peace time deficits under Obama, the national federal debt has risen from 11 trillion to 18 trillion dollars. Obama may go down as the most profligate president in the history of the USA. And to be fair, Bush Junior was also one of the worst.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337]more people have health insurance than ever before[/QUOTE] If Obama had implemented a SOCIALIZED low cost, high quality health care system like what the majority of the citizens of Hong Kong use, I might agree that he really accomplished something. Or if he figured out a way to make the system work through competition, like in Singapore, I'd also applaud. But he didn't. He made health care in America worse. More people will work part time or not work because of Obamacare. Healthcare costs will continue to rise, and likely exceed 20% of GDP in a decade. In the long term, health care is likely to bankrupt the country unless something changes. Quality has not improved.
You're a businessman. Say you sold a product that cost 50% more than your priciest competitor. And 300% more than other competitors that offered better-quality products than you do. How long do you think you'd stay in business? This analogy is like comparing U.S. health care to some of the pricier European systems (12% of GDP) or low-cost, high-quality systems like Singapore and Hong Kong (4% or 5% of GDP).
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337], inflation is low,[/QUOTE]Because the economy never properly rebounded from the recession and demand is still weak. Add to that declines in middle class income and massive underemployment during his administration.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337] the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world[/QUOTE]That's disingenuous. Do you really think Obama had anything to do with that? The USA became the largest producer of oil in the world in spite of the Obama administration putting some federal land off limits to exploration, and despite the administration instructing the EPA to put roadblocks in the way of hydraulic fracturing.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;442337]your fascist right wing fan-boys/lackeys cannot refute this reality.[/QUOTE]The reality is that the fascists are in the Obama administration. They think they should be able to side step Congress and the courts and do what they believe is best for the USA. If they lost big time in the last election, who cares. The electorate is stupid, and the Washington Democrat elite know best.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442357]the Euro is weak versus the dollar as a result[/QUOTE]Well, compared to when? The euro is certainly much stronger against the dollar than when the euro was introduced. I remember the first day of full trading because I was working at a currency trading firm. 1.12 to 1. So the dollar was about 10% stronger when it was introduced. By Jan of 2001 as Clinton left office it had strengthened to 0.94. By the time your boy Bush II left office it had weakened to 1.34. For those keeping score at home, the dollar weakened over 40% against the euro during Bush II's terms.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442357]More people will work part time or not work because of Obamacare.[/QUOTE]And others will take their place. It's actually a more efficient process in that regard. People with only a slight to moderate need to work, like me, will move out of the workforce. Those somewhat younger will be promoted to take the place of me and my ilk. Then recent graduates can take the jobs of those folks. It more closely matches the needs of the workplace with the needs of the workforce.
Dickhead,
1. Can you point to anything positive I've written about George W. Bush? Bush II is not my boy. I never voted for him. The last time the dollar was clearly overvalued against the major European currencies in terms of purchasing power was during Reagan's presidency, in 1984 and 1985. Reagan was my boy.
2. With respect to employment and Obamacare, I was actually thinking of employers who won't hire full time workers because they can't afford to pay for the medical insurance. But since you mention it, yes, I would strongly favor a combination of incentives and force that would cause you to pay hundreds of thousands in income tax instead of wasting away in premature retirement.
Premature? I worked for forty-one years. I started a few years earlier than most people so I'm quitting a few years earlier than most people. If I'd stayed at my government job I would already have my 30 years in. Not much longevity in the family tree and my father and grandfathers worked until they dropped dead. I'd like to think I'm a little smarter than that. I think the current ACA situation might also be an incentive for people to quit their jobs and start their own businesses, and that could be a very good thing. They could take the risk because they'd still have health insurance. Some of those might also be people in my age group, and then you would not only get the benefit of their entrepreneurship but everyone below can move up a rung on the ladder.
To be honest with you, I don't really give a shit about anything but a strong dollar right now. Congress and the Democrats and the Republicans can all go fuck themselves. I hit Europe at 0.88 and 0.83 (all time low) and I hit Australia and NZ at .495 and .37 which were also close to all-time lows. That was a big part of my travel strategy back then. Europe at 0.83 was lots of fun. In 2010, living in Spain at 1.43, not so much. I'm having a hard time understanding why the dollar is so strong right now given all the paper sloshing about. I think it is one of those 'in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king' type of deals; every other country is even more fucked up. Real interest rates are usually the most highly correlated with the strength of a currency, but US real interest rates are near zero. Of course, so are the EU's.
Not to change the subject, but when real interest rates are high, it's time to consider annuities and TIPS. I locked in 3.6% over inflation on TIPS in 2000 and I think we could see those levels again, or close. I think real interest rates will rise slowly and steadily over the next three to five years.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442363] I'm having a hard time understanding why the dollar is so strong right now given all the paper sloshing about. I think it is one of those 'in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king' type of deals; every other country is even more fucked up. Real interest rates are usually the most highly correlated with the strength of a currency, but US real interest rates are near zero. Of course, so are the EU's.[/QUOTE]I strongly agree.
You think too small. Instead of just visiting countries where the currencies and hookers are cheap, you should buy equities there. This would be a good way to spend your retirement. There's a strong correlation between quality $15 hookers and future stock market performance. Just look at Indonesia after 1998 and Argentina after 2001, after their currencies collapsed.
I just could not resist.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;442134]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]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442365]Instead of just visiting countries where the currencies and hookers are cheap, you should buy equities there.[/QUOTE]Not a bad idea, but inconsistent with my zero tax strategy because foreign equities spew off [B]non-[/B]qualifying dividends. I used to buy WEBS back in the day but you run into a lot of concentration risk in those things, like the top ten holdings will be 79% of the fund and so forth. Right now all my foreign equities are in retirement accounts where the taxability of the dividends isn't an issue, but it will be in a few years. Another problem is that with globalization, the diversification benefits from holding foreign equities has eroded quite a bit.
So here we see that politics and the tax laws, while not [B]driving[/B] my investment decisions, are [B]influencing[/B] them. This is a bad thing and is why all forms of income need to be taxed at the same rate. I suppose one could make the argument that taxing foreign dividends more punitively helps keep capital at home. I'd argue it's just another tariff. Of course, I think the issue is not that foreign dividends are taxed at higher rates, but that domestic dividends are taxed at lower rates. Income, dividends, interest, capital gains, and lottery winnings all need to be taxed at the same rate (within the same bracket; do NOT confuse this with an argument for a flat tax!).
However, I would rather stick a chisel in my ear and bash it with a hammer than invest in Argentine equities.
Dickhead, Foreign dividends are qualified if the country where the company is domiciled has a tax treaty with the USA that has an exchange of information provision. I've had the tax rate debate with Esten ad nauseum, but when you have up to a 53% state and federal dividend tax rate on top of a 39% corporate tax rate on earnings distributed to shareholders you set yourself up for economic inefficiencies. Similarly, in normal times when inflation accounts for a large part of long term capital gains, taxing them at a high rate doesn't make sense.