A lot of people have been registering strong protests against the economic stimulus bill that was just passed by Congress. They are saying, among many other things, that this legislation adds way too much to our already bloated national deficit. Some of these criticisms may be well taken and some surely are not. However, there is some good news for those who want to see the deficit reduced.
The Obama administration says it will submit a budget shortly that will cut our government's deficit by about 50 percent over the next four years. President Obama will give a broad outline of this budget in a speech this week and the budget itself will be submitted to Congress next month.
The Obama Administration says the deficit reduction will result from a tax increase on some businesses and on the wealthy, along with a dramatic reduction in the spending on the war in Iraq. Obama says he will also save billions by streamlining our health-care delivery system. Now, we will have to wait a while in order to get the precise details of this budget, but if this early report is correct, Obama is headed in the right direction.
No doubt Obama will have to fight both Democrats and Republicans in order to get his budget through congress. Republicans will fight the tax increases. However, if we are going to get rid of the deficit, tax increases are necessary, particularly on the wealthy. One of the major failings of the last administration and the Republican controlled congress for most of the last 20 years, has been the effort to keep taxes low on the richest individuals and the most profitable businesses. In the campaign, Obama promised to end that practice and it looks like he will try to keep that promise.
Democrats will also fight some provision of Obama's budget. They will want to increase spending on some entitlement programs. Some of these increases may be essential and should be supported (such as the recently passed SCHIP program), but Obama will have to hold the line against the excesses of his own party, at least until we begin to get the deficit under control.
A reduction of the spending on Iraq is long overdue. We are spending about $10 billion a month on a war that we should never have started. Nevertheless, it was started. So now, we now must figure a way to get out of it as soon it is possible. It is past time that we gave the country back to Iraq. Obama says we'll be out in about 16 months. I wish it was sooner, but we must leave the details to the generals. The point here is that the saving of at least a good portion of the $10 billion will go a long way toward helping our deficit reduction effort.
Obama came into office promising to change the way our government operated. So, far he has made an effort to live up to his promises. I hope sensible Democrats and Republicans can support this budget proposal. If that happens, we may actually see the changes in government for which most Americans voted, last November.
I hope he can do that, it is way overdue. How much will the additional troops being sent to Afghanistan cost? I would guess it will be less than what is being spent in Iraq, but how it needs to figure into the picture.
Hello Anne.... Thanks for your comment.
Well, I don't know how much the build up in Afghanistan will cost. It is Afghanistan that might be a real problem of Obama's effort, we'll have to see. Clearly, however, Afghanistan will cost less that Iraq.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ----
no invader in history has ever won a war in Afghanistan.
What makes us so certain we will succeed?
Let's parse some of this, shall we?
Quote from: drbob on February 22, 2009, 12:01:24 PM
A lot of people have been registering strong protests against the economic stimulus bill that was just passed by Congress. They are saying, among many other things, that this legislation adds way too much to our already bloated national deficit. Some of these criticisms may be well taken and some surely are not. However, there is some good news for those who want to see the deficit reduced.
The Obama administration says it will submit a budget shortly that will cut our government's deficit by about 50 percent over the next four years. President Obama will give a broad outline of this budget in a speech this week and the budget itself will be submitted to Congress next month.
So, the same administration that this week increased our deficit by a trillion dollars, is now going to reduce the entire deficit by 50%? How will this miracle happen? Read on....
Quote
The Obama Administration says the deficit reduction will result from a tax increase on some businesses and on the wealthy, along with a dramatic reduction in the spending on the war in Iraq. Obama says he will also save billions by streamlining our health-care delivery system. Now, we will have to wait a while in order to get the precise details of this budget, but if this early report is correct, Obama is headed in the right direction.
I see....we are going to increase taxes on business until they start hiring people. Man, that is brilliant!
And we are going to REDUCE spending by billions...now wait a minute! I thought that taking a trillion dollars from the American people to spend was a GOOD thing? Hmmm....
Well, that "taxing the wealthy" thing...I can't wait! Finally, the factories and companies that the poor people own can start hiring again! Ok, raise your hand if you've ever been employed at a high-paying job with awesome benefits by a welfare mom!
Quote
No doubt Obama will have to fight both Democrats and Republicans in order to get his budget through congress. Republicans will fight the tax increases. However, if we are going to get rid of the deficit, tax increases are necessary, particularly on the wealthy. One of the major failings of the last administration and the Republican controlled congress for most of the last 20 years, has been the effort to keep taxes low on the richest individuals and the most profitable businesses. In the campaign, Obama promised to end that practice and it looks like he will try to keep that promise.
Tax ourselves to prosperity? Take the money away from the American people so that they will spend more? Well, maybe THIS time it will work!
Quote
Democrats will also fight some provision of Obama's budget. They will want to increase spending on some entitlement programs. Some of these increases may be essential and should be supported (such as the recently passed SCHIP program), but Obama will have to hold the line against the excesses of his own party, at least until we begin to get the deficit under control.
Democrats will fight their porkulent vote-buying schemes being axed, that is a given. President Obama had a grand opportunity to "hold the line" against his party's excesses last week and he didn't do it. Why should we trust that he will do it now?
The SCHIP program is NOT "essential", btw.
Quote
A reduction of the spending on Iraq is long overdue. We are spending about $10 billion a month on a war that we should never have started. Nevertheless, it was started. So now, we now must figure a way to get out of it as soon it is possible. It is past time that we gave the country back to Iraq. Obama says we'll be out in about 16 months. I wish it was sooner, but we must leave the details to the generals. The point here is that the saving of at least a good portion of the $10 billion will go a long way toward helping our deficit reduction effort.
Once again, you cannot argue that Gov't spending is the hero that will save us and then also argue that stopping 10 billion dollars a month of spending is a great idea. The President needs to pick a point of view and stick to it. He is waffling. But it sure sounds good to uncritical ears, doesn't it?
Quote
Obama came into office promising to change the way our government operated. So, far he has made an effort to live up to his promises. I hope sensible Democrats and Republicans can support this budget proposal. If that happens, we may actually see the changes in government for which most Americans voted, last November.
Nationalization of banks and other industries? Oh, we are indeed getting a belly-full of "hope and change".
Btw, "nationalization" is just newspeak for "socialism".
You're right, GoJ, Obama should quit listening to all of his over-educated, experienced economic advisors and take advice from a guy who couldn't figure out how to turn a profit selling a quarter's worth of liquor for five bucks. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 24, 2009, 11:07:51 AM
You're right, GoJ, Obama should quit listening to all of his over-educated, experienced economic advisors and take advice from a guy who couldn't figure out how to turn a profit selling a quarter's worth of liquor for five bucks. :rolleyes:
Funny! But at least I HAVE experience being in business, Obama does not.
In any event, if you have issues with my analysis, please direct your comments in that direction. This thread is not about me nor my former business dealings.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 24, 2009, 12:10:33 PM
Funny! But at least I HAVE experience being in business, Obama does not.
That's like saying, "I tried to drive a car once but crashed it so I have driving experience." :razz:
QuoteIn any event, if you have issues with my analysis, please direct your comments in that direction. This thread is not about me nor my former business dealings.
I would submit that someone's perspective is absolutely relative to subject at hand especially when his/her "analysis" is nothing more than parroting of the falsehoods they've been spoon fed by believers in supply-side economics (read: rich people who want you to believe that giving them your money benefits you).
I repeat:
"Ok, raise your hand if you've ever been employed at a high-paying job with awesome benefits by a welfare mom!"
The poor do not create jobs in this country. The rich create jobs that the poor may apply for in order to rise up from their poverty.
This is a fact so obvious that even you should be able to grasp it.
And what about the rest? Do you believe that increased spending is the answer to our current economic woes?
Do you believe that the Gov't knows how to spend your money better than you do to provide for your needs and wants?
Please explain how raising taxes on businesses will create jobs?
I personally know of several "welfare moms" who are now making a very good living, paying taxes, and contributing to the growth of the economy where I live.
All they needed was a safety net at one point in their lives.
So, yes, I do know of thirteen people who now owe their livings to the company started by one of those "welfare moms" you so blithely disregard in your post.
Blatant stereotyping and ignorance.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 24, 2009, 01:08:39 PM
"Ok, raise your hand if you've ever been employed at a high-paying job with awesome benefits by a welfare mom!"
Which has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly? What you refuse to accept is that without people willing and able to pay for goods and services offered, it really doesn't matter how much tax a corporation pays because they won't be making any money anyway. GM is not being stymied by its tax burden; it's being stymied because they aren't selling cars.
QuoteThe poor do not create jobs in this country. The rich create jobs that the poor may apply for in order to rise up from their poverty.
This is a fact so obvious that even you should be able to grasp it.
The rich do not create jobs; necessity creates jobs. It is funny, though, to watch people who are not and never will be anywhere near even upper middle class bang their fists while defending the people who profit sometimes obscenely from their labor...truly hysterical.
QuoteAnd what about the rest? Do you believe that increased spending is the answer to our current economic woes?
Money has to enter the economy from somewhere if it is to begin moving again.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 24, 2009, 01:13:51 PM
I personally know of several "welfare moms" who are now making a very good living, paying taxes, and contributing to the growth of the economy where I live.
All they needed was a safety net at one point in their lives.
So, yes, I do know of thirteen people who now owe their livings to the company started by one of those "welfare moms" you so blithely disregard in your post.
Blatant stereotyping and ignorance.
I didn't blithely disregards them at all, ftw. You have missed my point.
Your example of a welfare mom who has pulled herself up and out of welfare and now has a company that employs others is an example of how the "safety net" system should work. I congratulate her! It is my sincere hope that every welfare recipient does the same.
However, she is no longer a "welfare" mom; thus, you do not know a welfare mom who owns a company that employs others at high-paying jobs with awesome benefits. What you know is a president/CEO/owner of a company who should be giving speeches to current welfare moms on how to get out of the welfare trap!
Quote from: Exterminator on February 24, 2009, 01:39:23 PM
Which has what to do with the price of tea in China, exactly? What you refuse to accept is that without people willing and able to pay for goods and services offered, it really doesn't matter how much tax a corporation pays because they won't be making any money anyway. GM is not being stymied by its tax burden; it's being stymied because they aren't selling cars.
Ok, then, why can't GM sell cars?
Quote
The rich do not create jobs; necessity creates jobs.
The rich own the companies that, out of a desire to profit further, employ the labor of others. And market forces (should) dictate the value of such labor. The poor do NOT own companies, they work for companies. The poor are NOT a massive engine of job creation. The wealthy class is, however, when it is of value to them. You really should read the article about "tax cuts for the rich" that Henry posted on the other thread.
Quote
It is funny, though, to watch people who are not and never will be anywhere near even upper middle class bang their fists while defending the people who profit sometimes obscenely from their labor...truly hysterical.
Not quite sure what you were reaching for here, but maybe these lower income people that you disparage know that if the companies they work for don't profit then they could very well lose their jobs. That would be reason enough to defend them, don't you think?
Quote
Money has to enter the economy from somewhere if it is to begin moving again.
Agreed. I suggest allowing people to keep more of their money so they can direct their spending where it will benefit them most is a better plan than taxing it away from them and into the hands of the very entity (Gov't) that got us in this mess to begin with. Apparently you disagree.
Oh well, so you disagree. Maybe you really aren't smart enough to spend your own money in your own best interest. Maybe you DO need someone to take it from you and spend it as they see fit.
:thumbsup: well said jacko!! :yes:
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 24, 2009, 02:45:55 PM
Ok, then, why can't GM sell cars?
Because there are no buyers...sort of hints at a demand-side economy; huh?
QuoteThe rich own the companies that, out of a desire to profit further, employ the labor of others. And market forces (should) dictate the value of such labor. The poor do NOT own companies, they work for companies.
Maybe in la-la land the rich own the companies but in the real world, most of the major employers aside from the government are publicly held and the ownership of their stock is spread out amongst the spectrum of socio-economic classes.
QuoteThe poor are NOT a massive engine of job creation. The wealthy class is, however, when it is of value to them. You really should read the article about "tax cuts for the rich" that Henry posted on the other thread.
I did read the article and as I mentioned, it's too bad the shill that wrote it wasn't clairvoyant and couldn't have seen how ridiculous it would sound in the midst of an economic collapse.
QuoteNot quite sure what you were reaching for here, but maybe these lower income people that you disparage know that if the companies they work for don't profit then they could very well lose their jobs. That would be reason nough to defend them, don't you think?
It's more likely that they're gullible and can't separate the economic fiction from their sociological and religious ideologies.
QuoteAgreed. I suggest allowing people to keep more of their money so they can direct their spending where it will benefit them most is a better plan than taxing it away from them and into the hands of the very entity (Gov't) that got us in this mess to begin with. Apparently you disagree.
Letting people who are already employed keep more of their money does nothing to employ those who are not and accomplishes nothing in the way of increasing productivity. Using that money to effect much needed infrastructure improvements puts people to work.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 24, 2009, 02:59:35 PM
Because there are no buyers...sort of hints at a demand-side economy; huh?
No buyers? Because they can't afford the cars...I see. Ok, I agree. Maybe if they had more money they could afford to buy cars. Let's see....where does a large chunk of everyone's money go...I know! To the Gov't through taxation!
Quote
Maybe in la-la land the rich own the companies but in the real world, most of the major employers aside from the government are publicly held and the ownership of their stock is spread out amongst the spectrum of socio-economic classes.
With a majority of the stock typically held by....wealthy people. Shares of stock means votes in the functioning of the company. Once again, the wealthy control the companies.
Most poor people can't even afford brokerage fees, let alone 10, 000 shares of even a penny stock. By definition, "poor", means, "barely enough or not enough money to live on". Anyone who can afford to buy a controlling share of stock in a corporation is not poor. So my statement stands.
Quote
I did read the article and as I mentioned, it's too bad the shill that wrote it wasn't clairvoyant and couldn't have seen how ridiculous it would sound in the midst of an economic collapse.
There is nothing ridiculous about it. Apparently you are one of the poor minions that you disparage at every opportunity, because you have no clue as to the motivations of the wealthy. That article is quite succinct and correct in it's analysis of how tax cuts motivate the wealthy to create jobs. Even the not-so-wealthy, for that matter.
Quote
It's more likely that they're gullible and can't separate the economic fiction from their sociological and religious ideologies.
Well, you certainly cannot separate your economic fiction from your ideology, now can you?
You should follow the link that I provided as a companion piece to the article Henry linked about tax cuts.
Once you understand how free-market economies REALLY work, instead of how you HOPE (and CHANGE!) they work, you'll be better prepared to discuss these matters.
Quote
Letting people who are already employed keep more of their money does nothing to employ those who are not and accomplishes nothing in the way of increasing productivity. Using that money to effect much needed infrastructure improvements puts people to work.
Yes it does. Once again, go learn the basics of how free-market economies work, Ex. The Gov't has no money of it's own. All it can do is to take money from one group of citizens and (as inefficiently as possible, experience would indicate) give it another.
Mr. 442's swimming pool analogy is quite apt: Taxing the citizens to pay for the Gov't to employ other citizens is indeed very much like scooping water out of the deep end of the pool and pouring into the shallow end, hoping to make the shallow end deeper.
Because I'm a nice guy, I'll make a recommendation to you: After you read the basics economics primer I linked, drop by your local library and pick up "The Millionaire Next Door", and, "The Millionaire Mind", both by author Thomas J. Stanley. Read those and you will better understand how the wealthy view money, and what motivates them.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 24, 2009, 03:36:52 PM
With a majority of the stock typically held by....wealthy people.
Nope, the majority of the stock is held by pension and mutual funds that are the bulk of the IRA's and retirement accounts of the middle class.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 24, 2009, 02:26:25 PM
I didn't blithely disregards them at all, ftw. You have missed my point.
Your example of a welfare mom who has pulled herself up and out of welfare and now has a company that employs others is an example of how the "safety net" system should work. I congratulate her! It is my sincere hope that every welfare recipient does the same.
However, she is no longer a "welfare" mom; thus, you do not know a welfare mom who owns a company that employs others at high-paying jobs with awesome benefits. What you know is a president/CEO/owner of a company who should be giving speeches to current welfare moms on how to get out of the welfare trap!
Your response is incredibly confusing.
She was a welfare mother. She got the help she needed. She isn't a welfare mother any more. The system worked for her and several others I know.
That is EXACTLY what the system is designed to do.
Your point is that when she got out of the system, she was no longer a welfare mother. You choose to dwell on those who do not "get out of the welfare trap."
My point is that the success stories are always overlooked when people want to blatantly stereotype and continue the succession of ignorant thinking.
Dwell on.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 24, 2009, 04:05:42 PM
Nope, the majority of the stock is held by pension and mutual funds that are the bulk of the IRA's and retirement accounts of the middle class.
That's all that you have? You're a far cry from convincing anyone that the poor are the massive engine of job creation you seem to think that they are, Ex.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 24, 2009, 06:59:38 PM
Your response is incredibly confusing.
She was a welfare mother. She got the help she needed. She isn't a welfare mother any more. The system worked for her and several others I know.
That is EXACTLY what the system is designed to do.
Your point is that when she got out of the system, she was no longer a welfare mother. You choose to dwell on those who do not "get out of the welfare trap."
My point is that the success stories are always overlooked when people want to blatantly stereotype and continue the succession of ignorant thinking.
Dwell on.
You're still missing the point, ftw. I'm not cracking on the poor. I am merely stating the obvious fact that the poor do not hire people into high-paying jobs with awesome benefits. Wealthy people do, however.
For some reason you seem to think I am putting the poor down, but I am not.
I agree that what your friend did was marvelous! As I said, I wish EVERY welfare recipient would use the safety-net system the way she has, the way it was intended. To climb out of poverty and into wealth of their own!
Lots of very wealthy people don't hire anybody. They just party on, buying and selling; hence, our current stock market.
And, of course, they are simply making sure they make another 4 or 5 million to add to their huge personal wealth, as opposed to engaging the less fortunate in a way to add to the general economy.
How many homes do you need? How many millions/billions/trillions?
It becomes a game with those in those rarified atmospheres -- a one-upmanship game to display opulent wealth in the most trivial of objects, as a sort of throw-away world to prove how wealthy they really are.
Meanwhile, they pat the "less fortunate" on the head, as if they are less intelligent, less important, or less worthy than those whom GAWD has "blessed" with abundance.
Dwell on.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 24, 2009, 09:24:58 PM
Lots of very wealthy people don't hire anybody. They just party on, buying and selling; hence, our current stock market.
And, of course, they are simply making sure they make another 4 or 5 million to add to their huge personal wealth, as opposed to engaging the less fortunate in a way to add to the general economy.
How many homes do you need? How many millions/billions/trillions?
It becomes a game with those in those rarified atmospheres -- a one-upmanship game to display opulent wealth in the most trivial of objects, as a sort of throw-away world to prove how wealthy they really are.
Meanwhile, they pat the "less fortunate" on the head, as if they are less intelligent, less important, or less worthy than those whom GAWD has "blessed" with abundance.
Dwell on.
Well said! You know coming from someone in the lower middle class!! : )
Thanks, Kimmi. Been there, done that. Got the t-shirt and a few scars from the battles. :wink: :smile:
Well there are a lot of us that are one medical emergency away from government subsidies. I'm not going to knock anyone for it and I'm certainly not going to hope it goes away. Reform it? Sure. But I want to be sure something is in place if my life takes a wrong turn.
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 24, 2009, 09:24:58 PM
Lots of very wealthy people don't hire anybody. They just party on, buying and selling; hence, our current stock market.
And, of course, they are simply making sure they make another 4 or 5 million to add to their huge personal wealth, as opposed to engaging the less fortunate in a way to add to the general economy.
How many homes do you need? How many millions/billions/trillions?
It becomes a game with those in those rarified atmospheres -- a one-upmanship game to display opulent wealth in the most trivial of objects, as a sort of throw-away world to prove how wealthy they really are.
Meanwhile, they pat the "less fortunate" on the head, as if they are less intelligent, less important, or less worthy than those whom GAWD has "blessed" with abundance.
Dwell on.
Lot's of wealthy people, ftw? Tell me, exactly how many? You know nothing about wealthy people.
Go to the library and get the book, "The Millionaire Next Door". Read it and learn who the millionaires are and how they got that way.
There may be a few, a very tiny fraction, of the millionaires in this country who act in the manner that you describe.
The overwhelming majority are hardworking people who made smart choices and continue to do so.
And most of them started small, saved and invested, sacrificed and scrimped to get where they are today.
But if you wish to hate those who made smarter choices than you, those who took the opportunities that lay before them, then as you say, "dwell on". But it is that mindset that will keep you from joining the ranks of the wealthy.
Quote from: kimmi on February 24, 2009, 10:27:10 PM
Well there are a lot of us that are one medical emergency away from government subsidies. I'm not going to knock anyone for it and I'm certainly not going to hope it goes away. Reform it? Sure. But I want to be sure something is in place if my life takes a wrong turn.
If it is true that you are just one medical emergency away, then why don't you DO something about it? Get off your lazy butt and take control of your life and your destiny! Go start that sandwich company we were joking about on that other thread!
Work hard, make smart choices, and you too can become wealthy.
But Heavens, girl! Don't look to Big Daddy Gov't. to save you. In case you haven't noticed, they are the very ones who got us into this mess!
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 25, 2009, 12:05:51 AM
If it is true that you are just one medical emergency away, then why don't you DO something about it? Get off your lazy butt and take control of your life and your destiny! Go start that sandwich company we were joking about on that other thread!
Work hard, make smart choices, and you too can become wealthy.
But Heavens, girl! Don't look to Big Daddy Gov't. to save you. In case you haven't noticed, they are the very ones who got us into this mess!
I teach full time and tutor on the side. I'm a home owner and pay all of my bills. If I go out today and end up in a 10 car pile up and have to stay in the hospital for a couple of weeks and have a few surgeries, then I'll be in the hole.
I'm far from lazy and offended that you would assume as much.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 25, 2009, 12:00:44 AM
Lot's of wealthy people, ftw? Tell me, exactly how many? You know nothing about wealthy people.
Go to the library and get the book, "The Millionaire Next Door". Read it and learn who the millionaires are and how they got that way.
LMAO! So you know about wealthy people because you read it in a book? You could at least make it sound plausible and tell us about your yachting buddies.
QuoteThere may be a few, a very tiny fraction, of the millionaires in this country who act in the manner that you describe.
The overwhelming majority are hardworking people who made smart choices and continue to do so.
And most of them started small, saved and invested, sacrificed and scrimped to get where they are today.
Actually, the overwhelming majority were born into it.
QuoteBut if you wish to hate those who made smarter choices than you, those who took the opportunities that lay before them, then as you say, "dwell on". But it is that mindset that will keep you from joining the ranks of the wealthy.
No hate but your perception of how wealthy people 'invest' their money is skewed. How many people are employed when someone buys a $1.6 million Bugatti Veyron or spends ten mil on a Picasso or a huge diamond? Why would the truly wealthy risk their money on a factory that has as much potential to lose money as make it instead of simply buying gold or real property and sitting on it, especially in this economy?
Quote from: kimmi on February 25, 2009, 07:02:18 AM
I teach full time and tutor on the side. I'm a home owner and pay all of my bills. If I go out today and end up in a 10 car pile up and have to stay in the hospital for a couple of weeks and have a few surgeries, then I'll be in the hole.
I'm far from lazy and offended that you would assume as much.
It was not my intent to offend, kimmi. I meant "lazy" in a general, kidding sense, like, "I need to get my lazy butt to the grocery, lol!".
I don't think you are lazy, kimmi. My apologies if you took it that way. Tone of voice is hard to perceive in written/typed communications.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 25, 2009, 07:52:52 AM
LMAO! So you know about wealthy people because you read it in a book? You could at least make it sound plausible and tell us about your yachting buddies.
Ha! I demonstrably know more about them than
you! You are the moron who thinks the poor (who you hold in contempt, btw) are some "massive engine of job creation", lol!
Several of my acquaintances have boats, but only one has a yacht, that I am aware of anyway.
He and I spent half a night hitting clubs in Manhattan a couple of years ago. That was after we spent part of the afternoon in Times Square, at the NASDAQ offices. We were there to celebrate the company's IPO.
Quote
Actually, the overwhelming majority were born into it.
That is not true. And you are either ignorant or a damn liar. I am calling you out on that one, Ex: prove it.
If you prove that statement to be fact, then I will publicly apologize for ever doubting your brilliance and I will leave this board forever.
Quote
No hate but your perception of how wealthy people 'invest' their money is skewed. How many people are employed when someone buys a $1.6 million Bugatti Veyron or spends ten mil on a Picasso or a huge diamond?
No hate? You OOZE contempt, dude! Geezul Pete! The only thing you have more of than contempt is the arrogance to think that you don't, lol!
How many are employed when someone buys a car? I don't know, but we are getting an idea of how many lose their jobs when people DON'T buy cars, aren't we? And you think that taking more money away from people who can't afford to buy cars, via taxation, is somehow going to motivate them to start buying cars. Of course, with your understanding of economics, if we tax them at 100% they can finally start building factories and hiring people to build cars for them, right?
Quote
Why would the truly wealthy risk their money on a factory that has as much potential to lose money as make it instead of simply buying gold or real property and sitting on it, especially in this economy?
Hey! A kewpie for Ex for having a brief moment of mental clarity!
That's the point, Ex. They won't build new factories; in fact, they are closing them down and people are losing their jobs. And they DO park their money in tangible assets in difficult economic times.
Maybe you should ask the poor build us some new factories and start creating high-paying jobs by the thousands, since you deem them so capable of doing so.
PS: I mean it, Ex. I will leave this board forever. All you have to do is prove that your statement above, "Actually, the overwhelming majority were born into (wealth)", is the truth rather than a lie.
Don't talk smack and don't change the subject. Just. Prove. It.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 24, 2009, 03:36:52 PM
Once you understand how free-market economies REALLY work, instead of how you HOPE (and CHANGE!) they work, you'll be better prepared to discuss these matters.
Would you like to compare post-secondary educations in economics?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 25, 2009, 11:52:56 AM
Would you like to compare post-secondary educations in economics?
Charles Schultze was Jimmy Carter's economic advisor, and he was highly educated, but he got it wrong.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 25, 2009, 11:29:38 AM
Ha! I demonstrably know more about them than you! You are the moron who thinks the poor (who you hold in contempt, btw) are some "massive engine of job creation", lol!
Several of my acquaintances have boats, but only one has a yacht, that I am aware of anyway.
He and I spent half a night hitting clubs in Manhattan a couple of years ago. That was after we spent part of the afternoon in Times Square, at the NASDAQ offices. We were there to celebrate the company's IPO.
LMAO! Yeah, because Madison County is such a hotbed of wealth, you have lots of opportunities to rub elbows with them.
QuoteThat is not true. And you are either ignorant or a damn liar. I am calling you out on that one, Ex: prove it.
If you prove that statement to be fact, then I will publicly apologize for ever doubting your brilliance and I will leave this board forever.
Prove it isn't true.
QuoteNo hate? You OOZE contempt, dude! Geezul Pete! The only thing you have more of than contempt is the arrogance to think that you don't, lol!
Yeah, because I'm the one here pretending to be an expert in a field in which I have zero formal education and about the same amount of successful experience.
QuoteHow many are employed when someone buys a car? I don't know, but we are getting an idea of how many lose their jobs when people DON'T buy cars, aren't we? And you think that taking more money away from people who can't afford to buy cars, via taxation, is somehow going to motivate them to start buying cars.
I would hazard a guess that most employed people already own cars. I do; you?
QuotePS: I mean it, Ex. I will leave this board forever. All you have to do is prove that your statement above, "Actually, the overwhelming majority were born into (wealth)", is the truth rather than a lie.
Don't talk smack and don't change the subject. Just. Prove. It.
Why would I care if you left?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 25, 2009, 12:05:30 PM
Charles Schultze was Jimmy Carter's economic advisor, and he was highly educated, but he got it wrong.
I guess that that proves that everyone educated in a field is inept while those with no education are experts. You have just described the basis for conservatives' economic policies.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 25, 2009, 12:24:05 PM
LMAO! Yeah, because Madison County is such a hotbed of wealth, you have lots of opportunities to rub elbows with them.
Believing that the universe "self-created" out of nothing doesn't strain your credulity, but you cannot believe there are millionaires in Madison County?
Just because you don't know any here doesn't mean there are none.
They probably just avoid you, you're not exactly pleasant to be around.
Besides, I never said that my wealthy acquaintances lived in Madison County, now did I?
Quote
... I'm the one here pretending to be an expert in a field in which I have zero formal education and about the same amount of successful experience.
Wow. We don't usually get the unvarnished truth from you. But sorry, I already gave out a kewpie today.
Quote
I would hazard a guess that most employed people already own cars. I do; you?
Yes, I bought two in the last 18 months. Paid cash for them both.
That notwithstanding, your comment is nonetheless disregarded. Your response did not address my statements, but rather it is an attempt to divert the discussion because you realized your premise was incorrect: spending does indeed create employment.
Quote
Prove it isn't true.
I was hoping you respond in exactly that manner, Ex! Thanks for pitching underhand to me:
Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of "wealthy," and possibly "millionaire" once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by "working." http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/04/18/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/#comments (http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2008/04/18/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/#comments)
An overwhelming number of
affluent Americans earned their wealth and are more likely to feel secure
during challenging economic times compared to peers who inherited their money,
according to findings by PNC Wealth Management, a member of The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: PNC). http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS119380+10-Apr-2008+PRN20080410 (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS119380+10-Apr-2008+PRN20080410)
1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation's richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)
2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today's multi-millionaires cited "inheritance" as their source of wealth.
3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today's millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth. http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/?mod=WSJBlog (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/?mod=WSJBlog)
Report findings show that in North America the largest share (32 percent) of
HNWI wealth is from income versus business ownership (26 percent) and inheritance (16
percent). http://www.capgemini.com/resources/news/world_wealth_report_finds_high_net_worth_individuals_increasingly_earn_rather_than_inherit_wealth/ (http://www.capgemini.com/resources/news/world_wealth_report_finds_high_net_worth_individuals_increasingly_earn_rather_than_inherit_wealth/)
So tell us Ex, when you made this statement, "Actually, the overwhelming majority were born into (wealth)", were you knowingly lying, or were you just ignorantly assuming what you wanted to believe was true?
No matter. Either way I have bested you, yet again, with commonly available knowledge and simple logic even my six-year-old could understand.
In light of the humiliating "smackdown" you have suffered at my hand today, perhaps portions of my previous, and proven this very day to be quite apt, assessment of you bears a timely repeating:
Quote
from Ghost of Jaco:
I, personally, have illustrated your reasoning and logical thinking skills to be substandard time and time again.
Heck, my six-year-old can support her argument for a second cookie with better logic than you have offered to this group for any of your positions.
You think you are an intellectual; you are not.
You think you are well-read; you are not.
You think you are conversant on current events; you are not.
And you are mistaken if you think your boorish, uni-brow, low-forehead insults make you even appear to be intelligent.
The "preponderance" of evidence forces one to conclude through "logical thought processes" that what you are is a poseur.
A head-up-his-ass, blind-to-the-truth, snug-and-comfy-in-his-ignorance, poseur.
And if I and ME and HENRY...weren't having so much damn fun tweaking you and laughing at your sophomoric behavior behind your back, we'd probably band together and petition the mods to have you banned from this board for being such an obnoxious boor.
So remember as you bask so warmly in your own regard that you are the unwitting jester, the unknowing fool, our own Hopfrog; just one of a stable of such around here who speak with the same voice as you.
We love you for the entertainment that you bring to this board.
Just don't forget your station.
You are dismissed.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 25, 2009, 02:24:52 PM
Believing that the universe "self-created" out of nothing doesn't strain your credulity, but you cannot believe there are millionaires in Madison County?
Just because you don't know any here doesn't mean there are none.
I know there are millionaires in Madison County but they are not exactly abundant when compared to Hamilton or Marion counties, now are they? And come on, you believe in an invisible man in the sky who proves his love by the brutal slaughter of his only child and you seriously want to talk credulity?
QuoteThey probably just avoid you, you're not exactly pleasant to be around.
It's more likely that you were on the boat to wait on them.
QuoteWow. We don't usually get the unvarnished truth from you. But sorry, I already gave out a kewpie today.
I wouldn't expect you to recognize sarcasm.
QuoteYes, I bought two in the last 18 months. Paid cash for them both.
Bet they're real nice, too. :rolleyes:
QuoteThat notwithstanding, your comment is nonetheless disregarded. Your response did not address my statements, but rather it is an attempt to divert the discussion because you realized your premise was incorrect: spending does indeed create employment.
I never claimed spending doesn't create employment; you did. For some reason, you believe that your spending creates employment while the government's does not, however.
QuoteSo tell us Ex, when you made this statement, "Actually, the overwhelming majority were born into (wealth)", were you knowingly lying, or were you just ignorantly assuming what you wanted to believe was true?
:whatever:
It doesn't surprise me at all that your definition of 'wealth' would set the bar so low.
QuoteIn light of the humiliating "smackdown" you have suffered at my hand today...
Keep believing that...while the rest of us keep laughing at you. :biggrin:
Not necessary to get so heated, ghost.
Your avatar says it all.
And don't worry about my welfare.
Every time you turn your key, you pay me my income.
:smile:
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on February 25, 2009, 10:12:47 AM
It was not my intent to offend, kimmi. I meant "lazy" in a general, kidding sense, like, "I need to get my lazy butt to the grocery, lol!".
I don't think you are lazy, kimmi. My apologies if you took it that way. Tone of voice is hard to perceive in written/typed communications.
Then I'm still unsure as to what you meant in your original post. If I end up in the hospital for some reason, lose my house, and or job, I'm supposed to do what exactly to get by? I'm a single income household.
There is a large percentage of people who are a hospital stay away from going bankrupt. None of them are planning an illness or injury, but who is? People having babies are the only ones that I can think of.